Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2005

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).

---

Rodgers and Hammerstein

This is a topic very close to my interests and I want it to be as good as it can possibly be. Thank you anyone who helps out with this.--kralahome 21:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• This looks like a very good article. Why profile these particular musicals? What makes them more notable than others? There are a lot of red links. I'd like to see a short bibliography. Durova 17:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I too think this a great article but it's a bit off track. The main problem I see is the detail you have included about *some* of the musicals. It breaks the flow of the article. I'll elaborate, there is already an entry in Wikipedia for Rodgers, and an entry for Hammerstein. Then there is your entry for "Rodgers and Hammerstein" as that's how most people know them. This could detail their work together, what they achieved and mention the shows they wrote, probabaly chronologically and how they shaped the face of Broadway from the 40s to 60s. Each of their shows already has a separate entry and I think a lot of your show information could go into the entries for the specific shows. That's my take on the article. Keep up the good work though! --Dan F 10:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• This article focuses a lot on the works of... rather than the partnership of R&H. I saw from the talk page that you are planning on re-writing it. I would like to suggest developing a consistent and concise manner of discussing the works first. Consider something like The Oz books#List of "canon" Oz books ("Famous Forty") or concise sub-sections of prose (don't list of the titles of each musical numbers). Or consider creating Works of Rodgers and Hammerstein as a Wikipedia:Featured lists. But, for this article, I would like to know more about the partnership...how did they meet, how did they work together, who got paid more, whose idea was it to write The King and I, etc. and so forth. --maclean25 07:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Taekwondo

I think this article would be a great Featured article, but like the Hapkido article it may not have that "spark" that makes it worthwhile to be featured. Some have described certain parts of the article as a mess (look at its talk page). Some of the points I think that should be overhauled are these:

• The History Section (especially) - There has been major disagreement in editing this article in regards to the history of Tae Kwon Do. Some have disputed as to who was the head of which Tae Kwon Do organization, what dates certain Tae Kwon Do organizations were founded, what martial arts preceeded/influenced Tae Kwon Do, etc. While I don't think these disagreements could be resolved with a simple Wikipedia article, the best sources that could be used for this section in my opinion are ones that come from scholarly works on Tae Kwon Do/martial arts (for example, if anyone can access the research of Scott Shaw, which I've been unable to get a hold of). A general consensus of major points in Taekwondo history could be drawn to edit the article, any other minor details could be removed or left alone. Any and all sources should be cited.
• The role of the ITF (International Taekwon-Do Federation) should be highlighted a bit more. Much has been dealt with in the article about how the WTF brought Tae Kwon Do to the Olympic Games, yet that coverage seems to overshadow that of the ITF, which is the other major school in Tae Kwon Do.
• I personally do not like the newest section "Taekwondo on film." I see it as too short and too trivial for this article. It would be great if this section could be expanded to cover the influence Tae Kwon Do has not only on film, but on Korean culture and the West as a whole. Otherwise, I think the section should be removed, and its information merged into other articles or sections of Taekwondo.

Does anyone agree with my points? Do you have any suggestions for other sections in Taekwondo? If anyone practices or knows a lot about Tae Kwon Do and has access to scholarly resources about it, I and I'm sure others as well, will appreciate your input to this article. In addition, is the writing style of the article "encyclopedic" enough? Haha. Please leave any tips you may have. Thank you.

Wikiman86 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hapkido

Hi everyone. This article is good in my opinion; I've added images to illustrate the article. (There were none before.) This article has good potential for Featured article status in my opinion, but I don't think it's yet up to par with Featured Article criteria. Here are the main points I raise:

• The history section could be expanded, especially in referring to the development of Hapkido after Choi Yong Sul. Also, any and all sources should be cited, if possible.
• The subsections in the section Techniques dealing with Core Techniques, Yudo, Kicking, Hand Strikes, and Weapons could use more detail.
• I'm unsure if the explanation of the 3 principles of Hapkido is the best that could be. Someone even mentioned a fourth one: the "Principle of the no resistance" (Muchohang). Also, if the Korean characters for the principles could be found, that would be great.
• The external links could be checked to make sure none of them are broken or irrelevant to the article.
• I'm interested in learning more about the influence Hapkido has in the realm of Korean martial arts (for instance, its "sister" art Taekwondo is the Korean national sport), and in martial arts and the world in general. I couldn't really find much information about that in the article.

Does anyone agree with me? If anyone knows a lot about or practices Hapkido, your input on the article would be greatly appreciated. (I don't practice it myself, but I did do some googling in my edits of the article.) Also, is the writing style of the article fairly encyclopedic? Please leave any tips you may have. Thanks.

Wikiman86 21:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If we compare this page to Taekwondo or judo I think we can see that it is not as consistant in narrative structure, that it does not touch upon as many broad topics nor is it organized as logically. This page is okay and I recently made major revisions of the sections however I think there is still a lot that could be done here to improve it.

There has also been a consistant problem with self promoting posts and an attempt to use this article to advertise a particular teacher or organization. I think we need to continue to be vigilent in stopping the External Links and the Bio sections to be used in this manner.

I think the most important thing is to look at the article from the perspective "If I didn't know what hapkido was and I read this article would I finish being well informed concerning the art?"--Mateo2006 05:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merit badge collecting

I'm submitting my article for peer review because this is a subject I deeply care about. I'd simply like it to be as good as it can be and I'd appreciate any constructive feedback. I hope to have it submitted as a featured article later. Rlevse 14:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

3rd sentence: All known Scouting organizations around the world issue merit badges. This is definitively wrong. A great number of the European Scout associations don't issue such badges, e.g. in Germany or in France. --jergen

• Thank you. I'll change that. What do they do that might be the equivalent of merit badges? Thanks for the feedback. Rlevse 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. --jergen

It might be worth including something about Pathfinders, who are similar to scouts, who have what they call "honours" which are the same as Merit badges. MyNameIsNotBob 03:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

When including the Pathfinders please mention also the Royal Rangers. --jergen 09:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all your inputs. While I'll likely talk more about non-American Scouting and non-BSA, I don't want to go too far into it as it'll drift away from the topic of the article. Thanks everyone.

a few notes:

1. title of article should be lowercase
2. section titles should be lowercase
3. put it through Wikipedia:Peer review
4. the names of merit badges should be capitalized, but not prepositions, articles or conjunctions in the name (e.g. First Aid to Animals, not First Aid To Animals)
5. A lot of lists and bullet points that should maybe be prose
6. Not all of it has an encyclopedic tome. This is an encyclopedia article about merit badge collecting, and not a guide to collecting merit badges
7. Was that really the only reference used in the article? having only one reference is not ideal

Tuf-Kat 06:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, TUF-KAT. I've acted on your suggestions and also fixed a lot of typos (it was a long day yesterday--it took me about 8 hour to compose the draft). The MBs are not photos per se--I scanned them on my scanner. As for the references, I moved one web link to refs. The book I listed is the only book I know dedicated to MBs. The others are general Scouting memorabilia guides. The book I listed is THE BIBLE on this subject. Its author recrimps my MBs for me. Thanks again. Rlevse 13:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Consider resizing the images: there are quite a few, and this can load rather slowly on some connections.
• This is rather in depth for an encyclopedia article. With some expansion, it would make a great WikiBook; perhaps as a guide to scouting memorabilia and collecting.
• Who originated the classification scheme? Perhaps this should be credited.
• Add the ISBN for the field guide.
• Perhaps note spoof badges such as Snoring MB.

--Gadget850 01:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• MB and MBs does not flow well: how about simply badges?
• The first line of each bullet list actually has a double bullet: I don't think this was intentional was it? A ** is actually a sub-bullet, but there must be a single bullet above it. If you want to indent, use a : (not sure why you would want that though).

--Gadget850 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• The book does not appear to have an ISBN number. Rlevse 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Scout memorabilia collecting

Consider the idea of perhaps creating a broader 'Scouting memorabilia collecting' article as well. Many of us (myself included) collect the older merit badges, and other nations' as well, but this is a fraction of the vaster Scout memorabilia out there. Chris 00:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC) I have now gone ahead and created a larger article, I borrowed a lot of your great structure, you did a really good job, I hope that is okay. I acknowledged you in the summary. Chris 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This article notes that merit badge collecting occurs outside the Boy Scouts of America, but doesn't discuss it. Therefore, this article title is vague. I suggesting moving to Merit badge collecting in the Boy Scouts of America or something, and either making a stub here on "merit badge collecting" in general, or redirecting this to an article like Kintetsubuffalo recommended (I was thinking Scouting paraphernalia collecting, but whatever...). Tuf-Kat 05:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave it to BSA merit badges, so I've added (BSA) to the title. ALso, expanding it to all Scouting memorablia would make it way too big for Wiki article--it'd be more of a Wiki book in such a case. Rlevse 18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried the photos as GIF and PNG. They're smallest with JPG format, so that's what I made them back in the beginning. Rlevse 18:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

ps-went throught my collection, Japan and Spain also do or did at one time issue merit badges. Chris 21:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Rlevse 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Initial changes made

I've made the suggested changes from about 6 people for the peer review (well 98% of the suggestions anyway). The article really looks good. If you have more suggestions, please put them here or on the article's talk page. Rlevse 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Rlevse 13:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I've renamed the article Merit badge collecting (BSA), which I almost did in the first place-;) Rlevse 16:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made the suggested changes (well 98% of them anyway). The article really looks good. If you have more suggestions, please put them here or on the article's talk page. Rlevse 00:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We Belong Together

This article has gone through a lot: two full FACs, and two redrawn ones. The main concerns have been over the quality of prose and the comprehensiveness. Since the last FAC, which ended over a month ago, the article has undergone major rewrites and changes, and the writers want to submit it to FAC by the end of this month. Please review it and see if anything needs improvement, and be as picky as you need to. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• This article has obviuosly been worked on by many experienced editors so I'm not sure if I can illustrate anything the editors do not already know, but there are some notes I made:
  • Dates like "November 2004" (Writing and recording) should only be wikilinked if it provides context as it does nothing for the date preferences per WP:DATE#Partial dates.
  • What is the first quote ("L.A. was like,...") adding to the article? why a quote for this info?
  • There are a few sources listed in Notes section that are not in the References section (ie, NYT, USA Today). If these two sections are mostly repeating each other then you could combine them like this. Peer Review 04:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the great suggestions; I will try to incorporate them into the article. Regarding the quote: I understand what you are saying. However, I just thought that it would sound better with a quote (it's more believable when it comes from the horse's mouth). I'll get a second opinion on that, then we'll remove/allow it. Thanks again. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• If you were to submit this article to FAC right now, I would be very close to supporting it. Understand that the following points are nitpicks.
  • The first sentence of Writing and recording feels like either a continuation of a previous section or conversation despite being the very first section, or like a non sequitor. Try to consider the lead section to be completely disparate from the rest of the article. The lead isn't part of the article, it's more like the dust jacket blurb. See if you can't reword the opening sentence here with that in mind.
  • In general, the tone of the writing is somewhat too informal. The lead has the propper tone, but the article is very newspaper-like, and not very encyclopedia-like. Phrases such as "She immediately became attached to..." and "...a new-found confidence that..." are a bit too chatty, and also could be seen as assuming too much. Quotes are one thing, assertions are another. How do we know that she immediately became attached to Shake it Off? How do we know she had new-found confidence? Either state it as a quote, or re-word... preferably rewording it, since the article is already quote heavy.
  • Possible opinions are stated as facts on a number of occasions, and even when you have sources for these, opinions should always be attributed in the text. This does make things difficult for an article of this nature, becuase so much of music is opinion based, not fact based. "Less is more" approach, for instance, is an opinion that should be attributed to the New York Times.
• Things are looking very good for this article. The big thing to look out for will be people objecting on contradictory points... specifically, there will likely be some people who will object because the chart listings and album formats are there at the end in list format, and other people will object if they aren't there. Raul should be able to sort through that kind of thing though, so don't worry too much about it. Fieari 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that it is in pretty good shape overall.
  • The blockquote about Jermaine Dupri seems really out of place and unnecessary. Consider how difficult that will be to parse for people that don't know the context. That use of "LA" and "make magic together", for example, and then "I love Jermaine, is he free? I know he's doing a million things, Usher and this and that." -- which is perfectly sensible spoken, informal English, but isn't really encyclopedic written English. And then the only pay off is "Jermaine said, 'Come on down." Why not just say "Carey recalled being excited by the suggestion to work with Dupri again, and he proved agreeable". Though is that really very important at all? What does it illustrate?
  • Though uncommon for a pop ballad, the song is strongly influenced - this is a awkward sentence, but I can't think of an easy way to fix it.
  • It took me a little while to figure out the Tommy Mottolla wedding dressing thing.
  • Can you make the Charts section a little prettier? Maybe move the bottom bit into a separate chart on the right, beneath the graph?
• Other than that, it seems basically ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Potatau Te Wherowhero

I nominate this page for peer-review as it is the merger of two pages which both cover the biography of the first Maori King, Potatau Te Wherowhero. I believe peer-review could also insure that the article is as stream-lined and as crisp as possible. As New Zealanders presumably wrote the bulk of this article's two predecessors, it may not be as immediately understandable to Wikipedia's other readers/editors of different nationalities.

Also, as it is a merger, there may be some degree of overlap in the article which has not yet been taken into consideration and the order of the content may be slightly out of alignment despite my best attempts.

So, I would like for this article to be peer reviewed to ensure that this article reads as it should and meets the high standard of many of Wikipedia's other pages. -- Greaser 00:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Cerritos, California

Former Peer review located here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Cerritos, California/archive1 --AllyUnion (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

---

It has been almost a full year since the last peer review on this article, and I think some of the raised objections still exist from before. I have created a to-do list on talk page citing its problems before, but I am uncertain whether any of it still applies. --AllyUnion (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Miyamoto Musashi

The archived peer review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Miyamoto Musashi/archive1.

The concerns of the old peer review appear to have been addressed, and somewhat recently I went through and improved it enough to remove the factcheck template, and just generally improved it. Feedback would be great, because it looks like it might be FA quality. --maru (talk) contribs 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

• See WP:DATE and WP:CONTEXT for the linking of dates.

Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOS, headings should not repeat the name of an article whenever possible. Also, the word "The" at the beginning should generally be avoided.

Don't know what you are referring to. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, Musashi's Way of Strategy -> Way of Strategy, since Musashi is redundant with the article title. See WP:MOS#Headings. AndyZ _t

That better? --maru (talk) contribs 05:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• More WP:FOOTNOTEs need to be added.

Don't need to. One source for the majority of the article, and that's in the Reference section. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They don't need to be included, but preferably more can be added, as rising standards for featured articles require greater numbers of footnotes to fit WP:WIAFA criteria 2(c). AndyZ _t

• Avoid weasel words - right in the lead, the article states that He is believed to have been one of the most skilled swordsmen in history. - by whom is he believed to be so? Please provide a citation. Claims, "It is said"s should all have citations.

That's a bit silly. Miyamoto is one of the most famous martial artists ever, and definitely the most famous Japanese swordsman. As well cite someone saying that Jesus was an important religious leader... --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is good to be WP:NPOV. Weasel words are a big source of objections on WP:FAC. AndyZ _t

• The WP:LEAD should be expanded
• Image:IchijojiSagarimatsuKyoto.jpg needs a proper copyright tag or else will be deleted.

I guess you are referring to using PD instead of PD-self like it should've been? Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Questions are not asked to readers, so questions like why Arima was there in the first place - was it to challenge Munisai, who as mentioned earlier was fairly famous adept? should be removed.

Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please keep with the past tense (Musashi disappears from records. -> ~~ disappeared ~~)

That's fixed. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Quotes need citations

I've fixed the only example I found. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Use #: instead of a semicolon to avoid breaking a numbered list

Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Possible untruths should have footnotes, and should also be prosified (converted to paragraph form).
• Please alphabetize the categories and other language links.

Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also provide conversions of metric units and United States customary units. (see WP:MOSNUM)

Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please use the   (no-break space) between numbers and their units of measurement, as per WP:MOSNUM. Also, the units of measurements in the parentheses should use standard abbreviations (miles -> mi). Thanks, AndyZ _t

• This article finally needs a good copyedit. Some examples:
  • Also, he had a rather no-nonsense approach to fighting; with no additional frills or aesthetic considerations. - semicolon should be replaced by comma

Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Dorin and Musashi's uncle by marriage Tasumi both educated him in Buddhism and basic skills such as writing and reading. Comma needed before+after Tasumi, who is him referring to?

Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • In 1592, there is a suggestion that Munisai dies, is-> was

Your proposed corrrection is wrong, but I've fixed it to be clearer. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone said above, "This article finally needs a good copyedit." Here are some points:

1. Check links and style. Remove link to "Miyamoto, Japan" --- it doesn't need an article, and certainly not under that title. Link "Sakushū" to Mimasaka Province. Link Tajima Province. Clear up awkward constructions like "Banshu/Hyogo" (link Banshū to Harima Province, or Hyogo to the prefecture; do we need both?). Link Myoshin-ji and remove "temple." Likewise remove the "Cave" from "Reigando Cave."
2. "Sirota" needs Wikipedia Hepburn. Macrons throughout the article where MOS-JA specifies.
3. Check all links to see if they're direct. If they're not, change them.
4. Look up "the war between the Toyotomis and Tokugawas" and link to it. Remove the "s" from the family names.
5. Remove "of Mu" above the heading "Later life and death."
6. Musashi in fiction: You have a link to the main article. Take out all but the most important and put them in the main article. The films, and the Yoshikawa novel, are more important than most of what's in the list.
7. Bibliography: remove comma before parentheses; fix the macrons (remove where unnecessary and add where necessary). Dokkodo (#3) seems to be the same as The Way of Walking Alone (or The Way of Self-Reliance) (#5).
8. "Anecdotes about the Deceased Mater" —— What?

Separately, is all the speculation necessary? For example, date of birth, parentage, eczema, derivation of name, crawling through dead bodies, number of duels and whether the estimate is conservative... The encyclopedia article should be about Miyamoto Musashi, with much less speculation, legend, modern fiction, and hearsay. Removing most of this would result in a stronger article. --Fg2 08:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC) and 09:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your concerns (well, except the foreign language formatting bits, which I don't know how to do). I left in most of the speculation, since I don't think hiding the very real obscurities and uncertainties of his life does our reader a disservice- what if they come across a similarly dogmatic text which takes a different tact? From their perspective, our article appears to be lying, when it is merely differing interpretations. I did take out the dead bodies bit because that's bothered me ever since I saw it.

I'm gonna go copyedit it now. --maru (talk) contribs 06:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You've improved the article quite a bit. Again, regarding speculation, I think the article would be stronger without it. Date of birth, eczema etc. The date of birth section is so detailed that it could merit a separate article. The main article could say "Main article: Birth of Miyamoto Musashi. The date of birth is conventionally given as so-and-so. It is inconsistent with such-and-such. Researchers A (citation), B (citation), and C (citation) have published theories. Amid much speculation, the actual date of birth is unknown." I don't think that does the reader a disservice; it acknowledges the inconsistency, provides suggestions for further reading, and balances the article with later sections. Fg2 12:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the section on his birth is all that long; I can read through it in a minute or three. --maru (talk) contribs 15:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Neurofibromatosis type II

Hallo!
This article is a translation from the german wikipedia. I hope to further improve the quality of this arcticle, perhaps to make a back-translation in the german wikipedia and I will finaly go on with other translations from the phakomatosis-group. Shurely I am interestet, whether other people think that it is "FA-material". Greetings -- Andy.we 10:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like a good article, but understanding seems to require an existing understanding of medical terminology. I.e. to understand the article the lay reader needs to follow the various links. It's the type of article that could end up with a {{technical}} template. The article could use some slight dumbing down, or at least the addition of a few clarifying sentences in appropriate locations. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• You are right. I didnt recognize it until now that it is very technical. A clarification will need reformulation of every second sentence. I will try to do that. Thank you. -- Andy.we 08:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

BASIC programming language

This article is one of the most popular based on page views, it should become featured. - cohesion★talk 05:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you check an article's page views? Scifiintel 13:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I scanned through this article with a few things in mind, they were all there and more. Seems to be a thorough, coherent, excellent article. One very slight thing - I wonder if all the versions of basic could be organized into some kind of summary, or heirarchical presentation, maybe even by release date. --RichG 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• I rephrased some section titles. I had a minor quibble with their tone. Also, the lead needs expanding if this is going to be a featured article. Nicely referenced piece of work. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I too wish to know how you check an article's page views. --bodnotbod 15:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Very well written, but I suspect it could do with being read through by someone who knows nothing about programming to check how accessible it is. Here are a few things I spotted.

• The intro needs to be much longer to get FA status - at least two paragraphs, preferably three.
• Early years: would be better if it said what Fortran 77 and Algol 60 are. The footnotes at the end of the paragraph should really go in a notes section at the end of the article in accordance with WP:CITE: see WP:FN for a way of doing this.
• Maturity: "Though it is somewhat difficult to consider this language to be BASIC" - say why.
• Procedures and flow control: The term 'procedure' needs to be explained. I'd suggest wikifying the word, but the article procedure is a little surreal at the moment. A sentence would be plenty, just something to tell a non-programmer what it means.
• BASIC dialects: "There are more dialects of BASIC than there are of any other programming language." - could do with a source being cited.

File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Images are probably difficult to place in language articles. My main comment here is to find screenshots or photographs of early instances of BASIC programming, as early as possible, and original machines; and think of any more images to add, best I suggest is logos, software packaging, more screenshots. DVD+ R/W 11:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• For such a large article, the lead section needs reworking. Try summarising each level 1 heading in a paragraph is what I suggest. See Windows 2000 and MDAC for good examples of well worked leads (I didn't actually write the leads, someone did it for me and I wrote the rest of the article). - Ta bu shi da yu 13:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Malwa

Already looks like a good article. Can be improved further to Featured Article status. Contributions and/or suggestions on how the overall quality of the article can be improved will be appreciated. deeptrivia 06:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Very informative. Congrats to the editors. I've read only the first few sections and find that the following needs to be fixed.

• There is hyperwikilinking - link only the first occurence of a title.
• "Geography" section can be enhanced with more references. The mention of "extinction of dinosaurs" is abrupt. Should explain if any fossil evidence was found here.
• "Important cites" section is "fleshless"; can be done away with.
• "Famous people" section is by definition subjective. If it has to be there, it can be in a separate satellite article, List of notable people from Malwa and linked from here.

Overall, if the quality is improved, it can become a featured article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sense of community

This reference article with substantial inline citations and corresponding "References" section has already been called well-writen. The treatment is very complete given its narrow focus, but the implications of its contents go far beyond this, and would seem to make a contribution both for the much larger topic of community as well as for what it can offer Wikipedia communities (i.e., Wikipedia:Wikipedians, Wikipedia:WikiProject Community, Wikipedia:Esperanza, etc.) in terms of practical application. "Featured article" status might make these contents more widely available to those who would benefit from it (but who might not be aware of it otherwise). --DoctorW 23:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The topic Community itself is quite broad and the sense of community seems to zoom in on the psycho-social aspects. Portal:Community could contain a whole reference for an expansive treatment of the topic as suggested by WikiProject Community. As for the sense of community amonst the Wikipedians, maybe this request for peer review might trigger some enthusiasm toward understanding Wikipedia - the Community. -- CQ 08:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• It reads and looks like something between an essay and a report. It could benefit by being formatted more like other scientific FAs (and this works cited section). Specifically, if the writing style was more prose-like it would not need the internal links (like #Membership), bolding or the repeated lists. The current writing style is similar to a short academic paper which focuses more on what researchers think about the subject rather than the subject itself. This makes for poor flow and low user accessibility. This subject is huge so I hope it becomes more comprehensive. I was a little disappointed the article did not mention anything about social geography. Try finding examples of good and bad 'sense of community' and analyzing what went right and what went wrong. For example, the urban quality of life aspect. --maclean25 11:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Australian Capital Territory

A relatively complete history of the Australian Capital Territory. Comments on structure and content would be appreciated.--nixie 00:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Neither "19th century", nor "20th century", sections have any text. Content-wise, treat each section like its own article: give it a good introduction and discuss the subject (ie.19th century history of the ACT) with appropriate sub-headings if needed. The intro can include the themes of that century, the broad-based processes, the underlying causes, etc. Also, a map or two would be nice; where is Territory of Jervis Bay in relation to the ACT? --maclean25 01:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point of adding a paragraph of descriptive text to the top level heading, its not done in History of Alaska or History of Poland (1945–1989) to pull out two examples, also repetition of information is not a particularly useful tool for an article of this length- the lead should provide the basic summary and I have incorporated the century headings into the text there. I have asked our resident Canberra map maker to develop the map, which I agree would be a good addition.--nixie 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Alternatively, you can ask what is the purpose of having a section with no text? While it is not a rule (as far as I know) the use of sections with no text tell me, that either the article is formatted incorrectly (that is, it is using inconsistent or improper headings) or that the article is not complete (that is, it is not saying something that it wants to say). These history articles seem to be the latter. Indeed, they are very heavy on a historical narrative (this happened on this year, then this happened, and then this happened) but light on the analysis (why did that happen?). Visually, it looks incomplete, in that, it looks like a vandal blanked the section. I understand that length is the concern but history article, no matter what level of detail the article maintains, will be long and you still have a ways to go to match the lenghs of those articles you mentioned above. Why not remove the two shell sections and save a couple of lines in the article & TOC? The subsections can stand on their own as real sections. Also, a properly written introduction to a section does not repeat info, but rather provides an opportunty to put those narrative points into a perspective or context, and to ease the reader into the details. Consider this introduction - but please note that this was written using the article as its only source (I know little about Australia beyond what I just read and what I saw on the Simpsons.) --maclean25 11:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Some quite good stuff here, I've made a few copyedits, and have a few other sidenotes:

• To those unfamiliar with the geography, the significance of "finding a route to Jervis Bay" would be unclear (actually, it is a little unclear to me- was the route supposed to be from Sydney, or...?) Could do with some explanation to outline just where the Canberra region lies in relation to Sydney/the coast.
• "When the limits of location were determined, the Limestone Plains district was within the boundaries for authorised settlement"- although the hyperlinked article further explains this, to the uninitiated this could be difficult to parse.
• Should the 1926 and 1929 dates for Palmerville actually be 1826 and 1829?
• Did Lambrigg really establish, or was he just one of the earliest active in, the wheat industry?
• Would it be possible to enlarge upon why NSW was happy to cede that amount of territory near Yass, but not near Dalgety?
• If the NCPDC's responsibility for development planning was replaced by the NCDC, does the statement "recommended the creation of a single planning body" make sense?

Overall is coming along nicely, tho'.--cjllw | TALK 08:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have tried to clarify all the points raised. One small problem, I can't find any reason why the NSW government was happy to hand over the Yass- Canberra region, I can only guess it is because it is marginally closer to Sydney.--nixie 10:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• The article is looking great. Minor concerns: William Farrer - agricultural scientist, agronomist or agrologist - do they all mean the same thing? The title "The search for a capital city location" Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) frowns on the word "The" in headings. Is the CDSCC a tracking station by built by NASA (please clarify that sentence)? The last paragraph of the "Government and the ACT" section seems to use the words 'decriminalised' and 'legalised' interchangebly, however they mean two different things (legalized=free-to-do-as-I-please, decriminalised=get-a-ticket-for-doing-it-but-no-criminal-record). Its not necessary but I would like to see a map at the top of the page of Australia and the ACT just to get the reader oriented in the beginning. Also, a map of the exploration routes or settlement patterns would be nice, if that is even feasible. --maclean25 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've followed up most of your points, the careful use of the in headings in not an issue and there is already a map showing the location of the ACT, it would be a waste of space to have two.--nixie 02:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd's of London

World's preeminent market for insurance. An important part of the western financial system. The article has undergone a lot of work to make fairly technical and obscure portions more acessable. I would appreciate feedback on how it can be improved. Klonimus 15:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Given the unusual structure of Lloyd’s (truly without peer in the business world), the section on structure deserves a fair amount of attention. How about creating new articles called Council of Lloyd’s and Corporation of Lloyd’s to elaborate more on those two bodies? The comment on Corporation of Lloyd’s technically applying to the market itself could be expanded in such an article. Also, regulation of Lloyd’s may deserve a section (or an article) of its own. Aulus Gellius 02:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That gets to be quite complex, but I will see what I can do. The 'Council of Lloyd’s is the excutive body which sets standards and oversee's market opperations. Corporation of Lloyd’s also known as the adminsters the market its self and administers the "chain of security" (reinsurance layers and the Lloyd's central fund). The Society of Lloyd’s is the entire market taken as a whole. Klonimus 11:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the "Quick facts" section into the article as prose ('Trivia' and 'Miscellaneous' sections don't go over well in featured articles). Does anyone know if it is possible to translate currency into US$ or CDA$ from UK£ in Wikipedia, like with a link to a converter or a preference setting? The history section is not paced well. First it skims over several hundred years of business in two paragraphs. Then spends eleven paragraphs on 30 years. Do not create one-sentence paragraphs or one-paragraph sections. A sentence is a sentence, not a paragraph, and a paragraph is a paragraph, not a section. Recognize the differences. This statement "Lloyd's is not an insurance company." is not compatible with this category "Insurance companies of the United Kingdom", one of them has to bend. That "Personal wealth" thing always fascinated me, perhaps provides examples of certain individual's experience with Lloyd's. Also, it requires sources per Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --maclean25 08:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well the thing is that Lloyd's was a very quiet and intentionally outwardly boring place untill 1970s when asbestos and several other scandals nearly ended the entire operation. I'm going to try and rewite the section on the scandals (of which there are many). Basicly UK tax law used to be almost confiscatory, but property/assets used to back insurance policies was treated much more favorably.
• First off I'd like to say it is a good article but needs more blue text links throughout, and three or four more images. I don't know enough about this to say exactly what images, but I'll think about it and try to get back to you. One part from the opening "Unlike most of its competitors in the reinsurance market, it is neither a company nor a corporation. Its peculiar status is discussed in greater detail below.", links to the passage on structure, when I was expecting syndication which is very interesting and I'd like to here more about. At any rate well done so far. DVD+ R/W 11:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Castle of the Winds

I think this article will be ready to be featured soon! However, it could use information about:

• The graphics technology, and how it uses icons as tiles!
• The mathematical nitty-gritty of gameplay mechanics.
• An expanded Strategy section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahen (talk • contribs) 21:12, November 19, 2005(UTC)

Based on the wording of your request, you might have better results by taking this article to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion or consulting with Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. If you did intend to place this article on peer review in preparation of submission to WP:FAC, then you may wish to consult the featured article criteria. The most obvious issue with the article as it currently stands is a lack of cited references. It is usually much easier to document the sources used while the article is still being written rather than tracking down references after the text of the article has stabilized. The article should also be reworked so that the majority of the text is in paragraph form instead of the current bulleted list format, and the {{infobox cvg}} template at the top needs to be filled in. --Allen3 ^talk 22:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

A few pointers;

• Too many lists. The article currently reads more like a walkthrough. Try removing the lists, and merging the first five heading under a heading of Gameplay.
• There are no references either.
• Perhaps it would be better to incorporate the contents of the now public domain section into the lead section.
• Add the system requirements section to the infobox, instead of it being in the article.
• remove the glitches section - unsuitable for a game article, better off in Wikibooks.

Also, refer to the computer and video games wikiproject. It helps. LordViD 20:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Indigenous Australians

• comprehensive article, with links off to plenty of articles on sections, it seems to qualify for most of the criteria on "What is a featured article" Astrokey44 05:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

While Adam and other have done a great job rewriting and reorganizing this article, it has no references (a requirement for an FA), and there are numerous summary sections with no content- like culture and Tasmanian aborigines. The lead is also too short and should be expanded to 2 - 3 paragraphs that summarise the article. I think it'd be a good idead to do away with the promient people section to and where possible work those names into the text. --nixie 05:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Could some of the existing links be turned into references? I've added to the summary sections that had previously no content, it looks a little better now. It probably is a good idea to put the prominent people into the article, although then where would you put the link to the Prominent indigenous Australians article? Astrokey44 08:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

We're the existing links used as references? I know its a pain, but things like population (historic and current), social and health disadvantage and the details on dating arrival should really have specific references so readers can verify the information for themselves. If you could also list some books that verify the articles content that would help too. The solen generation/assimilation is given pretty short shrift in the text, and the section where I'd expect it called "Adaptation" seems inappropriately named. To be really picky indigenious Australians weren't just hunters/gathers, the Torres Strait Islanders practiced subsistance agriculture and several other groups farmed various things. Prominent or notable people are normally a concern since there may be bias in the way they are selected, slip as many names into the text as possible and include the list in the see also section. --nixie 09:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed by this article.-gadfium 08:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also impressed by this article, but have several concerns:

• Keith Windschuttle - he may or may not be obnoxious, but I feel he should be mentioned. Not necessarily to give him credibility (shoot him down for all I care) but to maintain NPOV (see Black arm band theory of history)
• References. We need them.
• The study of Aboriginal culture has changed over the years. I can find information on this issue (I saw a very good book just the other day in the state library).
• Nothing on Aboriginal deaths in custody.
• Not much on the current state of Aboriginals today. For instance, there are parts of Australia that are worse than 3rd-world countries. This is really not mentioned. Nothing on the high suicide rates either.
• Nothing on Redfern riots.
• Nothing on how they are treated in Western Australia (see for instance Select Committee on Reserves (Reserve 43131) Bill 2003 or this article.

Much more to go I fear. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Movie projector

Worked on this one a while back, and I think it's sorta stabilized over the past few months. I'm not certain if it's FAC material yet, but I definitely want to do any additional work necessary to get it there. Any advice towards that end would be much appreciated. Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 01:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

A simple improvement in my view is to add more links throughout, per WP:MOS-L of course. DVD+ R/W 11:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but could you be more specific - internal or external links? Thanks. --Girolamo Savonarola 19:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Internal links, under Film supply and takeup the Two reel system and Single reel system could use the most. It seems to me that a paragraph should have two or three links to other wikipedia articles, at least. Also: for such a visual topic, another two or three images or diagrams would be great, maybe of some technical things which you have written about very well, but also some stills from films or photographs inside theatres would help give more sense of cinema to the article. DVD+ R/W 18:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The article looks pretty decent, but it can still be improved. It could use a longer introduction. The purpose of the second sentence regarding movie cameras is unclear to me; perhaps you could clarify it? The section on the physiology could use some expansion to cover the topic of number of frames per second needed to produce an illusion of continuity. (For example, cats perceive images faster than us, so they don't recognize the continuity of movement on the television screen the way that we do.) Also did you cover the change in projector speed from the silent period? The section on principles of operation could really use a cross-sectional illustration for clarity, showing the light path and the various projector parts. Also somewhere in the article you could do with an image of the actual film, showing the frames, the sprocket holes, and the sound track strip. Overall I believe the digital projector is now coming into vogue, whereas most of the "principles of operation" is concerned with film projectors. That needs to be made clear in the section introduction. Thank you. :) — RJH 16:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have cleaned up the physiology section a bit and added the projector speed info (a glaring omission, I must say!). I intend to add some more detailed images for cross-sections very soon; I'll probably cannibalize film frame images from those already on the 'pedia. The digital projector question is actually more of a naming problem than any other - there are several articles for various video projectors (see Projector). The problem really is that film projector (quite rightly) disambiguates to distinguish between stills and motion picture film. On the other hand, as you note, not all movie projectors are film projectors. Which is fair enough. I think that the article really should be renamed and just cover the film projectors, as it does at the moment. Cinema projector redirects to movie projector, but has the same issues. So my question to you (and everyone) is what should it be called, then? I'd prefer something without a parenthetical disambiguator, but I suppose it might be needed... In any case, many thanks again for your comments! --Girolamo Savonarola 19:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not just keep this as movie projector and start up a separate "Digital movie projector" page? — RJH 15:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

This is on PR for an unprecedented 3rd time (1 | 2). Since the last PR, it has undergone substantial change, not in the content, but in the style of writing and summary. Please give your comments on how it can be imrpoved. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• The most glaring thing I see is that the whole section "Critical analysis" has no citation at all except a silly one to the Jessica Lal case. Unless you cite it, it is incredibly POV. In general, I see a dearth of citations. You have obviously taken the effort to get all this stuff from somewhere. Why not cite the source? — Ravikiran 17:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't say there was a dearth of citations on the rest of the page now would you? I'll be look ing into the critical analysis section soon.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 11:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Targeted therapy

I started this article and would appreciate feedback on how it can be improved. This article is about targeted treatments for cancer. Thank you!Joaquin Murietta 05:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good job citing your sources. However, I find the lead section far too short — it should be one to three paragraphs long, not just a couple of sentences. The article itself also seems rather short. If the monoclonal antibodies section has a main article, it ought to be expanded to at least a few paragraphs of prose instead of just a few lists. The small molecules section is also too short, and is just a list. Far from satisfactory for an article about an important form of cancer treatment, IMO. Johnleemk | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 07:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There should be something about the principles of these treatments, but no rehashing of things already covered on specific subpages. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the comments, will wait a few days to see if there are more comments and then I will attempt to edit and report back. Joaquin Murietta 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps describe how this was developed (and when/where/who). Was it a long research process or a happy accident? Put an introduction paragraph (or at least a good descriptive sentence) before each list so the reader knows why he is reading the list. Provide a caption that tells the reader what the process in the diagram is showing (and what "bcr-abl" or "kinase domain" are). --maclean25 08:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Civilian control of the military

I have been working on Beland's original draft for the past couple of weeks and think it has been fleshed out reasonably well. Now I would like to see other editors evaluate my prose, and let me know what more the article needs before I consider sending it to WP:FAC. Thanks, — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 02:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some remarks:
  • What is the difference between this article and the "civil-military relations" whoch is still a red link? Should this link be suppressed and the information it should contain be included here?
  • The lead seems to me too specialiazed. Huntington's, Kohn's, and Mao's quotes is in my opinion not at the right place. Couldn't they be moved elsewhere?
  • What is a liberal democracy? Do you want to oppose this concept to popular democracy? It doesn't seem to be the case since you discuss in the article the control of the army by the communist parties.
  • I am missing the case of constitutional monarchies where the king or queen is the chief of the army. It happenned in the past that the leadership of such monarchs were non only symbolic during war times. Look at Albert I of Belgium, Leopold III of Belgium. Look also at the current Nepalese war where the constitutional monarch is playing an active role in the military leading. Can one say that those monarchs were civilians?
  • I am also missing the Turkish case were the control of the army by civilians is a highly debatted issue.
  • I am missing the German case where the army is under the direct control of the parliament and not (or to a lesser extent) of the government.
  • The link to citizen-soldier is red. What should contain this article which sould not be included here? The historical origin of the citizen-soldier in the enlightment philosopy should be discussed together with its impact on the American and French revolutions. The compulsory enrollement in the army is a highly debatted question in Germany and was the topic of debates recently in other European countries such as France and Belgium where the non professional army disappeared recently.
• I hope my comments shall help you. Vb 10:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I will take another hard look at the article with them in mind now. I'm not sure the degree to which I should include lots of specific examples in this article, since every country's military history would probably have something to say on the subject, but the case of Turkey would be a good one, and might help to offset some of the U.S. systemic bias still lingering in the article. More can probably also be said on the subject of which civilians control, be they presidents, parliaments, or whoever. I'm not sure to what extent I can discuss monarchies in the context of civilian control without verging into original research, since I don't think the scholarship in this subject usually considers their role (even if they are "civilians" of a sort), but I will see if I can find anything, or at least make some mention (probably under the "Commander in Chief" section).

I do think that the issues surrounding citizen-soldiers would preferably fall under a separate article from this one; the field of civil-military relations as I understand it would actually encompass the two, with this article serving as one answer to "who leads?" and citizen-soldier as one answer to the question, "who serves"? I'd like to be able to write entries on all three, but doing so will take a while. Thanks again, and please let me know if you have any more suggestions. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you are right about the US bias of the article. You should get rid of it. Showing a picture of Abraham Lincoln in the lead provides direct suspicion for this. Civilian-soldiers are not only serving but are also controlling. In this sense they participate directly to the "Civilian control of the military". If you want to exclude this topic of this article, you should rename it or make the point clearer. Vb 09:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Duenos inscription

I find both the reading and the interpretation of the inscription lacking. I was aware of a different reading and interpretation I have supplied in the discussion page. I aknowledge that since I haven't had access to the bibliography after the article whose version I have come to accept (which is quite old), I might be missing something pointed out in a more recent article, and I could be terribly wrong. At any account I would appreciate any expert advice and review. Thank you beforehand. Lucius Domitius 00:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Who discovered it? When was it discovered? Why is it on a vase? What happened after its discovery? Was there international media attention? Who analysed it? What is the vase made of and what would it have been used for? What kind of people lived in the area in the 6th Century BCE? Is there a picture of the vase? There is loads to be done. --Oldak Quill 03:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Candia, New Hampshire

This Peer Review is more about small towns in general rather than just this town, I figured i'd use it as an example of what needs to be done in regards to getting any small town to FA Status.

I noticed it while updating Municiple Article Watch on Wikiproject:New Hampshire, and so far, it's head and shoulders above all the other towns that i've looked at for the most part. 4 pictures, all newish(couldn't see all of them today due to the updates), a few external links, the solid foundations of the other town articles with a bit more added, but it's still got a long way to go until reaching FA.

That being said, I think it has a spark that I haven't seen in other small towns, and i'm looking for ideas on how to make a small town into an FA, with this one as the test case. So far, I believe that all the municipal area FAs are all large cities, content length may be a factor holding back small towns, regardless of how good they are. Karmafist 20:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have been experimenting in small town articles, too. My works in progress include Dawson Creek, British Columbia (pop 10,000), Chetwynd (pop. 3,000), Taylor (pop. 1,300), and Hudson's Hope (pop. 1,150). As you can see they are all in different stages of development. They follow the same structure which was based on some of the better FAs on other cities. I have found that the best resource for these have been the local historical associations. Personal knowledge of the town has also been invaluable. --maclean25 04:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• The postcard looks nice. How old is it? It might be worth adding a date to the Image:McDonald Mill, Candia, NH.jpg page, as well as the caption. ---Aude 18:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A.P. Moller-Maersk Group

This article is not good enough to be an FA. A peer review has therefore to be made. 203.218.180.143 07:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• sigh...straight away;

1. there are no references,
2. the article is a series of lists,
3. the pictures are too large,
4. the lead is too short.

LordViD 17:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Caldwell

Imagine my surprise when I found that there was no existing Wikipedia article about this blue-eyed soulman. Actually, it was more joy than surprise, because I was therefore provided the opportunity to build it from the ground up. I've nominated this for review because I believe that, with all of your help, it could be both highly informative and fun to read. I'm very glad to have discovered Caldwell and his music, and I hope this piece will help others do the same. Colinmarshall 03:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventist Church

Wikipedia:Peer review/Seventh-day Adventist Church/archive1

I am wondering if this article could achieve Featured Article status. It was previously a candidate in December 2005, and was classified as a Good Article. In the last 12 months it has undergone a major overhaul. Would appreciate it if people could assess it again and suggest any changes that need to be made to further improve the article. Thank you. Tonicthebrown 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Assorted comments:
  • The header should specify what they consider to be the Sabbath, since it's important enough to be in the name of the church.
  • First two parts of Origins and early history section have no inline refs at all. That material does not sound completely uncontroversial.
  • "however some Adventists do approve of wedding bands." - cite, or merely remove, since your specify "more conservative"
  • "Note: The preferred abbreviation" - who prefers? Stating it that way implies the Wikipedia prefers. Also doesn't seem to be true if the GLBT org is SDA Kinship...
  • "as of 2006" - can't we get to "as of 2007"?
  • Firstly, secondly, thirdly - awkward.
  • Cite the citation needed tags.
  • Describe "the negativity" with which other churches are viewed. To some extent, most churches consider all others to be at least somewhat incorrect, if this church goes beyond that, specify.
  • "Adventist scholars such as Fred Veltman have contested this." Link, cite, or remove. Presumably Adventist scholars contest all criticisms, it's assumed; if Veltman is special, specify, or at least link and/or cite.
  • "unique recipe" - without giving the whole thing, what's unique about it? Or is that supposed to mean that there are thousands of distinct recipes? Specify. The off-cite link is different in style from most of the other inline references, better to use just one style.
  • Are the distinctive teachings numbered individually among the 28? If so, it may be useful to give each number. Is there common agreement as to which of the 28 are particularly distinctive, or is this just one scholar's view that these are more distinctive than others? Cite thoroughly.
  • Ten Commandments - which ten? There are at least two if not more different counts...
  • How many of them are there? How does that stand relative to other churches? Where are they in the world? A distribution map wouldn't hurt. If there are major centers outside the US, how & when did they get there?
  • "lady by the name of" -> "named" --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for your remarks, AnonEMouse. Tonicthebrown 11:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New world order

This is a solid, comprehensive, well-cited article. It needs some work on NPOV, copy editing, and points where things can be better explained to those not familiar with the politics. Thanks for your comments and edits. —thames

Well it sounds like you already know what needs to be worked upon to bring it up to FA quality, so I'm not quite clear why you're bringing it here for peer review. :) The bulleted lists need replacing with inline text. Thanks. — RJH 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, since I wrote it, I'm not exactly sure where others might find things that are POV--I just sorta assume that they're in there. Also, as I wrote it, and am familiar with the politics, I don't know exactly where others might get lost. So I was hoping the Peer Review folks could point out those passages to me. Do you think the bulleted lists are less readable than paragraphs? <nowiki></nowiki>&mdash;[[User:Thames|thames]] 15:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, its just that I've been told the FA people like to harp about bulleted lists for whatever reason. They seem to prefer prose. — RJH 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good article. My following comments mostly concern referencing (I expected more from an article about a statement and reference all direct quotes), images (would a map help?) and appropriateness of lists. In the opening, Where it says "many commentators have applied the term" please provide at least one reference of this happening, and if the word "many" is to stay in the sentence please provide more than one (independent) references. In "Historical usage" can a reference be provided for the New York Times interview? Why semi-colons in the list of international institutions? can there be an expansion, beyond the one-paragraph, on examples (what they meant by...) of the phrase being used to describe this set of international institutions? What purpose does the "AtlanticCharter.jpg" image serve? Please clarify this sentence, "The first press reference to the phrase came from Russo-Indian talks, 21 November 1988." The talks occurred in one day? can "press reference" be made a little more specific (russian press, indian press? newspaper? tv?). The first reference doesn't link to the reference section. If a list is going to be used make the points parallel (grammatically) and do not break it up with a long quote in the middle. All quotes need references. The second bullet list, "The new world order seemed to imply:" is this according to Time Magazine? change "shifting to "a shift" to make it parallel and why the semi-colons and capital letters? No one-sentence parapraghs (this isn't a novel), it breaks up the discussion (there are two one-sentence paragraphs on the book A World Transformed). The bullet list in the "Malta Conference" would probably be better discussed as prose with an explanation of what each point means/implies. The image "Image:Georgebush.jpg" doesn't seem appropriate (or useful), any images of him from the Malta Conference? I'm not sure if this is correct procedure by perhaps place the references to press articles by the title of the magazine/newspaper (ie Time) instead of at the end of a paragraph to make the referencing more obvious. Is the "Toward a New World Order speech" bullet list really a list? reads more like a real paragraph. is this speech referenced (is it available online?) Who is the "American left" (a newspaper?) and when did they say "rationalization for imperial ambitions"? Why do the LA Times and The Economist articles get their own subsections? Can the "Presidential Studies Quarterly" summary be referenced? I'm not sure if that is the proper usage of a See also section. --maclean25 07:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's standard punctuation form to separate list elements by a semicolon when the list is denoted by a colon. I'll work on expanding that section.
• I put in the Atlantic Charter image simply because it was one of the only images of the creation of the post-WWII "new world order" that exists on wikipedia.
• I've fixed the first footnote to point correctly.
• I'll do what I can to convert those lists into paragraphs, thus circumventing parallel construction and blockquote problems. However, it is quite clear that the blockquote in the first list comes from Gorbachev's speech the UN General Assembly, as that whole section is based on that speech.
• Clarified the Time Magazine "seemed to imply" sentence.
• I'll see what I can do about integrating the A World Transformed bits into larger paragraphs once i've converted the lists into paragraphs.
• The George Bush image is there simply because there are no better images available for the Malta Conference. Gorbachev has his own image, so Bush ought to have one too. It's hard to get images when discussing a phrase. Any suggestions?
• I've added a wikisource link to new world order materials, including the full text of the gorbachev UN speech, various transcripts from the Malta Conference, and the full text of a Bush's speech to the joint session of congress.
• The "American left" and "American right" are characterizations used by the New York Times article (which is footnoted). I've clarified this in the sentence.
• The Economist and LA Times article get their own sections because of the prescient insights or interesting future parallels not seen in any of the other articles at the time.
• The PSQ is footnoted, but only at the end of the last paragraph discussing the contents of the PSQ article (footnote 22). I thought it would be overkill to add the same footnote to every paragraph which discusses the PSQ material. But I can certainly do that if necessary.
• More edits to come.—thames 19:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Michigan State Capitol

I am considering nominating Michigan State Capitol as a featured link. The article is part of the U.S. state capitols series and is one of the most complete as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan series. There are a number of other state capitols that have yet to be created and encouragement is needed. The Michigan site is particularly likely to receive attention as the Super Bowl will be played here in February. Jtmichcock 03:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Given that no one has commented yet on this article, let me offer some suggestions on how this article can be improved:

1. The number of references (one) is lacking. Can more be added (up to three overall)?
2. Are there any other important rooms and artifacts housed in the capitol building (e.g. a state library, a copy of the state constitution)?
3. Images of the interior of the building is a plus, especially of the rotunda, the Senate chamber, and the House of Representatives chamber. Also, for the current building, can someone take some photos instead of downloading images (that could be copyrighted)?
4. Lists should be kept at a minimum. Prose should be used throughout.
5. Have there been other government bodies and/or agencies once housed in the building (e.g. the Michigan Supreme Court)?
6. There should be more description of the current building's architectural style and layout.

There is certainly a lot that has to be done before this article can make FA. Pentawing 00:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Most of the above has been done. I have two reference books, but both are high quality. In terms of pictures, I have added one of the rotunda interior with the Capitol Muses. Let me know what you think. Jtmichcock 06:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks okay, though can you specify the resources further (whether they are pdf files or a book) so that one can use the proper bibliography formats? Also, the pictures of the present building are all marked as copyrighted (Carnildo might have a problem with that). Also, pictures of the House and Senate chambers are still missing. Pentawing 07:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The images of the current capitol building are all marked as copyrighted. Is there no way of actually taking pictures of the building itself (such images qualify for GFDL licenses, which are preferred)? Also, the captions should not be bolded or italicized. Pentawing 06:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I am not planning to go to Lansing myself any time soon, but the photos at issue are from the state's website and are intended to promote tourism. Also, one is taken from the floor and public access there is next to impossible. I have also added a link to the one guide that has a .pdf compliment, the other one is not available online AFAIK. Jtmichcock 21:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Concerning resources, could you list the books that you used, and if you did to include the books to note the ISBN numbers (which can be found on the same page as the book's copyright year)? Pentawing 06:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I checked both and neither have had an ISBN issued -- In house publications for free. Jtmichcock 23:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Emperor Wu of Han

This article looks like it's comprehensive and almost ready to be nominated as a featured article. Some of the text appears to be lacking stylistically though. Please check for historical accuracy and comprehensiveness and see what needs to be done with the prose so this can be nominated. --Jiang 12:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Emperor Wu is considered one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history..." Says who? Needs a reference to validate this statement. While we're on the topic, there aren't any references in the first place.
• Notes section is in the wrong format, see this.
• Remove the question mark from the header "bisexuality".

Other than that, it looks fine to me. LordViD 13:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I've reformatted the notes section and removed the question mark. I've asked the main contributor for references. --Jiang 14:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll try to insert references over the weekend (perhaps today). How frequent should references be, as a rule of thumb? And also, should they generally be inserted as comments or as links? (I do also heavily rely on a single print source, but the other sources are all online-reachable.)
    • But a thought about the bisexuality section; I put the ? in originally because it was unconfirmed; his relation with Han Yan was likely sexual but is not anywhere as confirmable as, for example, the one between Emperor Ai of Han and Dong Xian, and even that one is not what I'd consider proven beyond a reasonbale doubt. What was the particular issue with putting a ? in the section heading? --Nlu 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • One thing -- I've actually am at a loss of having a good strong source that states and defends the proposition that Emperor Wu was one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history -- it is basicallly an oft-stated proposition by those who study Chinese history and accepted without question (due to territorial expansions). Bo Yang gave a long analysis and agreed with the proposition (and I'll cite that), but Bo is hardly a traditional historian. There are many, many popular discourses online where the proposition is generally stated without much questioning (some gave brief analyses); are those going to be considered acceptable sources? --Nlu 18:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• An article does not have to have many references. Only statements which might arouse controversy need a reference to verify them. See this article for an example of how to reference print sources and external websites. WP:CITE might also aid you.
• I always thought question marks in headers looked un-encyclopaedic, and that the heading Possible bisexuality would be more appropriate, but a quick look at the Comet Hale-Bopp article, which is a featured article, revealed that question marks are acceptable. So nevermind that :p.
• The analysis by Bo Yang would be perfectly accepatble. Online sources, however, are okay unless they are from bulletin boards, blogs, personal websites etc. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for help.

Keep up the good work! LordViD 20:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I've added five additional references, but I see nothing else in the article that is controversial and therefore didn't add additional citations. Can you (or somebody else) look through the article and see what I might be missing? (As the person who wrote the majority of the article, I obviously believe that what's in there's non-controversial :-), but that might not be of the opinion of everyone.) --Nlu 22:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Human experimentation

This article needs a bit of work all around, but one aspect of it that particularly concerns me are the final two external links:

• Jeff Rense Article:A History Of US Secret Human Experimentation
• http//:www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html - Original source concearning US Secret Human Experiments.

I have already commented on the article's talk page: Talk:Human experimentation. Would anyone else like to weigh in on these links? --Birdmessenger 19:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I messed up by putting this here as this is not anywhere close to be a featured article. Sorry.

--Birdmessenger 20:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The Star Wars Holiday Special

This is a relatively obscure made-for-TV movie from the late 70's. However, I've worked on it extensively since around March. It covers a large amonut of information and seems comprehensive. Though, I reallize it's WAY too long, too detailed, and too fanboyish. I'm requesting that someone give me tips on what elements of the article can be improved. Thanks. The Wookieepedian 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is rather long for the subject matter, particularly the plot section. But there are probably some people who would enjoy that. Perhaps the plot could be broken up into 2-3 sub-sections? If you want this to be a FA, the bulleted lists will need to be replaced with prose (or tables) wherever possible. Otherwise it seems fine, at least to me. — RJH 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! The Wookieepedian 22:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Except for a few uses of contractions, like "didn't", the writing is great. Consider re-formating the beginning of the article. The setting is discussed twice and there are two one-paragraph sections (might make a decent two paragraph section). The "Story" and "Lucasfilm/media uses and statements" sections are long. When you re-format the article consider the importance of the sections relative to their length and relative to each other. Try for consistency, currently there are two very short sections followed by a huge section (but the pictures help make it seem shorter). The "Segments" section has no text. Write an overview/introduction if the section is going to use sub-sections to discuss its theme (eg. What about the segments?). Why the sudden change in article structure with the "facts about copies of the Holiday Special" and "Lucasfilm/media uses and statements" bullet lists? they are already complete sentences, why not make a paragraph or incorporate them into the article? is the latter section made entirely of bullets? Consider using a table for "Airing dates and locations" since each bullet has similar comparative data. Why does the title section have three one-sentence paragraphs. Probably be a better stated in one paragraph (then consider if the one-paragraph section is the best place for that info). wow this is a long article. Two more sections made entirely of bullets. Another section without any text. Do not be afraid to tell the reader where the references were used (a reader does not want to go through 20 external links to verify one piece of info). I hope there are not any unreferenced quotes in there. Anyways, this is a great article, just needs to format itself to keeps the reader reading despite its length. --maclean25 08:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help! Those are great suggestions! It's nice to see suggestions on improving this. I've worked on it for quite a while, and want it to work well as representing this film. The Wookieepedian 07:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Way too many images -- about 75% need to go. —jiy (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• The story section is indeed very long and detailed, and unless I missed it, does not mention that the Wookies speak Wookie, which surely is a noteable feature? Very well done overall, and I agree that the spacing and positioning of the images helps break up the "endless text" feeling the article might otherwise have. I still advise trimming small details of action, as opposed to plot, wherever possible. KillerChihuahua 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• I damn well expected better given your name, but congrats on only having a single instance of the horrible blight of wookie in the article ;) (fixed it!). On an interesting note, it is the only word I've found whose misspelling returns more google hits than its actual spelling. Sherurcij 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's truely stupifying. I agree that it's too long and in some places it's rather redundant. Perhaps you could also mention that at one point in the show the viewer hears nothing but wookieenese (whatever the technical term is) for upwards of 20 minutes without reprieve? I'm left speechless that anyone could have derived that much content from the Holiday special though. --Zytsef 17:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strange things can happen when you're a holiday special masochisist like me. ;) But seriously guys, thanks for the comments, I'll attempt to incorporate all of them into the article. The Wookieepedian 11:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

DMC DeLorean

This is my favorite cars of all time. With its gull wing doors and stainless steel body, its hard to beat! The article has far to go, and any comments will be appreciated as I want to get this to featured article status, as it deserves it. — Wackymacs 21:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks to be an excellent article. I only saw a couple of minor nits that you may get dinged with when you go for FA: the "Special DMC-12s" section uses a bulleted list, rather than normal prose; also they'll undoubtedly want you to use the reference to citations format for the notes, as discussed at Template talk:Ref. — RJH 18:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems you've mentioned and improved the Production changes section and 'Special DMC-12s' section too. I've also cut down the picture usage in the article. The article now has a Notes and References section. Anything else? — Wackymacs 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it looks good. I'm not sure how you feel about scale model kits, but you could cover that topic if you're interested. Possibly also the used car market for these De Loreans. But it's fine as it stands right now. Thanks — RJH 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Junior Certificate

The Junior Certificate is the mandatory state examination secondary school pupils take at the age of 15 or so. I and others have worked on this article and I'm hoping to get it featured. Any comments? Ludraman 13:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Unnecessary bold text should go. Lists should be converted to prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What bold text? The dates? Ludraman 21:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    yeah the dates. reduce the headings too. Its too granualated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Quick comments:
  • The first sentence says "Junior Certificate Examination (commonly known as the Junior Cert)". So why is this page called "Junior Certificate" and not one of the others?
  • "Irish" should be linked to highlight where this is from.
  • "School leaver" is an odd term to this English speaker. I can guess what it means, but is that a common term?
  • Fix all redirects, e.g. [[Mathematics|maths]]
  • Lone years should not be hyperlinked per WP Manual of Style.
  • "levels are in brackets" - actually, the list uses parens.
  • There should be something to link to for some of the redlinks in the subject list, especially "Classical Studies"
  • Watch overlinking as well - "Irish" for one has too many.
  • Grammar: "has fallen disuse'""
  • "Irish as a mandatory subject" could be a larger header.
  • "Levels" are mentioned well before they are explained.
  • Color-coded grading chart is a bit overdone. And it does not even include "honors". Perhaps a simple table?
  • The Junior cert is described as a test but the main picture (which could be more detailed (larger?) shows an actual certificate. Better explanation of the paper certificate would be nice.
  • - Turnstep 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Apple Macintosh

This article has been summited for peer review multiple times.

• First Submission
• This article is a FAC; see nomination here

---

After all of that, and a failed FA nomination (view page) , and with WikiProject Macintosh now on the case, we still cannot get this to FA! Please, help! --HereToHelp (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• We still need to get the article under 40k in size, otherwise this will be highlighted and used as an objection on FAC again. I also think the hardware section is too technical, and may not be understood by someone who is not familiar with computers and the Macintosh. It is very close, it just needs a bit of work in the Hardware section, I think, and chopping down some information to get it under 40k. — Wackymacs 09:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• As for trimming, it's the history section that needs it, it's way too long. That detail should be moved to a new subarticle on the history of the mac if needed, or to apple's history page. Half that section's current length would be about right. 2) The last paragraph of the history section is problematic from a POV standpoint. The halo effect is disputed and there are other effects anyway. The Big Mac (System X) at VTU probably had an effect, among others. So find some sources to cite and say, X says Y instead of having Wikipedia make the claim, and note common dissent. The last sentence in the paragraph is poorly worded too. There are some other POV statements sprinkled throughout that could benefit from citing a source or just being written more neutrally in some cases. - Taxman ^Talk 16:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Music of Athens, Georgia

I only just created this article, because I found some good references to use. It's got a couple pics, though I acknowledge that more would be nice. Anyone have any suggestions? Tuf-Kat 23:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Very nice looking article! I suggest the following:

• • Include more about classical music in the area esepcially the UGA school of music. You have mentioned the school of music but it deserves a bit more prominence. In addition a bit more info on the Athens Symphony and Choral Society would be good. I know this article really concentrates on the subject of rock, but with a title like "Music of Athens, GA" it should be comprehensive. You might also consider including some of the other UGA music institutions like the Redcoat Marching Band, Glee Club, and student performing groups like The Accidentals and Noteworthy (both a capella groups, male and female respectively). My sister was president of Noteworthy so I could get you some info on them.
  • Bluegrass, country and jazz are mentioned in the intro but nothing else is really said of them. How has Athens contributed to those genres?
  • The predominence of red links is particularly troublesome. Filling them would be very helpful.
  • The Athens in 1840 image should be enlarged.

I hope these are helpful! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thanks! Image expanded, country and bluegrass elaborated upon (jazz removed from intro, as I can find no evidence Athens has ever done anything notable jazz-related). I'll see what I can do on classical music and such tonight hopefully -- the input of local residents would be very helpful in deciding which institutions and venues are notable, so anything your sister can help me with would be great. Tuf-Kat 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

This article is currently the medicine collaboration of the week. Would be nice to get some feedback on what should be improved especially from people with a non-medical background. Hope to get some good feedback and maybe this could be a FAC soon. --WS 19:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Looking good so far. Some comments:

1. My main suggestion is that some of the sections should be merged together because most of the sections are too short. Each section should be three paragraphs each, ideally.
2. Can more pictures be added?
3. It is really well referenced, I'm impressed.

# You might want to start using the {{main|otherarticle}} template format for sections that are a summary of a sister article. Not much else to say from my quick look at the article. Keep up this good work. — Wackymacs 19:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. What sections would you suggest to be merged? I think it is sometimes better to have a few short sections than mixing things up. Indeed some more pictures would be nice. --WS 20:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:MOS and Wikipedia:Section, it is better with less sections. I would suggest you remove the 'Biopsy' as a subsection in the Diagnosis section. I would also suggest doing something with the short 'Follow-up care' and 'Cryotherapy' subsections, unless you can expand them and make them worthy. The 'Screening/Early detection' subsection of the 'Current research' section is also very short. — Wackymacs 21:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed the biopsy header, moved the follow-up care info elsewhere. I think cryotherapy is worthy on its own as it is and will leave this in for now. The whole current research section needs quite some work, so that will probably come later. --WS 22:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pepsi-Cola

This should already be featured, but it is far from it. I cleaned it up from a terrible state not long ago, but now it is lacking context and certainly needs expanding, but what should be added? Lets here all your comments and suggestions! — Wackymacs 23:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Advertising, packaging and sponsorship of events would probably make for interesting additions. It'd be nice to see the Type of Pepsi section organised into a table or moved to a list and then the section could be expanded to discuss the development of the various types of pepsi. The section on marketshare could use inline cites so the information can be easily verified- a map that shows where pepsi is more popular that coke would be neat too.--nixie 23:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• How about including the jingle? ("Pepsi-Cola hits the spot, 12 full ounces, that's a lot, Twice as much for a nickel too, Pepsi-Cola is the drink for you!") Maybe in the History section near where it mentions the 12-ounce drink? Oylenshpeegul 18:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Some points:

1. The lead should be expanded to about 300 words and summarise the article.
2. New Bern, North Carolina --> mention country (USA)
3. Metric equivalents need to be added.
4. America --> United States
5. The history is rather weak. I would like to know more on its global operations and growth
6. Following the =history=, a section on the product itself must be mentioned. Mention the ingredients, colour, packaging (glass, plastic, aluminium etc) and other details on the product.
7. Next the company itself. Who heads pepsi? Also mention sales, profits, penetration etc. (accompany sales with graphs .svg/.png), country-wise distribution etc.
8. Follow this by criticisms, remove the subheadings
9. Follow with =Rivalry=
10. Pepsi in culture: something on how pepsi is now a part and parcel of Generation-Y, ubiquity etc.
11. Spokespersons should be renamed and expanded. Include all major countries
12. Types of pepsi needs to be put into a neat table and separated from the ==see also==

That's all for now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Charles Manson

Archived review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Manson/archive1

This article was recently put up for a WP:GAC nom, which caused a flurry of editing activity and discussion on the talk page, and the GA was not successful. This Peer Review is to gauge where to go from here to best improve the article's quality, and elicit discussion both from uninvolved editors and those that wish to invest time in improving the article's quality. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

BBC News

The last review of this article carried out in November 2005 found a number of improvements could be made and these are listed below. I was hoping that now time has passed and plenty of work at improving this article by many has been undertaken, there could be a fresh critique and new ideas can be put into the mix. As a result, I hope to put the article up as a candidate for the Featured Article section of the Main Page at a later date. Previous messages and recommendations are below. Thank you to all participants. Wikiwoohoo 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous review from November 2005

Having just posted this as a candidate to be a Featured Article, it would be good to know what others feel is needed here. The first objection stated some aspects that were missing, I was hoping even more could be spotted so the article could be made to an even higher standard. Wikiwoohoo 18:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Brief review:

1. The lead should be increased in size and summarise the entire article.
2. history could be lengthened
3. =Output= -- rephrase that and convert to prose.
4. Reduce subsections
5. The page has a high % of lists. Featured articles cannot have listy material
6. Newsreaders not req
7. What about the finances of BBC?
8. References needed. Without that it cannot be featured.
9. Mention how BBC news is viewed around the world. Is it considered credible. Also include ratings etc.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• The past 15 years overwhelm the article. You have less then one and half paragraphs on seventy years of history and four subsections on just fifteen years. Opinions on BBC News is even worse in this regard, basically it only goes into the past several years and has entire subsections on single events. There is an entire section on the reporting of the Iraq war and nothing about World War II. Information about recent events might be slightly larger than other time periods because there is more information available, but the history of BBC News, including its politics, need to be treated equally. I noticed you only use online sources, you should go to a library and take out a book for more information. Refereces also need to be properly formatted. Medvedenko 23:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Medvedenko is right. The history is entirely post-1990, ignores radio, and seems to be based on what the other media say. I think the article lacks perspective. It could do with a few more comparisons. And it needs a lot of expansion on early history.

• "..faces competition from Sky News and ITN, although the ITN News Channel (also known as the ITV News Channel) has now ceased broadcasting in the UK." .. reads strangely. Does ITN broadcast outside the UK?
• Loads about the use (or lack) of the term "terrorist" in this century. Compare it with previous BBC practice: has it changed? I can't remember what it called the IRA, for example (my memory is that there was a trend to call them criminals, but whether that was the government, the media, individuals, or even official policy, I can't remember).
• About three sentences about radio, in total, in the entire article? There is tons to expand on there.
• What is the relationship between BBC News and the World Service? (Which of the two was responsible for dropping the Arabic language service (a gap subsequently filled by Al Jazeera? If it was the news people, this is probably worth including.)
• What is the relationship between BBC News and BBC Monitoring?
• Headings and subheadings do not need to be in titlecase. Lowercase anything which isn't actually a proper noun.
• I believe the formal dress of early TV newsreaders was said to be because they were guests in your house and thus should dress smartly. Is it possible to find a source for that and include it?
• If BBC News (rather than the children's department) was responsible for John Craven's Newsround, you definitely have to include that: Newsround covered quite amazing topics for its time.

JCNR was commissioned by Childrens but the facilities provided by TV News Zir 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Who runs it? How is it organised?

Telsa (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the history needs expanding - particularly "early years" - no mention of TV News at AP in the 1960s for instance - the birthplace of BBC TV News and where the first colour news programmes came from in 1968 (?) - no reference to this in Alexandra Palace either. Zir 12:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This Charming Man

Me and user:Hn created this article recently. I feel that its pretty complete and I would like to nominate it for featured article status in the near future. I would apreciate any comments on things that would hold it back. Content, style of writing, minor changes that need to be made, overall problems, etc. Anything. Live Forever 06:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Too much linking of common words (e.g. "telephone"). Also too much linking of years, discouraged by the Manual of Style. Bullet spacing on "chart positions." First sentence, "The Smiths" should have both words capitalized. Very nice overall though, certainly very detailed for a song article. Turnstep 22:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made the suggested adjustments. If you want to have another look over and see if I've missed any/suggest more, that would be great. :) --Hn 23:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Great song choice. First, in the interpretation there is a lot of unsourced opinion over the mwaning of the lyrics, which to me is a bit weasley, who's opinions/interpretations are they? In the covers paragraph have you mentioned al the coveres of the song, and has anyone released a cover of the song as a single?--nixie 01:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's how I wrote those two sections. For the interpretation, its all debatable of course but, I tried to base it on the most popular views. One big source was the website http://www.oz.net/~moz/lyrics/thesmith/thischar.htm, which is listed under the references section. Another was the site www.songmeanings.net. I believe its down right now, but it allows its users to comment on the meaning of various songs. I looked over what people said and incorporated that into the article alongside information taken from the previous source. Regarding the covers, I got those by searching "This Charming Man" in iTunes. Google searches didn't find any other notable versions (only an odd band that performed it live). A search on allmusic.com found no new artists (save for some completely obscure indie band on which they had no further information than a track-list of their first album). Live Forever 03:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

War on Terra

It'd be great if we could make this an article of substance and feature it on the main page. Hopefully this doesn't spark a VfD battle, because it's as legitimate an article as the notoriously (re)nominated GNAA. Mourn 16:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some legitimate sources would be nice. Uncyclopedia isn't a very good source, especially being the only one. Where are the political cartoons in which the phrase is used? Has it been used anywhere else? rspeer 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, maybe I shouldn't have put it on peer review yet, I just created the article today. I mainly wanted to get attention for it so other people would help me. I'm not sure about the cartoons, but I heard it mentioned somewhere (I believe a British paper had one of them). However, I've added a link to Jon Stewart's report on the "War on Terra".

Hubbert peak theory

I'm not that involved with this article but it is getting looked at. I just archived a 164 kb talk page lasting only four months! So, I thought I'd help give the poeple scouring over this some outside help. if need be, I'll implement it--I need to find a new project. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty good-looking article, but there are a few issues. The Cultural Awareness section includes a couple of neologisms. I'm wondering how widespread those are, since I've never heard of them before. Are they just specific to the energy business? The article seems too US-centric, particularly the somewhat speculative paragraph on economic implications. It needs to cover impacts to other parts of the world, such as China and Europe. The section titled "implications of a world peak" is getting a bit non-neutral and emotive in places, and needs to be backed up with sourced facts and data. I also don't care too much for the expression "individual organisms", rather than "individual people". Bacteria are individual organisms and I doubt they care too much about our energy issues. :) Thanks. — RJH 16:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Discovery Bay

Although this article has references and lead paragraph is long enough, there is a distance for this article to be featured. What should I do? 202.40.210.244 01:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a major contributor to the page and would like the page to be peer reviewed too - anyone who is able to contribute, please do so. --Mintchocicecream 19:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I have made some contributions. Hope it's okay FringoGG (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Raidou (DOA)

Yet another article I had created during my massive overhall in improving the articles on the DOA characters, this was one I had made from scratch, with (surprisingly) little revision by other editors. I would like this article to be reviewed, but more specifically, I would like the personality section I made commented on, as well as the peronality sections I made for the other characters in DOA in thier respective articles. Thanks (again) for your time.-MegamanZero 18:27 29, November 2005 (UTC)

• I retract some of my statement above. Upon loking at the history, I see no other editors have edited the article at all!-MegamanZero 18:35 29, November 2005 (UTC)
• Here are my comments:

1. What references did you use to write this article? (list any newspapers, websites, articles, books that were used)
2. The Statistics section should not list the N/A ones, and that information should be moved into an infobox with the picture.
3. The image is awfully bit-mapped, can you find a better quality one?
4. The Dead or Alive section is sort of short.
5. The lead doesn't tell the reader much about the character. The lead paragraph should summarize the entire article.

— Wackymacs 18:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ronaldo

This article is not good enough, I think so. What should I do? 202.40.210.178 02:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• My comments:

1. There are no references (list books, newspapers, articles, websites, etc used to write this article)
2. The lead is short, the lead of the article should be ideally two paragraphs and summarize the entire article.
3. There is not enough context, quite a considerable amount of the article is lists. Specifically, which school did he go to? Has he done much recently? (2003,2004,2005), info about his personal life doesn't seem to be mentioned (his marital status, where he lives now, etc)
4. Some of the sentences do not have a very good flow, it could do with a copy-edit to improve the reading experience.
5. Early life and International sections are very short.
6. The image Image:Ronny.jpg has no source, description or license.
7. The image Image:Ronaldo.jpg has no source, description or license.

You might want to read Wikipedia:How to write a great article and Wikipedia:The perfect article for suggestions on how you can make this article better. — Wackymacs 20:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department

This article has been through the Article Improvement Drive effort and earned a week of improvement where it was enhanced quite significantly. It still needs improvement, and I would certainly like to see it through to become a featured article soon. — Wackymacs 22:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• It looks good, but I have a few possible suggestions. The bullets can be readily eliminated from the Department layout section, as the text works just fine as paragraphs. The page could use a history section about where and how emergency departments began, perhaps the influence of wars on their development (if any), and how widespread they have become. Also something on media shows that have been based on these departments. Do you have any information about how widespread this organizational structure is world-wide? Any differences in procedures from country to country? Thanks. — RJH 23:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Bjørnøya

Resubmission. First peer review request, failed FAC, to-do list at Talk:Bjørnøya. The points from FAC have mostly been adressed, but the article should get some copyediting before it can be resubmitted to FAC. Thanks. Kosebamse 08:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! :-) Very nice article. I don't think it needs copyediting; at least I didn't stumble upon anything; it reads smoothly. Some people will probably mention a lack of inline references; maybe you could add a few, especially in the "environmental problems" section (the Bellona criticism seems to link with the "Buch Cato" reference (is that the author's name?), and the last sentence to the Gwynn et. al. reference). The "Geography" section could be renamed to "Geography and climate" since half of it is about the climate... Other than that, my only gripe is that there are too many images! I would suggest creating a page commons:Bjørnøya containing a gallery of all the images (including those that are not shown in the article), put a {{Commons}} template in the external links section, and use less images from "Geography" onwards. Really a pity that no:Bilde:Bjornoya2.jpg appears to have a "non-commercial only" license... (well, I don't really understand Norwegian, but that's what I gather from that text). If we could get a GFDL release of that or an equivalent map, it would make an ideal head image for that "Geography" section. I just noticed that you had linked a map in "External links". That map seems to be from here. They state there that "the maps may be used as a source of information, or they can be re-used in publications, web pages or presentations." I suggest you contact Stein Tronstad and try to clarify whether we may use this map under a free license (GFDL, Copyrighted free use, PD, or some such). I think we might have a fair chance that they indeed agree to this, maybe even for other of their maps. Lupo 10:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgot two minor points on Image:Bjornoya map.png: can you remove the black border (it somehow reminds me of an obituary notice), and how about coloring the island in red? At thumbnail size, the island is all but invisible to me. Although the text is still readable, I had to actually visit the image description page to see where the island was. Lupo 11:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

• Inline references: I would prefer not to. I am a little annoyed about that obsession with inline references that dominates FAC nowadays. That type of references is a scientific practice which I don't enjoy seeing here, because it suggests a credibility that many of our sources simply don't have. But if that request comes up on FAC, well then I'll stick them in to please the critics.
• Images: have removed a number of them. Would move them all to commons if I knew how to do it. (Anybody?)
• Section header: thanks for the suggestion, have renamed it
• Map: will try to contact them and get a permission
• Location map: that's already the third version now. Problem is, it's a small island with lots of water around it, so necessarily the island will be a little difficult ot locate.

Thanks again, Kosebamse 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Issues that may come up in the FAC may include:
  • Images: try to alternate between left and right justified images, IE (medium text size, 1024x768 screen resolution) leaves a big white space after the "History" heading because there are two images in a row.
  • One-sentence paragraph: "The polar night..." sentence just sounds like a piece of trivia thrown into some otherwise well-written prose. Try finding a place for it in an existing paragraph or maybe expand (ie. timezone, etc.). Other possible topics for this section can include type of rock, location & composition of mines/minerals.
  • One-paragraph sections: "Flora and fauna" can be expanded to two paragraphs (one for animals, one vegetation), bring back a image of the flowers (the article could use something other than a drab, gray image of rocks), consider merging "Environmental problems" and "Flora and fauna" and re-naming "Ecology and environment" (without sub-headings).
  • Trivia: "Miscellaneous" may need to be integrated in the article to qualify for "brilliant prose".
  • In-line citations: as mentioned above. Especially for "Bellona has criticised the Norwegian government for...". --maclean25 19:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Short-beaked Echidna

I'd like to get some feedback on the readability of this article. I'm planning to add a diargam of the muscles that control the tounge, is there anything else that could be expanded on or clarified?--nixie 09:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• The readability looks good. I fixed several typos and spelling errors and converted some words from British English to American English. 'Cultural references' section is only one sentence, have you considered merging this with another section or expanding this? Are there no external links that would be appropriate to add? That's all I can think of at the moment, it would be nice to see this featured.— Wackymacs 09:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure there are more cultural references, but I just can't think of them now. I'll have a look for some more ex links, but I have used most of the good ones as references.--nixie 09:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Knuckles the Echidna? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Knuckles is mentioned on the echidna page, since I can't be sure if it was based on this particular species I wasn't sure how to include it.--nixie 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Right you are. I was, um, just testing you, yeah.... that's the ticket. ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have made a few fixes for readability, consistency and redirects. There's very little to do with the article; it is fantastic as is. I would like to see cultural references expanded if at all possible, and maybe the second paragraph of the introduction. Also, you might like to break up the third paragraph of "Physical description". Thanks for making this another brilliant and feature-standard article on an Australian critter. --cj | talk 12:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've added all the cultural things that I could think of, the section is a decent length now. If you can think of anything else please add it.--nixie 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nope. I think this article can procede to FAC straight away. Great work.--cj | talk 04:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's pretty informative, although it should also have American measurements as well. I have converted the measurements that I know for sure. Does it have any links to the long-necked echidna (Zaglossus bartoni)? Also, expand the cultural references. Going great, guys. I can't wait when Wikipedians come to the Australian fauna featured article. They might help expand the echidna article.

Bibliomaniac15 01:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your taxonomy is slightly off, I'd added some more information on the three Zaglossus species to the taxonomy section.--nixie 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I put in a 5c piece picture, and cropped the rock art one to show the symbol clearer (hope I got the right one) Astrokey44 23:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the pic, and you did choose the right animal in the rock art- other groups have art that looks more obviously echidna like- but we (Wikipedia) don't have images of them.--nixie 23:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Guilty Gear

I started this article a year and a half ago, and I'm quite impressed by how much it's grown and improved. However, I would like to see an outsider's impression of the article and their suggestions. --Paul Soth 08:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• My immediate impression was that it reminded me of the proposal to add Wikipedia is not a video game strategy guide to the What Wikipedia is not policy. It's not made it to the official policy yet, but the Game mechanics section seems instructive and overly long. Perhaps a summary of the mechanics and then a wikibooks entry for the specifics instead. --Easter Monkey 16:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• The article is mainly lists, lists...and more lists. Honestly, try summarizing them and turning them into prose. Many of the lists are omittable (particularly the game mechanics) and unneeded in an encyclopedia article. An article should give an overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it, what buttons to press etc. Also, no references! LordViD 17:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• The references is my favourite part of the article! It's the kind of thing Wikipedia makes interesting. I agree that the article does go into a lot of depth about individual methods. Originally a lot of it was so detailed that it looked to be copied right out of GameFAQs - far too much game-strategy detail, so I made it more concise. I have made it as informative as possible without being too verbose, but I'm not precisely sure how much of a place individual games have at Wikipedia so I don't know if as it stands is too much or too little. --Jonathan Drain 17:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[1]

• The game mechanics is far too detailed for an encyclopedia article. My suggestion is to keep the article down to the key fatures of the game, what distinguishes it from others, what influence it has had on game design and other notable facts. Could you perhaps start a Wikibook for the additional material? Oberiko 20:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy

Review is requested from two sorts of individuals. First, those with expertise in psychodynamic psychotherapies, to make sure I have fairly and accurately used technical terminology. Second, those with a general interest in high quality rhetoric and prose, to make sure I have written well and am neither too prolix, nor too jargon-laden.

I thank all those who take an interest in these matters, and all comments will be carefully considered.

--Robert Tarzwell 03:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice article. Clear description of technique and purposes.

• Get rid of red links. I fixed some links, and there might be a few more that could be improved. Look for red links and either try other variants (like I did for a couple of your red links) or write a brief definitional stub.
• If you are going to link names that you think deserve an article, link full names even if you just want the last names in the text.
• Make the relationship of isdp and cog-behav therapy clearer. Is this a type of cog-beh or are they alternative systems? If cog-beh is the current standard, what are the principal differences? alteripse 12:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I have replied in more detail on your talk page. All your suggested edits have been incorporated, and I believe they were right on the money. --Robert Tarzwell 18:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Fabio Lione

A long time ago I rewrote this article and got it this far, now I thought I might as well take it further and put it onto peer review, and eventually enter it as a FAC. What can be done now? I am thinking about an extension to the lead paragraph, and an addition of References, what else? — Wackymacs 12:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The general impression I have is that somebody with good English editing skills needs to go over this page with a fine-toothed comb and polish it up. Some of the sentences need a comma before a "which". A other few examples:

• While he was studying at technical high school in Pisa. Fabio realized...
• Fabio met the band Labyrinth, at the time the band was called "Vision", but Fabio later changed the name to "Labyrinth".
• Rhapsody released "Power of the dragonflame" in March and amazingly raised up the ranks on music charts in various countries.

A couple of the sentences also need to be a little more neutral in tone. Thanks. — RJH 16:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ceann Comhairle

I rather like this article, even though I have thus far played no part in editing it. I'd like some comments from those with a non-Irish perspective and a general peer reviw. Cheers. Fergananim 02:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This article has a really good start. Overall, I would suggest the article be expanded along the lines of the article on the Speaker of the British House of Commons, though certainly it may not be as long as the position does not have as much history as the British speaker.

• • The duties of the Ceann Comhairle should be laid out in prose form.
  • How have the duties evolved throughout the 20th century.
  • Why is there a gap between the end of Joseph Brennan's time in office and the election of Pàdraig Faulkner's election?
  • The only mention of the Leas-Cheann Comhaile comes in the section with that title. What is this post?
  • The article could do with a few images.

I hope these help. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Mitochondrial Creatures

I have constructed this article myself, and despite having (clearly) fictional basis, I would like to hear critsism about the look, "feel", set-up, and its overall construction. Surprisingly, no one else has edited the page after I created it, and I thought that maybe that meant nothing was "wrong with it". Finally, I'd like to know what the community thinks of this article as well as my projects as a whole so far. Thanks! -MegamanZero 18:13 29,November 2005 (UTC)

• Here are my comments:

1. List the references you used to write this article (websites, articles, newspapers, etc etc)
2. The lead paragraph should summarize the article, one sentence is too short.
3. Image captions aren't great, could be improved.
4. Images also need moving so they start at the top, and don't create a load of empty space at the end of the article as they do now.
5. More context would be good, the article is a bit short.

Good effort so far. — Wackymacs 18:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• In ordeer:

1. No problem. I'll handle that right away.
2. Okay, any suggestions how I should format it..?
3. Could you explain why they aren't that great..? I'll be glad to change them.
4. Done.
5. I need someone more versed in the Parasite Eve games -could you help me find someone..? Even though, however, there's not much to tell...they're simple video game enemies. =)

Thank you for the suggestions. -MegamanZero 23:41 1,Decemer 2005 (UTC)

Resubmitted request as of March 29 :

Much has happened since the previous peer review. I've become a different, more experienced editor, I've cited resources, done various clean-up, and more information has been inserted for inclusion. A final opinion before I inquire featured article status would be lovely. And, please, don't just make suggestions, feel free to edit if you see a qualm that needs adressing. This is a wiki after all. -Zero^Talk 15:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Saffron

I've been working on upgrading this article to match (within reason) the format of such (featured) articles as Black pepper and Butter. I was wondering what other holes here need to be filled in. Thanks. Saravask 06:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm working now to fill out the history section more. Saravask 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Appears well researched, but the writing just doesn't feel as well organized as the other two you mention. Specifically one and two sentence paragraphs should be eliminated. They show areas that should either be expanded, merged with related material, or simply removed. Same for the lead, it should either be two or three full paragraphs. Could always use more sources, especially backing the herbal medicine uses in order to be able to state those claims without weasel words (including the one I felt was needed in the meantime). Finally are there any more useful external links you could add? Maybe Epicurious' coverage of the spice and its uses, or maybe just a few of the best links left from a google search. I wouldn't make the history much longer. More than two full paragraphs is probably overemphasis. - Taxman ^Talk 19:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go add some links (I'll put them in as Harvard references, unless people prefer a discrete "external links" section). I agree that there are too many small paragraph sentences — I've been tied up with other things recently, but now I can address these hopefully within the next day. More later ... Saravask 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a few more links (including an Epicurious recipe link). I'll try and find further sources for the herbal section. Saravask 04:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• What a nice article. My only comment is that the history section seems a bit skimpy and eurocentric, skipping from 1500BC to AD1000, then 15th-18th century. Romans? Mediaeval period? 19th century? And outside Europe - China? India? Egypt, even? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll try to address the eurocentrism and skimpy treatment in that section within the next day. I'm writing that content offline currently. Please check back then. Thanks! Saravask 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I added a portion on the Kashmiri history. More to come soon ... Saravask 04:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It sure is a lot better than it was a few days ago. Check out McGee's On Food and Cooking for a source; it's concise and usually pretty accurate. Google Books Link. Some more specific points:
  • Well, I see that you're working on the history. Statements like "Written records show that saffron has been used medicinally in the treatment of 90 illnesses for over four millennia" should be much more specific about what these written records are, so that we can evaluate how reliable their dating and translations may be.

Unfortunately, I didn't write that sentence. I'll try and verify it with the sources we have now. Thanks. Saravask 04:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I didn't know what a "style" of a flower was, and now that I think about it, even the term "stigma" isn't exactly an everyday word. The lead sentence should be more accessible. It's probably also worth mentioning that the style is (according to McGee) only included in lower-grade saffrons.

I just defined style, corm, and stigma. Thanks. Saravask 16:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I became curious while reading the article about the different grades of culinary saffron in general - I guess there's a couple of grades of strands, and does anyone sell just the powder itself?

There are four recognized ISO categories: I, II, III, and IV. I just put in a new section on that matter. Thanks for reminding me. Saravask 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • "pleasant and spicy" fragrance - pleasant according to whom? Then in "usage", the aroma is "best described as reminiscent of honey and somewhat bitter". "Best" described?

I think I fixed it, although some problems may remain (it might be borderline weasel). Saravask 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The etymology of "crocus" doesn't belong in this article. Speaking of which, a link to the crocus article should be worked into the lead.

Done. Saravask 04:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The short three-element list in "Biology and Chemistry" might as well be prose.

Done. Saravask 04:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • "Zeaxanthin, is — in a minor sense — responsible for the reddish hue and contributes partly to saffron's aroma." I'm unsure what "in a minor sense" here means. Partly responsible?
  • I'd like to see some more specific information on prices, since a major claim to fame here is how it costs so much.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's already been mentioned, but the history section could do with being longer and fuller. It reads like a collection of facts. Information about historical trade, where it was used and by which sections of society - how exclusive was it? And so on.
• I'd be interested to see more information about the plant (what it looks like, size, how it reproduces, more on its harvesting - the scale of the operation etc) rather than just the spice (or is this in another article?)

Done. It's from an old source (1931), though. :-( Saravask 17:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not keen on your footnoting system. It looks like we have an article on "Saffron Specialist 2004" and so on.

I've already started converting it back to ref/note. Thanks. Saravask 04:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what "In modern times, saffron has been suggested by the United Kingdom as an ideal alternative — due to its high price and suitability to the mostly semiarid Afghan climate — to the now widespread and illicit cultivation of opium" means. Is "In modern times, saffron has been suggested by the United Kingdom as an ideal alternative to the now widespread and illicit cultivation of opium in Afghanistan due to its high price and suitability to the mostly semiarid climate."?

But it's a good article. Just needs a bit more. --Cherry blossom tree 22:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, this is Saravask speaking. I'll try and address all concerns by tomorrow evening (On my honor ...). I look forward to your guys' reactions then, and am reading your comments carefully now. I appreciate this — this article has never had such an outpouring of attention. Until then ... Saravask 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more issue with the lead: most sources[2] define "saffron" as the spice or stigmas, not as the plant itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know how to fix this problem. Do you have any recommendations? Saravask 01:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I took a shot at it and redid the lead sentences. I think calling the spice "saffron" and the flower the "safron crocus" is the way to go. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain, but I find the use of Harvard referencing really inapproprite for encyclopedia writing, they break up the flow of the text. Why are you using it in place of the less intrusive footnoting system?--nixie 04:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I just started converting it to footnote format now. I started using it in articles after I got a suggestion in a recent FAC that Harvard refs aid users' ability to determine source credibility inline, while reading the text. Saravask 04:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I got the first one converted to ref/note, at least. :-( Saravask 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Small scale cultivation also occurs in Tasmania [3][4].--nixie 03:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put it in now. Saravask 19:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Poor Saravask. Caught in the middle of an arbitrary and silly war between the styles of references. What is this, the fifth time you've been asked to switch from one style of referencing to the other, back and forth? Pretty obnoxious (especially since you're so fantastic at using numerous in-depth references, so there's a lot to change), though their complaints are understandable, as neither system is ideal... This is one reason why popular culture junk is so popular (no pun intended) on Wikipedia: there's so few distinct references on most of it, that people can have a field day with Original Research. Our Harry Potter coverage wouldn't be so much larger than our coverage of Greek culture or human anatomy if we required just as much referencing and in-depth academic coverage. :f Oh well, keep up the good work! -Silence 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh, not a big deal. And right now we are using both types anyway, since each has its own proper use. Saravask 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the sourcing worries me right now. Maybe many of the references are good, but the one I just checked has me concerned. Specifically, the reference for "there, saffron was used by the ancient Persian religion as a ritual offering to deities; this practice is continued by many Zoroastrians to this day" is this page, which has as its entire entry on "Zoroastrian": "Ancient Iranian religion, which is still practiced by some today. Saffron was ritually used to honour the Gods." I have three problems with this source. (1) The material in the article is longer than the material in the source. (2) The material in the article includes a new fact, that the practice of saffron offering continues today, and (3) this source is clearly a secondary source, but I couldn't find pointers to what primary or secondary sources it got its data from, so I'm suspicious of how reliable a source it is.

Sorry if this seems too-fussy; I've just found it's really common for web-pages to throw around incautiously-researched "facts" on foods and spices, so I like to see more solid sourcing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I'll go to the library and pick up some books tomorrow, so I can check out that info. I was about to mention this, since many data in the more "lightweight" internet sources contradict what I found in Google Print sources (for example, a print source states a 50 ton world production, while an internet source states 300 tons) — in addition to many spelling differences (i.e., "crocine" vs. "crocin"). Indeed, wasn't it one of my professors who referred to the Internet as an "open sewer" of unverified facts? Thanks. Saravask 21:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I've done much research and copyediting for organization and flow. If I somehow overlooked something, please let me know. Saravask 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian Campaign

Hello.

I have been working on the Norwegian Campaign, the first real military confrontation between Nazi Germany and the Western Allies, and one of the most overlooked campaigns in the war. I would really appreciate feedback to help me polish it up to what I believe could be a FAC. Oberiko 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's a very good article, but I have a major issue with the fact that there is a considerable redundancy with the Operation Weserübung page. I'd like to see a lot of material from the later page merged onto Norwegian Campaign page, and just having the operation page focus on the politics and planning, rather than the actual campaign. The other issue I have is with the "Important People" section. If they are important then they should be worked into the text, rather than being a brief list at the end of the page. Thanks! :) — RJH 15:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

This article has gone through several edit wars and POV and factual accuracy disputes, two requests for comment, grew to almost 70kb in size, and was the subject of an article improvement drive last month. Several editors (including myself, User:Journalist, User:FuriousFreddy and others) have been trimming down and tidying the article, building up references (though some currently remain unformatted), and removing excess "fair use" images. We even managed to find a good public domain photo of Carey on the set of one of her music videos on the Wikimedia Commons. What would be extremely helpful and much appreciated, however, is the opinions of people here on what they think of the article in the state it is in now, and what they think could be done to improve it. Thank you in advance. Extraordinary Machine 22:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a great article. I think it is practically perfect. Of course some people will continue to point picky flaws in it, but that is true of almost every article on Wikipedia. Featured articles are still open to editing, so there is no reason to wait until everyone approves every detail of this one (which isn't going to happen). I think it should be nominated already. I did make a comment on the talk page today about this statement: "The strain on the family led to the divorce of Carey's parents when she was three years old." I think it needs a source. Otherwise, it sounds like somebody speculating. Did Carey say it? Did one of her parents say it? Or is it a guess by a biographer or claim by an "inside source"?Logophile 07:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The statement was confirmed in a CNN People in the News segment that aired last April, which I have included in the references section. You can read a transcript of it here. The specific quote is: "Her parents struggled tremendously with prejudice. They would move into a neighborhood and discover that their dogs were poisoned. That created a lot of tension between the parents so that they split by the time Mariah was three years old." Extraordinary Machine 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Logophile. It looks pretty solid, and it'll probably be a work in progress for as long as Mariah continues her career. — RJH 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, for the record, Image:Mariah Carey3 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg was present at the top of the article when I created this peer review request, but an anon IP replaced it with an album cover. I've since restored the public domain photo, though. Extraordinary Machine 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is pretty sound. Two queries from the lead Noted for her distinctive singing style, Carey makes use of a five-octave vocal range and frequent use of melismas and other ornamentation. - there seems to be something missing in the sentence.

During the 1990s, she released numerous number-one hits on Columbia Records, run by then-husband Tommy Mottola, several of which broke chart records. - since this refers only to her time at Columbia, why not quote the actual numbers?

There is condiserable overlap between the Mariah Carey template and the list of see alsos, get rid of anything in the see alsos that is duplicated by the template.--nixie 13:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked the sentence in the lead about her voice, and mentioned the number of U.S. number-one singles she released under Columbia. I also removed {{Mariah Carey}} from the "See also" section of the article...you're right, it was superfluous when the links were already present in the text (and also the links in the template were less visible). Extraordinary Machine 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems odd to have voice as the last section in the article- since it's what she's famous for. Otherwise, after the notes are finished, it should be good to go. It's probably a good idea to ask someone that hasn't worked on the article to proof read it user:Wayward is a good copyeditor that comes to mind.--nixie 13:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner! I took this page off my watchlist by mistake after my last comment. Sorry! Anyway, I moved the "Voice" section up between "Acting career" and "Other activities", as I think you were right in saying that it was odd to have that last. I'll try and finish formatting the references soon, and I'll drop a request on User:Wayward's talk page asking if he/she could give it a look. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 23:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman

Seems like a good, solid article. Pretty informative. My only complaint would be that there's only two pictures. Easily fixable though.--Kross | Talk 20:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a well-written and well-organized article. Some more pictures would make it nicer--his home(s), battle sites or battle scenes, for example. I think that the list of works by Sherman should be in a separate section, as they are in most biographical articles. If a reader is specifically looking for works by Sherman, it would help if they were in an entitled section. Logophile 07:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Refreshing to see someone properly reference quotes to page numbers in a book. However, there are still several quotes that have no reference information. This particularly stands out in that "Reaction to secession" section. The third paragraph in "Vicksburg and Chattanooga" should be placed with the second paragraph. Reference the term "Negro equality" or use a more appropriate wording. Is "Posterity" supposed to be a sentence, paragraph, or section? Pick one, not all. The "(now the Hocking)" was not clear, I had to read the other article to figure out what that statement was referring to. --maclean25 08:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• The presentation and narrative style of the writing is superb. An article this length should have more citations, external links, and biographical references. Images need attention. The three in current use are essentially the same: formal poses in military uniform. If possible, replace two of them with a battlefield and the march to the sea. Standardize the image size and add informative captions. Durova 10:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dixie (song)

I've been working on this article off an on, mainly as a sideline from my work at minstrel show and related subjects. It eventually took on a life of its own, and I think it's now pretty well fleshed out. However, I have a few concerns:

• First and foremost, what needs to be improved to make this a Featured Article?
• Does the "'Dixie' opposed" section read as too anti-"Dixie"? Or are the arguments that "It's heritage, get over it" and that most people are blissfully ignorant about the perceived problems enough for the pro-"Dixie" side?
• Are the sound clips placed in their best locations? Would a soundclip from Elvis Presley's "An American Trilogy" add to the article and be legitimate fair use?
• Can someone who knows a lot of music and music terminology take a look at the talk page and read the comments there? Should any of that gobbeldygook from Hans Nathan's book be included in the article?
• Any other suggestions?

One note on size: The article is over the size limit, but this is due mainly to footnotes, images, and sound samples. Without these, it is 32 KB. Thanks! --BrianSmithson 14:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• My comments:

1. Shouldn't there be a song infobox included at the top?

You mean with information like chart position and B-side? :P :) I'm No Parking and I approved this message

1. There are quite a considerable amount of red links throughout this article.
2. The footnotes confuse me, they are very simple in their description (such as 'Nathan 362-3.')

Good work overall. — Wackymacs 21:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I've brought the infobox issue up at the Songs WikiProject; the current infobox there is only usable for modern music, since it gives information like "Recorded" and "Length" and "Label" that just doesn't apply to traditional music (or classical, for that matter).
2. I figured I'd work at the red links while the peer review went on.
3. The footnotes refer to the references. So "Nathan 362-3" means the information came from pp. 362-3 of the book by Hans Nathan.

Thanks for the comments! --BrianSmithson 23:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sokol space suit

Self nominating this for peer review after a (probably deserved) rejection for feature status. I believe it's 98% of the way there, though.

Still, I think it's well researched and the pictures are GPL or from NASA (copyright free). It's only going to fall down on some points of grammar I may have missed.

All comments welcome.

Catsmeat 13:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks quite good, at least to me. The only thing I can think to add would be to link up some of the units to descriptive pages. (E.g. psi, atmospheres and ectopascals.) You could also mention museums where the suit is on display, if any. — RJH 16:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Two major concerns and some minor comment/questions
  • References. They are satisfactory, but not great. Ideally the article should use footnotes, don't be afraid to tell the reader where you got what information from. That's right, the reader does't want to go through four books to read more about that aspect or verify something. The "Wired Magazine" should be in the "references", not the "external link" (actually it should be a footnote to the reference section). External links are just recommended readings, not references.
  • Pacing. The article starts out wonderfully. Then it hits the "Sokol Variants" and falls apart. The article goes from nicely written, prose descriptions to short, choppy sections. First, the "Sokol Variants" section doesn't have any text - there is an opportunity there to describe the common themes of the suits before going into detail about the specific variants. And I don't even think this section needs sub-sections. The "Other Users" section is very short and could easily be merged with the "Chinese Use" section. The "Collectors' Market" could even be merged with those Other Uses section.
  • Consider switching the "Chinese space suit" image with the "Expedition 7" image. The "Expedition 7" seems more appropriate for the "Operational Use" section and the "Chinese space suit" for the the "Description" section. Questions: "The Sokol is officially described..." who says it is official? the designers? the saftey board? the government? Is the "As of the end of 2002..." a sentence or a paragraph?
  • Consider this layout: User:Maclean25/sandbox. Though there still are some very short paragraphs that could use expanding, for example, there must be more to say about the British experience with them. --maclean25 07:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Parti Québécois leadership election, 2005

I have made this article grow for weeks and months now under my care. The election is over, and the result is important and historic. A new leader of talent, André Boisclair, has been chosen for a left-wing, social democratic party in North America and an independence party in the world at a time when support of Quebec independence gathers a majority and projections see the party in question almost double the voting intentions of the closest contender, an unpopular party in power.

This leader is the first openly gay leader of a major political party in North America and one of the first in the world. I shall complete the debate sum-ups shortly. Other than that, how can this article be polished to a feature-worthy level? I am excited to ask the help of fellow wikipedians and await your constructive comments. --Liberlogos 05:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Here are some notes to consider. Introduction: What does "It was the second race of its kind" mean? that sentence could be made clearer. If you want to let us in on how other leader were chosen it should probably go into the background section. Please elaborate from "It was conducted in two rounds, under a preferential voting system" to tell us what a candidate needed to be elected, a simple 50% majority in either round? The section entitled "Unfolding" should be removed (it has no text). In "Campaign" what polls are mentioned? can a reference be provided? Where it says "Also criticized was..." who did that critizing? a newspaper? a person? The section "Vote" is small, either expand or merge it with another section. "Health", "Education", "Territory", "Sovereignty and leadership", and "Culture" are all too small to be sections. They should be expanded or merged together. That results table is probably the most important piece of info in the article. It should be placed at the top, not hidden at the bottom. And of course, the article needs a reference section per Wikipedia:Cite sources. Check Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968 for an excellent article on a similar subject. --maclean25 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Waterfall model

I've just done a lot of work on this topic; I'd really like to make sure that it's all factually accurate. In addition, there has been some argument that the article is PoV (unfairly biased against the waterfall model), so I've tried to include the arguments of those few who argue for the waterfall model. GeorgeBills 14:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's a well-developed, pretty solid page that seems to cover the topic nicely; I couldn't find any significant issues. If you take it for FA status, you may be criticized for the bulleted list approach of the Criticism section; those folks seem to prefer normal prose to bullets. — RJH 00:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Redshift

After some rumblings from the non-standard cosmology crowd, I think we've finally begun the process to conform this article to Featured Article status. I've incorporated most of the information from the Italian featured article and think the page is fairly exhaustive. I'd love some feedback on how to make it more readable, more informative, etc. Let me know what you think.

--ScienceApologist 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, for a start, the stub section on redshift surveys will need some work. The "main article" redshift survey is not much better, a single paragraph, and arguably could be copied wholesale here. The "neutrality" message is also a bit troublesome. It is not very good style to have maths equations in the lead section if it can be avoided. And some of the "see also" links (e.g. Fingers of God) could be explained in the text here. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fingers of God are explained in the text above. The neutrality message will be removed as soon as there is consensus on the talkpage, which I'm hoping is very soon. The modifications we're talking about now are slight. --ScienceApologist 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The page is not "exhaustive", it is exclusive, assuming that Doppler, Cosmological and gravitational redshift are the only kind of redshift. I have provided over 500 peer-reviewed references to articles that use the term redshift in a slightly different manner to that defined. Since the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View page requires articles to be "representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias", the page as it stands does not meet basic Wikipedia standards. --Iantresman 11:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that many of the references are to articles which simply named effects and the word redshift. Those are not viable references as a significant portion of them could be coincidences. (Just because "Compton effect" and "redshift" appear in the same article doesn't mean the article is describing a redshift due to the Compton effect). --ScienceApologist 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that a statement to the effect that Doppler, Cosmological, and gravitation effects are the three known causes of red shift would address this concern. It is always possible that there are other physical effects that science has not yet discovered. — RJH 16:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see the section on "Movement of the source" be a little clearer on how it gets from the mathematical definitions (which are based on the wavelength λ) to the asymptotic expansion (which are based on relative movement v). (Yes I know this is sort-of covered by the doppler effect page.) I'd also like to see the complete series expansion formula, rather than the first few terms. Thanks. — RJH 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The section has been adjusted slightly. Does this help or does more change need to be done? --ScienceApologist 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks. — RJH 15:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I'm going to try to request an FA status. --ScienceApologist 02:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Chetwynd, British Columbia

A small town in northeastern B.C., Canada, with a population of 3,000 people. The article is based on the Dawson Creek, British Columbia featured article's layout and format. A copyedit will be appreciated. --maclean25 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. The only issue I have is that so much of the introduction is focused on a description of the flag. This actually seems like possibly the least important aspect of the page, so I'd like to see it further down in it's own sub-section, possibly below Government and Politics. Thanks. — RJH 03:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• My intention was to use the flag's elements as an introduction to what the town is all about. For example, listing the important industries like transportation, gas, logging, farming. I'd like one more chance to re-write this as a better introduction. --maclean25 03:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• No rush. :) — RJH 16:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This article was reviewed by the District of Chetwynd office on 26 Jan 2006 with the following notes:

• The larger rural area has 3500 people, not 7000.
• larder, larger
• For the railway, the Yukon, Fort Nelson.
• commercial airlines in Tumbler Ridge?
• There are three creeks in town, Centurian, Centurion
• Concerning the chainsaw carvings collection, 1987?, Capitol, Capital
• wind power does not power street lights, only decorative lights
• "Chetwynd, the Little Giant of the Great Peace"
• Do all the nearby provincial parks offer those services?
• In "Government and politics", where is the Peace River Regional District?

--maclean25, for Ellen Calliou, District of Chetwynd

This article was reviewed by District of Chetwynd Councillor Bob Nicholson on 16 Feb 2006 with the following comments:

• Coat of Arms - Slogan reads Success Through Effort
• History - Last sentence - The route was from End of Rail Dawson Creek and the landing strip was built 30 miles west of Chetwynd at Airplane Flats by hunting guide Phil Esswein to transport hunters. There were no prospectors and trappers could not afford airplane travel! (see page 25 Saga of Little Prairie/Chetwynd History book). This stripwas built in the 1920s (without any equipment except horse pulled slips to fill holes)
• Economy - 2nd to last paragraph RE: L.P. pulp mill closure - Tembec purchases LP mill and re-opened it with increased production. (Also of note: There is 2 producing coal mines operating out of Chetwynd with at least 2 more ready or almost ready to go ahead.) Also, 2nd sentence from beginning "Rail line was cut southward should read northwest.
• Transportation - First paragraph "Rough wagon path over two frozen rivers" actually a wagon + sleigh trail existed from East Pine to Chetwynd (Little Prairie) from 1923 to 1939. A car road existed in the 1930s from East Pine to Dawson Creek. Truck road was built from East Pine to Little Prairie 1939/1940. River crossing by cable basketes or fording in low water or on ice in winter until 1940 with a ferry installed 1939/40 until a bridge was built. Airport (I don't believe TR has a commercial airline).

--maclean25, for Bob Nicholson, District of Chetwynd

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

I rewrote the entire article, requesting peer review just to make sure everything is fine before I send it off for Featured Article Candidate. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job done. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 15:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, does no one else want to look at this? *tumbleweed rolls by* -- Natalinasmpf 23:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gas tungsten arc welding

My third major welding article project; this one has some good images and a similar level of detail as gas metal arc welding. I'll be adding some odds and ends over the next few days to get it all ready for FAC, but I thought I'd ask for some advice before I nominate it over there. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Children of Bodom

I believe this article is one of the most (if not the most) comprehensive resources avaliable on the internet concerning this band from Finland. It has been my project for quite some time, and I feel that it might be shaping into a featured article. However, I do feel that it need improvements, especially its lead section, and I would appreaciate suggestions on what could be done to improve it. --Sn0wflake 02:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• First off, I'm not a music fan. Secondly, I know little of Finland except they like cellphones and produce excellent hockey players (Miikka Kiprusoff just amazes me). Ok, so Children of Bodom...they sing(?) in finnish right, not english? I would get rid of that "Biography" section heading because, well, there really isn't anything beyond that. Just make "Early years" "Album one", "Album two" and "Tour of World" major headings. The Henkka Blacksmith quotation needs to be referenced and no, telling me it is somewhere in the external links or somewhere in a book doesn't count. Where did that last sentence "Children of Bodom's symbol...refer to themselves as the Hate Crew." come from? That entire section is a narrative of the bands experience, then this trivia just comes from nowhere. The "Current line-up" and "Former members" could be made more appealling. Condsider The Waterboys#Membership for what can be done with these sections. Finally, the "External links and references" section...should actually be two separate sections per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standardized appendices...actual references in the reference section, recommended readings in the external link section. Footnotes would be nice (just to know what info was obtain from where, for easy verifiability). --maclean25 08:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I took your advice and will be working on providing more references, thank you very much for the input. --Sn0wflake 19:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Logic

This peer review is suspended, because rather far reaching changes were proposed. The page User:Renamed user 4/logic serves as a kind of workshop for generating new content for the revised version of the article, additionally attempting to tackle the other issues raised here and not addressed is welcome. Talk:Logic has a task list of current tasks. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 20:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is in good shape, and is without equal amongst encyclopedia articles on logic, in terms of not avoiding tackling hard questions as to what the topic is about, comprehensiveness of coverage, and getting into living topics (the two main recent enclyclopedias of philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy each have many articles on topics in logic, but none on logic itself).

That said, there are some concerns with the article:

1. Readability: I've made some recent efforts to try to improve readability, but probably overall the article has several places where the going is too hard going. Help hilighting these is appreciated;
2. I'm worried about topics getting buried: information that should be uppermost getting obscured by other topics. Pointers please to this, and suggestions for changes to organisation that might help this.

That said, I hope there isn't too much to be done here. I've done a fair amount of work on this, CSTAR has done as much, if not more, and the now departed Siroxo has done good work as well, and also many other contributors. CSTAR also did a review of this some months back that is discussed on the talk page. --- Charles Stewart 23:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: there is a live issue that I didn't notice on the talk page by User:Nahaj on the treatment of inconsistency. --- Charles Stewart 23:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• All in all I find the article a bit too difficult to read. I think the article is crying for examples, schemata and pictures. Why not pictures of famous logicians? But the most important would be pictures or schemata symbolizing paradoxons or the structure of an argumentation or famous syllogisms. I am also missing a picture or a schema presenting basic applications in computer logic. All in all I think the article does not focus enough on pedagogical aspects. Here are some more precise comments of mine -- I hope they shall help you:
  1. typing "define:logic" on google didn't produce anything looking like "study of arguments". This definition seems to me not very great; maybe the authors want to say "study of argumentation". However on the web one finds "study of sound reasoning" or "study of reasoning" which sound much better to me. The definition of argument found on WP is in contradistinction with the one in my dictionary. An argument can be for or against something but not the fact of argumenting.
  2. The sentence ", although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy amongst philosophers (see below)" should not be here. The layman does not want to know about such controversy. The lead should be appealing. I suggest: "However several definition of logic are possible." which avoid the use of "controversy".
  3. The sentence "However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments." is for me utterly ununderstandable. Is it intended to be understood by the layman?
  4. I think the sentence "even more recently, in computer science" should be changed into "Numerous application in computer science" because logic is surely not a subbranch of computer science.
  5. "The scope of logic can therefore be very large, including reasoning about probability and causality." should be rephrased: what means scope: application? what means "therefore"? Because of "application in computer science". "Therefore" is surely incorrect.
  6. "Here we characterise logic, first by introducing the fundamental ideas about form, then outlining in broad terms some of the most influential rival conceptions of the subject, giving a brief overview of its history and then give an account of its relationship to other science, and finally go on to provide an exposition of some essential concepts." sounds a bit too much like a text book (you know the last paragraph of the introduction section).
  7. The word "inference" should be defined (not only by a link).

  Vb14:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I've taken the liberty of numbering your points, to make replying easier.
  • I agree that the article needs to be changed with respect to points 3, 5 and 7.
  • Wrt. point 1, I looked at quite a few textbooks and monographs when deciding which definition of logic to use, and I can't explain why dictionaries don't agree with the literature I looked at. There's something similar at work with both arguments and reasons: the content of one's argument may be the same as the content of the reasoning by which one arrives at a conclusion. But argument does appear to be seen as a more fundamental concept than reason for the purposes of logic, because arguments are things that are in the public area that one can point to, whilst reasons appear only indirectly in reports, claims and speculation. It may be worth saying more about the relationship of logic to reason.
    • I think this is a major point. I have learned at school (in French but this is confirmed by my Harrap's French-English dictionary that the word "argument" (as a noun) has the same meaning in French and in English) that an argument is "a reason offered in proof for or against a thing" (Webster's 1987). This is not the same as "argumentation" defined (also like in French) by Webster as "arguing, reasoning". According to those definitions an "argument" is a part of a "argumentation" (which also contains hypotheses, theses and logical relations between the different arguments). You have looked at textbooks and monographs. It is very possible that those focus on some aspect of the topic creating definitions of their own and introduce some jargon for mathematicians or philosophers. I think this article is intended to a broader audience than only these. Vb 09:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Point 2: I think the layman should be told about this controversy! I'm all for making the lead section more appealing, but I don't agree with this change.
    • Controversy of these kind exists in almost all mathematics article. There are all the time different definitions corresponding to different contexts or schools. The words "controversy" and "(see below)" can disappear without changing the content of the sentence. I think the suggested change into "However several definition of logic are possible." is exactly attaining this aim. Vb 09:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Point 4: I agree with the change, but the place of logic in the academy is unclear. Now I think about it, this is something the article could be plainer about: logic isn't a subdiscipline of philosophy anymore, but is perhaps best seen as an interdisciplinary subject. There may be more logicians working in computer science departments than all other areas combined - so there is some basis for the claim you say is surely not so.
    • I personally still think it is a branch of philosophy and that mathematics is a subbranch of philosophy too. In this sense, some parts of logic pertain to philosophy and others to mathematics but all in all this is a subbranch of philosophy. I would accept logic as an interdisciplinary topic straddling the border between philosophy and mathematics but I would oppose to classifying logic within computer science. That would be like saying mathematics is a subbranch of engineering because most mathematics are nowadays performed in applied science departments. Vb 09:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Point 6: It does make sense to indicate the development of the article, though. I remember writing this sentence, and IIRC it was in response to a criticism siroxo made about the article.

I agree that the historical sections should have pictures of famous logicians, and the image repository already has several. I don't see that schemata would make the article easier to follow, though they might serve some iconic role in the article. I'll look over the article for places where examples would be appropriate. --- Charles Stewart 16:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

An iconic role would help but I think schemata could help in the context of examples. Vb 09:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments, which will clearly result in improved treatment. I'm rather pressed for time, and doubt I will get another chance to work on the changes before Monday. I'll just make one response now: can you give a good example of where an example would help? The issue with examples for formalised logic is that it takes too much space in such a general article to motivate the formalism to justify the example. Term logic may be an exception, and the article already uses natural language examples in places to justify the need for the topics. --- Charles Stewart 16:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't had the time to read a lot, but it is not easy going (but logic is also a hard subject). I think the reference to controversy at the start should be kept. Besides, I also think that it does make a subject more appealing if there is some controversy: we want to see blood! However, do define "inference"; I have no idea what it means and how it differs from "argument". I don't understand what "technically grounded" means. I am having a lot of problems with the definition of "purely formal content". Perhaps it will become clearer after a night of sleep, but it would be great if you could give an example there. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, will tackle these three points. I guessed the part about purely formal content would be hard to read, because it was hard to write. I hope I can think of a good way of explaining it. --- Charles Stewart 22:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: A quick suggestion to improve readability is to use shorter sentences and simpler words as often as possible. Opening material especially benefits from easy, familiar words instead of, say, "fallacious". Likewise, a phrase like "However the subject is grounded, …" is likely to be opaque to many readers, and "to advance an account" is overly fancy. It's a hard discipline for someone with a good education, but it really pays off. --KSmrq^T 22:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just printed out the article, and I'll go over it offline looking for avoidable technical terminology. --- Charles Stewart 23:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    Eliminating technical terms is a good start, but what I advocate goes beyond that. Consider this paragraph:

    Due to its fundamental role in philosophy, the nature of logic has been the object of intense disputation, and it is not possible to give a clear delineation of the bounds of logic in terms acceptable to all rival viewpoints. Nonetheless, the study of logic has, despite this controversy, been very coherent and technically grounded. Here we characterise logic, first by introducing the fundamental ideas about form, then outlining some of the different schools of thought, as well as giving a brief overview of its history, an account of its relationship to other sciences, and finally an exposition of some of logic's essential concepts.

    I would replace "disputation", "delineation", "technically grounded", "exposition", and perhaps "characterise". I would remove "very" from "very coherent". I would streamline the first sentence. And I would break the last sentence into perhaps three sentences. Philosophers tend to have a horribly opaque writing style; Ernest Hemingway is a better role model. --KSmrq^T 02:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I so agree. Why not say logic is the study of when it is correct to connect sentences by the conjunction "therefore". Dbuckner 21:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't like it

> I think this article ... is without equal amongst encyclopedia articles on logic

True enough. I can't agree it is very good. It starts out with a poor definition of the subject. I have set up an article Definitions of Logic giving divers definitions of 'Logic'. I think the Penguin definition ("the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference") is by far the best. It's certainly not just the 'study of arguments' (like pedagogy or rhetoric.

It's also very repetitive. The idea of 'logical form' which is central to most accounts of logic is touched upon all over the place, without being made clear or explicit.

A personal dislike is the mention of Indian, Chinese logic &c. If it had no material impact on the develop of the subject of the main article (as Aristotle did), why mention it except in a separate article. To be sure, the Arabic commentators were material, so include them. But then why omit the significant contribution that the Polish logicians made in the early 20C?

But the main fault is the arbitrary division of the subject. Why divide it (Section 2) into syllogistic, predicate logic (i.e. predicate calculus) – which is a historical division, moreover one which fails to mention what the division really consists of, then modal logic, which is not a historical division, then "deduction and reasoning" bloody hell what is that doing. Then mathematical logic and philosophical logic, which is a cultural and methodological division, then logic and computation which is a clear afterthought.

Why not organise it according to the true division of the subject, referencing the relevant historical distinctions as we go along. E.g.

1. What 'logical form' is - I have some nice definitions in my collection of logic textbooks. How traditional logic viewed if (all/some A is/isn't B), how the predicate calculus views it (there is/isn't some x such that it is/isn't the case that Fx &c). How the idea of the variable or schema is central to formalisation ("The introduction of variables into logic is one of Aristotle's greatest inventions" Lukasiewicz).

2. Truth and falsity – law of contradiction, excluded middle &c

3. Semantics. The intension and extension of terms. Medieval semantics (supposition theory), early modern semantics (propositions connect ideas), modern semantics (model theory).

4. Inference. Medieval theories of inference, consequence &c, early modern and 19c psychologistic theories, modern views. Strict versus material implication, ex falso quodlibet &c

5. Other bits and pieces. Recent developments. Philosophy of language. Computation.

Sorry this is very hurried, I wrote this in 10 minutes as a sketch. I'm happy to make a substantial contribution here.

Dbuckner 21:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see you are involved here, but I'm not sure exactly what you can mean by "true division of the subject": dividing up the topic is a choice made for expository purposes. I'd very much like to see your treatment of logical form: I found much discussion of the importance of the topic, and very little that really gets to grips with what it is. Some points:

1. Predicate vs. term logic isn't intended as a historical division, in the sense that term logic, as you know, never died. Rather they are intended as rival approaches to formalisation. It's true that the topics in section 2.1-2.3 are not parallel to those in section 2.4-2.7; these were in separate sections but it was felt that the article had too many ramifications

2. Deduction and reasoning is the weakest section of the article; what it is intended to do is to document the role logic plays in education to instill correct reasoning. It could do with a better name: college logic is the term most often used by American educators for this pedagical role, but cuts the topic off from its history.

3. Logic and computation is not an afterthought, in fact I have rewritten it twice, it being my area of specialisation. The problem is rather that the study of logic by those interested in applications in computer science has not has much unity since the early days.

4. The history of logic section, as it stands, is a pretty good refutation of the widely made claim that logic was invented by the Greeks, and we got it from them. It's one of the better sections, I think. I don't think it is a problem that Indian and Chinese logic don't receive further treatment (though a proper treatment of Indian logic on WP would be valuable).

5. The treatment of both semantics and inference is very slight, as it stands, and I'm open to the idea that the article should have more (indeed the lack of a good explanation of what inference is has been . I am concerned that one can't say much here without rolling one's sleeves up and getting technical, more technical that is appropriate for such a broad overview article. If you can persuade me that these topics can be treated in a sufficiently light-handed way, then you will have gone much of the way to persuading me to restructure the article.

6. Your discussion of "other bits and pieces" suggests that your rival structuring for the article isn't going to be any cleaner than the existing one.

I've not had much time for WP this past week, nor will I this week, and much of that time has been taken up with the Carl Hewitt case. --- Charles Stewart 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Charles - Your points are good ones. But a more detailed look at the article confirms my initial thoughts that the article needs substantial revision. The basic division is wrong (like dividing Americans into Democrats and mid-Westerners), and there are flaws and factual errors, some of them material, in almost every sentence.

For example, the opening section contains no less than five different definitions of the term 'logic'!

• the study of arguments • the account of valid and fallacious inference • allowing one to distinguish good from bad arguments • the investigation and classification of the structure of arguments • the study of fallacies and paradoxes

That is a little too much. Why not something like:

The next paragraph should list examples of the topics. Why does the current article gives as instances 'probably correct reasoning' and 'arguments involving causality'? What is the former? In any case, the list should be a bit longer, and any subject mentioned should get a mention in the body of the article. 'Probably correct reasoning' is mentioned nowhere else. I Googled it and only got 15 hits, the first of which was from the article itself. Thus Google thinks 'Probably correct reasoning' is a topic of major academic importance because of the importance that Google (sometimes wrongly) attaches to things in WP.

I will work on a draft. Is it possible to create a temporary draft page that we could discuss carefully? Perhaps I will put something on my user page. Or does that go against the WP philosophy? My professional work involves the drafting of policy documents, which means the idea of teams of people (each of whom has been carefully selected by examination and interview) working on drafts, discussing each points in detail, checking all points have been discussed, the concept of document control been handed around, the appointment of a co-ordinating editor, the use of a template to which all such documents must conform, the concept of a final draft being signed off by committee then 'locked down' into a 'production' version. The idea of different unrelated unselected people having random control over the production document still seems pretty strange! It does work, but sometimes not so well as others.

On the subject of the Chinese bits, I'm far from persuaded it has anything to do with the development of logic. Even if Boole were influenced, his influence was not direct (he tried to put Aristotle into symbolic form, and did not have the insights of later logicians such as Brentano, Frege, Peirce, Venn &c that led to the important developments. Boole's influence on logic is comparable to John Logie Baird's influence on television (i.e. the idea was great, the implementation was quickly discarded

Also, some logicians would say that genuine 'logic' is restricted to the systematic study of inference forms, which necessarily involves the use of variables or schemata to classify arguments. Aristotle appears to have invented this. I have looked at material on Hindu logic, and the idea of the variable does not seem to feature.

Best wishes --- Dean

---

I agree with most of the points you make. I wouldn't put too much effort into writing a whole, rival logic article right now, rather put together a skeleton of the article so that I can get a clearer sense to what you propose. Use a subpage in your userpsace for the draft (eg. User:Renamed user 4/logic) so that people don't put requests in the middle of your draft, and it has its own talk page. Boole was a key influence on the whole C19 algebraic logic tradition, even if most of the people in this tradition rejected exactly his formulation. I'd say his influence on Pierce is pretty strong. --- Charles Stewart 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hence my comparison to John Logie Baird. He had a certain vision (geddit) but people rejected his way of implementing it. Dbuckner 20:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Draft now available

I see there are still goings on with the Cantor article. Anyway, there is a draft of an article on my talk (not user) page. The idea would be to have a better definition then a section on division, and then scrap the existing section on "formal" logic in favour of something that actually defines the concept of "formal". If you read carefully the current section, you see it doesn't do that, and it is repetitive. Then a short section on semantics. I don't see why this can't be done. Dean

Interesting Sentence

"The formally sophisticated treatment of modern logic apparently descends from the Greek tradition, although it is suggested that the pioneers of Boolean logic were likely aware of Indian logic (Ganeri 2001) but comes not wholly through Europe, but instead comes from the transmission of Aristotelian logic and commentary upon it by Islamic philosophers to Medieval logicians. "

And what does this sentence mean. Is it really a sentence. DB

With parentheses, perhaps the subordination structure of the sentence becomes clearer: ((The formally sophisticated treatment of modern logic apparently descends from the Greek tradition (although it is suggested that the pioneers of Boolean logic were likely aware of Indian logic (Ganeri 2001))) (but comes not wholly through Europe (but instead comes from the transmission of Aristotelian logic and commentary upon it by Islamic philosophers to Medieval logicians)))...

...so it is a sentence, but not a well-written one. It needs reworking, but I'd like to delay that until it becomes clearer about how your proposal will affect the article. --- Charles Stewart 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Semantics

I have added a section on semantics in the draft. There is more on modern logic than in the previous draft, thanks to the good work of Dr. Stewart.

I propose to add a section on "controversies in logic" once I have worked through a few more books. I also need to add a reference section. Charles, do you have any references for the work you contributed please.

Dbuckner 16:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)}

Céline Dion

Ok. Im trying (again) to get this article to FA status. Can anyone tell me what (if anything) is missing? Any help would be appreciated. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the third lead paragraph should go. But you must mention the Chopard Diamond award somewhere in the lead. I'd argue that award is the most notable achievement of her career. I'll keep reviewing the article now. Harro5 02:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ive removed it, and I also worked the Diamond award into the 2nd paragraph (hopefully it flows). Thanks. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It works well there. I've tweaked the "Image and celebrity status" section, but don't like that name for the heading. Thoughts, anyone And I've removed the caption from the lead pic - this isn't needed, says what the description page does. Harro5 03:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did all those great references come from? =). Seriously though, is there a reason why some of them you put in notes and others you put in references? Why not put all of them in notes and just forget references altogether, except for maybe some of the sources you quote from more than once? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I dont know where they (the references) came from, they just popped up =). I put some sources in references because they contribute generally to the article i.e information was directly or indirectly synthesised from them. The notes, however, are for direct quotes or explicit point of views that are needed to provide proof for a particular point. Make sense? Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I'm going crazy or maybe someone fixed it, but it looks good now. You won't get an object out of me the next time around on WP:FAC. I'll try to watch the nomination to see what people say about the number of references, so that I can try to dig up some more if necessary. Good work! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually would have tried to salvage something about her vocal qualities in the introduction. Otherwise it lends itself to the earlier complaint of "too much charts and awards, not enough musical information" (paraphrased). But the article has definitely improved, and I appreciate the effort to find more and better references. --Michael Snow 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats a bit tricky, but Ill see what I can do. As for the sales and awards. This is a bit difficult. The thing is, she is the best-selling female artist, ever. As the introduction mentions this, it is dificult to avoid sales performance in the rest of the article, as this would affect its coherence.

Im not rushing, but I was wondering if tomorrow would be too soon to renominate the article, many others have told me that it would now be a good candidate (plus, if it passes, it would be a nice Christmas present =).) Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you avoid the topic of sales, they are noteworthy enough, but more information on the musical side might provide some context to why she does as well as she does. Anyway, I won't stand in the way of a renomination at this point. --Michael Snow 23:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. I can't find any huge problems with the article, and it's very good. I'd suggest reading the article a couple of times over to see if the prose can flow a little better, however (though I am aware from personal experience how one's eyes can glaze over once you have edited an article a lot in a short space of time :)). For example, "The cover showed Dion in a simple and relaxed manner: choreographed poses usually found on her album covers were discarded for a more relaxed, natural look" could be replaced by "The cover showed Dion in a simple and relaxed manner, a contrast to the choreographed poses usually found on her album covers". Also, piped links to "years in music" (e.g. 1990) are to be avoided, per WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia:Piped link. Again, I'd like to stress that I think this is a very good article. Extraordinary Machine 16:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Intentionally blank page

A while ago, I scoured the internets looking for any bit of information I could find on this topic. Even so, it will always be a relatively short article. I basically want to know if you think every aspect has been covered in sufficient detail. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 03:08

I think it's fine. Here are the results of a Google test for the exact phrase "Intentionally blank page", but excluding the word Wikipedia (in order to exclude results from Wikipedia and our forks). There are only 336 results, but most of them seem to be actual intentionally blank pages. If that is so, then there can't be many sources on the subject. At least you have included links, so everyone can know what your sources are. IMO they are the most important thing. As long as the article is well written and has its sources cited, it is fine. I think that's the case here - there's not much left to write. Izehar 13:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - a good if short article. It will need some references in a "References" section if it is intended to be a featured article (presumably the external links are references?) and some more images of examples would be good too.

On a related topic, legal documents often contain "intentionally blank" clauses or schedules. This usually results from late amendments to the draft document near the date/hour of signing: rather than deleting the clause, renumbering the remaining clauses, and then having to check all of the cross-references, the text of the offending clause is simply deleted and left "intentionally blank". -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work that in. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 01:22

Nice job, I didn't know there was so much to know about intentionally blank pages! InvictaHOG 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be helpful to recruit some mathematicians to write some logical statement equivalent to the recursive and self-contradictory "this page has been intentionally left blank" on WP:RD ? --HappyCamper 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This was really cool, I found a book with some blank pages and added a photo Astrokey44 05:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of the books I own (including biographies, success stories, and all sorts) usually have a few intentional blank pages at the end. They are usually there because there is a set amount of pages the printer company prints, and often the author/publisher don't use the last few. Sometimes there are as many as 20 blank pages at the end of books. — Wackymacs 11:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a fabulous article - well done! I'm looking forward to the legal section as well. Great treatment of a difficult topic. KillerChihuahua 15:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My telephone bill always includes "This page intentionally blank" as well, I don't know if you would like to include something about that. Also, in regards to the road signs, in my area, when they have no pertinant messages to display, they put up something like "Buckle Up / Its the Law" HeavyD14 18:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Great article, very interesting and well written, although instead of the PDF screenshot and the standardized tests image, I'd prefer an actual image of a page that reads "This page is intentionally left blank." and possibly a photo of one of road warning signs. Also, the image in the lead seems a bit large to me (see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A search on Google Book Search for "this page intentionally left blank" could be the least productive search you can do. Note that even the blank pages have copyright notices.

Re: "Standardized tests", the blank page notice is used more often than just between separately timed test sections. Sometimes it is necessary to begin a new question on the left-hand page so that a diagram/map/picture is visible when reading the questions that follow. This may cause the previous right-hand page to be blank. In addition, the last one or two pages in a paper may be blank for printing reasons already covered. The text I have seen is "No questions appear on this page" or "There are no questions printed on this page". I think that the standard "Intentionally Left Blank" message would elicit too many sarcastic comments from students.

Some exam papers also form the script in which the candidate writes their answers. After the exam, the blank pages often contain work of artistic merit unrelated to the subject being tested. Examples include expressions of undying love for a classmate or of boredom, song lyrics, original poetry and pleas for leniency from the examiner. --Colin 10:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

On some tests I have taken, the "blank" pages make some kind of inication that they can be used as scrap paper. Also, I don't know if this belongs in the same article, many of the Scantron (I know that is a brand name, I don't know a generic name) type answer sheets have the notation "Do not mark in this area" on the backs of the sheets. This seems to be a similar concept.HeavyD14 15:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Valley of the Kings

This article has undergone quite a lot of work recently (not just by me), and it would be great to get wider suggestions on the contents, style of presentation and references, etc.

In particular does the long list of tombs and there owners distract from the other sections, or should there be more information on each tomb in this section. Also need to see whether there is any information that is being assumed, and that needs to be referenced / added to this article make it more understandable.

I think it would help to expand the information on each tomb, otherwise it is just a long list that should be separated from the article (List of tombs in the Valley of the Kings, for example). The very wide hieroglypic at the top also has a tendancy to display incorrectly, depending on screen widths: can it be made smaller? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

We just merged 4 articles listing the tombs into this article! Is it really that distracting - or should this contain a list of principle burials, and the full list be elsewhere ? Not sure about the hieroglyphic, it may be possible, but I am not sure. Thanks for comments Markh 09:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we certainly don't need four lists! But I think one good list in a separate article would be better than swamping the more general text in this one. This article should, of course, refer to the lsit and provide details of the number of tombs in each period and details of the more improtant ones, with links to their articles too, in summary style. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks for replying – I will think about which tombs need to be here – and split the whole list of burials off to a new article – Burials in the Valley of the Kings Markh 18:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Angela Merkel

I request this article for peer review. What improvements should I make? 202.40.210.244 02:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Seems pretty well written and structured, so it's on its way, but not ready for FAC yet, if that is your goal. 1) It's not clear the article is verifiable or that any references have been used in writing the article. If they have, it should be made clear by moving those sources that have been used to a References section and those that have not somewhere else. If no sources have been used, then some need to be obtained and consulted. Certainly five or more high quality sources would be needed for a FA. 2) Triva sections are highly frowned upon for FA's. The facts in them should either be worked in wherever they are appropriate, or simply removed if they are not important enough. Quotations are similar, though not considered quite as poor form if I'm reading the consensus correctly. 3) The cabinet list should probably be moved off to it's own list article and replaced with a discussion of the cabinet and it's prominent members and other important facts about the cabinet. Otherwise I don't know enough about the topic to comment on the material. - Taxman ^Talk 17:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Some comments of mine -- I hope they shall help:
  • "Dr." is not used in this case in English. That's Germish.
  • "Ungela" Provide standard phonetic signs. This is not the correct pronunciation.
  • "The coalition was formed after two months of negotiations following the 2005 federal election." I think this is a too detailed information for the lead. Will be forgotten in some months.
  • The lead should mention that she has previously been minister within Kohl's cabinet.
  • "GDR" should be written out.
  • "Demokratischer Aufbruch" should be translated
  • "According to an article in Der Spiegel" is not precise enough. The publication date and the content of the article should be made clear. Why not a quote?
  • "Speaking near-perfect English" is pro-Merkel POV.
  • The whole paragraph beginning with "According to an article in Der Spiegel" is POV if the exact statement from Der Spiegel is not made clearer.
• Vb 12:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Silvery Lutung

On the talk page I discuss my issues creating this page with more citations and such, but here's the main problem I have:

In creating this page I meant for it to be about the Silvered Langur. In the old world monkeys the closest thing I found was the Silery Lutung, which fit the binomial nomenclature I'd found in reliable sources. Then, while researching I also found the scientific name Presbytis cristata. This was backed up by a Japanese university at http://1kai.dokkyomed.ac.jp/mammal/en/taxa.html which includes the leaf-eaters as a seperate genus. Now I'm not sure what the current state of genus it is in. Also, I found varying numbers of subspecies, and am not sure which is generally accepted in the scientific community.

Thanks for any help or info! Ellieilluminate 05:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, you might want to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, there are some people there that specialise in primates, and others who are good with figuring out taxonomy.--nixie 01:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Carmen

An older peer review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Carmen/archive1

I would eventually like this page to be an FA candidate, are there any issues? (Other than a lack of pictures). --Alexs letterbox 04:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I quickly scanned the article and have some comments:

notes: The link to the second note doesn't work; the labels probably don't match. More notes would be better. Consider searching for the sentences containing the word most or words ending with -est to see if there is a way to justify these claims with a footnote and reference.

links: You did a good job with your article linking and avoided over-linking. I don't care for red links and you avoided an excessive number of these also. In the few cases where there are red links, verify that there likely will be future articles on those topics and they will likely have the titles used in your links.

I also fixed a minor punctuation problem. JonHarder 00:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bucharest

I'm nominating this article because I think it deals with the subject in a very thorough manner and has many attributes of a featured article. However, I'd really appreciate any tips as to how it can be improved! Ronline ✉ 02:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Battle of the Netherlands

Sandertje 11:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC) We've made a number of little changes and feel that the article is 'perfect' now.(or at least as close as possible)Sandertje 11:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Previous Peer review request available at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Netherlands/archive1 and the failed FAC attempt at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Netherlands. --Allen3 ^talk 11:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• The article is in desperate need of references, and until they are provided this article does not even qualify as a good article. The information contained in the article had to come from somewhere, please cite the sources you used to compile the article. If you have no such sources, then a trip to your local library to check out a couple history books dealing with World War II should help. --Allen3 ^talk 12:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just a cursory look at the article shows that there are a lot of dead links...Masterdebater 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "dead links"? I see no external links that go to error messages. Redlinks that indicate we don't have an article on a topic yet are generally acceptable in quality articles, or at least I thought they were. jengod 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sandertje, this looks very comprehensive and it's well illustrated. I think with some further refinements in language and the addition of inline sources and references (see Saffron for an excellent example of a sourced article), this extensive, informative and well-written article could definitely be featured. However, I think there are some spots where a more "encyclopedic" and/or neutral tone is warranted. jengod 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For example, in the prelude section, "The governments just didn't see it as 'such a big deal'." is a fairly vague statement, unless of course, someone stood on a podium and used those words.
  • Also, "But they hoped the restrained policy of the Entente and Central Powers during World War I might be repeated and tried to keep a low profile and to stay out of a war at all cost. A point of view that, with the figure of human life lost during the earlier conflict, may well be understood." It's not necessary for Wikipedia to rationalize or defend the choices of the govt., although it would be reasonable to point out that the government had humanitarian intentions.
  • In the "the Dutch forces" section the article states "one could say that it was David and Goliath." This should point removed in an effort to minimize editorializing or rephrased as an adjectival point of fact "However, these had not been exploited: while the German army at the time still had many shortcomings in equipment and training, the Dutch army still faced a David and Goliath situation." The remainder of the section then goes on quite strongly, dealing with specific facts and scenarios; it's in the broad generalizations that the article falls down. They may well be true, but they should be backed up with primary and secondary sources that make the same assertion and explain why with supporting evidence.
  • Also, it can be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the topic if you explain uncommon terms, for example "Fall Gelb " is introduced without a definition. From context it seems like it means "the plan for the german invasion of holland" or "the plan for what to do with the low countries while we work on taking over the world for a thousand-year reich" ;) but I'm not sure.
  • Another broad unsourced statement is "The German population generally disliked the idea of attacking their Dutch neighbours." Again, it's probably true, but it needs to be credited to a reputable historian or proven by reference to primary sources.
  • If possible, please wikilink dates. "On May the 14th the Dutch" would become "On May 14, the Dutch" and so on...
  • The article ends with "The Dutch occupation officially began on May the 17th 1940. It would take five years in which over 250,000 Dutchmen died, before the Dutch got their freedom back." The last sentence sort rings of "the beginning of the end" and leaves me curious to know how the 250,000 Dutchmen died and how the Dutch finally rid themselves of their German occupiers." Are there other articles on wikipedia that "continue the story"? If so, a link to them, perhaps in the form of a series box, would be excellent.

Super Mario Bros.

I recently got this article up to GA-status and now am planning on improving it to FA-status. Any comments on how to go about this would be appreciated. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Neptune

Wikipedia:Peer review/Neptune/archive1

Wikipedia:Peer review/Neptune/archive2

This planet is one of the few who is still not at FA-status. I believe that with a few small updates it could reach it. Please help with some feedback.Nergaal 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Please address my objections from the previous FAC failure. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the FA's of other planets, I don't think this article has enough prose, and it definitely has too many images compared to the amount of prose. --HansHermans 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the amount of prose is indicative of any kind of short coming. Comprehensiveness is what ultimately counts. Wisdom89 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just a cursory glance of the article reveals some potential problems - Citation necessary tags are present. Moreover, there are whole sections without citations: Case in point, when comparing Neptune to Uranus. Those sort of things need to be fixed before FAC can be considered. Wisdom89 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pontiac's Rebellion

Pontiac's Rebellion is a carefully crafted article on an important incident in British/Native American relations. Primary editor Kevin Myers has done a superlative job in comparing sources and documenting material. Notes and references are particularly well done. A well known attempt to infect native peoples with smallpox is well handled, incorporating comments from a number of other editors. I hope to nominate this as a feature article in the near future and would welcome all comments. WBardwin 06:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wonderful article. Should soon be featured. Some comments of mine -- some of them are because I consider that an FA should be a kind of self contained for the non expert -- I hope they shall help.
  • Please write after the reference to French and Indian War its start and end dates.
  • Precise in the lead the exact start and end dates (mention at least the months): A war from 1763-1764 may have lasted from 1 to 24 months.
  • Please write after the reference to Seven Years' War a very short summary of it (I mean who vs. who or the start/en dates, where, etc...)
  • Why are "sawed-off muskets" mentioned why not simply "muskets"? If this detail is important, why? If not skip it.

Vb 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• An excellent article! I only have a few items that bothered me.
  • I realize that there were a number of tribes involved in this war, but there is no comprehensive list anywhere in the article. At least mention the major tribes involved in the intro and the infobox should probably contain a complete list.
  • The line in the into "The war was extremely brutal..." reeks of POV to me.
  • Is it appropriate to compare the brutality of the war to modern day war crimes? Again, it seems very POV.

Overall, this article is excellent and, with these changes, I would happily support it on FAC. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent well researched and well-written piece of work, typical of what I've seen from Kevin Myers. A couple of points from a Canadian POV. In the lead, the Seven Years' War should be added in parantheses after French and Indian War, as there were numerous French and Indian Wars. The 'French & Indian War name is as much US POV, as much as the American War is Vietnamese POV. In the aftermath, the impact of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to Canada should be mentioned. It is still an important constitutional document for Canada that serves as the basis for relations between First Nations and the Canadian goverment to this day. Also, it should be made clear that the colonists resentsenting the proclamation were from the British colonies that later became the US, not from the (French) Canadian colonists. Luigizanasi 05:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Additional comment, the paragraph small forts taken should be put into prose. A bulletted list is not a good style. Vb 09:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very well-written article. A few specific comments:
  • A campaignbox would be very helpful.
  • The "Origins of Pontiac's War" box seems rather badly worded. Was "Gift giving" really a cause of the war (as opposed to a lack of it)?
  • The comparison to war crimes, unless it's being directly cited as the consensus historical view, should probably go; this sort of thing was all too common during this period (and compare to the Thirty Years' War, or event the Nine Years War—a few thousand dead are almost insignificant).

Other than those points, it looks to be a great article. Kirill Lokshin 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your kind words and suggestions. A number of edits have been made in response to your comments; others are forthcoming. Your continued input here or on the article's talk page is encouraged. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Survivor (TV series)

In October this page marked for cleanup. Since then, myself and several other authors have revamped the text, moved entire sections to more relevent pages, deleted irrelevent and non notable content, and added images to make the page look more pleasing. I would like this article to be peer reviewed and in particular I would like you to look at the Premise section because it is lengthy and involved, and references. Thanks! Jtrost 00:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Too many "quoted terms". Maybe you can emaphasize things like titles and bold occurances of new words?
  • I took many quotes off of words and replaced them with italics. Jtrost 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• The opening "Premise" section could be shorter - it is very dense to read right now, with too many exceptions and examples. A brief overview of how the show works would be better. Perhaps move the Game Rules section up higher.
  • I moved the Game Rules section under the Premise section. I will start a new section on the talk page and see how other authors think the Premise section can be condensed. Jtrost 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sentence starting with "The Million-dollar" should be "The million-dollar". In the same sentence, a proper hyphen is needed.
  • Changed. Jtrost 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• The "final seven" image in the same section could be a little larger. Not sure about that table, either. A list would not look quite as nice, but both cause a lot of unused whitespace.
• More later when I have the time. Turnstep 03:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Section headers should be capitalized correctly (First word is the only one to be capitalized)
  • Fixed. Jtrost 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• The "Further Reading" section could be compacted a bit.
  • I took out a non notable promotional DVD, and since everything else was books I removed where it said Book before each item. I think it looks cleaner now. Jtrost 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• All links need be cleaned up (and dab checked). For example, "United States" is wikied on its second appearance on the page, not the first. Unlink lone years and common words. Perhaps unlink the people with no articles: if they don't have an article now, they probably will not in the future.
• Needs a "See also" section to collect the related links, although this will add to the page size.
  • I changed the Million dollar winners section to See also and moved all templates that linked to related articles there. I also added two wikilinks to related articles, although I'm sure there's more. Jtrost 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• In the "Controversies section", the word "At" is a poor choice for hyperlinking. Perhaps a standard footnote format? Fix last bullet spacing in that section.
  • I added that to the references. Jtrost 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• The DVD releases boxes could be collapsed into one box to save room.
  • All TV show articles here seem to be dividing the DVD sections into complete seasons, individual episodes, best of, etc... I think this should stay to remain consistant with the other articles. Jtrost 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• - Turnstep 14:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I will reply to each issue individually above to maintain organization. Jtrost 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahnenerbe

One of the most misunderstood aspects of the Nazi legacy, it was the inspiration for the archealogists in the Indiana Jones movies, and is commonly confused with the Thule Society - though in truth far less esoteric. Could use suggestions on cleaning up the presentation style, as well as ideas on what to include/disclude from the article. (is there such a thing as too many historic images?). I acknowledge that the discussion on Neuschwabenland is missing, as is the formal hierarchy (on talk page) which I can't imagine how to incorporate other than as a prohibitively long chapter of its own. Also, other than Nuremberg trial references, it's very hard to give 'authoritative' references for much of it *frown* Sherurcij 14:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments:

• Too many short sentences/paragraphs. The flow is pretty bad, it could do with a major copy-edit. I'd start with merging together some sections/paragraphs to make it look neater.

* The See also section links to too many non-existant articles.

fixed, tySherurcij

• There is no External links section.
• History section is very short.
• Get rid of the image galleries and place the images aside the context instead.

dispute this one, chapters are too short to allow multiple images, gallery seems to work betterSherurcij

This means there are too many images. Not every image needs to be included that is in those galleries. — Wackymacs 15:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the images need more specific fair use tags (such as {{film-screenshot}} instead of just {{screenshot}}). Fair use images also need fair use rationales.

— Wackymacs 15:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wan Chai

Wan Chai is one of the 18 administrative districts of Hong Kong. I think the article is rather informative. Need your opinions to improve it though. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Wait wait.. this article is about the area, not the district that covers Wan Chai, Causeway Bay, Happy Valley, Jardine's Lookout, etc. — Instantnood 08:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, as Instantnood has corrected me. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

The article seems well written, though the lead section could use another two paragraphs. Any other suggestions? --209.2.60.76 20:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Needs references!
• Some of the entries (such as Simpsons, Star Trek etc.) in the Trivia section could be collected under a heading of Dr.Strangelove in Pop Culture
• In the last part of the Cast and Crew section, try turning the one-line sentences into prose.

LordViD 21:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree the article is badly in need of references. On the whole it reads quite well and has good organization. One note in the opening paragraph: please change Mr. Kubrick's attribution to "directed by." The phrase "a film by" implies POV support of the disputed auteur theory. Durova 02:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• One of my favorite movies. A couple points, both in the "Cast & Crew" section:

  *I feel that the word pussy when dicussing President Merkin Muffley's
character is unnecessarily crass for a featured article.
  *"Sellers' experience mimicking superiors as an RAF Airman during World War II must have helped."

This is an interesting observation, but the word "must" seems rather strong for an unreferenced observation. Perhaps "may"? --Scottsrs 06:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The "pussy" reference is mildly crass, but worth mentioning, in a movie in which most everyone's name is a pun, often on something sexual and/or obscene (Buck Turgidson, King Kong, Bat Guano and Jack D Ripper are all examples). Muffley's weak attitude and constant bickering with the phallic Turgidson both justify the use of the word - Dharmabum420 01:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1997 Pacific hurricane season

First review

First Candidacy

Second Candidacy

A twice-failed featured article candidate. While the article had much support, bold changes were made. Since the original comments may not apply, I closed down its nomination to seek peer review. I'd like to point out that the current formatting is different from every other season article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty good article, I think, and covers the topic to a nice level of detail. The only part that caught my eye were the Super Typhoon Oliwa and Paka. These are covered on the 1997 Pacific typhoon season page, and are out of sequence with the others. I know they are mentioned in the introduction, but an explanation of the names in those two sections wouldn't hurt. Thanks. — RJH 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I added in the Oliwa section that tropical cyclones are not renamed when they cross basin boundaries in the Pacific Ocean. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tao Te Ching

I want to submit this article to Feature article status. Your comments and suggestions on how to improve this article are most welcome. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Needs references, first and foremost. LordViD 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Much improved over what I saw the last time I looked at this article 18-24 months ago. However, this article could still stand more improvements, to wit:
  • Where do the items under "Interpretatino" come from? They look vaguely as if taken from Holmes Welch's Taoism: the Parting of the Way (Boston: Beacon, 1957), but if so, then this article badly needs an explanation of the Chinese practice of Commentaries & sub-Commentaries on their Canonical texts, some of which took surprising liberties with the original text (Welch offers one interesting example in his book).
  • An awful lot of space is devoted to the biography -- or what is guessed of it -- of Lao Tzu, but very little about the competing claims of authorship, or whether the book was written by one person or several.
  • I think a discussion of the textual problems deserves more than a mention that the Tao Te Ching is "around 5000 Chinese characters". IIRC, the length of the text varies greatly between the various recensions; for example, the discovery of the Ma-wang-tui Texts settled the speculation whether Wang Bi's commentary had been accidentally copied into the text of chapter 31. (It hadn't.)
  • Do we really need a line in the textbox at the top to tell us how the title of this book is spelled in "Archaic pre-Wade-Giles"? Either tell us the name of the transliteration system, or take this bit of pedantic & obsolete information out.
  • Lastly, the Taoism of Lao Tzu is a very different thing from the Taoism of, say, Chuang Tzu & the Yellow Emperor. I would expect to find a discussion of that in a Reatured Article on this work. -- llywrch 03:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Any suggestions for improvement of this article? It's kind of a hard subject to write about, given that it doesn't exist yet, but I've made some progress. 24.54.208.177 05:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's really good. I particularly like the fact that you do a great job citing all of the important information, as well as give a good overview of the major debates about how this Parliamentary Assembly would be constituted. If anything, I'd just say keep monitoring the news on this, as well as keeping up on all other possible major debates and anything else that would help frame the debate. One thing to look at, probably because just because they do have some major sway at times over the UN, would be what the current United States government, or those associated with the government, are saying about the possibility of a UN Parliamentary Assembly. I'm not saying to focus on that, but just mention it, if there is information out there on it (I'm not sure there is, but it's just something I started thinking about while reading the article... if I misinterpreted it, you can disregard the last point) Jlove1982 04:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking for formal U.S. positions or statements by U.S. officials about a UNPA, but so far I haven't been able to find anything. 205.217.105.2 17:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

An image or two never hurt anybody y'know. Perhaps you should make an easy to understand graph out the statistics in the Apportionment of votes section. Paul Carpenter 20:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

This article has a previous peer review from October 2005. Wikipedia:Peer review/Gettysburg Address/archive1 It has undergone tremendous expansion and sourcing since then and an initial check of WP:FAC was performed (by me). The two main contributing authors at this time are in agreement to solicit further peer input prior to submission as a featured article candidate. Thanks! Kaisershatner 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• The linkage and citation style is horribly messy for such a well-researched article. Notice how when you add an inline external link (e.g. [5] adding a link that way) it throws the entire footnotee/endnote numbering system out of alignment. This is likely the result of multiple and/or inexperienced editors. I recommend converting the inline links to do one of the following: highlight a particular word in the sentence (like this) to prevent them from being numbered and thus interfering with your references; or add them to the references list, which only has the footnoted sources at present. One place where both of these suggestions apply is the penultimate paragraph under "Themes and textual analysis", where you have a link to your source and another to the biblical quote. Your source should be in the references section, possibly with a footnote to it, while the biblical link (if necessary) should be in the form of "Psalm 90". Also, in one place you have three individual footnotes after a sentence, which link to pages 1, 2 and 3 of the same source; this is frankly unnecessary. With a good deal of careful editing, this can be a fine article. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 19:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll go further and say that all links to outside websites should be in the references or external links sections. Inline external links aren't acceptable for a featured article. Also, remember that punctuation is always outside the quotes (e.g. And then he said, "this is a quote", and the people laughed.) And be sure to add non-breaking spaces whenever you use units (I did the first one). That said, this article is really looking good; nice work. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the feedback and changes, and also thanks for the other people who have dropped by to touch up the article since this peer request was posted. (Especially for the huge help with the mechanics of referencing). There seems to be some debate about external link citations in the text, so I'm not sure what to do about that. Also, Spangineer, according to both the WP MOS on punctuation and my own dim recollections about grammar, more than one punctutation style is considered "common usage" but my preference is for the older style, which generally incorporates the punctuation inside the quotation marks. I am flexible on this point, however, especially given your kind contribution, so I hope it's not a big deal.  :) Kaisershatner 13:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the WP:MOS on this one, because I'm used to the American standard of always inserting the punctuation inside the quotes, but according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks, we're supposed to "include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation." Honestly, it's not a big deal, but I'm sure that someone eventually will come along and change them all. As for external link citations, if you take a look at some recently featured articles, you'll notice that they put all external link references in the notes section. Some people insist that there be no links in the text, and others don't really care either way, so the links invariably get moved to the notes or references section.--Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidentiality

hi. this article is not quite finished. but i am wondering how clear/unclear it is to nonspecialists. thank you – ishwar  (speak) 20:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I wish more technical articles were written this well. Good work. Durova 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• The lead could be more fleshed out, perhaps; right now it looks a little meager compared to the body of the article. Otherwise, it's great. Well researched; nice examples; very complete bibliography. Kudos for your work. — mark ✎ 11:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• ok. expanded a little. thank you (both) for your comments. peace – ishwar  (speak) 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Pizza delivery

I'm having trouble coming up with ways the article could be improved, yet, I don't think it is all it could be, especially in the layout department, I'd love to see it someday at least look like it could achieve FA status ;] --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 04:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see more pictures. A pizza and a deliveryperson shouldn't be too hard to find. Also, it should discuss pizza delivery in different parts of the world, or lack thereof. -- SCZenz 04:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's something I pondered a few days ago, however, after asking around, it seems that every developed country has pizza delivery (or at least every one who's major cities have roads it seems). The pic of a delivery person is forthcoming, I'll snap one of myself likely, after thanksgiving ;] I do appreciate the input greatly, btw! ;] --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 04:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Idea, I added a self-pic of a delivery bag, with more to come, hopefully! ;] --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 01:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It's still worth noting the national origins and prevalence of pizza delivery as a cultural phenomenon. I know you can't get it in the suburbs of Geneva, and if you can get it in Geneva itself I haven't heard about it. I imagine it's far less universal in Europe than in the U.S. -- SCZenz 05:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

They have it in most urban areas in France. In Nice and Marseilles, a lot of pizza delivery is done on mopeds. Andrew Levine 01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Another comment: from my experience at FAC, sooner or later you'll be told that some of your sections and subsections are too short. Probably you should either expand or combine the short ones. (It annoyed me when they told me that, but it actually did improve my article in the end.) -- SCZenz 05:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion, about what length would you say the 'too short' threshhold is appx.? --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 01:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, my best guess from what the people who reviewed my article (today's mainpage article, indcidentally.. ;) is that a subsection should have >1 paragraph, and a section should have at least 3. That means either lengthening explanations, or just taking out subheaders and identifying clearly what you're talking about in the text itself. -- SCZenz 07:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, cool, with any luck, I'll remember to work that tomorrow, thanks again ;] --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 07:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Its is very important that you clearly cite and identify your sources so that the article is verifiable.--nixie 23:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll try to get on that tonight, thanks! ;] --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 01:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I cited all the sources I could find ;] Thanks for the suggestion, again ;] --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 01:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I hope you don't mind that I've got a lot to say as I've read over the article carefully and a number of ideas have come to my mind. The comments are divided by section:

Overall issues: The article has a vaguely-American perspective that is unfortunately all too common in our articles. While pizza delivery as-we-know-it certainly has its origin and most popularity and cultural significance in the U.S., we really do need to cover it more in other parts of the world. Perhaps there should be an appeal put out on WP:RD for help with this. It seems most of the sources cited were found through a google web search; some more comprehensive stuff on the history of the business could probably be found through google's book search or a periodical search you can probably get access to at your local library.

History: The anecdote on Queen Margherita should be mentioned for what it is, a popular story about the origin of 'pizza margherita' that could (barely) be construed as pizza delivery; there's no need to take a direct quote from some random website about it (incidentally, the quote doesn't appear to actually match wording on that website anyway). "Modern pizza delivery began after World War II when many pizzerias were opened by soldiers who had encountered the dish while fighting in Italy."— what is the source for this? Surely many pizzerias were opened long before WWII by Italian Americans. The large national pizza companies in the U.S. seem mostly to have been founded by non-Italians, but I don't see any evidence of how this is connected to WWII veterans. There should perhaps be something more (there already is a bit) on what makes pizza so delivery-amenable, and how in the U.S. it is really one of two "traditional" delivered dinners- with the other of course being American Chinese cuisine. We really need more on the development of the corporate delivery business model and the extent to which it has spread outside the U.S.

Delivery process: We could probably have some more on the competitive nature of rival time guarantees a few years back. There could also be expansion on efforts toward pizza delivery unionism. The discussion of pizza boxes belong not in the 'Time guarantees' subsection, but somewhere connected to the 'Hotbags' subsection.

Hazards: We shouldn't take a quote from a media article about a Bureau of Labor Statistics report. Instead we should look up and take the findings direct from government report itself, which I'm sure is online somewheres. There is rather too much on the bizzare Brian Wells case; while this deserves a very brief mention, there should be more on general hazards. Real-life 'pranks' should be discussed in this section rather than in 'Popular culture'.

Popular culture: These sections are always the most difficult to organize. I can only say that it's generally best to discuss these thing by theme; ie. 'pranks', delivery guarantees etc. The Everquest II bit probably belongs up in the 'Delivery process' section with a brief discussion of other methods of electronic ordering. I wonder if it's worth mentioning that the pizza delivery-as-game are probably all in the Paperboy traditon.

Military culture: Is there actually such a thing as 'Pizza delivery in military culture' or was this section just created to group these two items? The Gulf War anecdote seems interesting; has this happened at the starts of other military operations or other events? The Minuteman silo reminds me of bomber-bay humor; are there any other examples of using a pizza delivery analogy in this sort of thing?

Law enforcement: Have there been any famoous cases where some was arrrested by a police officer disguised as a pizza delivery person?

--Pharos 03:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a section about pizza delivery in The Sims 2. Otherwise, pretty well written, although you might want a picture of a delivery man. Boy, this topic sure makes me hungry. :-P Bibliomaniac15 03:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The first (and sufficient) reason for not having this as a featured article is the triviality of the information that it presents. Its exclusive focus on American pizza delivery (criticized above) certainly has a large contribution to such a perception for a reader that is at least vaguely familiar with that aspect of American life (and as the article notes, there is sufficient coverage of pizza delivery in pop culture so that such a general familiarity is present internationally). I would suggest changing the title to "Pizza Delivery in America". --Slavy13 03:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There should probably be some mention (maybe in the hazzards section) about the unwillingness of certain chains to deliver to certain neighborhoods. A sort of "pizza-redlining" if you will. I grew up in a racially integrated neighborhood in St. Louis and some chains would deliver, others wouldn't. One would deliver on the block over, but not our street. It was a topic that made people's blood boil. TMS63112 19:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if it may assist this article to merge it into "Food Delivery" as a whole. Why just Pizza? Many types of restaurants deliver food, and would be able to add to this article. I ask this because I wonder if the focus is more on the delivery of the Pizza, which is no different than the delivery of any food, or the Pizza itself, which should be at Pizza. This article is a perfect example of how a potential afd candidate(if this was a stub, there'd be a good chance of its deletion) being lifted to something better by alot of good work. Excellent job in terms of length so far here, now it's time to look at style. karmafist 10:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Pope Alexander VI

A fairly comprehensive article on an interesting, complex personage, but it has been pointed out the article needs some rewriting for NPOV, and I would appreciate any other input on how this article can be improved further. --BorgQueen 02:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, beginning with the very first sentence it is quite non-neutral, and the various opinions need to be backed up with documented, authoritative references. (See Template talk:Ref.) There is little information in the article regarding his youth, and 61 years of his life are jumped over in the span of a couple of early paragraphs. Thanks. — RJH 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That is done in many articles about people of that era about whose early life not much is known. What would you expect?-Andy

Jihad

This is a page which has had a substantial history on Wikipedia, and it is an article that I think can benefit greatly from input outside of the current circle of editors who have been working on it recently. I would like to extend an invitation to all Wikipedians to comment on the article itself, and provide constructive feedback on how to bring its content up to featured article standard. I am unfamiliar with the topic, and I am not sure where to begin.

There is undoubtedly a lot of work to be done, but considering that this article has been around since October 2001, it is high time that this article got some feedback. I am hoping that the article will benefit from multiple users reviewing the content - it is a topic that is difficult to write neutrally, and one that has historically caused a lot of contention. I believe one of the best ways to deal with situations like this is to generate more dialogue and new ideas - especially ones that may not have been covered on the talk page, and ones that might combine ideas which are already present. Please note that there is currently a dispute regarding a particular definition of jihad, and I am not sure how this should best be addressed. I am hoping that the peer review can provide answers listed below, although I would be very greatful if you could provide any feedback. I would be most interested in the following though:

1. Does the article cover all the essential aspects of jihad?
2. Are there substantial sources of information which are missing from the article?
3. Does it cover jihad adequately from a social and political perspective?
4. Are there minority perspectives which would enhance the article, but are currently missing?
5. Is the topic introduced in a manner which is clear to those who are unfamiliar with the topic?
6. Can the article be written in a more neutral manner?

If you choose to provide feedback, I would like to request that it be well reasoned and thought out. There are a number of stylistic issues which need to be resolved, but for the moment I hope we can confine the goal of this peer review to a number of achievable objectives. I must admit that I am a little on edge, as I do not want to see this peer review page potentially degenerate into one where the focus on article content is lost, so if you provide feedback, I sincerely hope it is written in a manner which is professional, respectful, and scholarly. I hope it can set an example of the high quality of feedback Wikipedia's peer review systems can give. Thanks in advance - your efforts and time are greatly appreciated! --HappyCamper 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Is a peer review really appropriate while the page is protected? NatusRoma 02:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it might help with the article. Right now, there is not too much active discussion on the talk page related to the article. The moment the page is unprotected, the "revert war" starts again. It has been ongoing for about a month, and I was hoping that perhaps an introduction of new ideas might help with the article. --HappyCamper 02:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it'd be interesting and instructive to compare the words "Jihad" and "Crusade". Obviously, in the past, the later has been used in a military sense, but it also has political and personal ramifications that are non-military in nature. So the two words have some similarities. Thanks. — RJH 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy

This article is well-written, and its primary editors feel it is an excellent featured article candidate. (It is a former FAC, although that candidacy went moribund. That said, all the objections raised on its FAC (failed) page have been addressed.) That said, as one of the steps on the route to Featured Article status, is peer review, something for which this article is ready. Tomer^TALK 20:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Support A model of collobration on a controversial subject. nobs 21:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support as per Nobs abakharev 21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello? This is not FAC :D =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no detail on contemporary ideas about McCarthy and his lasting impact on the American political psyche. There is one section packed full with footnotes which is great if people want to follow up on the finer points, but there are many other instances where cites should be given, one example is the bold interpreation of history like Eisenhower detested McCarthy and worked behind the scenes to limit his power. All fair use images should be tagged with {{Non-free fair use in}} and have a full fair use rationale on the image description page.--nixie 03:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the point in nominating; McCarthy is somewhat in transition now, so the lasting impact is being re-evalutated. This article is as upto date from an NPOV position as anything available. nobs 03:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Wartime log entries list eleven missions under McCarthy's name as an aerial photographer and tail gunner". I know McCarthy was often nicknamed "Tailgunner Joe", but I have no idea if this simply came from his service or if it was a nickname given for another reason. A passing note on that would be an interesting addition, if you have any idea for the reason... Shimgray | talk | 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• I want to know how many people Joseph McCarthy went after appeared as Communist in Venona and the declassified Soviet Archives.

War of the Triple Alliance

This is basically a translation of the featured Portuguese version of the article. Any comments are helpful. (Clearly more references/sources would be nice, but there aren't any in the Portuguese article, which is where this comes from). As an aside, tell me if you see any pro-Brazil POV - I tried to remove what I saw. Finally, what more does this article need to be featured? Zafiroblue05 22:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll comment more on the text itself once I've read it a few more times, but some technical issues that could be fixed:

• Use {{Warbox}} instead of {{Battlebox}}.
• References (which you mentioned) are necessary; once those are present, some footnotes for the major points in the article would be appropriate.
  • Now, how exactly would that work? If we cited the books you listed below as sources, there wouldn't be points in the books that specifically match up with points in the article, would there? In other words - what do you think needs to be footnoted? Thanks. Zafiroblue05 05:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• A longer lead section; 2–3 paragraphs would be good.
• Remove articles at the start of section headings.

More comments to come soon! —Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Some more substantial comments:

• A list of battles (preferably using the campaignbox format) would help to keep track of the chronology. Each of the battles should have at least a stub written about it. On a more general note, liberal stub-creation may be appropriate here. At the very least, the number of redlinks should be somehow reduced.
• I don't see any significant POV issues. There are a few instances of suspect wording (e.g. "heroes of Tuyutí"), but without more supporting articles, it's unclear to what extent these are POV.
• Phillips and Axelrod's Encyclopedia of Wars cites Charles Kolinksi (Independence Death: The Story of the Paraguayan War, 1965) and Harris Gaylord Warren (Paraguay and the Triple Alliance: The Postwar Decade, 1869–1878, 1978) as references. I have no idea about the quality of those works, however.
• The various sections should be more balanced in size. "Declaration of War" and "The Treaty of the Triple Alliance" can be merged. So can "The first Brazilian reaction", "The battle of Riachuelo", and "The retreat of the Paraguayan troops". The "The end of the war" section either needs to get more subsections or to be merged with something else.
  • Followed your suggestions; I think "the end of the war" section can be expanded, more subsections (60-80 percent of the Paraguayan population - non-military, civilian! - died, and it wasn't in battles in Brazil and Argentina), so I'll have to lookm for more info. :) Zafiroblue05 06:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• A minor point—the term "squad" appears to be mis-used in some places. A squad is usually a fairly small body of men (under a hundred), but sections such as "the Brazilian squad forced its way past Curupaity" suggest that a larger group is being referred to.
  • Yeah, I believe the correct word should be "squadron." (I'm not a military expert - but does that word make sense here?) As I said, this is mostly a translation from Portuguese, and because I only know Spanish, I based it off a Babelfish translation, which gave "esquadra" as "squad." I changed it to "squadron" in some places, but apparently not all. Thanks. :) User:Zafiroblue05 05:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

All told, it's a good article, but still some ways from being ready for a FAC nomination. The biggest problem is the lack of references and citations; once that is fixed, the rest is merely a question of extensive copyediting. The other issue that will definitely be brought up during FAC is the number of redlinks. At least the battles and major commanders should get stubs. —Kirill Lokshin 23:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I already wrote José E. Díaz and battle of Curupaity. Will try to do more... Zafiroblue05 06:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Great work! A general comment about references and footnotes: you'll definitely want to get your hands on a book or two that you can use to cite specific points. As far as what to cite, anything that seems controversial or significant could potentially have a footnote. I tend to favor having more notes—see War of the League of Cambrai, for instance—but articles get promoted to FA status with far fewer than that. You'll have to follow your own judgement on how many you want to add, but try to be in a position to provide more if asked for them during the FAC process, as it's a common objection :-) —Kirill Lokshin 06:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Joan of Arc/archive1 December 2005

This recently received "good article" designation with a comment that it was close to FA quality. The December peer review stressed a need for citations. The article now has 50 footnotes, which is more than most biography FAs. What would take it to the next level? Durova 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 67 footnotes - I've been busy. Durova 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro is too long. See the guidelines at WP:Lead. I'd suggest summarizing the details of her biography a little more. — jdorje (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Watch out for dangling prepositions. The historical background section for instance starts out with "This was..." but you have to go look elsewhere (back up to the intro?) to find out what "This" means (what period of history was this anyway?). — jdorje (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to use a more complicated sentence structure in some places to tie related sentences together. The current writing is very "basic" in that all sentences are very simple. For instance: "By the beginning of 1429 nearly all of the north and some parts of the southwest were under foreign control. The English ruled Paris and the Burgundians ruled Rheims. The latter was important as the traditional site of French coronations." could have a little more "flow" if it were condensed into two or even one sentence. Also this is another "dangler" since "north and some parts of the southwest" is used as a noun but these are really adjectives (does this mean "north and some parts of the southwest of France"?). — jdorje (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. A fresh set of eyes helps. I'll implement your changes soon. Durova 06:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ...changes made. Durova 06:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think in terms of facts, sequence, references and illustrations - it has everything. I think all it needs is to be edited so that it acquires a "more complicated sentence structure" as Jdorje commented. I find a good technique for detecting whether the flow is right or not, is to read it out loud. If that's not possible, at the very least read it paragraph by paragraph rather than sentence by sentence, in the same way you would if reading it aloud, rather than skimming through it. Whatever does not flow will become more prominent and easy to spot. I think the whole article would benefit from this approach because the short sentences occur throughout and give it a stilted style, but I don't think the "fix" is big. I think everything is there and just needs to be sewn together. I'm not sure how much time I'll have over the next few days but I'll try to help when I can. cheers. Rossrs 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I see you've made some of those changes. I find this particular feedback somewhat surprising, but if two editors agree with it I'll yield to the majority. 208.54.14.9 16:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest, simply for the sake of being more precise, that the reference to her home village being at Domrémy be modified to read, Domrémy-la-Pucelle. There are actually several other villages in NE France which begin with the name of Domrémy (Domrémy-Landéville, Domrémy-aux-Bois and Domrémy-la-Canne, to name three), though perhaps back in the year 1421, there may have only been one village called Domrémy. Jeanne d'Arc's home can be found in Domrémy-la-Pucelle at 48°26'31.88"N 5°40'28.27"E, using Google Earth's GPS coordinates. Canuck55 (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

White Mountain Art

This is my first article. BrokenSegue has been very, very helpful.

I am interested in any and all comments — style, headings, images, content and length, encycolpedic style, references, links, etc. etc.

JJ 03:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very good for your first article! I think this is certainly featured article material. I would suggest expanding the lead and turning the artists list into prose and merging it into another section. — Wackymacs 11:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Alright, here we go. Your introduction should be expanded and should summarize the whole article (might want to split it up into 2 paragraphs). The title of the article or some rephrasing of it should be bolded in the first paragraph (as is the Wikipedia house style). It's clear that you enjoy this topic, but saying thing like "monumental" or "picturesque" when they are not quoted to a person seems non-encyclopedic. You say that Image:Frost Photo Comparison.jpg is in the public domain. I understand that the painting is, but who took the photo? While I am talking about pictures, the captions should [in general] be longer and complete sentences (see Wikipedia:Captions). I don't think it's appropriate for the references section to refer to user your space templates. You should verify that they are correct and "subst" them in. What if someone wants to change it only for this article? It makes it harder than it needs to be. I made a few simple formatting changes. More parenthetical references wouldn't hurt. I'm still not sure that Art in the White Mountains (anyways wouldn't the correct current title be White Mountains art (note the "s" and the lower case art)). I know I suggested the current title, but I may have been mistaken. Broken S 22:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't Speak

One of my favourite songs, I think that it is on its way to becoming a featured article. Its first nomination failed, so I'd like input on how to improve it. Any comments? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a decent start, but it appears that some of the criticisms in the first nomination haven't been addressed:

• "for an article on a song it is notably missing any description of the lyrics or the music (melody, cords etc), it also makes some pretty big claims that aren't supported, for example how did a notably un-ska song start the ska revivial of the mid 90s?"
• "The article is fairly good as far as it goes, but it's just too short."
• "It doesn't explain the lead-up to the song very well..."

I think it could also use a longer references section with tags in the text. (See Template talk:Ref.) Opinion statements such as ""Don't Speak" is generally considered to be the band's signature song" need references, for example. Thank you for your work on this. :) — RJH 17:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I changed the signature song sentence to "one of their most popular". The rest is in progress. Unattributed statements are commented out pending further research. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Central processing unit

I just finished writing this article and have had it reviewed by a few people who are much more knowledgable than myself. It's on m:List of articles all languages should have, and was in a pitiable state before it was totally rewritten. My goal is to get this to featured article status, so I'd appreciate comments along those lines. Specifically, spelling/grammar fixes and suggestions on the general flow and scope (I did leave some discussions out of the article for brevity; see the talk page) are appreciated. Personally, I think the intro is somewhat lacking, so any suggestions there are also welcome. -- uberpenguin 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the article is extremely technical (and, might I say, well-written); perhaps in the introduction, which will be the first (and perhaps only) part a lay-person reads, include a small segment about how the CPU interacts with the rest of a computer? As a lay person myself I think this is a decent idea, but being far from an expert on the topic, I may be totally off-base with this. Still, you've done a fabulous job of re-doing a rather weak article. Well done. Nach0king 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I took a stab at writing a more accessible intro that ties CPUs into digital computers as a whole as well as their overall impact on technology and society. Tell me what you think. -- uberpenguin 14:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Aww, come on friends, don't be scared of a little light reading. I know the article isn't perfect, and advice is really appreciated... -- uberpenguin 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A nice article. I'd like to see some mention of Turing in it — the Turing Machine's processing unit is definitely the oldest CPU known — that's the first computer I know of where the storage and processing units are clearly distinguished. BACbKA 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A Turing Machine is an abstract, mathematical model not meant to be physically implemented (and actually it cannot be implemented in the general case). It is different from a modern computer, both conceptually and as a level of abstarction, and has no processing unit (as opposed to, say, a transition table or function). Therefore, I see no parallel between a Turing Machine and a CPU as described above. --128.180.45.67 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. While there might be something to be said about Turing completeness, I don't see any reason to diverge into mathematical models. The article is hard enough to keep down to a reasonable length without trying to diverge into general computational theory. -- uberpenguin 03:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I made a few minor correcetions, but there are a few that I still think are appropriate.

Almost always, both "program" and "software" are used together. I would give up "software" for "program", since the latter presents a better generalized description at the functional level. I would, however, leave the first occurance of the two terms together in order to provide a clarification for the non-specialized reader in more common terms.

The History Section discusses the differences between the von Neumann and the Harvard design, stating that features of both can be seen in modern microprocessors. It makes it clear how the von Neumann design has influenced the modern designs, but it fails to explain or illustrate the infuence of the Harvard design.

The problem here is that one of the most important way Harvard appears in modern designs is in cache design. (others are things like stream processors, some MIMD designs, etc; which are a bit too specific to address in the article) Since this article is not about cache, it would be a bad idea to take a lot of space to diverge into cache design for the sake of elaborating upon that sentence. However, I don't want to remove reference to Harvard since it was a very important early design, and it does definitely pop up in modern designs. -- uberpenguin 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The History Section uses terms like clock, clock frequency, synchronous, parasitic gate capacitance, etc., without explaining them in the context of (digital) circuits.

True. I added a note to see the below section on clock rate, as well as a terse indication of what parasitic capacitance is. Again, I don't want to devote much verbiage to either since its not really important to know what they are to understand the article. If you really think that mentioning parasitic capacitance is too distracting here, I'd rather remove it altogether than have to explain its significance. Maybe a footnote would be appropriate, but I don't really know... -- uberpenguin 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The CPU Operation Section occasionally discusses specific hardware implementations (e.g. multiplexer, DRAM, etc.), that are not necessary for the description of the operation of the CPU.

You think so? I like to at least mention some common implementation details in parentheses so people who are interested in physical implementation have a quick reference for further reading. -- uberpenguin 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should keep it at the functional level in that section, perhaps discussing muxes and gates and whatever else in the Design and Implementation section. --Slavy13 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concede here... I'll remove those terms from that section since they don't really add much. -- uberpenguin 22:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The subsections of Parallelism introduce technical details that I feel are redundant in this article.

Such as? I certainly cannot remove those sections; it would be a blaring omission to simply ignore all the enormous CPU design improvements made over the past three decades. I figure that keeping things at a simpler functional level early in the article will keep the lay man's interest, but switching to a more specific and perhaps technical tone towards the end will satisfy more advanced readers. -- uberpenguin 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I should mention here that these sections are still written at an exetremely high level; I'm basically just mentioning some of the most common techniques for parallelism and their justification and purpose. -- uberpenguin 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the more advanced reader will seek technical satisfaction in the specialized literature that he or she undoubtedly will have access to. --Slavy13 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

By "more advanced," I mean someone with general acquaintance to computers, not any actual knowledge of the details of how they work. If I'm to write this article to only appeal to the lay man, where is the justification for writing ANY technically-inclined article on Wikipedia? -- uberpenguin 22:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. Great job, by the way! --Slavy13 15:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

--Slavy13 19:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input so far! -- uberpenguin 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Baseball Stars

• When I found this article, it had an in depth treatment of this classic NES game, but needed a lot of work. I have spent quite a bit of time cleaning it up, and feel that I may be approaching a quality article, and would appreciate help in pushing this one over the top. Themindset 04:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Right... a couple (or more) things to work on;

1. The lead section is too short. Expand it.
2. Try to find the specific release date (day, month), and a screenshot of the game box.
3. Image:Snap008.gif, Image:Snap014.gif, and Image:Snap1.gif claim a {{Gamecover}} tag, when it should be {{game-screenshot}} tag.
4. Image:Baseballstars.gif is lacking fair use rationale. This image should be fine as it is also a screenshot (that I personally took) just like the other three pictures. Masterhatch 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Well, it's purely academic now, since I replaced it. Themindset 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
5. "The Cheats" section is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should give an overview of what the game is about, not specific cheats, what buttons to press for them to work, etc. This is more appropriate at Wikibooks.
6. In the lead, it says the article was a major hit, yet it is not talked about in the rest of the article. A section must be made, possibly "Critical Acclaim", showing sales statistics, magasine reviews, its impact on the genre etc.
7. The "see also" section is useless. All the links in there can be found in the main article. Remove it, or add better links.
8. The links section should be called "External links", and should be better formatted than this.
9. Add references.
10. In the infobox, it says Nesticle is one of the Platforms on which the game plays, but Nesticle is an Emulator, not a platform.
11. It also says DOS is a platform, but not once is this mentioned in the article.
12. The external links, apart from the Mobygames entry, are all useless. They do not provide the reader with additional information, only downloadable ROMs and cheats, whaich are useless to a reader who is trying to find out more about the game.

Also, try looking at Katamari Damacy, for an example of what a game article should be. Take a look at the WikiProject Computer and video games, which has some helpful tips. «LordViD» 13:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, On MobyGames, it says the game was released May 19, 1989, but in the article, it says it was released 1988. I've also added some stuff to the list above.

This is a great article, but needs a lot of work IMO. «LordViD» 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Great input guys! Will start working on this stuff right away. Question is it inappropriate to cross off points in here, should I copy paste this list and start crossing them off in the appropriate talk page.?Themindset 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys? What guys? It's only me :). Anyway, feel free to cross them out here. «LordViD» 20:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We're going at it on the talk page, I will update these points as we cross them out. Themindset 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Taino

I think this has featured article potential and is a nice diversion from the usual eurocentric stuff that gets nominated. I'm hoping to improve this article if I can. --MateoP 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hello. You should probably take a look at Tamil people, an excellent featured article, as a model on layout, topic organization, and other features. If you need more specific help after you've taken a look, please ask. Saravask 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --MateoP 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

This happens to be one of the first articles I ever started as a Wikipedian (on March 4), as a fan of the Care Bears, their TV show and movies. Work on this article only sped up in recent months because of a copy of the film I obtained from the Internet.

This is no likely FA candidate, since it's a children's animated film and not that many people have recently seen it, not even on cable television. And the critics have been no nicer to it...

Yet, in keeping with Wikipedia's quality standards (after I went through all those spelling and grammatical corrections and rewrites), this is really one of the best articles I have ever worked on.

However, before it attains FA status, four tasks should be done to make it a little better:

1. the simplification of the crew members list;
2. adding Leonard Maltin's comments on the film;
3. getting a suitable picture or two for the plot and characters section;
4. replacing the 2003 video cover with the original 1986 poster.

I would like to see it featured on the Main Page anytime before its 20th anniversary. Please read my ideas for its improvement, and tell me if you agree for its qualification. --Slgrandson 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• The article needs a "references" section, in the sense of a list of the documents that confirm all the facts presented in the article. Also, the variety of bullet-point sections that currently dominate much of the article should probably be converted into prose, if possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I didn't make it through all of the lengthy "Plot and characters" section. I'd like this to be broken up into subsections to make it more digestible. There are a few awkward phrases that need work, for example I found "Proving such reputation" somewhat jarring. The references section is not a conventional references section of a wikipedia article; perhaps "literary references" would be a better title. I am also of the opinion that articles shouldn't really have a "trivia" section, as trivial information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. This should be merged into the rest of the article if at all possible, where appropriate. Finally, I think the "Crew members" section is too long; mentioning the notable crew members only and giving a reference to an external source such as imdb would be sufficient for this, it seems to me. Lupin|talk|popups 00:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've responded to you with the crew simplification. Happy (at least) now? Still, there's time before we get it to FA status--there are three more tasks to go. --Slgrandson 02:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Now I've almost finished the article--except for, at least, two more things:

1. Leonard Maltin's comments on the film need to be added in the reaction and reputation section (someone should have his Movie and Video Guide for this task);
2. there should be another part of the article covering the music and soundtrack.

Read those ideas and see this time if you agree as to whether they could be accepted into the article. I am waiting politely for a response. --Slgrandson 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm going to watch the film myself before I pass any comment. It's coming on on British TV sometime over the Christmas period. Spe88 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

J. S. Woodsworth

J. S. Woodsworth is the founding father of Canada's third largest political party. This article tells his story concisely, and, I hope, engagingly. What does it need to bring it to FA status? Denni ☯ 02:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The lead could be expanded to 2 paragraphs, the second should mention what did in his political career. I think the childhood and early ministry sections should be merged since the childhood section is really quite short - perhaps just called early life and ministry. I think the prose could use some work, there are quite a few paragraphs begining in year x he did y. I also didn't get a good idea of what his socialist ideals were when I read the article.

I would also suggest updating the image copyright info on the first image so that it meets all the fair use requirements- since the non-commercial licence will probablt be an issue on FAC.--nixie 22:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, nixie. I'll work on those. Denni ☯ 01:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• The discussion on what Wooodsworth did as leader of the CCF between 1932 and 1939 is rather thin. One minor point, maybe the ISBNs of Woodsworth's books could be supplied if they exist. Other than that, an excellent, well written article almost there as a FAC. Luigizanasi 05:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• The quotations will need references (if from books, then to specific page numbers). Can the influence from his grandfather be expanded - I didn't understand the 1837 Rebellions-grandfather-J.S.W. connection. Being in London in the 1890s is pretty big in terms of public health and social activism so this could be expanded upon. A really good book on this is Atlantic Crossings: Social politics in a progressive age ISBN 0674002016 which describes how such social politics made its way from Britain to North America (and vice versa) during the turn-of-the-century. If it mentions Woodsworth specifically then it would be very valuable for this article. I would like to see a more detailed description of his activities as an MP. Also, the NDP abandoning "Woodsworth's idealistic vision" thing should probably be more specific. Otherwise, it is a great article, well on its way to becoming a FA. --maclean25 18:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Edward Teller

A pretty straightforward biography of a rather contentious character. I think it does a pretty good job of covering his major aspects of his life while being even-handed (pretty difficult given all the bad blood there is around this guy). What else should be in this? Anything that should be expanded upon? Anything that should be shrunk? Your suggestions are desired. --Fastfission 03:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Very minor, but use SDI, not SW in the subheading, it looks odd on the contents, like a pop culture reference (Which I know, I know, it was) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good call. --Fastfission 17:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The lead could use a solid paragraph or two. Peter ^Isotalo 21:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, also a good call. I wrote up a summary paragraph, hopefully others can take a look at it. --Fastfission 03:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Without any previous knowledge and without commenting on any specific factual content, the structure of the article as a whole looks very good. The amount of information given seems pretty much ideal.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Berry

Previously submitted to peer review before (see archive), the article has been reformatted to be clearer and more concise. Two album covers have been added and more of his works have been added to the table at the bottom. I'm hoping to get some feedback regarding the content (what needs to be improved upon, what should be expanded, what is unclear etc.); layout; and any other general comments.

As there is nothing (that I know of) about Dennis Berry in print, it's difficult to cite references. The only things I have are the actual records he made (and I assume there are some documents concerning those and their production), Performing Rights Society (PRS) royalties breakdowns which document where his work is currently being used, and what I have learnt through discussions with my grandmother and my mother. I have been able to find a few websites which mention him, which have also been added to the article. Howie ☎ 02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is just generally lacking context. The 'Early life' and 'Marriage and family' sections are just too short, maybe they could be merged together and retitled. The lead is very short, the lead of an article should summarize all the details into one or two concise paragraphs (see WP:Lead). There are lots of red links in the Career section which you may want to fix. There is also a lack of external links, I was expecting quite a few more other websites than just IMDB. Good work so far, keep it up. — Wackymacs 16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'll get on and sort out the early life/marrige parts - I'm sure I can find out more about that from my grandmother, As for the external links... well there's not much else I can provide other than the IDMb listing, and the references. He seems to be continuously left out of most sites regarding light music, or he barely gets a mention; and there is certainly no official site or anything like that. Not sure what else I can really add to that. Howie ☎ 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Francisco Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros

Self-nom - would appreciate feedback before nominating for FAC. Thank You! --Stbalbach 18:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Try reducing the size of the lead image (only by a little bit) as it takes up too much text space.
2. It is not indicated which person is Cisneros in the lead image. (Forgive me if it is obvious, but I am like that sometimes)
3. The article needs a thorough copy-edit; one sentence strikes me the most; He was giveing to all, and founded and maintained very many benevolent institutions in his diocese. I'll give it a shot, but I'm no expert.
4. Image:Cisneros3.jpg needs a caption.

Hope that helps. «LordViD» 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi thank you. I've addressed #1 and #2 .. #3 your right, the article originated as a EB1911 and had had heavy copedits allready to bring up to modern standards but another pass through from someone elses perspective would help. #4 there's nothing to caption but the obvious "Portrait of Cisneros" and I thought it looked better left unsaid with no thumb-box, but if this is a requirement will add it. thanks again. --Stbalbach 02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Singapore

Requesting feedback and scrunity so it can be improved/problems retrified for eventual Featured article candidate. :) - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Lack of pictures in the earliest history. Perhaps get some photos in the museums? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Should have more pictures at the top. Well written article though. --MateoP 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice work, for the most part. I hesitate to say that you need some pictures; after all, it's not a requirement to reach featured article status. It does look a bit plain, though; there's not even a bolded title in the lead. However, there are a few issues I ran into while quickly skimming through. Good luck!

• "Daughter" or "Fork" Pages: I don't understand why "The Straits Settlements" and "Singapore as a Crown colony" link to fork articles when they don't even exist. On the other hand, "Republic of Singapore" is pushing the limit of how long a section should be, and could really use a fork - but none exists.
• Paragraphs: You have numerous one-line paragraphs. Many of the sentences aren't even that important to merit standing alone; it simply harms the flow and look of the article.
• Weak Language: There's gratuitous use of "apparently," "might," "tended to," and so on. Without inline citations to back up the fact that these are controversial statements, the sentences just seem weak, and possibly even as violations of keeping a neutral point of view. You have no conviction of the truth behind your facts. If it happened, say so - directly. In addition, passive-feeling statements like, "Reformation of the justice system and law occurred," simply sound dull and lifeless.
• Grammar: This article needs a set of eyes to carefully read through and make corrections. There are numerous points where sentences tend to get a little long and rambling. -Rebelguys2 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese Communist Party

(1st peer review)
The article has been identified as a good article, however it has failed the FA nominations. I want to know what it lacks. Perhaps a better grammar, thing that I am unable to give due to not being a native speaker. That has been the major objection. Please make suggestions, I would thank you very much for your help. Afonso Silva 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's introductory paragraphs needs a lot of TLC, including some dates, reorganization and a few phrases that explain terms. I'd also mention the PIDE in conjunction with the 'repression' of the party in the '33-74 (I infer) timeframe, but also ommisions like the name of the Estado Novo regime lead to a sense of weak article. (i.e. Strong Intro implies strong article. This one is not strong. It needs a lot more text to glue the buzz words and titles into something that can serve as a synopsis of the whole. This bareboned effort is no where even close to accomplishing that.)
  • I'd guess the current placement of the Principles and internal organization section means that 'most of the article' never gets read! As is, the article probably looses the interest of most any reader in the 'Principles Section', which I'd recommend as a sub-page and both subsections as something to be moved much lower in the article. Idealistic lists like that make dry reading no matter where you put them, so I'd go with the sub-page, but move it's organization subsection as the main prose (organizing and anchoring the sub-page) to very late in the article (5th or 6th section).
  • Bringing an example or two of the 'repressions' the party endured plus a little about it's resurgence in '74-75 into the article top would probably be advisible to generate interest to continue reading further to most readers, including some mention of it's current prominence or lack thereof.
  • Inasmuch as the "Authoritarian" (That word should be used appropriately in the introduction) repressing regime was one of the last European authoratarian governments, and that the revolution in '74 was virtually bloodless(!), I'd suggest you work those in early, almost certainly, into the introduction as well as other such 'hook' (sympathy garnering) factoids, such as the fact that the party champions universal education of the working class which the regime opposed, etc.
  • All that will take a lot of effort to remain NPOV, but as is, there is no 'momentum' to help the reader to want to read on in a dry topic (No 'Narrative SNAP')... something hard to accomplish in any long writing, but I believe necessary for FA status.
  • I can't venture an opinion whether the primarily English speaking readers (of Wiki) personal beliefs (and consequent cultural bias away from anything socialist or communist) would affect it's chances, but you might want to bear that intangible reality in mind if additional work fails to bear fruit. The connotations of either of those two words here in America are rarely if ever posative. Well, excepting perhaps Ted Kennedy. ~:)

Good Luck, but good work! FrankB 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Currently, the history section takes up 24kb of the article's 54 kb total size, while the main History of the Portuguese Communist Party is 30 kb. Condense this section in line with Wikipedia:Summary Style. --maclean25 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with some of FrankB's suggestions, as well as the suggestion made by Maclean25. Here are my suggestions:

1. I would put the "principles and and internal organization" section after the history section, or, as Fabartus suggests, even later in the article.
2. See if you can shorten the introductory paragraphs.
3. I would eliminate the tables in the electoral results section. Instead, I would replace them with short verbal summaries of the results and of long-term trends (e.g., the PCP seems to be enjoying less electoral success in the last few elections). You could put the electoral results section in a separate article (titled something like "Electoral results of the Portuguese Communist Party").
4. I agree with Maclean25 that the history section should be shortened.

Best of luck to you. – Hydriotaphia 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Emotional detachment

I found this as a one-sentence stub, but as I expanded it, I realized there were two concepts here. I'm not so sure the first one goes by this term. I would appreciate any suggestions or ideas on how it might be improved because I think both definitions deserve a mention. --DanielCD 19:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My overall impression of the article is that it is too short for the subject matter. Could you expand on what is meant by "emotional systems that are in overdrive"? You could also include material on treatments, and perhaps an explanation of why this behavior evolved the way it did. I suspect that further research on this topic will disclose additional interesting material that can be edited and merged. The page could also use some references, and perhaps an image or two. Thank you. — RJH 16:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• These two concepts can co-exist in the same article. Perhaps some further reading into the subject can clarify the best way to present them.--maclean25 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comanche

This article has undergone a great deal of really quality improvement since its appearance on Articles needing attention several months ago. I feel it is ready for a review in order to hear suggestions on improvements. KillerChihuahua 18:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of good stuff there, but like much writing on Native Americans, it essentially locks its subject matter in the past: most of this article could fall under the heading "Comanches in the 19th century". More information on the people in the present, and over the last 100 years, is needed, as well as letting readers know which parts of the "culture" section refers only to traditional culture, as opposed to current practices. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 13:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response and insight! I had thought that myself, but have been uncertain how best to address it. I was thinking of creating a Comanche nation article, and making it more clear in the article intro that the article Comanche was about the historical Comanche people. This would address the issue without making the current article even longer. Of course any modern or current content would be moved to the new article. I would appreciate feedback on that idea. KillerChihuahua 13:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very good article. Few comments: it could benefit from an image & description of their villages/camps (eg. the layout, organization, locational decision, etc.). I agree with Kevin Myers above that the history is not balanced, it needs more 20th century discussion. The "Culture" section could use a small re-organization. This section is very long compared to the previous one. It could have the Childbirth/Raising Children/Coming of Age/Marriage/Death sub-sections form their own section about their lifecycle. Even Clothing/Hair and headgear/Body Decoration could form another section about their dress. Anyways, whatever is chosen try to avoid sections without any text (like "Culture"), use that area to bring the main points of sub-sections together so the reader has an initial picture in their head about what is about to be discussed in detail. --maclean25 19:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski

Polish codebreaker who first solved the German Enigma machine. I hope to get this article Featured, and would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve it. Thanks! — Matt Crypto 12:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• A truly elegant article! Here are my suggestions:
  • Check all the blue links and make sure they link to the proper location and not to disambig pages.
  • The technicality of this article sometimes gets really thick. In other words, try reading this as someone who has little or no knowledge of codes. I think you might make some room to briefly explain some of the technical aspects of codes and code-breaking.
  • The sections on Rejewski's personal life are all fairly short. Perhaps they could be combined into one section?
  • The Posthumous recognition sections seems very short...perhaps combine it with personal life?
  • The image of the cyclometer is not tagged. I think the image also needs to be enlarged so that the letters are visible without having to click on the image.

Overall, a beautiful article! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging comments, Ganymead. In the last couple of weeks, the sections on Rejewski's personal life and post-war life/recognition have both been expanded (and other sections have been beefed up a little, too). I've replaced the image of the cyclometer with a new image. — Matt Crypto 17:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Add more hyperlinks. For example, in the first para of the lead, terms like 'war' (which one?) or 'defeat of Germany' can be linked to more specific articles, and I can see several similar possible links in the following paragraphs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've clarified that the "war" was WWII, and linked to End of World War II in Europe for the "defeat of Germany". — Matt Crypto 17:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• It could be good to have the format of the references standardized. --Lysy ^(talk) 23:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Definetly. And not only that, but inline references should be used.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The references format has been tweaked; I think it's mostly consistent. Note: regarding inline citations, see Talk:Marian_Rejewski#Wikipedia:Inline_citations. — Matt Crypto 17:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Adriaen van der Donck

I really like this guy as a historical character, and would like to give him his due here at Wikipedia. I've been working on this article a lot recently and just thought it would be a good time to get some other eyes on it and see if this could become a FA. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you want to get this to FA standard, I would suggest expanding the lead (see Wikipedia:Lead) and try and find a painting of some form of Adriaen van der Donck to add to the top of the article. Early life section is very short. It is looking good so far though! — Wackymacs 09:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about the lead. I'll get on it.

Unfortunately there's only one portrait traditionally identified with him [6], but apparently it's subject is now disputed. I guess it passed through the hands of some shady art dealers in the past. But I could add it if you still think it'd help. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added an enhanced and modified version of that photo to the article for you. :) — Wackymacs 16:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to find a nicer one somewhere. It's in the National Gallery, so there's bound to be copies lying around. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the points you could mention in an expanded lead is how, if I remember correctly, Russell Shorto champions Van der Donck as one of the unsung heroes of New World representative government. Give a sense of his importance, and perhaps talk about how documents that were only recently translated have enhanced his reputation. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I got a start on the lead, but I'm still not satisfied with it. It'll have to wait until I get back from work. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you guys think of the lead section now? Did I hit on everything I should?

As to the early life section, even Shorto's book (which practically drools over every aspect of Van der Donck's life) is mostly interpolation before his applying to Van Renssalaer. I could flesh out the influence of Grotius probably along with religious affiliation and such. We also know about his family background, but I'm not sure how important it is to know that his grandfather was a local hero who helped recapture Breda from Hapsburg forces. Any thoughts? — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled across {{Biography}}. Do you think that I should do most of the discussion of his writings in a seperate section as they do? — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I think the article is fine the way it is currently. — Wackymacs 16:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the process of merging in material from a duplicate article at Adriaen Van der Donck that was just pointed out, so the article probably warrants another look. The Early life and leads sections have gotten longer, and the period in Rensselaerwyck has been fleshed out.

Also, question for anyone out there: the article I'm merging from lists quite a lot of references, but nothing is specifically cited. I think I'm just going to move the new non-primary sources to a Further reading section until I take a look at them, but what about the primary sources — should I just go ahead and list his most famous writings? — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

San Pellegrino

I have expanded the article slightly, and as with the previous peer review, I have re-organized the timeline and the information that many people may not need. I have also cleaned up the page. After this, I hope it will bewcome a featured article. I have, unfortunately, been unable to find any sales figures. These would be most handy for a further expansion. --Kilo-Lima 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think the timeline should be converted into prose, that is paragraph form. The paragraphs are rather wimpy and only contain as little as a sentence per heading; perhaps some of the sections could be merged. The History section generally appears first; I suggest that the Varieties and Cost be merged into the popularity section as one single section. The two references also have to be properly cited; the actual URL has to be provided. AndyZ 22:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This article could use much more work to become a featured article; the article World War II is being considered by many as not worthy of FA status. From my objection on the article, lots of editing needs to be done to correct the article grammatically, I helped to clean it up a slight bit. AndyZ 21:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Foolkiller

I've addressed the deficiency of references in this article. They are now there. I still think this article has potential being that it is a comic book character that is obscure, non superhero, yet interesting.Mr. ATOZ 03:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's great that you decided to bring this to peer review. A few pointers (some taken from the FAC nomination of this article);

1. The lead section is too short.
2. The "Foolkiller (Marvel, 1990-91) ten-issue limited series" should be removed, as it's a gallery of fair use pictures, which isn't allowed.
3. None of the footnotes seem to be working.
4. Powers and abilities section should be turned into prose.
5. The "Memorable Quotes" section belongs in Wikiquote, not here.
6. The disambiguation line at the very top should be removed, as it points to non-existant articles.

«LordViD» 08:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mercury (planet)

This article is tagged as a "good article," and I believe it has potential to become a featured article. Nevertheless, I appreciate more ideas to get the article to that point. Pentawing 23:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• This article looks like it has developed fairly piecemeal over time, and would hugely benefit from one editor thoroughly honing the prose to make it flow better. I'm not sure the current organisation is the best or most logical and it could do with some thought. I think I added some of the references, but probably a few more are needed for quoted facts. The enormous table showing dates of elongations seems pretty pointless to me, something for wikisource maybe but not an encyclopaedia. Also, the Mercury in fiction sections seems far too large; it could be trimmed substantially. I'll read the article more thoroughly over coming days and see if I can make any meaty content suggestions. Worldtraveller 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll try to read through the article and repair the prose, but I would need someone to confirm some of the information. The table of elongations also appears in the other planet articles, so I am not sure if the table should be removed. As for the "Mercury in fiction" section, should it be moved into its own subarticle? Pentawing 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I moved the "Mercury in fiction" section to its own subarticle. I also read through the article and tried to repair as much of the prose as possible. Pentawing 05:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article is looking good, on the whole. Here are some more comments:
  • Occasional bits of awkward prose still need fixing, eg "which is over 300 times smaller than that of Jupiter, which is..."
  • Some statements need expanding, and sources citing. Why is the axial inclination so low? Who has suggested that it might be a Chthonian planet? Is there a source for the quote that it takes more fuel to reach Mercury than to escape from the Solar System?
  • I think everything important about the planet is covered, but some sections could do with expanding a bit: Historical understanding (much more could be said here I think), Interior composition, Magnetosphere, and the space missions section. The Mariner missions deserve a couple more paragraphs, and there is plenty of info on the upcoming missions which could be interesting.
  • The intro needs work, I think, to be more of a summary of the whole article content. The middle paragraph is good (although the word "nevertheless" seems a bit of a non sequitur), but for example in the third paragraph it seems strange not to mention why it was thought to be two objects. Worldtraveller 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Guys, take a look at DE version, that is a nice article. English one not even close to "good". TestPilot 01:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I don't understand German very well. Could you point out some things that the German article has that the English article lacks? Pentawing 02:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Human-based units of measure

I'd appreciate input on whether derived units should be included, whether epoch and/or era belong here, and any units that I've missed. This is for the category entitled 'Human-based units of measure'. --Cybercobra 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not make derived units a sub-category? An era can cover geological periods, so I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be human-based. You could consider turning the "units of measurement" article into FA quality and cover this topic therein. Thanks. — RJH 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

All right then. Will break into subtopics based on kind of unit.--Cybercobra 03:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest

Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest/archive1

This article has improved alot since it last had a peer review. It has gone from a long choppy list to a detailed and well referanced article(it has 59 seperate sources). It details the background to the event and the effects as well as details of day itself.

I believe the artile is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable and would like to know how it can improved further so that it could achive featured article status.--JK the unwise 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Terms in bold in the lead should not be linked (at least that's what I remember the last time I checked, I can't seem to verify that now)

De-linked.--JK the unwise 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.

Changed "Other Areas in Asia" to "Other areas in Asia" which was the only one that I could find. I am assuming that "Western Europe" is a proper noun.--JK the unwise 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]

I have moved all the fullstops that occured before the ref's to after the ref's.--JK the unwise 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

D'oh!, I have just reolised that I misread this comment and I have changed all the fullstops in the wroung direction! I'll have to fix this tommorrow.--JK the unwise 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--JK the unwise 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.

• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Polar is/are a bit short.

Now its a bit longer.--JK the unwise 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.

Captions shortend.--JK the unwise 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.

Added km coversion of distance of Glasglow march and °F conversion for tempreture of Canada protests and mi/h conversion for windspeed on a Canada demo.--JK the unwise 10:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.

Done.--JK the unwise 10:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

Previously nominated. Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is {{A-Class}} for the Films WikiProject. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see if become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Direction Finding

I know this is an obscure sport in most of the English-speaking world, but it has lately seen some growing popularity in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. I would appreciate any feedback on the article, especially from individuals for whom the entire subject is completely new. --Kharker 23:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's a good article and appears to be a fairly thorough treatment of the subject. About the only thing missing would be some information on the actual winners of the world championships. Their names, finish times, nations of origin, and so forth. Thanks. — RJH 16:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that this would be too cumbersome. In each world championships, there are nine age/gender entry categories for two meters and nine age/gender categories for eighty meters, which is 18 winners per year for 13 world championships, not to mention the team rankings, which is all a bit much. I also think this is a level of detail that isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedic article; none of the other wikipedia articles about sports (i.e. basketball, lacrosse, rugby union, etc.) go into that level of detail. This might be more appropriate for a list article to accompany this one.--Kharker 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's fine with me. Thanks. — RJH 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent article. I've never heard of this sport before. Several comments:
  • What's the deal with the 2 meters and 80 meters? what the difference, why those? it seems important...
    • I've added several additional sentences to that paragraph that I hope answer these questions adequately. I'm also adding a reference to one of the articles that discusses it in more depth.--Kharker 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "The first events of this nature were held in England and Denmark..." what events? contests, conferences, etc. the reference doesn't explain it either.
    • I've clarified this sentence. Although the source infers that competitions were being held in England and Denmark then (and they were), it is most specifically referring to the creation of formal rules.--Kharker 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Russia ARDF Team web site is not a very useful as a reference. I'm not sure of the policy for foreign language references but the point of these inline citations is for easy verification of facts (and further reading on the point). Same with German in Note 18.
    • I've been unable to find an English-language reference for this, so I've just removed it.--Kharker 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In note 11, a link to the actual rules might be more useful, especially for Note 11b.
    • Fixed. I will get to the rest of these comments in time as well.--Kharker 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Local variations" sub-section seems like an odd little section. Perhaps expand it more or else merge it with "Rules" section
    • I've expanded it slightly.--Kharker 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Map and course details" section could use an illustrative image.
    • Agreed. This is a challenge, however, as essentially all ARDF/orienteering maps are owned by clubs that have paid a significant amount (tens of thousands of dollars in many cases) to have them made. The orienteering article faces the same challenge. I will ask around and see if anyone has an older map or portion of a map they are willing to release under a suitable license.--Kharker 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)--Kharker 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "It immediately became popular in..." what would lead me to believe this? is there a reference that could illustrate this claim?
    • I've changed the phrasing.--Kharker 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "As of 2005, there has been no organized ARDF activity..." as far as you know, sounds like a bold statement (open to intpretation) so should probably get a reference. Otherwise re-phrase to 'there are no registered societies' or 'no teams from x, y, z that compete in the championships'...just something more concrete.
    • Yes, it is harder to prove absence than existence. I've just removed that sentence - I don't think its elimination will detract from the rest of the paragraph.--Kharker 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • All the "See Also" links are already linked in the article. So that section need not exist. --maclean25 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • OK--Kharker 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Che Guevara

This article has been up for FA twice, however, it got rejected both times. What I (and I'm sure others) want to know is what needs to be done to make such a nice-looking article into a featured article. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I say use this image in the lead; it's more well known, if of lesser quality. Looks nicely referenced... And yes, reply to the objections of those who shot it down from FA. But the issue here is, I'm sorry to say—and you probably knew this anyway—is length. Length, length, length. Although I do not like the limit, nor do I like making you kill good content (move it elsewhere), 58k is just too long. I'm really sorry—it's a great article—but it's just too long. --HereToHelp (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to have to take that back; Diamond is FA and 6o something k. Although some trimming might be nice, go easy. What you should do is address the reasons why it failed its FA nomination. --HereToHelp (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to the need to shorten the article, I branched off part of the article into Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution. 204.8.195.187 15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If length is the sticking point then consider branching off the photo gallery and trivia to a separate article. Those minor extras give the impression of an article in need of editing even though I can't point to any essay text that should go. I agree that the famous 1960 photo belongs at the top of the article. The captions aren't up to the quality of the rest of the writing. Many are too short. A few ramble. Caption style doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. A caption should enhance the reader's understanding of the main text. Some of these captions seem decorative. The Joan of Arc images and captions might illustrate what I mean. I agree this is very close to a successful featured article. The edges are a little rough - and rough in ways that a newcomer would spot sooner than a regular contributor. Step back from the text and skim for a change. Then compare the look and feel of successful featured articles. Best wishes for your fine efforts. This is very good writing. Maybe the third nomination will succeed. Durova 03:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

References are all over the place. This needs a separate references section, where all of the references used are included, and then use notes to connect the text to the page in the reference. Including references in the "Guerrilla fighter" section doesn't make sense to me—if they were used to reference that section, put notes there and list the references in a separate section at the bottom. I'd also say get rid of the "gallery" section—all those images are already on Wikimedia commons (or they should be!) and there's a link to them on the page already. If you're especially attached to one or two of them, work them into the article. I've fixed many of the formatting issues, though there still may be some. I'd suggest moving the content about him playing chess and such to other sections, or expand that section. Also, I've renamed the Trivia section to Popular culture, since that's really what it's talking about. Probably will want more prose there. And the external links and further reading sections need to be cut down—further reading shouldn't have online resources in it, for one thing. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yechi

This is my first major article. I'm not expecting it to be featured, I'm just looking for constructive criticism of any kind. Daykart 22:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Its is a very go article but I would suggest adding a "see also" section, and an "external links" section to the article. I would also recommen adding a refrences. Tarret 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Singapore

Eventually would want it to become a Featured Article. Requesting for suggestions on how to expand, and new sections that may not be covered under the article at this time. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to have a section on foreign responses, if possible. I'm sure at least one NGO has condemned it, if not a head of state or two. Deltabeignet 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Michigan State University

I have put a lot of effort into this page and its "daughter articles", and many other Wikipedians have worked on it as well. Therefore, I submit the Michigan State University main article for peer review to get it into shape to be a featured article. — Lovelac7 05:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Known for - MSU has one of the top packing programmes
• Campus section
  • The size of the campus (>5000 acres, >2000 acres developed) is highly notable
  • Not sure why the mention of Lake Lansing is mentioned in this section
  • The distinction between north campus and south campus is worth making
• Athletics - no mention of records, basketball success in the last few years, lack of football success
• Student life - no mention of the Peanut Barrel? the Dairy Store?
• Other - the article should include mention of KBS, of the Kresge Art Museum, of the Beal experiment, of the history - figures like Beal and Hannah, also mention of Liberty Hyde Bailey. Guettarda 05:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• The sentence:

Michigan State University was founded as the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan in 1855 as an act of the Michigan Legislature; the school was the first agricultural college in the United States and served as a prototype for future agricultural institutions as would be defined by the Morrill Act.

is very long and would do well to be reworded. It is a little hard to follow. MyNameIsNotBob 05:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

All it needs is an extra period instead of a semicolon. alteripse 06:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is from a Michigan Wolverine who worked on getting the University of Michigan (Go blue!) article featured, but I am willing to help (this is Wikipedia after all, where collaboration is important :-). Anyways, there are several immediate problems:

1. There are too many lists. For an FA, this is highly discouraged. Prose should be used throughout.
2. The "rankings and notes" is a mess. Are you trying to create a list of footnotes, and if so why are they in the middle of the article?
3. If you make a claim (e.g. this program is one of the best in the nation), you must have a solid source to back it up (otherwise, your claims are nothing but hot air). Use of footnotes is highly recommended.
4. I didn't check the images, but if they were of the modern campus, I suggest you go about and take some pictures (which qualify for GFDL-compatible licenses). Copyrighted images are frowned upon for FA unless there are no free alternatives.

I would suggest you refer to the University of Michigan article to see what type of format works for FA. Pentawing 06:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What's distinctive or worth mentioning about Moo U? I think it was once the largest single campus university in the US. The sheer size dominates its character for both good and bad; you could spend a few years there like a few years in a big city, with lots of choices but leaving no connections or trace whatsoever. The course catalog used to be nearly an inch thick. Some of the residential college programs contained in a single residence hall used to be unique. Do they still have one of the best African languages programs in the country? The police administration ("pig ad" in 1970) program was also touted as the top in the world. They used to heavily recruit out-of-state Merit Finalists to populate the Honors College; is that still true?

The state legislature, dominated by lawyers from Michigan, regularly screwed them around. A medical school was blocked for years in the 1960s until the osteopathic lobby pushed the legislature for a state DO school, so MSU got a combined MD and DO school-- one school, one set of preclinical classes, no onsite hospital but two administrative superstructures and two types of degrees-- like one bottling plant putting the same thing in Coke and Pepsi bottles. When the medical school was founded around 1972 it was designed and claimed to be uniquely "humanistic" in its training-- I don't know how distinct it tries to be anymore.

MSU was nationally domininant in football in the 1960s coached by Duffy Dougherty (sp?), and in the late 60s student seats for basketball games in Jenison (?) fieldhouse went unfilled for 25 cents. Basketball took off after Magic Johnson led them to their NCAA title in 1979.

So what's happened in the last couple of decades that's distinct? alteripse 06:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good point - largest non-military cafeteria, largest on-campus resident population, largest single-campus population. And Magic Johnson. Guettarda 06:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd pretty much echo Pentawing's suggestions, with a few more specifics. 1) The three remaining lists (programs board members, and lingo) probably need to go. A FA shouldn't have a list in it unless the list is really, truly needed in order for the article to be comprehensible. Instead they should be linked to where appropriate, or not if they really aren't truly important. 2) A FA should properly prioritize what it covers. The most important topics should get the most coverage, and less important topics should get covered less, not at all, and/or in subarticles depending on the topic. 3) There's no info on the town v students or town v campus tension. Maybe not a lot needs to be covered here, since that's more important to EL than it is to MSU, but consider it. 4) Too many fragmented paragraphs. One or two sentence paragraphs usually highlight things that should either be combined with related material, expanded into a full idea worthy of a full paragraph of it's own, or simply removed, as per suggestion #2. A FA usually doesn't need any orphan paragraphs, much less the large number that a typical unpolished Wikipedia article has. 5) More high quality sources always helps. A trudge to the library or bookstore to find a good overview book on the uni would go a long way. A well done work will give you an idea of what to prioritize and of course good material to cite.
• If you were thinking of listing the article for FAC soon, I would warn you it has a pretty long way to go, no offense. I have quite a bit of experience on what will pass FA and when an article meets the FA criteria, so nudge me after you feel you've implimented the suggestions in this peer review and I'll review it again, for what that's worth. - Taxman ^Talk 16:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No offense taken, Taxman. I figure this article has a way to go, but now I have a lot of good suggestions on how to clean it up. — Lovelac7 18:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent improvements indeed. The biggest problem left is the referencing. People are really going to look for facts to be cited inline to a specific authoritative source. Especially specific stats or important points or potentially contentious ones. I'd recommend shooting for the top 20 facts based on importance and disputability to be cited either Harvard style or with footnotes. After this Siegenthaler incident, I think people are going to clammor for better referencing, and I'd have to agree that's a good thing. - Taxman ^Talk 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding town-student issues as Taxman mentioned, how about
  • mention that EL's primaries are held when students are out of town (unless this has now changed)
  • mention of the three riots in 1997-1999 (Gunson Street riot, the Munn Field riot and the basketball one) Guettarda 18:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • and the "Riot!" card game that a local wag created. William Allen Simpson 21:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• You might mention we won the first ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest back in 1977. We had a pretty decent (one of the earliest) Computer Science program. I supposed the current claim of reflected fame would be that Ralph Page was a prof, and his son co-founded Google -- but studied EECS at Umich.edu. William Allen Simpson 21:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good job with the improvements. Could also add mention the Kellogg Center in there somewhere. Student life could mention the dorms, Spartan Village, University Village, Cherry Lane. The history section could say something beyond the sequence of names - originally a farm school where they had to work in the fields, the first female students, etc. Guettarda 15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On a related note to the article, that template down the bottom about notabel locations needs a cleanup. The red means redlinks look like blank spots in the writing, it's near impossible to focus on all the colors to read, and the comments in brackets don't really belong in a template. A bit of a tangent there, but worth commenting on in this forum. Harro5 06:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware that the template showed up as red. It's supposed to have a light gray background. I'll see what I can do. Lovelac7 16:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Some comments:
  • Is that painted rock really the first image of the university the reader should see?
  • The "Master Plan for the year 2020" should be referenced.
  • "The campus defines and dominates life at the university." and "Michigan State University is well-known as a research university." are odd statements that just don't seem to read well (conclusions used as introductions)
  • Reference all quotations, including "make men farmers, but farmers men", "train both the hand and the head.", "educating boys away from the farm", "comparable to those of the University of Michigan", "Our graduates show that a love...",
  • Also please reference:
    • "Often called the "Father of American Horticulture",..."
    • "...MSU and U-M has been referred to as "the fiercest rivalry on ice,"
    • "Free copies of the paper are online..." (send the reader there)
  • The sub-section "Fight Song" should be merged with the intro to the sports section because it is not very elaborate and it is not parallel with the other sub-sections (football, hockey, basketball). --maclean25 06:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in Michigan State Sports you should check out http://www.detroitsportsonline.com This site has a lot of coverage about State.

Kings of Ulster

I created this page and have updated it somewhat. Any comments would be welcome. Fergananim 01:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Need more immediate context: the first sentence should mention that this is Ireland, for example.
• Similarly, a broader category (e.g. one that mentions Ireland somehow) would be nice.
• The opening paragraph could flow a little smoother: some sentences seem a little fragmented. For example, Ptolomy's map (compiled about A.D. 150 from many earlier sources) shows them ... who is Ptolomy? Why does he have a map? There is a link to Ptolomy, but a little more (again) context on the page would be nice.
• It's not clear if the list of pre-historic kings is in any particular order. Can you put dates next to some?
• Wikipedia style calls for it to be "Pre-historic kings" (caps). Same for the other section.
• The infobox needs the area and population either filled in or blanked.
• An image of any of the kings, even an image with a king in it, would be a nice addition to the page.
• In the image caption, make "hill fort" two words and wikify it, as it is not a generally common phrase.
• Hope this helps. - Turnstep 20:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Might want to move this page to List of Kings of Ulster. Review these featured lists: List of Portuguese monarchs and List of Presidents of the United States for ideas on what could be done with this article. --maclean25 04:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

University of Texas at Austin

After looking through the list of former featured articles, I feel that the 'education' section is lacking in quality and quantity. I, along with a number of other contributors, have spent a great deal of time working on this article and feel that the content is neutral, informative, and well-referenced. It definitely deserves a chance at becoming a featured article in the future. I would particularly like to get good feedback from those who have no knowledge of the university, or, perhaps, those supporting the school's rivals. ;) Thanks in advance, and all of us Texas Longhorns appreciate your efforts! -Rebelguys2^(talk) 12:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest you have a look at University of Michigan which is the only featured university. Since a FA criteria is brilliant prose, try and work as many lists into prose as possible.--nixie 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea; the prose format will let me throw in some more information about the items in the lists. I'll get around to that soon. Thanks. -Rebelguys2 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Pentawing would probably also have some good advice, he was responsible for the UM page.--nixie 04:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Some comments to consider:
  • Start the article with a more clear and concise description, rather than the accolades. Also, in these accolades be more descriptive about what "top" means (in terms of what? forever or just in 2005?)
  • Reference four doesn't say it has "one of the largest" network of living alumni "of any American university."
  • Please provide references for these kinds of statements:
    • "...2002 analysis performed by Sports Illustrated."

I have now provided a reference to the Sports Illustrated article, October 7, 2002. Johntex\^talk 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • "first mention of a public university in Texas can be traced..."
    • "by the 1930s, discussions rose about the need..."
    • "...over the objections of many students and faculty."
    • "Others, however, would argue that the Longhorns' biggest rival..."

I have now provided 4 references dealing with the Longhorns' rivalries. Johntex\^talk 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • What is the difference between a university and a college in the US? In Canada a university has four-year programs which offer under-grad and grad degrees. A college has two-year programs and offer (usually more specialized) diplomas.
  • Place a conversion of fifty leagues in brackets. 50 leagues = 150 miles or 241 kilometers. Why would they promise a distance and not an area?
  • Please reference all quotes, including: “at an early day.”, “university of the first class,”
  • Try putting the "Other notable facilities" in prose, perhaps with a map of campus? and use the footnote system to point the reader to the external links.
  • "Faculty and research" has a lot of info that may be disputed or dated. Provide clear reference to where all the numbers are coming from.
  • "Student media and film" and "Facilities" should be converted to prose (map of facilities?)
  • Remove the "Notable alumni" section, it is already mentioned elsewhere in more detail. --maclean25 05:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)