Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, have become featured article candidates, 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 (~~~~).

Scottish Parliament Building

[edit]

I think this is quite a comprehensive article and deals fully with the subject and related controversy. I know it's not the most exciting of topics but I'd be eternally grateful to anyone who could take a look and give their thoughts/opinions/recommendations/criticisms (anything!). Thanks Globaltraveller 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Review by DVD R W

Here are some points and recommendations I'd like to make:

  • Too much is blending with the Scottish Parliament article imo. I would recommend avoiding the {{PoliticsScotland}} especially in the lead, and try not to use the same pictures between the two articles. For this article you should show the building right away not the flag.
  • This article is well researched but needs more than just local sources, you need some broader coverage. Also look less at the politics and finances and more at the art and architecture especially since this is about the building.
  • You should find more sources in architectural monographs, journals, and magazines - and include info from them.
  • I think you are giving undue weight to editorial controversy and problems and not enough coverage of the building in terms of design.
  • Most images of buildings can't be used as fair use because of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #1. Maybe the model and the aerial would be ok, actually I don't really think so, and the others, while professional looking and informative can fairly easily be replaced with free alternatives. There are some at commons:Category:Scottish Parliament.

Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 09:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review. In response to your specific points:

  • I agree and that is does blend a bit too much with the parent article and will change this, and find a suitable free use image of the building, or at least part of it. I think the {{PoliticsScotland}} should have a presence on the page, but perhaps not at the top.
  • I already have some sources from architectural journals and magazines, which broadly day the same things as the "local based" sources. However it really won't be too difficult to extend these references into the text.
  • I have to say I disagree on the point of neglecting design of the building in favour of the controversy. This is not a purely architectural article per se. The design of the building, and its specfic components runs to much more than 50% of a pretty big article anyway. Having looked at some of the specific architectural reviews of the building design, these represent opinions rather than anything else and don't really add too much what is already on the article in this regard. I don't think there is much more that can be said in terms of design (perhaps a bit, as there is always room for improvement).
  • I will change the aerial image for a Free Use one (which is slightly different, but similar in this regard). The committee room image is Fair Use, but there is a committee room roof image I can replace it with. The other Fair Use image is the model which I think will be fine so won't change it.

Thanks again Globaltraveller 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you have a lot to say about this and are willing to do plenty of research which is very good, because it is a very important building. Your 50% observation is spot on and I would still consider expanding the architectural and design coverage in this article to 100% if there is a full article worth of information (which in this case I think there is). Looking again at your references I see some architecture websites that I didn't notice before, but there must be some more info you could use from the books about EMBT or primary sources from EMBT, El Croquis or one of the magazines with "architecture" in the title, and varied newspapers. Primary sources are essential but you also need some that are more objective and have some distance. There is a point at which you might consider an additional article such as "Problems, (or criticisms) and financing of the Scottish Parliament building" or even then separate articles for criticisms and financing as long as each separate article stays on topic and doesn't simply restate the same. An example of a series of well developed articles on the subject of one building is at fr:Modèle:Tour Eiffel but there are others. Notice that there isn't a finance or criticism article though there must have been many criticisms when it first opened and one could be written from the archives. PS don't forget to use edit summaries. DVD+ R/W 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you need to mention Benedetta Tagliabue- an important partner in Miralles' office EMBT, it wasn't just Miralles you know. DVD+ R/W 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benedetta Tagliabue is mentioned in the article. If there is to be an article of 100% architecture it should be on an Architecture of the Scottish Parliament Building article, as opposed to purely here? Looking at some similar articles on other buildings they devote a large proportion of their space to history and events surrounding these buildings. Even the principal article of the Eiffel Tower (far longer than this one), I can see (even in my limited French) has quite a lot to say on it's history and other things not purely related to design. I will nevertheless try to incorporate some other architectural sources into the text, to give a wider range of references. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering if we ought not to create a Fraser Inquiry sub-article? There are already several articles on public enquiries, and that type of article will probably be more common in the future. I do not think a rename to "Architecture of" is a good idea. The building is the architecture. Or am I missing something? --Mais oui! 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the building incorporates all the elements that are part of it - its function, its history and its design (and, yes, it's controversy and problems) You certainly could create another article purely for the Fraser Inquiry. There is so much that could go on that article. I'm not suggesting the article be renamed, but if one wants to concentrate fully on architecture (ie no history, no function, no location, no controvery, no problems etc), then a distinction has to be made. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Greco

[edit]

I initiate this last peer-review, just before submitting the article to WP:FAC. The article has already gone through two peer-reviews (here and here), and two more independent reviews by User:Yomangani and User:Eusebeus. Please, check Talk: El Greco. The purpose of this peer-review is to collect any further suggestions or to locate any deficiencies I may have missed despite the repetitive reviews and copy-edits. Thanks!--Yannismarou 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the title be
Doménicos Theotocópoulos, known as "El Greco" (probably a combination of the Castilian and the Venetian language for "The Greek",[a][b] 1541 – April 7, 1614), was a prominent painter, sculptor and architect of the Spanish Renaissance. He usually signed his paintings in Greek letters with his full name. Kaisershatner 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

[edit]

I switched all of your news sources from cite web to cite news, so that all of the information, including publication date, would be listed, alphabetically by last name of author. Because I didn't know how to use a different date format (I hate the cite templates), that meant I had to switch the last access date format on all of your refs. All of your references are now listed alphabetically, taking last name of author on news sources into account.

The division of References into

  • 9.1 Printed sources (books and articles)
  • 9.2 On-line sources
    • 9.2.1 Biographical
    • 9.2.2 Miscellaneous

creates a problem with the citations list. When the reader needs to find full detail on a source given in the citations list, s/he should be able to do that by going down the References list alphabetically. But, because the references are divided three ways, that means the reader has to peruse three different lists in order to locate full information about a given source. I'm not sure how to solve that problem - I'd probably be happier to see one, combined Reference list, to make it easier on the reader. I'm not sure the reader needs to know if a source is online, in print, or whatever. (I haven't had time to read the article, and considering the holiday season, may not find time.) Sandy (Talk) 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits! I trimmed the two sub-lists in Online Sources. So, now we have two main categories:
  • 9.1 Printed sources (books and articles)
  • 9.2 On-line sources
I do not think that this division is now problematic. After all, in previous articles I divided References in "primary" and "secondary sources", and again there was no problem. I've also seen this distinction of references in printed and online sources in a series of FA articles. After all, the reader can have immediate access to an online source straight from the "Citations" section.--Yannismarou 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, now it works - now one can find the detail. But I found another issue, which I hesitate to fix myself. On all of your cite journals (see WP:CITE), you added an extra set of quotes ( " ) around the journal names - the template automatically provides the correct format, which is italics on journal names. Fixing all of those will take some time :-) Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Yannismarou 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DVD R W

[edit]

Some brief thoughts and comments:

  • This article looks good, I don't have much to say but I would support it at FAC.
  • The article seems very well researched, but can you cut back on a few citations and notes for the sake of readability?
  • Why so many peer reviews?

Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 10:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Ham

[edit]

Using my finest-toothed comb...

  • May I suggest putting all the biographical info in a single section entitled Life (with Early years and family etc. as subsections)? That way the division of the article into sections on biography (Life), stylistic analysis (Art), posthumous reputation (Legacy) and historiography (Debates on attribution) would be clearer from the table of contents.
  • "Underscore" is used twice. The second time around it starts to take on the nasty ring of jargon; try to find a synonym.
  • Who's being quoted here: "an illustrious past, a prosperous present and an uncertain future"? It's not clear from the footnote.
  • The formatting is generally very good (particularly the idea of slotting a timeline – always awkward – into the Notes section), but I wonder about the extended Meier-Graefe quote being next to an insert with another quote (the Oddysseas Elytis excerpt). Any chance of moving the latter up or down?
  • When introducing David Davies as an English art historian, there's no need to link to English art. You probably don't need one for human anatomy either.
  • In the Legacy section,
    • Might Posthumous artistic reputation be better named Posthumous critical reputation or some such, as it quotes only critics, whereas the section after that is about artistic responses to his work?
    • Possibly move the reference to Der Blaue Reiter, the only artists quoted in the critical section, to Influence on other artists?
    • The subsection on critics comes before that on artists infuenced by El Greco. It's unusual for the former group to have priority; you might want to consider swapping them around.

Except for the above points, this would tick all my boxes at FAC. Best of luck to you! [talk to the] HAM 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNA

[edit]

DNA is arguably the most famous molecule and requires a comprehensive article. This page has been extensively re-written and referenced and will be submitted to FA once the peer-review process has brought it to the required level. Both editing and suggestions on content and format are welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 04:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think DNA is used a lot in medicine. I can think of DNA vaccines, but not much else. Perhaps that would fir better in the genetics article? TimVickers 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frustrated that "^ Colin Pitchfork - first murder conviction on DNA evidence also clears the prime suspect Forensic Science Service Accessed 23 Dec 2006" doesn't seem to provide a publication date on the news - are you able to find one anywhere? Also, External links seems a bit long - are they all necessary? Sandy (Talk) 17:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pruned some links.
    • Cleaned up by WS. Per WP:MOS, WP:MSH, is it always necessary to repeat "DNA" in the section headings? For example, can "Location and organisation of DNA in cells" be "Location and organisation in cells"? Can "Use of DNA in technology and industry" be "Use in technology and industry"? Some of the Further reading sources could use attention (ISBNs etc.) Sandy (Talk) 17:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded some of the sections, as suggested.
Shrank it to 69kb total. Thank you Sandy. TimVickers 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Áedán mac Gabráin

[edit]

The article is quite some way from being finished. I'd like to get it into shape to submit as an FAC, so any and all comments would be gratefully received. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford BA Falcon

[edit]

Please write what you think about this article if there is anything that i have missed please tell me. Senators 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot wrong with this article - too much to spell out in detail.
  • This image Image:55142 3mg.jpg is an unnecessary 'fair use' image. You already have photos of the car - it only ceased production last year so there is ample prospect for obtaining new photos. Fair use does not apply under these circumstances - so this photo has to go.
  • There is a confusing switch of tenses in the introduction: "the car is manufactured by..." - yet the car ceased production over a year ago. This confusion of tenses pervades the article. There are still switches of tense throughout the remainder of the article.
  • The quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar needs a lot of work. Elementary mistakes like 'where' instead of 'were'...or: In the BA range there is six models (are six models!). There are far too many problems to list here - the entire article needs a thorough copy-edit.
  • There are many unlinked terms, eg: The ANCAP gave the car 4 out of 5 stars - what the heck is 'ANCAP'?!? Even fairly obvious terms such as 'LCD' need to be either linked or expanded (eg 'liquid crystal display (LCD)').
  • Also, there many weasel-words: (people speculate that... - which people?
  • Factual/technical problems: therfore the car may use an extra 1.5 liters of fuel in the real environment - 1.5 liters over the life of the car? 1.5 liters per day? 1.5 liters per kilometer? What?
  • When you use metric measurements, please put the imperial equivelents in brackets afterwards.
  • SPELL CHECK THIS ARTICLE! There is no excuse for desinged, whanted, etc.
  • Some things are clearly nonsense: the driver moves the gear stick to the left and the vehicle will change gears according to the driver's liking and acceleration. The car is not telepathic - it doesn't know the 'driver's liking'. Tell us what it actually does.
  • You tell us that they were to hard to get in to because a user's head would always hit the top - always'?!? Even little old ladies? People afflicted with dwarfism that are only 3 feet tall? No - of course not - this is a ridiculous statement. The article is full of junk like that. This is an encyclopedia - you have to be really, really careful about exaggerating. Keep to the actual facts.
  • The level of detail in the article fluctuates wildly. You tell us microscopic details such as how the colour of the knobs on the radio changed from one version of the car to another - yet you never tell us fundamental things like what size wheels the thing has. I'm not saying that we need all of that other stuff - but if you are writing a high-ish level article then please leave out the silly little details and if you are attempting an unbelievably detailed description then we need a lot more detail about the rest of the car!
As I said, this article needs a heck of a lot of work.
SteveBaker 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has improved immensely over the last few days. I've struck out the things from my list of comments (above) that have now been fixed - but the language use is still very sloppy - there are lots of grammatical and punctuation problems remaining. I wouldn't want to accept this as a WP:GA. SteveBaker 02:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

[edit]

I was requested to review this article for GA status: I don't participate in GA, but can review it anyway. I fixed some things.

  • Heading, Performance and Handling, see WP:MOS, WP:MSH, should be Performance and handling.
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source ( Ford Falcon. en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved on December 11, 2006. )
  • Awards section needs references.
  • News articles need publication dates on footnotes.

Didn't have time to read the article. Sandy (Talk) 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford BA Falcon

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 470 Nm, use 470 Nm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 470 Nm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 470 Nm.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 16 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

List of mammals of Korea

[edit]

OK, I know not many lists go through peer review, but I'd like to get this up to featured list status, and need some feedback to help figure out which direction to go in. If you have time, please take a look. I would especially appreciate feedback on:

  • The layout... is it easy to follow?
  • The images... are they helpful here, or do they just clutter the page?
  • The citations... are there too many? too few?

Of course, any comments at all are most welcome. -- Visviva 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like the images clutter the page - actually, as I was initially scanning the list they were about the only things I looked at. I vote keep! I also think you have a good number of citations. Here's a few comments for your perusal:

  1. Status: I don't know what I or K stand for (I assume that NK and SK stand for North and South Korea?). Perhaps this could be explicitly stated somewhere?
  2. I didn't understand what the wikilinking criteria under Status was. It seems kind of random which conservation levels are linked and which aren't.
  3. Some entries have periods and others don't. As much as I like periods, technically these aren't sentences so they are unnecessary. You can choose, but it should probably be consistent.
  4. Range: is Throughout different from Throughout mainland? Perhaps the former includes islands?
  5. It might be nice to have a map of Korea in this article for readers to cross-reference with each mammal's range.

This is an amazing amount of work already. Good luck on your way to FL!--Will.i.am 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.
  1. Yes... I'd meant to have a footnote for that, but my use of a template for the headers was getting in the way. Think I've found a work-around, though. Just for the record, I is international (generally IUCN), K is Korea in general, and SK and NK are the respective Koreas. J is for Jeju, but that doesn't come up very often.
  2. The criterion was -- or should have been -- that IUCN assessments are wikilinked to the appropriate article (which explains in detail what the status means), and natural monuments are linked to the respective list, but others are not. Probably better to link everything, though. (Does that mean we need an article for Data Deficient?)
  3. Oops, yes; I lean towards including the period, since these are truncated sentences of a sort; but in any case it should be conisstant.
  4. Throughout mainland specifically excludes islands; "throughout" by itself tends to be somewhat ambiguous. The problem is that the sources aren't always very clear by what they mean by throughout. I'll try to clean that up.
  5. That's a great idea. Thanks! -- Visviva 04:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I stands for IUCN Red List, and K for Mammals of Korea (한국의 포유동물). I agree explicitly stating this seems like a good thing to do. Images are cute, please keep!
FWIW, the Erinaceidae family within Insectivora may soon become obsolete according to the Insectivora article – NB: I know nothing whatsoever about taxonomy and biology, I've merely read it there. Also, it seems there are two different species of hedgehog on the peninsula – see this edit (which has since suffered a partial revert). Thank you for a great article. Wikipeditor
Thanks for that, I'll see what I can find out. -- Visviva 04:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All sources I can find indicate the two hedgehogs are different subspecies rather than different species. This might stem from confusion between the old, more inclusive definition of E. europaeus, which now appears to be limited to the hedgehog as found in Europe proper, and E. amurensis which has replaced it. I'm not in the loop on the Erinaceidae thing, but since the IUCN is still using the term -- as do all of the other sources for the article -- I guess we're OK using it for now. -- Visviva 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Most of the issues raised above by Will.i.am have been dealt with, I think: 1. Added explanatory footnote. 2. Wikilinked all that relate to a specific ecological notion (did not link "common"/"uncommon"/"unknown"). 3. Added periods (maybe they should all be removed instead; I dunno). 4. This may not be entirely resolvable; we can't really be any more precise than our best sources. 5. Added a map, though it could be better. Thanks again!
More ideas and/or criticisms welcome... -- Visviva 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further update: Have clarified all "throughouts" except for a few bats, where no source seems to state clearly whether or not they are present on Jeju. -- Visviva 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on the lead section? I guess, looking around, these are supposed to be strictly an introduction to the list, rather than the topic. Pity, though; maybe I'll start Zoology in Korea for the latter purpose. -- Visviva 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Football League managers by date of appointment

[edit]

I spent a while creating this page and posted it earlier this month. In my opinion it's comphrensive on what it intends to list, and could soon be ready for FLC. There are a few concerns:

  • The date for Ronnie Jepson's permanent appointment is not as comphrensive as others are. However consultation with other editors and big Internet searches conclude that there was never any official announcement.
  • Peter Grant (footballer)'s appointment was announced by the Norwich website earlier than said date (before a weekend game as I recall), but wasn't officially done until a press conference the following Monday. What should be done?
  • Improve footnotes with website/date citations
  • Create some re-directs (where from?)
  • Find birthdays for Les Reed and Paul Fairclough.

Other than that, though, what could be done to bring it up to FLC standard? HornetMike 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you say, the citations should be improved. Most are incorrectly using {{cite web}} rather than {{cite news}}. You must supply the news item date – write this in wikilinked YYYY-MM-DD format. Instead of "work=BBC", use "publisher=BBC News". You should supply the author if possible (not usually given on BBC News). The longer citations probably require you to drop to 2 columns for the references.
  • Dates can be written in a shorter form than separate "day month" and "year" wikilinks: as a YYYY-MM-DD wikilink. The separate accessmonth/accessyear can similarly be shortened to accessdate. Obviously, there is no visible change but it makes the source text shorter – up to you.
  • Your "References" contain comments (usually regarding temporary appointments) that would be better in a separate "Notes" section. I suggest you use the Footnote3 system with letter labels for these footnotes and place them in a "Notes" section above the References. This has been done on other lists and will also help you properly format the (currently anonymous) sources for those comments.
  • Although the list is chronological by date of appointment, there is no reason why you couldn't split the table into sections by division. You would then lose a column and I think it makes the info more navigable and easier to edit. The current sole "Managers" section is a little pointless and would then be replaced by "Premiership", "League One", etc.
  • The lead could be expanded a bit. Perhaps you could briefly explain the leagues and divisions? The language in the second paragraph is a little clumsy. I suggest you just add those teams to the bottom of the table(s) with empty cells for the manager info. You should then add a ref for the news item that mentions this status (e.g. previous manager sacked, no successor appointed).
  • Re: Peter Grant. My opinion is to go with the official date but put a footnote in (as described above).
  • The Tony Mowbray and Peter Grant refs seem to be swapped.
  • One drawback to your excellent reference list is that it only tells you that the appointment facts are correct, not that they haven't been replaced. As mentioned on the talk page, the League Managers site could serve as a general reference (a bullet-point at the end) for readers to confirm that the list is up-to-date.
Colin°Talk 14:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, right.
  • I've implemented the note thing, although I'm not sure I've done it correctly. Someone may need to check. Should I change the links in the notes to references?
  • I've added a note about Grant's appointment
  • I fixed the mix-up between Grant and Mowbray
  • I fixed the messy bit in the Coleman citation
  • Someone else had added Fairclough's birthday
  • With regard to temporary appointments, because I think empty cells might look a bit confusing I've created a seperate section listing caretaker managers. I've removed the badly worded stuff from the lead.
  • As this is a new section (and another new notes section has been added) I've changed the "managers" heading to "permanent managers."
  • I've added the LMA reference you suggested.

As of yet I haven't improved the lead, as I'm still working out what to put, and done the proper citation format just because I haven't had time yet. Otherwise, I'm not sure about splitting the list by league. I feel it takes something away from the purpose of it. I don't think it's too hard to edit, as there's only ever going to be 92 entries. I could remove the League column entirely, I suppose, if people think it makes the table too big. Perhaps the club's box could be shaded to indicate their League as an alternative? I dunno. HornetMike 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've filled out all the citations. Once you separated the notes, I saw how many of them there were. The caretaker bit was so common that I think it was better handled as a separate column, with its own reference. The remaining few notes, I've just tagged onto the end of the relevant reference. I've expanded the lead a little, but you can probably do better than me. The references are now so wide, that even two columns wasn't readable - so it is just one big one. I don't have a title for the Norwich City reference - could you find it? A quick look at the League Managers Association page shows that your list is more up-to-date! -- Colin°Talk 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender

[edit]

Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Nicolas Ledoux

[edit]

The last article I brought here got zero reviews, except the automated one :-( What I have done with this article is translated the version from fr:, added a public domain portrait, and trimmed some of the images. Any comments, criticisms or improvements would be appreciated. DVD+ R/W 07:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious thing is the vast number of red links. You need to consider whether each of them are worthy of their own article (I'm not certain whether notability on French WP should correspond to En). If they are, could you try and start some of them, even if it's just a stub. The end sections need to be changed to correspond with WP:LAYOUT. Some pieces of information aren't in standard places (e.g. the birth/death place in the brackets straight after the title) - compare with a biographical FA to standardise. The French quotes aren't particularly useful if one does not speak French. There don't seem to be many citations - you can cite pages from the books used in the bibliography if you have them. Trebor 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trebor, I will attend to these and any other points throughout the week. DVD+ R/W 09:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andy, I really like the bot review, I wish it could edit all of the suggestions into the articles ;-) DVD+ R/W 09:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is a great addition to en WP. It needs to be condensed. To accomplish this, sub articles on the saltworks, the theater and the ferme generale might be considered. Why isn't there an article link to utopianism (architecture)? I strongly recommend this. Agree with comments about too many red links, such as street names. These probably should not even be in the article (on the English site) and certainly not as seperate articles. I would especially not carry over any red links that are also red in the French WP. In places, I felt the french terms needed to be defined within the text upon the first occurence, such as Ancien Regime. Glenn4pr 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The saltworks and ferme generale already have articles. I plan on expanding the saltworks one. There is no link to utopianism (architecture) because there isn't an article there, or at utopian architecture. Thanks for your comments, I will edit them into the article soon. I'm on my way over to your Peer Review now by the way. DVD+ R/W 16:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very comprehensive article - I've made some minor prose comments below.

  1. "Making frequent visits into Franche-Comté because of its functions, Ledoux was chosen to build the theatre of Besançon." - social functions or his work?
    I think fonctions was used to mean function, job, office, post, capacity, position. Franche-Comté had business opportunities for Ledoux. DVD+ R/W 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "With the aid of the machinist Dart de Bosco, a student of Giovanni Niccolo Servandoni, Ledoux expanded the Cage de scène, [giving it gave a great volume] with all the most modern improvements." - needs sorting
    How about, "With the aid of the machinist Dart de Bosco, a student of Giovanni Niccolo Servandoni, Ledoux expanded the volume of the Cage de scène, and added all the most modern improvements." ? DVD+ R/W 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "The building was inaugurated in 1784 and was recieved with praise" - presumably by critics, the public or the client?
    If you don't think it was praised, I could try to find a citation for that. DVD+ R/W 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Though the spectacular project that he conceived for the Palais de Justice and the prison of Aix-en-Provence was accepted, afterwards came many difficulties with the beginning of the executions in 1786." the 'afterwards' jars - I think the sentence needs a rewrite.
    How about, "Though the spectacular project that he conceived for the Palais de Justice and the prison of Aix-en-Provence was accepted, with the beginning of the executions in 1786 came many difficulties." ? DVD+ R/W 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "the cars penetrated through the interior of the hotel in a circular passage and the central salon, also circular, had in its center a rock wrapped in a colonnade" - Carts in the 1780's? carriages perhaps.
    Sure. From Car (disambiguation) the archaic form of car is chariot, cart, carriage. But this can easily be changed to one of the others if it is confusing. DVD+ R/W 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "fifty [barriers to access] were built between 1785 and 1788" - better phrase needed here
    How about, "fifty barriers were built between 1785 and 1788" ? Its even simpler with access removed. They were barriers after all. DVD+ R/W 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "The time was then returning to the antique, to the distinction and the examination, of the taste for the "rustic" style" - better as, I think, "But the taste of the time was returning to the antique, to the distinction and the examination and towards a more "rustic style" - I'm stll not sure what the subject of the distinctions and examinations are, so it might be better to be more explicit.
    I can't find this in the article right now, but remember stumbling on it myself. DVD+ R/W 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started to edit this and make inline coments, but then stopped as it dawned on me That while is very interesting and comprehensive, it reads like a translation, I think it now need to be completely re-written, incorporating all the facts that are there. No condensing, or too much deleting. I don't like the way work and personal life are mixed in the same sections. It reminds me very much of the early history of Sanssouci which had been admirably and faithfully translated from the German, but had to be ripped apart and put back together again, by someone thinking in English to make it readable and concise to English ears. Sorry to be blunt. I think DVD R W you have now to reduce the facts to basics, then write the page yourself in your own words using those same facts, but also look him up on some internet sites and architectural books and add a bit of your own originality to it. Try to look at it again with fresh eyes, you have probably studied the text as you translated and fallen into French mode. Giano 13:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from the maestro :-) Feel free to write and edit the article as much as you want - your English ears are probably better than mine. I will also look over Sanssouci, and Vanbrugh again, any more that you'd recommend? I still need a break from this to be able to see it with fresh eyes. I don't mind substantially rewriting it, but can't right now, I have a few more translations to do - including the rest of the saltworks article. I'll also do some proper research when I'm ready, but I trust the facts included by Justelipse (who wrote the fr: version). I know that I need to use inline cites and will both ask Justelipse for some and find some myself, when I start to add my own originality (of course not orignal research). Which sections have work and personal life unduly mixed? DVD+ R/W 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. DVD+ R/W 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General remark on translating from the French Wikipedia: beware the florid and vacuous: e.g. "he created a singular architectonic order, a new column formed of alternating cylindrical and cubic stones superimposed for their plastic effect." I have no idea what this means; I suspect it was equally obscure in the French original - Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, in fr:autoportrait, I agree. But this passage makes sense to me (maybe I have read too much French writing on architecture though). See Image:Koenigliche Saline in Arc-et-Senans Bild1 800px.jpg, I think this is what is being described here. The columns are a unique architectonic order, compare with Doric order or Solomonic column, or look through architectural orders. The columns described do alternate cylindrical and cubic stones and, as far as I know, this is singular or unique. The term "plastic effect", is something I hear referring to works by Le Corbusier, or often other modernists to mean sculptural or three dimensional - see plastic arts. I'm not sure how else to describe this. I trust you to re-write this or anything else to make it sound better. DVD+ R/W 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I probably did mistranslate in some places. As for that part, it was "obtint, sur une idée". How about, "The chemist and fermier général Antoine Lavoisier made the suggestion to the Controller-General of Finances Charles Alexandre de Calonne, of drawing a barrier around Paris..." ? DVD+ R/W 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. - Jmabel | Talk 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and add more if you want. Most of the redlinks should go though, right? DVD+ R/W 07:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi dvdrw! I said I'd comment, and I did start to write some suggestions, only to discover that they had been all taken care of while I typed—I think the article is in too much flux right now for me to comment usefully. I may be back when it's more stable, if there's still any need by then, for it's no doubt in a course of dramatic improvement! Bishonen | talk 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I've made some alterations to the first few paragraphs but I am painfully slow. DVD+ R/W you had better have a look and I see if I have correctly interpreted the Salt Works first paragraph. It's not too clear exactly what the cave is , and what the whole scheme is about, I may have the wrong end of the stick completely. Half the red links (IMO) could go, they are unlikely ever to be written. There is also a lot of surplus information. sort of bracketed information on people one has never heard of and is never likely to hear of. I'll do some more paragraphs later (unless someone beats me to it!) then when it is more understandable perhaps it can then have real thorough copy edit, perhaps rearranging facts a little more and defining more clearly what is actually going on there in the various buildings. I think at the moment one needs to have a pretty good knowledge of architecture to understand that, also I think the original French author has used the wrong architectural terms in some places - peristyle for portico etc. never mind we shall get there. Well done though It was a mammoth translation work though - well done. I'm sure it will be a FA - eventually. Giano 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all the editing, I found a couple of references today and leads on a couple more. When you want to ask for more use {{cn}}, and I'll try to find them. I also changed your translation of L'Architecture considérée sous le rapport de l'art, des mœurs et de la législation. Yours was fine, but I found examples of this translated elsewhere - where it seemed to me to be more direct, and also an established title, maybe the title that it was published as in English before. Yes, you were right about peristyle and portico. See Image:Chaux portal.JPG, behind the portico I think it shows the cave that is mentioned. I still don't know so much about the saltworks or the city plan for Chaux, but will translate that article soon and research more. I'm still not sure what to make of the terms I hear about him: visionary, megalomaniac, utopian, but am fascinated by the drawings, most of which are at the Commons. Again thank you, and by all means, work on this as much as it keeps your interest. DVD+ R/W 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Drake

[edit]

Could do with some extra eyes to help improve this article. Any feedback from the community would be appreciated. Thanks - Coil00 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice article, couple things though. The songs probably need some better fair-use justifications for some editors judgement - basically why you chose these songs for the specific article. Needs a copyedit, too, for various grammar-related stuff and small things, which I can help out with if you like. The most common thing I noticed was misuse of semi-colons and lack of italics on publications/films. In the Posthumous Popularity section, it leads off with two quotes. Is this appopriate style? I don't know, myself. The "Sound" section needs a more appropriate title and, ideally, I'd like to see the Sound/Lyrics sections merged or expanded, depending on how much info is available. I can start copy-editing tomorrow if you'd like. Cheers and nice work. Wickethewok 06:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for the toughtful comments. I've merged Sound/Lyrics (there's very little sources out there on these, unlikely to be expanded much more), and removed one of the the leading quotes from the "Posthumous" section (no, its not appopriate ;). I think I picked up most of the minor bits and pieces re semi-colons, and am continuing to comb the copy for awkward phrasing. The fair use rational I need to think about a bit, but the reasons you've used for Sasha provide a good starting point. Anyway, thanks again for that Wicketh. - Coil00 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cooltastic. If there's anything specific you need some feedback on, lemme know.  :-) One more minor thing with the sound clips, too. If you get a chance to re-upload them, they should probably be at lower quality if possible (Audacity should be able to compress them more than they are now) and a quick fade out on the end, too, is preferable so you don't get a suddent cutoff. Not really anything major to worry about though. Wickethewok 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and a few are over the 30 second mark. Will do, tks. - Coil00 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. One thing I'm curious about: "the first signs of psychosis". This seems to imply that there was a true psychotic break subsequently. Is that the case? Marskell 08:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't - a more accurate phrasing would be 'early signs', but its a direct quote...The best thing here would be to replace that quote with a less ambiguous one. Anyway, thanks for looking over. - Coil00 22:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are after Portal:British Army, then please go to Wikipedia:Peer review/British Army Portal/archive1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhfireboy (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Army

[edit]

It looks a pretty decent, well ordered article to me, but what needs to be done for it to reach GA or even FA? Thanks RHB 19:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this article hasn't found itself yet. The history section is more of a history of British military objectives than a history of the army. The rest is mostly a series of lists on steriods. I don't feel the article gives an idea of what the British Army is opposed to other nations Armies or it's historical significance in British society.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not supposed to be a history of the army, thats History of the British Army there. As far as I can see (though I may need to brush aside my sense of patriotism for now :P) each main section has a link to the main article and a summary of that article, apart from recruitment and one or two other sections, which I dont think are large enough to qualify for their own articles. I will continue to try and improve this, Thanks for feedback. RHB 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is what I mean the "History of the Bristish Army" section just talks about what the military involvements of the empire/nation were not any topics specific to the British Army. Not about the when the size of the British Army grew and when it shrank. Not about when calvary was important percentage of the British Army, and when that was no longer so. Not about laws that had large affects on the British army. Not about the regimental traditions. This section should say something that would not be found in the "History of the British Military" article. It should be more about the what led to the British Army having the make-up and organization it does today. Not who it fought. This should be the history of things that if they had been different the British Army today would be different than it is. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point taken, will try to get that section sorted either tomorrow or Wednesday night. Apart from a general lack of footnotes/refs, which I'll have to find out how to do, I'll try to follow a similar template to the USMC featured article. Any other suggestions appreciated. Thanks again RHB 22:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to comment that it seems lacking in significant discussion of the regimental system that is so distinctively different, for example, from the U. S. Army's approach. That would seem to be a core aspect of the British Army's history and structure. Another would be the historical tendency to select Army officers based on their social status rather than their capability. — RJH (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich

[edit]

I feel a peer review for this article would be useful. Any suggestions are welcome. Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the automated suggestions, while these are fine (but not entirely accurate) some human review would be appreciated. I'm biased, Ipswich is my home town and I would very much like for it to become a FA or a good article at least. Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a decent start, but I think it still needs some expansion to be a comprehensive article. Here's a few, hopefully useful, comments:
  • The introduction is somewhat on the short side. It would be good if it could summarize the important points about the town that are mentioned in the remainder of the text.
  • History section, p2/s2: one too many uses of "convenient" in the sentence. Is there another word you could use?
  • Several of the paragraphs in the history section are all too brief. Can you, for example, expand on what the Mildenhall Treasure and the Sutton Hoo treasure have to do with the history of Ipswich?
  • For somebody who is not from England, say, what does it mean when a King grants a city its charter? Can this be explained in the context?
  • The "Modern Ipswich" section could use a better flow to the text. It reads like a bulleted list that has had the bullets removed. Also it's not considered good practice to use the name of the article in the section headers.
  • Your in-line links should follow the punctuation, not precede it. Personally I like to use the {{cite web}} template for external link citations so they can provide more information about where the reader is being redirected.
  • Please link the first use of UK, tonnes, and £.
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian monarchy

[edit]

Needs a general review and tips on improvement.Inge 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert the reference sources to inline citations. -Fsotrain09 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the present article had inline citations...? Inge 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 5 is quite few. Can more be included, and can they be more detailed? - Tutmosis 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations are now up to 14 and are more detailed. Inge 15:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Constitutional rights and privileges" and "Succession" can be combined since they all deal with the constitution. Also the "Constitutional rights and privileges" doesn't need subheading when they each only have 1 or 2 actual sentences. Sections; "Finances", "Residences", "Coronation" and "Royal coat of arms" could also be combined into one section like "Life" or something of that sort. I say so because "Finances" and "Royal coat of arms" are especially thin (in terms of prose) and look unattractive. The lead is weak with 1/2 sentence paragraphs. Even though its great that you increated number of inline citations, some whole sub-sections from "History" are completely absent of them. And lastly the copyedit tag needs to be taken care of. Thanks. - Tutmosis 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through and copyedited the history section (and so removed the tag, though I don't claim it is now perfect); it does need more citations - I thought I read somewhere that at a minimum each paragraph should have a source, but I can't find that on WP:CITE or similar. In any case only one or two of the sources cited relate to the history, and those don't cover the whole period. Handfesting needs to be defined somewhere, currently it's only a redlink. Also it needs to be mentioned somewhere that Sweden left the Kalmar Union (otherwise it seems a bit odd later on when Norway is ceded to Sweden). What exactly is 'the matter of separate Norwegian consuls to foreign countries'? Whose/which 'travels' were neglected after 1905?. Dr pda 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented most of the advice you gave. I am a bit confused by how the lead is supposed to be. It was longer, but the automated advice from AndyZ was to shorten it... I have not combined the Sections; "Finances", "Residences", "Coronation" and "Royal coat of arms". I believe the topics fit better as separate sections. I have expanded some, but espeshially Finances needs some work and if it isn't possible to get good enough it will be merged someplace.Inge 12:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelin

[edit]

I'm planning on running the article as an FA candidate, thus I'm putting it up for peer review in order to fix any problems it has, and to obtain advice as to how it could be improved. All help will be sincerely appreciated. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall a nice piece of work, in my opinion. My issues are only minor:
    • "...and by the time of the short abbacy of Waltheof's successor Abbot William,..." needs a comma after the "and".
    • hagiography should be linked.
    • "...later become Bishop of Ross)[12]" is missing a period.
    • I'm not clear that the date links are necessary. For example, May 23 and April 10.
    • In ``...king himself",[19]`` and ``...Scotland and Galloway",`` and ``the church of St Kentigern".[40]``, I believe the comma/period should be inside the double-quotes.
    • "March 15 1175" and "August 10 1175" are missing a comma before the year.
    • "September 5th, 1186" is inconsistent in format with the other dates. (The "th".)
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments. I have implemented your changes. I made the "". consistent. The way I understand it is the "". is the way they do it in England, but "." in the USA, and in wiki European articles are supposed to be governed (so I hear) by the latter rule. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiridates I of Armenia

[edit]

The article has been Good Article for a while now and I would like to make the necessary modifications/additions to make it an FA. Also I would like to know if adding more footnotes is a good idea or not. Essentially every line can have a footnote, mostly from Tacitus or Dio Cassius. Any other feedback would be much appreciated.--Eupator 16:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat

[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion at the start of the month when I first started working on it, it survived that nomination and has undergone extensive revisions since then. The article could use some copy-editing (my weak spot) so if you want to help out there, great. But otherwise, I'm looking to see if the content makes sense, is it well organized, does it flow, how can I improve it?Balloonman 06:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One area of concern is the US focus on this article... any thoughts on how to improve it would be appreciated. I've tried to do someBalloonman 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article starts off very well but the end is quite weak. Why spend so much time talking one fictional character? If there are "numerous unofficial backcronyms", why is one man's edition given so much detail? It is very US centric especialy the parts on Racism and Homosexuality. The solution to that is to find more sources which have a non-US focus. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got rid of the last two paragraphs and summarized them into the introduction. As for the US centricity... I'm looking for non-US sources. Unfortunately, the only things that I've been able to find are American and done in the last 10-15 years. This appears to be a new area of research. Balloonman 08:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick read of some sections implies it needs a good copyedit and some of the wording is clumsy. Definitely US centric, I'm not sure families move as much in the UK as it appears they do in the US, i.e. the soldier is moved, but not necessarily the family. POV seems fairly balanced, but perhaps more from the point of view of someone who is a military brat perhaps. Terri G 149.155.96.6 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Terri for your thoughts and insight. I have to wonder what affect having the soldier move and the family not move has on a brat? Does this mean that a soldier will be stationed in northern England while the family lives in Southern England? Also, could you point out one or two of the "wording is clumsy" examples. I might read the section and never notice the problem because I wrote it. Again thanks for your input (that that goes for you too Birgitte, I forgot to explicitly say thanks.)Balloonman 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector

[edit]

Hi, I'd value your input on how to bring this article to FA status. It's already had some scientific peer review. Thanks! Willow 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression is that this article is too technical for anybody who has not completed at least a year of calculus and some college-level physics. (Actually a lot of this looks like third or fourth-year physics.) Even the introduction is fairly dense. The illustration is not that helpful, particularly since the curl symbol (×) looks too much like an 'x'. Some comments:
  • I'd suggest moving the history section up to just after the introduction.
  • In the basic properties section you need to define "E" where it is first used and also explain how it entered the equation(s).
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volvo 700 Series

[edit]

I would like this to be a featured article, even though the car isn't one people would aspire to own, it's certainly one that is well-known, and should be a featured article. Any advice on making this a featured article would be very helpful. --★SUNSTAR NET★ 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

[edit]

This article is the current GA collaboration. Any critique on how the article may be brought to FA status would be appreciated. Tarret 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented a few of the changes, but the section titled "The trinity" I really think needs a "the" in front of it :/. Homestarmy 13:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an A-class article. Do you think you could actually reference the Bible? Wiki-newbie 16:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunently, it seems a majority of editors feel that directly referencing the Bible alone counts as original reaserch via interpretation when dealing with anything that any churches have differences on. Homestarmy 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my review of Computer for my thoughts on Wikipedia articles covering broad concepts.

  • Poorly organized.
    • Does "Groups within Christianity" really belong at the top?
    • Is Ecumenism properly a subtopic of Groups within Christianity?
    • Does "Demographics of Christianity" deserve any mention in the main article at all?
    • Do we need a section on Non-Trinitarians that is longer than the Trinity section itself?
    • Are Creeds of importance equal to the concepts of Jesus, Salvation, and The Trinity?

I'll keep an eye on this peer review and make further suggestions after you have addressed these. --Ideogram 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crohn's disease

[edit]

Past week's medicine collaboration. Comments/suggestions on getting it up to featured article standards? --WS 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally pretty good. The lead is a bit long at 5 paragraphs (per WP:LEAD) - perhaps some of the more specific details could be left until later on, and a couple of the paragraphs combined. The first 3 sections are okay, some of the pictures could be on the left to give the article a nicer shape. I would've thought the order of sections should be gone Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment (sort of chronlogical), but if there's a standard for articles of this type then ignore that. Again, I might be wrong, but Pathology sounds like it should be a subsection of Diagnosis. The end of the article needs work, Prognosis and History are very short sections with only short paragraphs within them. (Could the prognosis paragraph come at the end of Treatment section?) The {{fact}} tag obviously needs citing or removing, and the issues raised on the templates need to be dealt with. It seems well-cited throughout. If the end of the article could come up to the standard of the start, I think this could be featured. Trebor 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Automated suggestions

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[1]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking 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.[2]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[3]
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[4]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[5]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[6]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: color (A) (British: colour), colour (B) (American: color), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), center (A) (British: centre), ization (A) (British: isation), anemia (A) (British: anaemia), diarrhea (A) (British: diarrhoea), esophagus (A) (British: oesophagus), aging (A) (British: ageing), check (A) (British: cheque).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 31 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [7]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above have been dealt with and have been struck through. --apers0n 11:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:West Bengal

[edit]

There no seperate peer review process for portals, so Portal:West Bengal is being nominated for a peer review here. The Portal: West Bengal is a relatively new portal, and is well-maintained. Please provide suggestions/comments for improving this portal and elevating to featured status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: For archived old peer review of the article West Bengal, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/West Bengal/archive1

  • After visiting Portal:Current Events everyday, I was a bit suprised that this portal did not link back or cite which news source it used. Just an observation, everything else looks very well. Also whats the point of that red link category in the categories section? Is it going to be created or was it recently deleted? - Tutmosis 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The category in red is going to be created soon. Yes, no link/citation of news source in "In the news" section is a major drawback. This will be taken care of. Thanks a lot for the observation. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All newitems are now being put up with the source mentioned. -- P.K.Niyogi 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work on the overall! Some comments:
  1. A fair use pic is currently in use in the DYK section. Please replace/change.
  2. I couldnt figure out how the selected biography is selected and rotated.
  3. The edit link on the "selected article" box goes to a page containing a template. Would it be possible to avoid this, as this would probably lead to confusion to less familiar users.
  4. A link to Portal:Current events and to wikinews would be nice in the news section.
  5. Just something that struck me: When archiving, isnt it a better practice to put the latest on top, rather than the bottom as done presently at Portal:West Bengal/West Bengal news/Archive?
Done and it will be followed -- P.K.Niyogi 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other things look fine.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few areas that need improvement.
    • Archives need to be created for selected article, picture and biography.
    • There's a Fair-use image in the DYK section. Remove it ASAP.
    • The news section needs summarisation.
    • Tasks lists should also preferably have a "create" sub-heading.
    • Inconsistent dash usage in Tasks list.
    • Why are pipes used in all WB Topics except "people". Standardise. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsune

[edit]

I'd like to bring this article toward FA status. I think it's within reach of being a GA at least, and I'd like comments about further improving it. I'm aware that it currently lacks inline citations and am already gathering sources so I can proceed to put those in place -- that's the biggest need I see at present. There is also one unsourced statement, which I am looking into. Any comments on content, style, etc. would be appreciated. Shimeru 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Shimeru. My thoughts: On your way to FA status, you will need a larger lead section, one that summarizes the article's contents. The lead has an especially important job to do for this particular article, because the reader may have a hard time grasping what its subject is: foxes? foxes in Japan? foxes in Japan in popular culture? If it's "foxes in Japan", what makes this subject so special; that is, why don't we have an article on "foxes in England"? I'm not being sarcastic, but rather trying to explain what goes through a reader's mind (mine, perhaps not the best model) upon beginning to read the article. An improved lead will help explain the scope of the article. When the lead says "They are also associated with mythical beliefs in Japanese folklore", I feel like something is missing. The "also" implies that a related statement was made in the previous sentence(s), but the previous sentence is the very first one, which says that Japan has two subspecies of fox. In summary: fully explain the scope of the subject Kitsune in the lead. Regards, –Outriggr § 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good point. I think this one might have been a relic of the original splitting of the page into sections. I'll try to provide a better overview in the introduction. Thanks for the response. Shimeru 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. The lead is much better! Also, I was wondering if you plan to add a short summary section to "Kitsune in fiction" - it was a good idea to split that stuff into its own article, but the "summary style" suggests that you place a summary paragraph about "Kitsune in fiction" in the Kitsune article itself - so the section is not empty. –Outriggr § 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would probably be a good idea. My main concern there is preventing that section from being overrun again. There's a tendency to overindulge with trivia items and popular culture, yet at the same time, the pop-culture impact is great enough that it warrants a mention. I'll see what I can do to summarize while still guiding contributions to the subpage. Shimeru 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mentioned it mostly in relation to your goal to submit a featured article candidate. Blank sections don't go over well there. :) –Outriggr § 05:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Point taken. I have a short blurb in there now; may expand it just a little bit more when I finish getting my sources together. Hopefully the details template will help prevent additions. I think I should probably remove the main template, since I'm using details, but haven't done so just yet. Shimeru 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're still watching here, I hope that as you add references, you will make them in-line—again with WP:FAC in mind. Sorry if I'm speaking the obvious. (And thanks for the note earlier!) –Outriggr § 06:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. The references themselves are good, though I may have another one or two to add... I just need to collect them together so I can go back and cite specifically. With any luck, I'll have a good number together by Thanksgiving, so I can work on it over the weekend. Once I get those in place, and do one more copyediting pass, I think GA is the next step. Thanks again. Shimeru 09:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's title is "Kitsune," indicating that it's about foxes in Japan, but only one paragraph is about foxes (I might have started the paragraph, and someone else contributed a wonderful photograph). The article itself clearly focuses on kitsune in Japanese folklore, so I recommend renaming the article appropriately. Being an advocate of naming articles in English, I'd suggest "Foxes in Japanese folklore." Fg2 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's mainly because the animal itself is already covered at fox. I believe the Japanese word is most frequently used to refer to the mythological creatures, which explains where the title came from. (Somewhere lower would be "fox spirit," which is also used for the Chinese fox in mythology, and "fox demon," used mainly by Lafcadio Hearn -- admittedly a very influential author in the field.) It probably doesn't make a large difference, but given the growing recent usage of the term in Western (and imported) popular fiction, I think "kitsune" is likely to be a more common search term than "foxes in Japanese folklore." (No article with that title existed, in fact.) I've created Foxes in Japanese folklore as a redirect for now; I can change it (and fix all the double redirects) if it's deemed necessary. There's precedent in the similar split between tanuki and raccoon dog. Shimeru 05:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Kitsune in Japanese folklore" would likewise be acceptable, since the article is, as I said, not about kitsune generally but about their position in folklore. Fg2 06:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd have to agree with Shimeru that the article title is fine as is. The meaning of the word when it appears in English is what's important, and in English, it does (apparently) denote "foxes in Japanese folklore". –Outriggr § 10:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion design

[edit]

Another user suggested this article might have the potential to become a Good Article. I've been doing a fair amount of editing on this page for the past two or three months, and I think it's a relatively decent article, though maybe a little too long and focused on history(?). Anyway, I wondered if anyone might have an opinion on how it could be improved and if it has any potential. Carmelita 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most obviously, there are no inline citations in the article (see WP:FOOTNOTE). I would put the history straight after the lead (which could do with being expanded a little) rather than launching straight into a list. "Types of Fashion" could do with an introductory sentence rather than just a list of 3, and it should preferably clarify if those 3 are the only types, or just the main types. The history is also very long and perhaps could be trimmed a bit, although I don't know enough to judge if it's all necessary. Trebor 17:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK! I'll try and rewrite the lead and "Types of Fashion". I'll probably have to trim down the history section too, in order to add any inline citations, since it's so long the article just cuts off whenever I try to add citations. Thanks. Carmelita 14:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd Do Anything for Love (but I Won't Do That)

[edit]

I think this article is pretty comprehensive now. I'd appreciate constructive criticism, particularly with regard to passing a GA nom. Of course, if you spot some grammar/spelling issues, then it would be probably just as quick to correct them rather than leaving a message here. Similarly, I don't really find vague statements, like "some sentences are poorly structured", useful. The JPStalk to me 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the section on the Music video perhaps runs on too long; it resorts to plain exposition and is unsourced around the middle section. Other than that, the article seems pretty good (with the exception of a rather out-of-place Spiceworld reference that I personally would delete). Laïka 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your feedback. I've cut down the description of the video. Rather than delete the Spiceworld reference, I've moved it into the 'cultural influence' section, where it seems more appropriate. I guess if we delete it altogther, some anon is going to come along and recreate the 'trivia' section and throw it in there... The JPStalk to me 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homology modeling

[edit]

I created this article, and am currently its sole contributor. While I'm not claiming it to be complete, someone who's outside my brain probably has a better perspective on what would best improve it. In particular, is it accessible/does it provide adequate context? Are the methods descriptions too vague? Is there enough/too much emphasis on structural genomics? Opabinia regalis 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megadeth

[edit]

Been working a lot the past month or so to elevate this one (with major citation help from LuciferMorgan). It is a bit long, but the band have a long history, and judging by other comparable music GA and FA pages, it's not that long... One thing I wondered is if it's better to have all cite's the same format - as some are external html links, and some use the footnote style. Thanks for any and all help! Skeletor2112 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All html links have been converted, and I am just a few sources away from hitting all the needed cites in the "Lyrical themes" section. Skeletor2112 06:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cites need to be inline throughout, and there should be no space between the punctuation and the citation (like this,[8] not this. [9]) per WP:FOOTNOTE (you'll have to go through taking out the spaces). The article is quite long, but comparable to The KLF so I guess it's alright, and it seems quite comprehensive. Trebor 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I fixed all the spacing issues. Skeletor2112 06:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is a "trivia" style list section frowned apon for FA's? I can understand that more than 5 or so facts would be considered "long", but I'm not sure how good a prose paragraph would sound using those facts - maybe they are better used on Mustaine's page, or somthing. I can put them together in a "Megadeth have been mentioned in many popular films and shows, such as ___ and___" type thing, but I don't know if it would sound any better than the list now. I still intend to write a "Legacy" type section at the end of the "History" section, to include artists Deth influenced, awards, worldwide sales - a conclusion. I might just incorporate the Pop culture stuff into that section altogether.
Also, regarding the weasly parts - I tried to cite anything and everything that seemed like an opinion, such as the "Risk caused backlash/was a commercial failure" part, I used 4 cites. It's just that Risk is widley considered to be Deth's low point (even Mustaine himself says as much in the Risk remaster booklet) and I feel it should be mentioned. I was careful not to put my personal favorites on a pedestal, and to primarily base the popularity of albums on US sales, (the only ones I can really find verification of) Grammy nods, and then secondly on reviewers (such as AMG). Skeletor2112 06:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, a trivia style section is frowned upon for FAs. It'll be immediately focused upon as evidence of criterion 1. a. not being met. If you want this to be FA, you need to change the "popular culture" section from list to prose.
You could divide each form of culture into each paragraph; console game appearances, movie references, TV references and so on. If I have time, I'll see if I can help. LuciferMorgan 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I combined the two, but the section still may need reorganization. Also moved it to the end, following Controversy and Lyrical themes. Anything else you notice off the top of your head? Thanks as usual! Skeletor2112 12:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Warren

[edit]

Well, I actually think that this article should be a Featured Article Candidate (FAC), but I'm somewhat new to this world, and preferred to ask some help on judging it from older Wikipedians.

The main problem of this article was POV, but I think it's quite solved. Today, he's being vandalised often, so please don't mind if you find something like "I'm the devil and going to kill you" in some part of the article - I'm reverting it as fast as possible. --FernandoAires 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The opening, which is currently a single sentence, should be expanded. It should tell the reader who the person is, in a nutshell, and why he (or she, in other cases) is important. You don't have to mention everything which is included in the article in the intro, but it helps lead into the article if you mention a few of the major points. Secondly, I would provide a few examples of the things mentioned in the first paragraph of the criticisms section. Jacob1207 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great start! Here's some comments which are hopefully not too annoying:

  1. Definitely agree with Jacob1207, the lead needs to have a real paragraph.
  2. You're probably working on those "citation needed" things, but FAC won't even really look at the article until all of them are referenced.
  3. The sentence about Warren's mentors in Ministry doesn't really seem to belong there (probably better off in biography?)
  4. Same thing with Family section, it's probably too sort to get it's own space unless you're going to significantly expand it.
  5. Nitpick: notes 6 and 10 are on the wrong side of the period.
  6. How about a short section on Saddleback Church? I know it has it's own article (in pretty poor shape), but since it pertains directly to what Warren does right now, I'd have at least a small section with a Main Article link.
  7. How about a section on his books? His bibliography is listed and the article mentions that his books give him enough salary to live off just 10% of it, but it would be nice to know what he writes about and who reads it (going back to what makes him important).

Anyway, this was a fun read, good luck!--Will.i.am 10:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you all for all the feedback.
I created a larger intro description, but looked at no example about how should it be done. I'll look at it later, but feel free to refer a good example. I also joined the Mentor's reference and Family section on biography. I'll take care of other feedbacks later, but I don't disagree about any of them. --FernandoAires 08:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A guy from 72.26.158.119 questioned me about allegied censorship. Rick Warren's talk page is the best place for we to discuss about this matter. I'm moving the discussion to there. --FernandoAires 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss peasant war of 1653

[edit]

Has been sitting quietly for about two months. It now finally also got a dearly needed map. Does that mean it were finished? Probably not; I'm sure you can come up with numerous improvement suggestions! Lupo 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking for human input, not some automated list which doesn't even indicate what particular phrases made the program emit its "suggestions". It wasn't even capable of determining that the lead does "adequately summarize the article". Lupo 07:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find that the automated output, while not exactly bullet-proof, often does provide some useful feedback regarding issues that can be raised during an FAC. I don't think you need to jump on AndyZ's case about his contribution to the cause. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me, posting only an automated reply comes across as incredibly rude. It conveys the message that the poster couldn't be bothered to read the article. I was asking for peer review, and a program is not my peer. Lupo 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll WP:AGF and post human input:
  • Sorry if anything I write below is incorrect, I'm not that great at grammar:
  • The first sentence should have a comma, not a semicolon. A semicolon should be used if the rest of the sentence can be a separate sentence.
  • Can we have a link for canton in the lead? (at first I thought they were people)
    • Was linked and still is.
      • LOL. I must be going blind.
  • The city authorities tried to compensate for this and to cover their expenses on the one hand by increasing the taxes or inventing new ones, on the other hand by minting less valuable copper coins called Batzen. Awkward, my suggestion would be: The city authorities tried to compensate for this and to cover their expenses by increasing the taxes and inventing new ones and by minting less valuable copper coins called Batzen.
    • Maybe. I used "on the one hand ... on the other hand" to emphasize the gross discrepancy between the two measures, which I feel gets lost a bit in your version. I'll see how else I could rephrase this...
      • "one the one hand... other hand" can be kept, but I think an "and" is needed then (try reading it out loud).
  • pursueing its own foreign politics I think its pursuing (unless it's different for British spellings?)
  • offer, and for most—in particular…—half their fortune just vanished fortunes. By the way, are people taking advantage of the offer if the money was being devalued?
  • concluded on February 26, 1653 at Wolhusen I think another comma is needed (at least according to comma (punctuation))
  • The heading The treaty of Huttwil should be made Treaty of Huttwil (WP:MOS#Headings)
  • their agitation doesn't match with the singular peasant delegation
    • In BrE, it does, I think. Changed anyway.
  • the dissenting minority was silenced by threats of violence and sometimes violence indeed the ending of the sentence somehow bothers me, though I'm not sure if its right/wrong
    • Looks good to me...? Will think about it...
  • but that precisely that rural population had turned against them one of the "thats" has to go
  • in particular is used twice in the last two sentences of "The treaty of Huttwil – purpose a different word can be used?
  • They raised troops ambiguous – the peasants or the cities?
  • Full dates (like May 22) should be wikified, per WP:MOSDATE
    • As I understand it, "May 22" is not a full date: "May 22, 1653" would be. Added the year and linked. (Also for the few other occurrences of this.)
  • for a dissolution of the Huttwil League Shouldn't it be for the, as there can't be more than one dissolutions?
  • In view of this development again sounds somewhat wrong in my opinion (it sounds like the development is viewing the city of Lucerne)
    • Looks good to me...
  • any armed resistance once and for all time remove the "time"
  • Already three days later I don't think "already" is necessary here.
    • Maybe not strictly necessary, but emphasizes how quickly it all ended.
  • In the hills around nearby around or nearby, but not both
    • Yes, both. Parse it as "In the hills around (nearby X and Y)".
  • held by an army of Lucerne and the central Swiss cantons are the armies of Lucerne and the central Swiss cantons separate or combined (is the army of Lucerne also commanded by Sebastian Peregrin Zwyer?) If they are separate, then army -> armies
  • claiming it was invalid on its territory two it s make them slightly ambiguous (even though its pretty easy to tell by the context of the sentence)
  • Many of the exponents of the movement were incarcerated, tortured, and finally sentenced to death or to hard labour on galleys, or exiled. and salt, cattle, and horse trades use the serial comma, while often times the serial comma is not used (sorry, I can't seem to remember specific examples). Please try to make this consistent.
    • Will try, though I didn't see any on a first and second reading. Will re-read later, paying particular attention to this.
  • The aristocratic Ancien Régime was abolished finally in 1848 (…), when Switzerland got its first democratic constitution. Just wondering, was the democratic constitution got (perhaps changed to drafted/wrote?) after the abolishment of the regime, or was it the reason that the regime was abolished due to the constitution (the latter of which it seems to imply)?
    • Difficult to answer. I didn't go into the details on purpose because it would go beyond the scope of this article. For the time being I have added a footnote pointing to the two articles that should explain this.
  • First statues to honor The first statues to honor, or First, statues to honor?
  • first, it quickly spread to cover either first->firstly to match up with the next to sentences, or secondly->second and thirdly->third.
  • they had been involved in the leaders themselves involved in?
    • Sentence looks fine to me. "in which they had been involved", "they" clearly referring to the peasant leaders.
      • Oh. I thought that if the leaders had been involved in previous revolts, then they would've been incarcerated or given the death sentence.
  • And thirdly, Don’t start with "and"
  • There are a whole lot of red links in the articles (especially to the names of generals and leaders), perhaps create stubs for them?
  • About your comments above (it wouldn't hurt to be more WP:CIVIL next time though):

About your statement that It conveys the message that the poster couldn't be bothered to read the article.: first off, its on every peer review (if you scroll down the page), but your statement makes it sounds like I'm singling out your article. Second, the reason why I present them is to be helpful, not rude by presenting suggestions that could be overlooked by peers and as a starting point while waiting for the response of other editors (I have received and read LOTS of complaints about nobody ever reviewing things on WP:PR, so having some semi-automated suggestions is an improvement). Besides, its only a 1-line note, I don't go about emphasizing that you must follow them or anything (they're just suggestions, after all). Sorry about not indicating which specific phrases were being indicated, however I think that most can be found using Cntrl + F and I'm still working on implenting that for other suggestions. And I named it a "peer reviewer" just in order to note specifically its purpose. (Oh and about the " adequately summarize", thanks for pointing that out, I just realized that it would be better on some other template – though in any case it would be hard (esp. with JavaScript!) to determine whether a WP:LEAD would be a good summary for an article – follow the footnote). (PR instructions: please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts , though I invite helpful criticism) After all (especially with my shaky JavaScript skill level), it isn't easy writing a script to accurately parse the text of an article and come up with great suggestions.

And about not bothering to even read the article, well…. I don't spend my entire day sitting in front of my computer reading thru every article there is (as unfortunately many people hope) being posted on WP:PR – when I did try that I got through some 20 articles before realizing it was hopeless. AZ t 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I've fixed most of the grammar issues you pointed out; where I didn't, I noted above why. Stubs on the many red links are forthcoming... I'm at a loss as to why you perceived my criticism as uncivil—it may be blunt, but hardly uncivil. As to not being able to read any article here: nobody demands you did. Anyway: were there any other points in the article where you would have liked to read more on the background? Or points where the meaning was unclear or not clear enough? Lupo 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for calling your response incivil–I mistook "incredibly rude" as being rude in itself, but now with a fresh view I'm sorry for that. (Though the poster couldn't be bothered to read the article put me on the defensive, but let's just put it behind us:)
  • I re-read the lead again, and somehow the colon in the first sentence doesn't seem to fit in perfectly well. An alternative would be to break it up into two sentences.
  • If you haven't already read Tony's amazing guide about criterion 1a of WP:WIAFA, I would suggest reading it. For example, taking the sentences: The peasants' movement had begun in the Entlebuch and Emmental valleys between Berne and Lucerne and spread from there to other parts of these two cantons, but also to Solothurn, the Aargau (then not a canton but partly belonging to Berne and partly being commonally administered as a condominium), and to Basel. The peasants united in the treaty of Huttwil, forming the "League of Huttwil", and also tried—but failed—to make the subjects of Zürich to join their cause.
    • "and spread from there" – from there is largely redundant, as it was already stated that the movement started there, and can be removed.
    • "but also to" "but" is not used when (from Tony1's guide) The second idea doesn’t contradict the first. Spreading to Soloturhun and Aargau doesn't contrast with the beginning of the sentence, so instead use an additive link.
    • the last list should use parallelism: removing the parenthetical phrase and you get: but also to Solothurn, the Aargau (…), and to Basel". A "to" is missing in front of Aargau.
    • "The peasants united in the treaty" I think under would be the better word here.
    • " make the subjects of Zürich to join their" the to is unneeded here.
  • The last sentence of the lead: In the long term, the peasant war of 1653 prevented the development of absolutist excesses in Switzerland like they occurred elsewhere in Europe and in particular at the French court.
    • like they occurred development (not absolutist excesses) is singular. Also, it sounds pretty awkward IMHO.
    • The "and" seems to imply that France is not in Europe (though hopefully readers will know about that!), perhaps change it to "in Europe, particularly…". Not that important, but perhaps "at the French court" would be better as "in France" to be parallel.
    • Finally, I'm wondering about the phrase "absolutist excesses". I don’t know if it is appropriate to call monarches "excesses", and I think "absolutist" should be replaced with "absolute" (since it seems that "excesses" refer to the monarchs, which would be absolute monarchs).
  • Maybe I'm just overanalyzing these sentences, but I think you get the idea.
  • About the actual content of the article, I think the prose is clear and I followed it with ease. AZ t 16:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see what you mean. I am well aware on Tony's guidelines and exercises, but I'm afraid I don't have his or your expertise: I just do not spot such problems as easily as you seem to do. I do my best, but it would certainly be good if a native English speaker copyedited the article. Lupo 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead needs to be reworked. It goes into so much detail that you really need "Background" before you read the lead itself. Also the first sentance is quite strange with the :.
    Thank you for your comments. I wonder... the background section basically just briefly details the structure of the Old Swiss Confederacy. For the lead, I think it's ok to ask the reader to follow that link if he isn't familiar with the Old Swiss Confederacy. I wouldn't know what to cut in the lead. Lupo 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I found a few things that could go. That the Aargau was a condominium is now explained in the Background section, and one other sentence ("communications were cut") is gone completely as being too detailed for the lead. It's still mentioned in the body ofd the article. Lupo 10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And cut it some more... Lupo 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need the mention how the copper coins were devalued in the background. by minting less valuable copper coins called Batzen. doesn't make any sense until I read the details of devaluation later on.
    Tough one. I tried linking to face value and intrinsic value, following these links should make it clear where the problem was. As I understood it (but I'm not a specialist in monetary economics :-)), Berne minted coins made of cheap copper, but with the same face value. The population wasn't stupid, though, and soon the copper money lost value with respect to the silver money. People started hoarding the silver coins. In any trade, people clearly favoured getting "hard" silver coins, and soon demanded higher nominal prices if you paid with copper money. Thus an exchange rate of, say, 2 copper coins = 1 silver coin, was established, even though the face value of both was the same. Holenstein calls this "Der Batzen war Ende 1652 wirklich kein Batzen mehr" and mentions that the other cantons, where this Bernese money was also in circulation, were forced to also devaluate the Bernese Batzen because otherwise everybody would have exchanged their cheap copper money against silver money from e.g. Lucerne. (Gresham's Law: "bad money" drives "good money" out of circulation). I don't know yet how I could explain this in a few sentences. If somebody has an idea, go right ahead. But basically minting cheap copper coins didn't yet cause the devaluation, in a first step, it only caused a hyperinflation from the 1620s on. Some time later, this then caused a de facto devaluation, and that in turn prompted the official devaluation by the Bernese authorities. Lupo 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this can be explained in a few sentances. by minting copper coins called Batzen. Despite having the same face-value as other silver coins, in practice many people would not honor this value and counted around two copper coins as being worth a single silver. This led to an official devaluaton which had a greater affect on the rural areas. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh... the 2:1 ratio was just an example; my sources don't give any exact exchange rate, and I would suspect it would have been changing quite rapidly anyway. I've tried explaining this again, but I still stand by the separation of first explaining the inflation and then later the final official devaluation, because it was that latter event that ultimately sparked the uprising. Lupo 10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some weird uses of e.g. I don't know that is wrong, but is strange.
    Eliminated most of the "e.g."s. Lupo 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some areas that leave me wanting more detail. An example: The Bernese army defeated a last peasant army of about 2,000 men on June 7 at Herzogenbuchsee; the city went up in flames Ok the peasants lost but a city is on fire. Is it a peasant city; I thought they were rural? Is the fire battle related or afterward for retaliation? There are a couple of areas like this where the article seems to being telling part of a narrative which is not really in the article. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There were several places in the countryside that had gotten town privileges, such as Herzogenbuchsee. Usually, these were larger villages and locally important marketplaces. Especially the smaller ones of these towns were rural in character despite having city walls. Do we have an article on the medieval concept of "town" anywhere that might be linked to? I feel trying to explain this in this article might go too far... The conflict was basically between the ruling cities and the countryside. Maybe "rural" isn't the right term... I don't know. For the time being, I've used "town" instead of "city" for these smaller towns.
    I've tried to expand a little on the march of the Bernese army. What other places are there where you feel more information was needed? (For me, that's the hardest part: I've read so much about this topic that I may just be incapable to spot such places in the text, as I already have all the background and thus just don't notice where I may have skipped something. So I'd really appreciate it if you could point out precisely where I should elaborate more.) Lupo 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Gingerich

[edit]

I think a little bit more information on his early life and career would be desirable, but I have been unable to locate further details. The article is well-referenced and, I think, gives a good, NPOV view of his contributions and notability. I've gotten to the end of what I can do on my own with this article, please let me know what areas for improvement you can identify. Please let me know if you think the article is a candidate for Good Article status. Jacob1207 20:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick comments:

  • The lead should be at least two paragraphs. My preference (its not a guideline) is for the lead not to contain references, but to expand those ideas in the later parts of the article and reference them there. Sometimes that doesn't work well though.
I have slightly expanded the intro and broken it into two paragraphs in what seems a logical manner. I agree with the general principle that citations in the opening are not ideal, but seems like the least bad option here. (1) the statements are worth inclusion in the article; (2) once included, the statements should be cited; (3) I don't see any better place to put the statements in the present article; and (4) there's not much more that could be said on the two statements that would make them worth their own paragraph in the article. But, if there's any better way to do it, let's do that. What do you think of the intro section now? Jacob1207 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the capitalization of the section headers. Only the first word should be capitalized, with the excpetion of proper nouns. See MoS:HEAD. "On Intellegent Design" should probably drop the "On", and given the information that follows could just as well be "Intellegent design".
Done. Jacob1207 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the "Owen" in "Early life" should be changed to "Gingerich"? Or perhaps then it isn't clear who started college.
I think you're right, the usage did seem sorta odd and non-encyclopedic. Please take a look at the current wording and let me know if it fixes that while still being clear and concise. Jacob1207 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence in the Careers... section, "This led him to ...", doesn't flow well for the first phrase of a section. "This" being what former thought?
Yeah, that was a holdover from an early version of the article. I wish there was more stuff on his University days and early career, which would be the best transition. In the meantime, I have modified that language to avoid the problem you point out. Jacob1207 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "On Intellegent Design" section is interesting but strikes me as overly long when compared to the whole article. But get some other opinions before considering any trimming there.
  • There is something wrong in this phrase "concluding that M91 was probably a cometthat M102 was probably a duplication of M101." It might be helpful to paste the whole article into a word processor to see what the spell checker finds.
Fixed, I think. Jacob1207 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year linking is inconsistent. My preference would be to delink all years, except when a full date is given.
Done. Jacob1207 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "References" should be a full level two section before the External link. External links always come last. See WP:LAYOUT. There seem to be a lot of external links, but nothing objectionable.
The References section has been modified accordingly. I removed one broken external link, but I think the remaining ones are all valuable and well worth inclusion. Jacob1207 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More work could be done to link other articles to this one. Google reveals these potential articles.
Excellent suggestion. I've linked two more articles to this one, I'll take a look at all of those suggestions as well. Thanks for the help! And let me know what you think of the modifications and anything else that you notice. Jacob1207 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I de-capped another header and linked a year associated with a complete date. One final suggestion is to look at the instances of "also" in the article. The word can almost always be dropped from a sentence without losing clarity. JonHarder 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I missed those. Thanks. I've also removed two superfluous instances of the word "also" from the article and your point regarding its overuse is a valuable one (I'll be on the lookout for that in my own editing henceforth).

The article is well-written, overall. I've just skimmed through it, so a more thorough review would be helpful too. JonHarder 04:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your assistance, Jon. The article is significantly better for having been peer reviewed. I think that it is Good Article material, so I'm gonna put it up for that. Hopefully it'll turn up more improvements. Jacob1207 07:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360

[edit]

All images needing Fair Use rational were tagged, and redundant text was removed. Requesting new peer review as points from last have been fixed.123wiki123 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very nice article, that "Suggested retail price by region" chart, are those the suggested prices upon release? current prices? or am I just confused because since the launch of the system there was no price drop? - Tutmosis 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current suggested retail price, all launch prices are in the launch article, TMK there has only been one price drop, a small one in the UK. I've clarified in the chart that it's current, and added a see also. Shouldn't be very relevant now, but once price drops come it will be.123wiki123 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clement of Dunblane

[edit]

I'm planning on running the article as an FA candidate, thus I'm putting it up for peer review in order to fix any problems it has, and to obtain advice as to how it could be improved. As the article has just been written in the past day or two, there might be a few points to make. All help will be sincerely appreciated. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hero of Belarus

[edit]

Alright, this was a former featured article, mainly removed because I lacked giving it the TLC it needed. I am going to take a stab at this again. I first added the refereces using the <ref></ref> format, which wasn't available at the time I wrote this. Second, the first time around had a picture overload. Now, this only has one photo (which is in the public domain). I took out a lot of the direct quotes, since Babelfish is failing me (and my reading of Russian has gotten a bit better). Is there anything I should expand on before I send this to FAC? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely needs a copyedit. I picked at random "Recepients" (float over the underlined words to see my comments, amazing template, isn't it?):

Since the title was created, it has been bestowed upon ten Belarusian citizens. Out of the ten awards, one was for heroism during military service and two awards were presented posthumously. The first award was given to Uładzimir Karvat (posthumous) in 1996, the second awarding were performed on June 30, 2001 to Pavieł Maryjaŭ, Michaił Karčmit, Vital Kramko and Alaksandar Dubko (posthumous). [7] The last awardings were to Filaret, Mikhail Savicki, Mikhail Vysotsky, Piotr Prokopovich & Vasily Revyako on March 1, 2006. [8]

Karvat, a military pilot, was flying his training aircraft Sukhoi Su-27p on May 23 1996. The plane caught fire and was ordered to eject to safety. Unknowing to the ground crew, the plane was going to crash in a area full of civilians. Keeping in mind of the civilians, Karvat steered the plane away until it crashed one kilometer from the area of Hacišča, killing him instantly. President Alexander Lukashenko issued Decree Number 484 on November 21 1996, which posthuously awarded Karvat the title Hero of Belarus. [9] The crash site has been converted to a memorial for Karvat, on which a copy of his decree is placed on the tail fin of the Sukhoi Su-27p. [10] AZ t 17:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made corrections you mentioned and did a spell checking. Question, what is "nbsp"? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also added the article in the "needs copyediting" category. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, the nbsp is already there. Next time I should copy the source code. ;) AZ t 01:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I got the question answered by the good folks at #wikipedia. As for the grammar itself, I triend some external programs that gives me ideas on what I can do. I tried some of those out, and I will see what M$ Word can do for me tomorrow at college. Now, ignoring the issue of grammar, is there anything else I can do. FYI, this was already on the main page before and my goal is not to get it back there, I just want the shiny brown star at the top of the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added another section to the article about it's use on Belarusian stamps. Would this be useful or no? I also saw a television commercial on TB (Television Belarus) on the day of the 2006 elections. I wish I knew what it said word for word, but it mentioned about the great deeds of the heroes and showed a graphic of the medal. I do not have a screen shot of that and if I did, it is not my intent to upload it. I know there was a stamp shown in one of the souces I provided, but it was on WP before and I was asked to take it down by others admins. Other than the grammar, is this article set for FAC? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luton

[edit]

Any help and advice on re-stucturing the article and tieing it into the areas of Luton (eg Bury Park, Leagrave, Etc) would be helpful. Other ideas for what else is needed to bring the article upto a 'good status'.GazMan7 11:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few points that came to mind:
    • The lead section seems much too long. The table of contents after the first paragraph, instead of after half a dozen of them, would look much more attractive.
    • The pictures could be slightly better placed; for example, I don't like having one right opposite the town crest, since it makes the start of the "History" section look cramped. Maybe move the town hall picture down to the left of the "20th century" section, thus tying in with the comment about the 1919 fire.
    • The "Places within Luton" section seems a bit pointless, especially as there's an existing "Luton" category.

Wikipedia:Peer review/Islam

Fifth Down

[edit]

Seeking to get to GA status. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated, thank you. --MECU≈talk 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would mention in the opening that this was in a college, not pro, football game. Also, it should be mentioned that Colorado could have gotten the touchdown legitimately on 4th down if they had run a play instead of spiking the ball, thus possibly winning outright. Jacob1207 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed one of the duplicate American football links to college football in the intro, so it should definitely be clear now. Also, I've tried to explain as you mentioned that he would have just gone for it on 4th down instead of spiking it, but it sounds a little guessing or prediction and less encyclopedic. But I appreciate your comments and time. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cites should not just be a link, but show information on what page is being linked, who published it, who wrote it, etc. (see Template:Cite. More references are needed, sentences like "Observers favoring Colorado for the national championship noted that they had played a more difficult schedule than Georgia Tech" can't be included unless verified. The sentence beginning "Had the officiation crew..." is borderline original research - try to find someone who has speculated this and cite them, otherwise it's just your opinion of what might've happened. And the article lacks any images which I assume will be needed for GA (I'm not au fait with the criteria). Trebor 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will work more on the cites and try to find more references. A (free) image would be very difficult to obtain since this was before digital cameras and the internet boom. Might be in some historical places like a library or newspaper or I could try to contact Colorado/Missouri and obtain something, but this is going to be a long time coming to produce anything. Thank you for your time and comments. --MECU≈talk 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinions: Clean up the references, we should be able to see what we are looking at. "Top Moment" is not synonymous with "Memorable Moment." "which they scored" consider "which they used to score." What were the Buffs ranked at the time? What about Missouri? Were they both ranked teams? "changed hands" is a colloquialism, I'm not sure I like it. "Had the officiation crew had the right down displayed, he might have kept the ball, instead of spiking – which no one would do on fourth down, and scored the touchdown on the real fourth down."---Speculation, this needs to be removed or cited. "(The rules have since changed not requiring the extra point try if time has expired and the result will not affect the outcome of the game)."---make into a footnote and cite. "Oddly, McCartney did not make the more compelling argument that Colorado had not truly benefited from a "fifth down", since Johnson would most likely not have spiked the ball on what the officials were calling third down had it been correctly designated as fourth down." --- as is this is POV, you should quote somebody saying that. "(However, see the 1940 precedent for a different perspective on a possible forfeit.)" Talk about it here or make this into a footnote. I would have liked to see the section under "National Championship" moved up closer to the top. Give me the background to understand the signficance of the play.Balloonman 09:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've covered all your suggestions. I did leave the National Championship section where it was since it doesn't seem to really affect the game itself, but more part of the aftermath of the event. However, I did try to build up the game a little as you suggested, and in the intro it mentions that it affected the national championship for Colorado. Also, I just put a {{fact}} for the "Oddly,..." remark and will look for a cite. I believe this one line covers the argument that he wouldn't have spiked it on forth down so I removed that line and once a cite is found for that one it'll be okay (I'll start looking shortly). Thanks for your time. --MECU≈talk 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1997 European Grand Prix

[edit]

Looking for any suggestions on improvements that could be made to the article including technical terms that aren't explained well enough for a non-F1 audience, content improvements, style/tone improvements and any other problems. Looking to improve to at least GA-standard. Alexj2002 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments:
    • The content of Pre-race situation section is not good enough. The 2nd paragraph is confusing, and it is a bit orphan. The last paragraph is even worse with only one very long sentence. Split long sentences to get crisper meaning. For a FA-level article, the Pre-race situation needs more materials to describe the tense situation between Schumacher and Villeneuve. Search news archives. I think there are more than just simply a cartoon.
    • Needs more wikilink.
— Indon (reply) — 11:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I'm not sure what you mean by materials? Does the article text not describe the pre-race situation enough or is it a lack of images? The latter is not actionable for a GA/FA (although if improvements can be made it's still good to know about them). Alexj2002 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London, Ontario

[edit]

Just resubmitting this peer review. Not much response last time and the article is now much more complete than it was at that time.--Will2k 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Will2k... I'm not sure if your goal is featured article status, as it may have been at the last peer review, but I have some comments in that respect. FAs require plenty of inline citations these days. I also checked the existing inline citation for "London has a small crack cocaine problem and Crystal Meth use is also on the rise." The RCMP article doesn't technically say, I don't think, that drug use is on the rise. This could be read as trying to establish a certain point of view (I'm certainly not accusing you of that!). Article readability can be improved by converting all the bullet lists to prose (which is another FA requirement). If you have to remove some detail to accomplish that (e.g. not listing every radio and TV station), I think that's OK. When years are mentioned by themselves, WP:DATE says don't link them. –Outriggr § 06:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyandotte Caves

[edit]

I know this still needs more work. The areas where I know additional work is needed are:

  1. Except for the section on bats, the sections on cave life are stubby and need some expansion. However, I'm not quite sure where to go with the other sections. I want to mention that these animals live in the cave, but only the bats seem to be the focus of scientific research. I don't want to go into a lot of detail about the animals' lifestyles as that belongs in the articles about the individual species, not their habitats. I'm not sure what more to put in these sections, or where to look for source material on it.
  2. It could use more pictures. I recently re-visited the cave and took some pictures, but when they got back from the developer they were really poor quality (it's hard to get good pictures in a cave), so I've decided not to go to the effort of scanning and uploading them.

I would appreciate comments about any other areas where improvement is needed, as well as suggestions for the areas I already know about. Also, I learned some information on my recent tour that is not currently in the article. How do I cite a tourguide? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the Kings

[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Valley of the Kings/archive2

Hi, I have done quite a lot of work on this article recently, and need some more feedback. Cheers Markh 10:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, don't say you you didn't ask for it. ;-)
Intro para: on the whole, too short and vague on key points. It ought to be a summary of the major points that follow, but instead it is vague on how and why it came to be, and why the VofK is considered "important". Also, the material about Ay's tomb being open is too specific (so are others) for the lead.
I have reworked the introduction, and it now was a paragraph for each section, still woolly though. Markh 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Satellite image: is the red square in the image the Valley? If so, note it in the caption and provide more context (near which town, the name of the river, etc).
There's very little on its actual location and outlay, so there is no context when the East/West VofK tombs are mentioned. Why not a "north" or "south" as well? (Don't get me wrong, I know, but it ought to be mentioned somewhere). Also, locating it geographically in relation to Thebes and Deir el-Bahri would also be good.
Geology section: ought to come earlier in the article, before history. Talking about the unique geography of the place and why a certain feature (hint, hint) attracted the New Kingdom pharaohs would be good.
I have reinforced the al-Qurn influence from the introduction. Markh 13:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History section is okay, but as I see it is missing several important points:
  • why did the pharaohs of the New Kingdom pick this spot (and why did they move from the previous location of royal burials?)
  • how the VotK impacted life in nearby Thebes in antiquity? (i.e. artisans, guards, ancient tomb robberies, etc).
  • some background on why the pharaohs thought it necessary to a) be buried in a place thought secure and b) why it was thought important to "take things with them" when they died
  • could talk about separation of mortuary temples from actual burial spots
Tomb development: too short, and concentrates exclusively on descriptions on their shape. Descriptions themselves are poor: am unclear as to how "bent" differs significantly from a "jogged" axis tomb. An illustration of each type would help. Notable absence of any talk of the development of tomb art, the quality of the rock (and the issues tomb-builders ran into when building a tomb), any precedents in rock-cut tombs of this type elsewhere, etc.
There are pictures on [2], but they are a bit big, so I might come up with my own. Markh 15:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listing of tombs: while the list is supposedly of the more important tombs, many are missing descriptions as to *why* they are considered important. Either remove the ones that are not considered significant, or expand.
I have added a section for each tomb, may need to revisit later Markh 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for doing some updates. These are now great. Markh 10:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tourism section: A mention of the general climate in the area would also be informative. Other than the impending visitor's centre, what other amenities are available to tourists? And how has the influx of great numbers of tourists affected the tombs themselves?
I also noted a couple of sentences that appear to be leftover vandalism of the article (look for "mgjiewngieng is the Arabic name for Egypt" and "They just found a new tomb!"). There are also a few spelling errors in the text, so I suggest you run it through a spell-checker.
There are other minor points, but these suggestions hopefully give you some ideas for future direction/improvement.
Cheers! Captmondo 13:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers these are really useful. Markh 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trans fat

[edit]

I am hoping for peer review against the featured article criteria and general review of the whole article by any editor. I've been working on the article for a while with a few other editors, but I'm hoping to get more opinions about the article. I am thinking to self-nominate it for FA status depending on how the review goes. It's my first PR and FAC, and my goal is to respond positively... please be gentle! -- cmhTC 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember trans fat being voluntarily disclosed on many labels prior to 2006. Am I wrong? Glenn4pr 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that feedback. I have added to the article that voluntary compliance was allowed from the date of publication of the FDA rule. -- cmhTC 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I think this is an excellent article. Nice work! I have a few suggestions:
  • There are a number of inline citations throughout the document that precede punctuation, and should instead follow the punctuation. (C.f. Wp:citations#Footnotes) Some examples:
    • "...5% of total fat[4]."
    • "...benefit to human health"[1],"
    • "..."good" cholesterol) [2];"
    • "...nutritionally adequate diet" [8]."
    • "...same negative effects [9]."
&c.
"Done' -- cmhTC 23:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first use of units such as kPa, psi and °C should be linked to the appropriate article.
"Done' -- cmhTC 23:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blended with unhydrogenated liquid soybean oil, the high pressure processed oil produced margarine containing 5 to 6% trans fat which could qualify for a label of zero grams of trans fat.[18]" Is this because the resulting net weight in the product is below 0.5 grams? I only discovered the reason after reading further. Perhaps this could be clarified?
Did this the other day -- cmhTC 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- cmhTC 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- cmhTC 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the amount a cell-signalling..." is missing an "of".
Done -- cmhTC 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abbreviations LDL/HDL should be written out on their first use, rather than assuming the reader is familiar with the terms.
I'd go ahead and submit this for GA status right away. It looks ready. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas 1994 Nor'easter

[edit]

I'm looking to see what else this article might need in order to become a good article. Is there enough information to describe the event? Is it understandable? Are the grammar and spelling in good shape? Is there another source of information I might have missed?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatdr (talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It looks pretty good, but I think it should be longer. Is there any more storm history or impact? NCDC has some good info, such as this Connecticut report ($5 million in damage and 1 indirect death there), this Massachusetts report, North Carolina, New York, http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~236393 Pennsylvania], Rhode Island, and Virginia. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the head's up. I had no idea NCDC had this kind of information online for free outside the government. Thegreatdr 23:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yea it's one of the best sources of impact info for tropical cyclones 1994 to the present. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Andy Z and Hurricanehink, three of suggestions were filled, including adding information directly from NCDC, adding the nbsp's into the text, which led to breaking in impact into a state by state format which lengthened the article. I can see an infobox being useful. Since this system was not a tropical cyclone, I'm not sure what should be included or not included in such a box. Suggestions? Thegreatdr 01:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The info box was added. Thegreatdr 12:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical biological treatment

[edit]

I would appreciate your thoughts on the above article I created some time ago on an alternative and emerging form of waste treatment. --Alex 13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My take:

  • It's a decent article.
  • Try to find a picture for a plant of an MBT for the righthand top corner.
  • Your usage of "MBT" should be replaced with the name in full. It's redundant and confusing.
  • Please use the template for see also (Template: see also). It's more professional.
    • I've fixed this for you.
  • Titling your sections as "______ element" sounds like how to build one. Please just make it one big section called "process." The way you broke it up will confuse readers to think that they are two different processes. They aren't, they're the 2 steps. If you must, make them sub-sections respectively entitled: "_______ factor." This will clarify that they are steps.
  • Again, no "MBT" abbreviation.
  • Retitle the "MBT and kerbside collection" to "Affect on kerbside collection"
  • Get and place in the "MBT and kerbside collection" section the exact quote from friends of the earth.
  • You've got me with the Friends of the Earth section. It really needs to be retitled, I can't think of anything. Or it should be combined with the lead. This would be okay because it would add notability to the subject.
  • "MBT process examples"-- you've got to be kidding me with this title. You title it examples and the first thing you do is talk about variant technologies? Change it to "Water-based MBT treatment." The 'MBT' is okay here because without abbreviating it [the title] would be too long.
  • Could you make a process chart, ie, one with arrows showing the individual steps. It would be very helpful for the water MBT section.
  • Major problem: in-line citations.
    • These go after periods with no space in between the period and citation but one between the citation and the next sentence.
    • The citations go after quotes.
    • You have 8. Not enough. Get more. Use books. I'm sure you could skim through a few at google books.

Sorry if I've given this article a hard time. Well, at least you won't face these problems when you are going through FAC, which is signifigantly far away for this article.

Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Mogul

[edit]

Hi. I've been working on the Baseball Mogul article a lot, but it's mostly been a solo effort, so I was looking for another perspective to help me out and make this a better article. So far, I've deemed it a "B" quality because I feel it has all the features of a B article, but I would love some advice on how to improve this article, especially from the perspective of a non-gamer who does not know Baseball Mogul. Electricbassguy 07:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlberg's stages of moral development

[edit]

Given that there are very few psychology GAs/FAs, and also given that i've been coddling this article for over a year now, i think it's ready for prime time. Don't want NPA personality theory giving psych articles a bad name, ya know? i want this one to be good. Tear it apart, please. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Note: These comments were removed because they contained broken HTML which screwed up the formatting of the entire Wikipedia:Peer review page. —Psychonaut 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to see serious work on a social sciences related article. Check history for bot suggestions removed by Psychonaut; my suggestions are: 1) more refs; there are still paras without a citation 2) 'Other notes on the stage model' is a strange title, please rename 3) Explain (in lead) why the sections of 'Theoretical assumptions (philosophy)' and 'Examples of Applied Moral Dilemmas' (decapitalize, plz) are relevant here 4) 'Notes' should be renamed 'Further reading'. 5) pictures would be nice - perhaps a graph like that on sociocultural evolution would be in order? Keep up the good job!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! I was afraid no one would want to peer review it! I've made the section title changes you suggested. Tell me if the new lead-in is what you wanted when you asked for it to include the philosophy and moral dilemma stuff. As for more sources, Kohlberg was very prolific so there is a lot out there - my library only has so many though. I'll work on it. And as for images; gah, i really want to add some, i just don't know how i could make a helpful one. His theory really is just a table: three levels, six stages. Maybe one of a person in a chair next to an experimenter with a tape recorder in the middle, but i can't find one like that on the commons. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're far down the Peer Review page now, so I hope you're still watching. :) Comments:

  • In

    Kohlberg's stages of moral development are planes of moral adequacy conceived by Lawrence Kohlberg to explain the development of moral reasoning. Created while studying psychology at the University of Chicago, it was inspired when he became fascinated with children's reactions to moral dilemmas through the work of Jean Piaget. He wrote his doctoral dissertation there in 1958, outlining what are now known as his stages of moral development.

    there is no referent for "it" - in the previous sentence you're talking about "stages" and "planes"! I'm not sure about "was inspired when"; isn't it usually "inspired by", as if to say the development of the model began in his mind at that time, not that it all popped into his head at once? (If you follow.) Finally, I find the meaning of "there" unobvious, since U of C was mentioned in passing in the previous sentence. I could likely make points like this throughout the article.
  • The inline citations should come after the punctuation (primarily, I see notes before commas).
  • " (although none function at their highest stage at all times)": does "none" mean people ("no one")? I know it does, but the preceding sentence doesn't support that.
  • The bookmark-links to each stage are unnecessary as they are in the same article, and there is already a table of contents. I wonder if this section is needed at all - I suggest not.
  • Not clear why paragraphs related to stages are indented...
  • In "Theoretical assumptions (philosophy)", if you could convert the bullets to prose, the whole article will be free of bullets/lists! (A de facto FA requirement.)
  • Finally, the article in outline seems quite comprehensive and well-organized. Is there work inspired by this theory that could be mentioned, parallel to "criticisms"?
    • Carol Gilligan, James Fowler, Jane Loveinger; all down there in the See Also section take off of Kohlberg's work. Gilligan was a scathing critic, a peer and a good friend to Kohlberg all at the same time - her work is sometimes seemingly largely a 'fuck-you-you're-wrong' reaction from kohlberg's (you could call that 'inspired', heh). You could say that he pretty much created the field from the starter-kit that Piaget laid out with his childhood work. I was just going to leave it at 'See Also' because I am trying to be careful to make this an article about the stages and not about Kohlberg and not about anyone else and their theories. JoeSmack Talk 09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, –Outriggr § 09:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see your point. I still think that to make the article "comprehensive", an FA requirement, adding a couple of paragraphs on outgrowths of the theory would make it comprehensive, and better balance the criticisms section. (Ah yes, the "fuck-you-you're-wrong' reaction". I get in trouble with that occasionally.) –Outriggr § 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System

[edit]

General checkup, plus, can anyone locate the missing citations in the "Formation" section? Serendipodous 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on this one so far, this could be a gigantic article and I don't envy the discussions you must have had on what to include. I have a few suggestions:

  • The lead needs a bit of rewording to copyedit for flow, the rest of the article probably needs a look over for similar issues, but I'll let you do that.
  1. Commas and interjections: there are a LOT. Pausing at every one (unlikely, but I sometimes do unintentionally) really makes reading jerky. You may consider removing many of the commas and placing the text as the subject rather than an aside. For example, The Sun's two largest orbiting bodies, Jupiter and Saturn, account for more than 90% of the system's remaining mass. can be rephrased to "Jupiter and Saturn are the Sun's two largest bodies and account for more than 90% of the system's remaining mass." An interjection or two per paragraph is fine, but more than that gets a little tedious to read through.
  2. Additionally, you don't need a comma after short introductory phrases (less than 5 words, but it's not a hard and fast rule). The article has a number of them and I'd suggest skipping the comma. E.g. In broad terms, , Under this definition,For many years,.
  3. An extreme example, try briefly pausing at each comma: Because of its large mass, the Sun has an interior density high enough to sustain nuclear fusion, releasing enormous amounts of energy, most of which is radiated into space in the form of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light. There are four phrases here with good information, don't be afraid to use two sentences.
  4. All planets but two are in turn orbited by natural satellites... -- this just reads weirdly. If I might suggest, "Six of the eight planets are orbited by natural satellites..."
  5. Other such systems are usually referred to by the names of their parent star: "the Alpha Centauri system" or "the 51 Pegasi system". I think you want a ", for example" instead of a colon.

You may want to find someone to thoroughly copy-edit the article. Perhaps not before going for a Good designation, but definitely before heading to FAC (if that's your intention). More stuff (no comma comments, I promise):

  • Layout
  1. Layout heading -- seems vague (to me). Perhaps "Layout of solar sytem objects" or something?
  2. Make sure that each paragraph has a topic sentence that leads into the other sentences. For example, the first sentence under "Layout" makes it seem like the paragraph will be talking about the ecliptic. However, other sentences within the paragraph talk about the orbit direction and relationship of speed and distance. Either find a good umbrella statement as your paragraph opening, or reorder them so similar ideas are placed together. (The orbit and speed sentences could go into your next paragraph.)
  3. Jupiter and Saturn were able to gather together far more material than the terrestrial planets, as those compounds were far more common. -- gather together is redundant, "far more" is used twice (and the "far" doesn't really tell us anything)
  • Sun
  1. The young Sun's solar wind then cleared away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disk, blowing it into interstellar space, thus ending the growth of the planets. -- Why did this happen just now? You mentioned the T Tauri phase earlier in the paragraph, but should probably bring this up again here (if my memory of solar system formation serves me).
  2. I'd love to see a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram instead of "The Sun as seen from Earth". It would help the explanation of where the stars fit immensely.
  3. it contains far more elements heavier than hydrogen and helium -- another "far more", just "more" will do.
  • Planets - ok, so you're not going to like this, but I might suggest cutting down the planet discussion SIGNIFICANTLY. I mean hack and slash. The planets are so cool that it's very tempting to put things in about each one, but they already have their own entire articles. My preference right now would be to have a section titled "Planets" with a paragraph or two describing the gross distinctions (inner vs. outer) and their characteristics, but skip going into any detail. Make sure all the planets are wiki-linked and call it a day. This would cut the article down to a reasonable size and allow readers to focus on the other parts of the article like Galactic Context and Furthest reaches, which is what I'd want to read about if I came to the "Solar System" article. The beauty of Wikipedia is that if the reader wants to know about the formation of Venus, they are just a click away.
  1. metallic dust grains such as iron, which forms their cores -- well, it's not really dust, or even granular if its in the core. How about "metal iron and nickel, which form their cores."
  2. Three of the four inner planets have atmospheres. -- So tantalizing, but just tell us which ones! Actually, your in depth description for each says that ALL of them have atmospheres (even Mercury), so you may need to add a qualifier to this sentence.
  3. All have impact craters, and all but one possess tectonic surface features, such as rift valleys and volcanoes. -- Mercury (I'm assuming you're talking about Mercury) certianly has wrinkle ridges, which are tectonic features probably related to planetary contraction. I think I know what you mean (no volcanoes, or rift valleys), but the sentence implies ANY tectonics, which isn't correct.
  • Venus -- needs help.
  1. Venus (0.7 AU), the first truly terrestrial planet, -- I'm not sure what this means. Mercury is still a "terrestrial" planet by designation. I think you probably mean "the first planet kinda like Earth", but "truly terrestrial" is misleading. Unfortnately I think the "right words" may not be worth putting in - I'd take out the comment altogether.
  2. evidence of one-time internal geological activity, such as volcanoes. -- one-time? Check out the Venus article where it says (much closer to current scientific consensus) that "Several lines of evidence point to ongoing volcanic activity on Venus."
  3. Unlike Earth, evidence suggests that Venus's crust is not divided into tectonic plates but instead comprises a single very thick rind. -- I'm glad there was a reference, because otherwise I wouldn't have believed you. That is one study's view, but it's far from as universally accepted as its placement and wording make it seem. Again from the lead of Venus, "Venus is thought to undergo periodic episodes of plate tectonics", an idea you allude to later. You may want to reorder these sentences to indicate that the work is ongoing.
  • Earth
  1. unique among the terrestrials, -- "terrestrial planets" would be better.:-)

Unfortunately I'm out of time, but this hopefully gives you some ideas. Hopefully this isn't too overwhelming, and perhaps I'll find time to do some copy-editing myself sometime. Good luck!--Will.i.am 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Those ideas were very helpful. I've edited in accordance with most of your comments; though I'll need time to come around to the "hack and slash" idea about the planets, because it would require a rethink about what to do about the paragraphs on Pluto, Ceres, Eris and Sedna. Venus will have to wait until I know what to do about this issue. In the meantime, I've given all the planet sections a cursory trim. As regards the solar wind bit, I'm afraid I don't know much about planetary system formation theories and didn't actually write that section. I've had to give myself something of a crash course just to reference it. Serendipodous 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Hunt

[edit]

I've done some work on this article, and I find myself in need of some other eyes. First of all, I have had some experience with videogame articles, and a little with NES game articles. Second, I know this article is short, and a far cry from good article, but I am in a dillema. There is very little information about a game made 20 years ago, and if it exists it is hard to locate(found some). I am out of ideas of what else to look for or what else could go into this article, as well how to improve this article further. I'd like to say it is a weak to middle B-class article, but I figure that would be objected because of it's size(it wasn't). Any help to make this GA (or better in general) would be appreciated.--Clyde Miller 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Coast Grammar School

[edit]

I just wondering how I'd go about improving this article. Any feed back would be welcomed. RockerballAustralia 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: it's a stubby, poorly referenced, and grammatical error-filled article.

  • Expand!
  • In-line citations are necessary to go anywhere.
  • Watch your grammar and spelling!
    • its and it's are not the same thing.
  • Encyclopedic tone needs to be established. It reads somewhat like an ad.
  • You talk more about the athletic program then the actual scholastic program. Tell us what the school offers and some facts and figures.
  • Why is this a notable school?
  • Is this a vanity page, it appears so. See WP:VANITY and WP:NOT.
Sorry if you take my comments as insulting, but it seriously needs work. I'll gladly help out. By your username, I guess you either live by this school/go to this school/work at this school/have children that go to this school (check 1). If any are true, it will be easy for you to get more information. If you let me have access to that info, I'll gladly intigrate it into the article for you. Drop a line if you accept the offer. Good luck with the article. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English monarchs

[edit]

This list has been completely rewritten in the past fortnight, and I would appeciate feedback to get it to FL status. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 12:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The inclusion criteria is not clear. Anyone styled themself as a monarch of England? Anyone who raiseed an army to defend a claim to the throne? Anyone who was effectivly a ruler of X square miles of England?
  • It would be really useful to list the number of children who survived the monarch as well a number of actual births. Or at least note if none survived. Queen Anne is confusing because of this
  • All subheadings need to have a prose intro even the Yorkists etc.
  • The Commonwealth subheading calls itself the Protectorate in the prose. Why are there two names.
  • I think maybe there should be a column for titles. I am sure discussion of titles should not make up such a large part of the lead
  • Pictures need captions.

I think this is a nicely established list. Atfer those are taken care of, as some of them affect the lead, I think you try to rewrite the lead so that it covers the entirity of the list better. Before going for featured you really need to focus on getting everything referenced.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do the names on the left of the images not make do as captions? Judging by List of French monarchs and List of Portuguese monarchs the images in the tables do not have captions. --Majorly (Talk) 21:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that counts (See Wikipedia:What is a featured list? #3). The caption's need not repeat the name if you dislike that. However they should say the date of the art work, and the name of the larger work is applicable (i.e. for tapestries).--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list?#Image Captions. Colin°Talk 12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Deer Hole Creek

[edit]

I am the main contributor to this article and would appreciate any comments, feedback, or suggestions on how to improve it. I will make brief articles to take care of the red links and need to update the watershed map, but thought I could start the peer review process and work on those minor issues at the same time. I am also aware that the semi-automated peer review javascript finds a problem with the units and a non-breaking space, and even know that the problem is just in the "Course" section of the article, but have been unable to find or fix the problem. I plan to submit this to WP:FAC when the peer review is done. Thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lines on the map can be confusing. It looks like the county lines are blue like the creeks. This makes it confusing to look at. I know that the county lines are grey. Perhaps this color could be changed. Orange county line perhaps? Dincher 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The topographic/3D map is another plus. add more info on Alvira and the Ordance depot and I think the article is ready for FA. Dincher 18:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much. I have added more information as requested (and eventually plan to make small articles on Alvira and the Susquehanna Ordnance Depot). I have also at least started all the articles to get rid of red links and done a (hopefully) thorough copyedit. I plan to submitthis to WP:FAC by Dec. 6, unless there are other concerns or suggections raised here before then. Thanks again to all who have helped with this peer review, Ruhrfisch 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of House episodes

[edit]

I would like to make this a featured list. Any advice on how this article could be made better will be appreciated, but specifically the lead paragraph needs to be expanded/improved. Thanks! PullToOpən talk 02:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, definitely expand the lead. Per WP:WIAFL, some other changes will be needed:
  • Note that the {{tv-screenshot}} states that please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use. See WP:FUC and WP:FU.
  • Useful [1(a)] states that a featured list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links). Most of the links are red, though.
  • Criterion 1(c) asks for footnotes/references, but this article only has 1.
  • Thanks, AZ t 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Almost all of the red links were articles at one point, but all of season 1 got speedied a couple weeks ago for some reason. PullToOpən talk 14:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some synopses... synopseses... synopsi... aw shit whatever plural of synopsis is... are one sentence long, while others are fully fledged paragraphs. I don't know which is more appropriate, but it would be a good idea to decide on one or the other: summary or synopsis. And yeah, referencing. Refence two has an ugly [1] external link within it, and I suspect you'll need a shedload more to go anywhere with this article anyway. Seegoon 15:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-counselling

[edit]

Please suggest any ways in which this page can be improved to the highest standard.John Talbut 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that this seems to be a controversial article, it could use quite a few more citations. The standard for GA class tends to be about one citation per paragraph, but obviously articles need more or less depending on their details. You should cite any statement that refers to a fact the reader might want to check, and any statement that expresses an opinion or refers to the opinions of others. I have added a few "citation needed" tags to help start the process of adding more.
  • Footnotes and references ought to be in separate sections.
  • It seems to be that the article will be incomplete unless it discusses independent opinions (from outside RC or CCI) on this technique. Have any professional psychotherapists or psychologists written about/assessed this approach to therapy? Have any criticisms been made of it? MLilburne 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these suggestions. I am (and I hope some others will be) working on it.John Talbut 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States-Mexico border

[edit]

I would like to work this up to WP:FA standards; if anyone here is able to help, please leave a message on my talk page! If you've got any advice, then please let me know here! --SunStar Net 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not ready for peer review, it is simply too short. There is much more to be covered on the topic.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are my views:
  1. The first thing you need to address is converting the external links into inline citations. See WP:FOOTNOTE for guidelines on how to do this. Bear in mind, citations go after punctuation.
  2. The title is "United States-Mexico border", but the bolded text in the lead paragraph reads "international border between Mexico and the United States". I think it would be appropriate to decide which country is going to come first in the name.
  3. The section at the end of "Geography", regarding which states come first from west to east is a little confusing, partly because of how it appears on the page, mangled by the images.
  4. In fact, in that paragraph, there is a little too much use of the em dash. Try using other syntactical constructions to keep the prose more lively.
  5. "History" needs a great deal of expansion - it should truly be the crux of this article in my opinion. I think it needs to at least match the length of "Security issues". As for content, I'm not American or Mexican, so that's surely your domain.
  6. There are a few problems with "Border Surveillance". For one, "Surveillance" shouldn't be capitalised. Secondly, it is heavily biased towards the US. Whatever Mexican policy is; it should be mentioned, even if only in passing. Ideally, and for eventual FA, the security measures of the two respective parties must be discussed with equal rigour. Also, it might be worth making it a sub-section of "Security issues" until it is sufficiently fleshed out to stand alone.

I hope some of this has helped! Seegoon 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.J. Simpson

[edit]

Well the nominator didn't say a thing, but I must say, the articles need references. Good neutrality though. Wiki-newbie 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supply and Demand

[edit]

This article seems to have alot of POV for a featured article. The article seems to have a bias against Marshall's theory. Comments on how to improve it would be great! Justinmeister 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:FAR would be more appropriate for this.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic Athletic Association

[edit]

Overall review of this artical , how it currently is and what improvements are needed (Gnevin 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

balloonman

[edit]
  • Expand the introductory section. You should generally have 3-4 paragraphs worth of information to tell us what is important and to convince us to read the rest of the article.
  • GAA in the 20th century needs to be expanded. And is "it" the GAA?
  • Achievements needs to cleaned up. The sentences are entirely too long which makes for complex reading. For example, The ancient game of hurling was saved from extinction and both it and Gaelic football were standardised, albeit that both standardised games, but in particular Gaelic Football, bore little resemblance to the original sports.
  • Some of the issues in Achievements needs to be elaborated upon, for example, what does it mean to provide a mechanism for the creation of a sense of Irish identity. That is one of those cliche phrases that has little firm meaning...
  • The list of GAA's needs to be redone. It is too long... a table or columns should be considered.Balloonman 05:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian literature

[edit]

I believe that this article should be nominated for a "featured article" status. Tājik 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoysala Empire

[edit]

Please review this article for balance, grammar, format etc. Per Taxman's advice, I have tried to bring a balance to the article by adding information on Religion, Society, Agriculture, Administration etc. If there is anything else that needs to be done, I would glad to comply. Please provide feedback on this discussion page.Dineshkannambadi 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken care of Redundant, vague and weasel words. I am currently looking into the Lead section, spellings and copy edits.Dineshkannambadi 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The section "Religion" is unnecessarily big. There is no need to describe short biographies of the three people. What is important is their/their movements' impact on the empire or afterwards. It's better to just mention their names and schools (with proper wikilinks), and then go straight to impact. This will also reduce the size of the article(which is already intimidating).
Also, please try to restrict wikilinking the same term several times in the article. CE was wikilinked multiple times, often in almost in succession. Shall try to read the whole article later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-->Ok I will take care of the Religion section .ThanksDineshkannambadi 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment compressed "Religion" and added citation in "imports and Exports" section.Dineshkannambadi 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go for FAC It's been great work. IMO, you'll have to wait long for getting more reviews in the PR. Have a final look and go for FAC ASAP. The article will get more reviews there in the FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->Ok. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

[edit]

I would appreciate feedback on what specific aspects of this article need to be improved. In terms of length, is it still too long and if so in what sections. Do you believe that more sources are needed and in what sections? Do you have any other suggetions/comments regarding the article? TSO1D 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history from 1990 to 2006 should get also a paragraph! The problems with reunification (Blühende Lanschaften). The end of the time were German soilders were only allowed to do anything when the country in war. There is enough for a few centences.--Stone 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the last 16 years of Germany's history are virtually ignored in the history section. The main history article doesn't really cover this section too well either, though there is some information in History of Germany since 1945 that I will try to condense and add at the end. As for the problems with re-unification, I think most of those have already been addressed in the ecnomy and society sections. TSO1D 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any point in the "Further reading" section? While these books may be good to reference in citations, the random-looking choice in this section (a biography of Lucius D. Clay??) just makes the article look bad. Perhaps the talk page of History of Germany is the right place for this stuff, as source for citations there. Kusma (討論) 20:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that section serves no useful purpose at the moment. I will move the sources to the talk page so that they might somehow prove useful if anyone wants to take a look at them. TSO1D 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Miscellaneous links section is a bit odd, too. I think it can be safely removed, as long as the sisterlinks and Portal link stay on the page. The Portal contains a Topics box Portal:Germany/Topics. Kusma (討論) 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the section should be removed altogether (for instance look at FA [{Belgium]] that has a similar section), but I tried to alter it a little. I renamed it "See Also" and reduced the number of links so that only those that are important directly relate to Germany as a whole remained. TSO1D 20:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geography section is listy and stubby and not very nice, compare country FA Canada, which has nice readable prose. Kusma (討論) 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the geography section needs to entirely rewritten and reformated. TSO1D 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intro needs work, too much about geography, not really summarizing the whole article, too much focus on the wrong details (Bonn-Berlin stuff). Kusma (討論) 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that will be the hardest one to fix. And I see that the main culture of Germany article doesn't have much more either. TSO1D 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the German translation of the article has a good section on the subject, though perhaps a bit too lengthy. I'll probably translate part of that and use it instead of the text that's up now. TSO1D 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "International rankings" should probably be removed. It would need to be converted into prose, but is then likely to be too detailed for the main national article. There may be place for the information at economy of Germany. --Stemonitis 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. TSO1D 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Cambridge

[edit]

The article is already listed as good. I believe it deserves being worked on in order to achieve quality suitable for the FA status. I would thus be very grateful to you if you could review the article and suggest improvements. The article has a lot of potential, let's make the most of it! Gimlei 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am surprised it is listed as good. The entire structure need to be reexamined. It currently rambles and jumps without any reasoning. There are 2 seperates subsections on the Colleges! I would suggest that you look at the best articles you can find on not just other unversities but any other large historic institution. Then make a list of articles about Cambridge that could possibly be daughter articles and compare that to the best articles you read which had your favorite structure. Try and draw parrallels between them and restructure the article based on that.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your suggestions, I just wanted to make sure I am following you on the daughter articles. Compiling a list of them seems to be a great idea, do you mean it would be helpful to compare this list to the list of daughter articles for the best articles? Gimlei 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to compile a list of all articles on specific Cambridge topics and then see how they compare to daughter articles used in the best articles. Then pick out which you want to be actual daughter articles of Cambridge and build off of that (as well as the current text). You will probably not use all articles on your first list. Some of them may far too specific or misguided in scope. Sorry if I was unclear. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Gimlei 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLilburne

[edit]
  • The paragraph in the lead on "Oxbridge" seems extraneous and not really all that important to a general discussion of Cambridge.
  • Generally, I agree that this article's main problem is with structure and organization. The history section is way too short, and contains some of the information on the collegiate system, where the section on admissions contains some of the information on history. It just doesn't seem to be logically organized. I'll try to come up with some more detailed suggestions soon, but I'd say that you're definitely in for some cutting and pasting. MLilburne 22:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC) (from the Other Place)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed. I will be waiting for your suggestions, while doing some preparatory work perusing the best articles on similar topics. Gimlei 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here goes. This is my suggestion for how to structure the article. I haven't looked at any of the daughter articles, so this is just from first principles. Feel free to ignore if you have better ideas.

  • Lead (more on history, nothing on Oxford)
  • General introduction (if this could be incorporated into the lead without making the lead too long, it would be vastly preferable)
  • History (there is enough relevant history that I think this level of subdivision is justified. The information on mathematics and women at Cambridge should be integrated into the chronological treatment of the history)
    • Foundation
    • Mediaeval
    • Early modern
    • Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
    • Twentieth century
  • Cambridge today
    • Collegiate system
    • Admissions
    • Research and teaching (including Reputation)
    • Library system
    • Sports and other extracurricular activities
  • Myths, legends and traditions
  • Cambridge in literature and popular culture (this needs to be turned into prose; a list will almost certainly cause problems at FAC stage)
  • Notable graduates (this is probably all right as a list)
  • See also (this should incorporate some of the "University activities" section, but it should be a very cut-down list)
  • Notes (citations go here)
  • References (list of books and websites used to create article. There should be quite a few books!)
  • External links (listing more than five to seven is generally frowned upon)

In my opinion the "Miscellanous" section should be deleted with prejudice. If the material in it belongs elsewhere in the article, it should go there; if not, it's not notable enough to belong in the article. I hope that all of this makes sense. Let me know if you have questions/quibbles/vehement objections. Once you've finished restructuring the article, I suggest that you bring it back for another peer review, because it will need to have content looked at before it becomes a FAC.

I should also mention the citation issue. At the moment you have only four footnotes, plus quite a few external citations. All of those should be converted into footnotes, and a minimal standard for citations is probably one per paragraph. Some paragraphs will require quite a few more. MLilburne 12:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your detailed comments! They appear to be very thoughtful, and would make the job of improving the article a lot easier. I am going to start working on the article in a few days due to personal circumstances. Thanks again! Gimlei 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare

[edit]

Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! Vanished user talk 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman

[edit]

It would be hycritical of me to ask for help, but not offer any in return so here are some thoughts on this article...

  • I don't like the opening sentence. It turns me off "greatest writer... greatest in Western Literature ... preeminent dramatist." Those may be true statements, but it reads like propaganda.
  • "about 37 plays" immediates makes me wonder why "about." I suspect that you go into more detail later on, but without an explaination, it raises questions that you don't want to have raised. I'd leave the numbers out and go into more details later on.
    • I've tried leaving them in, but giving a link to an article about the doubtful attributions. If this is too awkward, I'll cut 'em. Vanished user talk 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tried "wrote [[Shakespeare Apocrypha|about]] 38 plays" as a way of keeping the sentence uncluttered but also providing a reader who cares with detailed info on why we say have to say "about". Does that work? Broken edit by AndyJones, fixed by Vanished user. Watch the closing of nowiki tags.
  • I'm not a fan of long sentences. While it may be gramatically correct, I'd break break the sent about his fame starting during his lifetime into two.
  • Wordy, for example: He is counted among the very few playwrights who have excelled in both tragedy and comedy can be shortened to He is considered one of the few playwrights who excelled at both tragedy and comedy. "Counted among", "very few" and "have" don't add much to the article. "Very few?" How many is that? Who else is considered among the "very few?" Who makes this determination? "living language" another case of wordiness, people will assume living languages, youd don't need the word "living"
  • The translation in to every language also needs to be cited.
  • put the details about the number of articles after the last sentence in the intro or move that sentence up. It explains why the exact number of plays can't be known.
  • The first 3 sentences in the Early life start off with probably... probably... and presumably, without any sources/citations this looks like OR.
  • "Shakespeare's last two plays, play1 and play2, were written in 1613."
    • Is this sentence still there? It refers the two collaborations with John Fletcher, namely The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. Actually, trying to source this it's difficult to say with any certainty that they were written in 1613. The Arden Henry VIII points out that the first recorded performance was at the Globe in 1613 (when it was described as a new play) but also speculates that it may have been performed at Blackfriars earlier. The matter is contentious, as you can see from the wikipedia page where an Oxfordian user is edit warring to suggest a far earlier date (Oxford died 1604). Sorry to clutter Balloonman's contributions with this guff, by the way: if I knew how best to fix this I'd do it myself rather than blathering here! AndyJones 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV.Balloonman 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat91

[edit]

I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source. In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference. I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." Nat91 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows when he was born.24.77.19.233 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]
  • "William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language,[2] and the world's preeminent dramatist." The world's preeminent dramatist? Are we sure about that? Better than Aeschylus and Sophocles? And if yes why? I may be wrong but I don't feel comfortable with the superlative.
  • "(see Shakespeare Apocrypha for plays uncertainly attributed to Shakespeare)". My opinion is that this link should be somewhere in "Plays" and not in the lead.
  • By the way, do you have in mind the issue of Time devoted to the "bard" ("Will power")? There were 2-3 excellent articles there? And one comparing him with ... I don't remember ... Wait ... I'll find him ... Yes ... With Middleton! A very interesting assessment about the Bard's talent.
  • "Early life" is undercited. In the next section I see a [citation needed].
  • "He appears to have moved across the Thames River to Southwark sometime around 1599. " ource here?
  • "Later years". No citations here. I see the article is overall undercited, so from now own I'll name seperate sections.
  • In "Other poems" both paragraphs start with "In addition". Repetion of the smae forms of prose.
  • For a playwright like Shakespeare "Style" is under-analyzed. I expect here some modern assessments, further analysis, and comparaisons with other important playwrights (contemporaries of him or of the near centuries). Another suggestion is to keep the section concise and, instead, to create a sub-article.
  • Reading "Reputation" I thought again about this issue of TIME and an aricle named "Shakespeare Inc." I think. What I mean is that the modern aspects of the bard's reputations and the commercial success and effect of his name should be treated in this or in a subarticle.
  • "Identity" needs better referencing and some modern assessments by modern scholars.
  • Wow! "See also" is huge. And most of the links there are already linked above!
  • In "Further Reading" we should have the ISBNs.
  • Are all "External links" links necessary? Could they be better organized?
  • You know my obsession with inboxes! I think you could think about adding some here from the Bard's work, if you can relate them to specific sections and analyses.--Yannismarou 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Vanished user talk

[edit]

GoldenEye

[edit]

Archive 1

Archive 2

I think this page is ready for FA status. It's a Good Article, and done a lot of work on it, especially the plot section to shorten it up and remove some redundancies. Hopefully there won't be any major problems, and this can be nominated for Featured Article in a short short. ColdFusion650 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it so funny that for a copyrighted film there are so many free images! I'd find some film shots for the Plot though, like Bond vs Treyalan and Bond actually jumping off the dam. WikiNew 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chapel Hill Transit

[edit]

I am trying to get this article become a Good Article. Are you any things that you suggest me do to achieve this goal? --Ineffable3000 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belarus

[edit]
previous PR

Jesus

[edit]

(October 2005 Jesus peer review located here: archive 1) (April 2006 Jesus peer review located here: archive 2)

We seem to have reached a relative low point in things to be edited. We've recently instituted a newly re-done section on the teachings section, the only citation needed tag seems to concern the Star of Bethleham and something about Jupiter and Saturn being in conjunction I think, and really, it seems most everything else is referenced. So therefore, I think its high time for yet another peer review, Does anyone think this might nearly be an FA? What about A class? The only disputes really left now are some UFO theory on the talk page right now, and occasionally people edit the wording in the excruciatingly discussed introduction and make people unhappy, but other than that, most of the new content proposels constitute adding in good amounts of material which may or may not really be necessary. But hey, if anyone has suggestions about more material, it can't hurt. Homestarmy 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a references section which could all do with in line use. I also think a point the article needs to make is what Jesus was preaching: love most of all. Wiki-newbie 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read through the narrative portion which gave me enough issues to not need to go further.
    • References still need work throughout the narative section. Here is a sample paragraph The Gospel of John describes three different passover feasts over the course of Jesus' ministry. This implies that Jesus preached for a period of three years, although some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year. The focus of his ministry was toward his closest adherents, the Twelve Apostles, though many of his followers were considered disciples. Jesus led what many believe to have been an apocalyptic following. He preached that the end of the current world would come unexpectedly; as such, he called on his followers to be ever alert and faithful.
      • "some interpretations" and "many believe" need to be properly detailed and referenced. This is a commmon problem throughout the narrative portion of the article.
    • Also the Bible is not being cited properly when it is used as a reference. Especially when you are using direct quotes you need to give the exact edition you are quoting. I also believe you should use the proper citation template whenever you use the Bible as a reference. However beyond even that, it would be better if you could find a more reliable source as to use as a reference. Preferably one that examines several older copies of the Greek manuscripts (which it identifies) in order to write a scholarly opinion focused only on the matter Jesus, rather one that examines unknown versions and translates them with the idea of providing a complete holy book in English. Maybe there is not such a reference, but I would find it surprising.
    • Also I wonder about the scope of what you are trying to do in the narrative. Rather than summarizing the important opinions on various portions Jesus's life (which have daughter articles) and puuting them into the context of why this is important, the article seems to want to account for every discrepency mentioned in the scriptures. This is a problem throughout the narative portion, but a good example is Many scholars hold that the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan, called the Quartodeciman, whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe the Last Supper, immediately before Jesus' arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan; however, a number of scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John. Try to focus on telling an account of Jesus and if people disagree about things explain why they disagre and what that really means. Avoid making tis portion of the article about the Bible.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the narrative part has been refactored somewhat recently, though alot of it was re-arranging sentences and choosing different words and whatnot. Homestarmy 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick glance shows the same problems I outlined above. I will not waste my time going over an article when the nominator neither responds to my review nor makes significant edits to the article within a week. I think it unacceptable for people to make nominations for Peer Review when they are not prepared to immediately to significant work to the article. To many nominations never get more than the semi-automated review and it a shame for people to waste time on unresponsive nominators.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


West Bromwich Albion F.C.

[edit]

I have pretty much re-written this article since the last peer review and believe I have addressed the vast majority of the points raised. Looking for GA as soon as possible, along with any advice and help to get it up to FA. Thanks. --Jameboy 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of choppy sentences with too many commas - I'll show you how to reduce commas by switching clauses.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

So, strange situation because I've already said I'd review this for GA but in parallel we have a PR, so I'll leave my comments here and see what happens, bearing in mind I'll review with minimum GA and beyond in mind (thinking of FA in other words...)

Aye, first time up... I'll be better organised next time and have more idea what I'm aiming for!
  • Move citations to comply with WP:CITE, immediately to right of punctuation.
 Done One obvious one changed, one questionable one adjusted. I assume this doesn't apply to infoboxes, tables and lists, which don't have punctuation.
  • Avoid prose within the parentheses. If it's worth being there, flow it.
 Done I think the only parentheses remaining at the start of the lead and also in the Statistics section, where I found it hard to rephrase without them.
  • "This made Albion virtually an automatic choice..." - says who?
 Done It was William McGregor. I have re-written the sentences(s) from the original source. Also the William McGregor article has more detail on this topic.
  • Be consistent with season descriptions, you have 1910–11 and then 1919–1920.
 Done
  • Yuck, World War I - English should refer to this as First World War. Same with its successor.
 Additional information needed These are the actual article titles, so are you saying this is an Americanism? Is "World War One" acceptable, i.e. dropping the roman numeral?
No, I'm completely objectionable to the American phraseology here. We should stick with Second World War and prevent the redirect to World War II by piping. Seems odd to me to make it sound like a Hollywood sequel.... The Rambling Man (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not wishing to be awkward, but given that several featured articles use the World War I/II format (Anne Frank, Blitzkrieg, Invasion of Poland (1939), British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, Battle of the Bulge to name just a few) I'm going to leave it alone for now. If there's a consensus elsewhere that says otherwise then I will change it. --Jameboy (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All those articles are incorrect then! British English supports "First World War" and "Second World War", this is a British English article so that's what I think.. But frankly, it's not that big a deal, just anomalous. Next up you should change the Colours section to Colors! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...this particular "Double"...." - needs further clarification - you mean winning the FA cup and being relegated? It's not clear.
 Done FA Cup and promotion. I've clarified this and provided a separate cite (from 2007) that this is achievement is unique.
  • "...hailed as "The Team of the Century"..." - this is some claim. I'm sure the citation helps but you have to justify it in the text.

 Done I've elaborated on this a little. If you can give an idea of what sort of thing you're looking for here, I can probably provide it.

  • "...there followed the club's longest ever continuous run in the top flight of English football, a total of 24 years." - cite it please.
 Done I've cited the 24-year unbroken streak. Haven't been able to cite it being their longest run in the top flight so have taken it out. This is annoying because it is definitely correct (see the graph at the foot of the article), I just can't find it explicitly written anywhere. I can't find a way of citing it that wouldn't be OR. D'oh. Someone just posted on my talk page... seems I may have miscostrued OR slightly, so may be able to cite this after all.
  • En-dash - I saw a 1972-1973 instead of a 1972–73 there....
 Done
  • "..of 1500–2000..." not keen, perhaps "between 1,500 and 2,000..."
 Done
  • Heed WP:HEAD for headings - "Notable Fomer Players" -> "Notable former players"
 Done
  • In that table, link the positions, consider reformatting so it looks pleasant, make it sortable.
 Additional information needed Have linked the positions and made the table sortable. What do you mean by "looks pleasant"?
Well, little things like not letting the names go to two lines, consistent position naming, for two periods with the club separate with newline rather than a comma... There's scope for improving the appearance, that's what I meant, sorry it wasn't specific enough! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd look at making this and the manager table consistent, little things like column widths, {{sortname}} templates for the mangers, just to keep the article looking professional all the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Additional information needed The names are all on one line and look fine, but then I have 1440x900 screen resolution. Any idea what is the lowest/highest resolution that a Wikipedia article should cater for? The name sorting template doesn't include a non-breaking space as far as I can tell, so I may need to widen the columns. --Jameboy (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the notable players table definitely has broken names on my screen, Safari, 12" iBook... Plus you can use the nowrap template outside the sortname template. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done See what you think.
  • Wowwwweeee, one manager for 1520 games. Incredible. (That's just an observation, no action required!)
 Remark: He was definitely in charge for 46 years, but I haven't yet independently verified the stats, I've only used soccerbase. What I need to do quite soon is get the managers sub-article (list) to FL by verifying the stats against several books I have, then use the verified results in the main article. This is probably a barrier to FA for this article until I complete this task, not sure about GA though.
  • Ensure citations relating to multiple pages of books have consistent "pp", not just "p".
 Done

That's it for now. Let me know if I can help more. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your excellent feedback. I've also added more images to the article and re-arranged some of the existing images. --Jameboy (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Maid Freed from the Gallows

[edit]

The history of this song, from its time-lost roots through its recording by Led Zeppelin as Gallows Pole, is a truly fascinating trip. I'd like to know, what do folks think would be needed to bring this one up to FA quality? bd2412 T 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments for you...
    • Can "Child ballad" be explained, perhaps in its own sentence? ("The song is the 95th of the Child ballads, <whatever they are>".)
    • The article repeatedly uses "condemned" as a noun, which seems awkward to me (maybe it's more common elsewhere?).
    • Somebody (but not me, because I don't care) might complain about the non-"fair-use" of the album cover images in an article not strictly about any of those albums (although maybe the topic is close enough to be "fair use", I don't know).
    • Combine the one-sentence paragraph that starts "Synopsis" with the paragraph after it.
    • Since some variants are described in "Synopsis", could you combine the "Variants" section into "Synopsis"?
    • The article refers to Leadbelly as "Leadbelly" and "Lead Belly".
    • "The music suits the building tension in the song" is a (harmless) case of WP:OR. Oh, that's right, "there are NO harmless cases of OR!" (zombie look).

Hope that helps, –Outriggr § 07:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • As to the first point, every Child ballad that has an article starts the same way. I thought of dropping a footnote after that reference, but the reference itself is a link already. I'll leave that one to the folks who regularly work on Child ballads to fix as they see fit.
      • I've always thought "condemned" was a common usage as a noun. I'll look for an appropriate synonym.
      • "Lead Belly" refs have all been fixed to Leadbelly.
      • The album covers are fair use for the section of the article that discusses those albums - they illustrate what the albums were for educational purposes, and without affecting their value.
      • I'll work over the "Synopsis" and OR points later. I'll see if I can track down the contributor of the 'building tension' line.
      • Thanks! bd2412 T 13:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup. From a naive reader's perspective, whether or not every "Child ballad" article starts that way, it doesn't help me. I can't assume it isn't a way of saying (poorly) that it's a ballad for children. As for "condemned", I can't find it in online dictionaries as a noun. I know you can get away with it, but I think it's better to leave it for titles and stock phrases. –Outriggr § 04:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is probably a technical term for implying a noun ("the condemned", "the unfortunate", "the sick and the hungry"). When I think of such examples, they always have a plural sense to them, which isn't what you're going for in your usage. :) –Outriggr § 04:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I know this song! I didn't know this title, but as soon as I read the summary I realised that this was the song Steeleye Span sang as the Prickly Bush. :) I have added a trivial wikilink and made a comment on the talk page. I thought this was an interesting article. Would it be possible to provide translations of the titles Lunastettava neito (Finnish), Den Bortsålda (Swedish) and Die Losgekaufte (German)? And if it is possible, it would also be nice to see more about its history. In what time period did it move from one language to another? If Child considered it more corrupt in English, did he think a specific version the purest? I'm not sure the long list of alternative titles should be marked up as one gigantic list: the section is as large as some of the other sections in the article. If we need all the titles, is there any reason not to have it as a very long list of prose? Telsa (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm at a loss for translations. Could ask someone with the appropriate Babel Box settings. Also, I don't know where to find Child's thoughts on it, but I'll hunt around. bd2412 T 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian hieroglyphs

[edit]

Hi, this article is quite long and it is starting to ramble, anyone just any views and suggestions for improvements? Markh 13:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that i is transliterated j. I've never seen this before in my (admittadly short) career in hieroglyphics, outside of spanish transliterations. Which transliteration system does that come from? Thanatosimii 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/j/ and /i/ are interchangeable (Allen uses is), I think it is a German originating thing (See Transliteration of ancient Egyptian). Markh 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lei tai

[edit]

I'm running out of ideas and research material for this article. I plan on adding some more video game photos and information when I get back from Thanksgiving holiday. I won't be able to answer any comments until Friday or Saturday.

One problem I have is that I’ve referenced AT LEAST 45 different book, magazine and internet sources (and growing) to write the page. So my reference section is HUGE. It is taking up a large amount of space and I may have to split other sections of the page up into their own articles, like the “Famous lei tai fighters of the past” section. I would like to know if there is a way that I can archive my sources, but still have them accessible when someone clicks the citation link on the main article. (Ghostexorcist 10:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I found this article hard to read beacuse of the "lightness" of the prose. Many areas end up just stating a fact and a source rather tham truly being written in prose despite being formatted as a paragragh. All the things on bullet points should be within a paragragh with more details as to why the idea is notable. I don't see a problem with the number of references many FA have huge reference sections. I think you have lots of good information that needs to be written into a true encylclopedia article. I am impressed with the reasearch you have done.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
some of the areas that I found the most troubling: Anything with a buller point. In 1928, the Nationalist government banned the old traditions of private duels and lei tai contests because too many people were dying. That is an entire paragraph. Were more people dying in 1928 than and 1918? Why? Were people calling for this or were they angry about it? Is it still banned? What about other coutries? Did they ban it too? Change rules to make safer? Did the fights stop or did they continue illegally? There was a water lei tai held in Taiwan in 2004. This is also an entire paragraph. Why do we care that about this event? Were the rules the same as the 1999 competition? Did anyone drown? Are water lei tais popular now or are they contaversial? There is hardly enough for me to ask leading questions. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is just not enough information to compile the material with bullet-points into paragraphs, especially the parts about the "famous Lei tai fighters of the past".
In regards to the sentence/paragraph about the lei tai's banning in 1928, I don't have enough material to answer 99% of your queries. I have relied greatly on English sources and only a few of these actually refer to the fact that the lei tai was banned in that year. It just says the government banned it because too many people were dying.
The reason I added the sentence about the water lei tai in 2004 was to show that there were more than just one held. That’s why it is important. I know there have been several held between ’99 and ’04 (and probably afterwards) but I saw these in passing on unreliable foreign websites and haven’t been able to find the same material anywhere else. Plus, if someone drowned, I highly doubt the event would continue.(Ghostexorcist 01:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Balloonman

[edit]
  • Introduction needs to be expanded.
  • Need to get rid of all the ??? sections.
  • Agree with Bridgette above... hard to read because it is primarily a list of facts. And I'm a martial artist!Balloonman 09:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might want to format your computer to read Chinese font. I put a sign on the front of the article that states if you don't have the codex for Chinese, you might see ??? or boxes of some nature. (Ghostexorcist 00:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Ah that makes sense... that might be what all the ??? I saw were...Balloonman 00:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

[edit]

I have made some changes per manual of style and your own requests. I'm still not done yet. I will expand the opening paragraph when I have the time. Thanks for the comments! (Ghostexorcist 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oriel College

[edit]

I have been working on this article for some time and would like to see it reach FA status, any comments to help it reach that goal are welcomed. Except changing the picture of the Rhodes Building and providing a photo of the three medieval pieces of plate, I have run out of inspiration as to how to improve it. Thanks. --Alf melmac 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could do with being longer (at the moment it seems to be almost all bold text), and I'm not sure commonly called should be bold. Laïka 16:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely accept the comment about having too much bold and needing a longer intro, I have checked the ref, and though I don't have this year's copy of the Oxford University Calendar, I don't expect it's changed, word for word, the corporate designation is accurate, but I notice it just says "in full" so that can better addressed. I will look at the first three paras again and see how they can be recast to give a fuller lead and place that large amount of bold in a less impactive place. Thanks. --Alf melmac 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. The "commonly called" bit is actually part of the official name. Sorry about that. Laïka 22:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the lead and although I haven't entirely solved the amount of bold, putting the corporate designation into the notes is right in this instance I think.--Alf melmac 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll install and run that also. --Alf melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used SmallPotatoes for this and have cleared all but the 'relevant links' issues, I'm still ruminating over those, thanks. --Alf melmac 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman

[edit]

Here are my thoughts on the article, take them for what they are worth:

  • The article is in pretty good shape as is, but I didn't care too much for the introductory section. It was too much "The school was also known as" to capture my attention.
Valid point, I'll see about reducing that somehow on the intro re-write, the intro is certainly the area which needs most thought. --Alf melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully addressed somewhat with the re-write of the lead.--Alf melmac 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • include a short statement on what Lollardy is. Links should be used to get additional information, but the article should be able to stand on its own to a certain degree.
Indeed, will do. --Alf melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph with the Lollardy needs to be worked on. I read it and was thinking, "Huh, bloody battles? What's going on?"
Oh, I quite liked "bloody battles", but it obviously doesn't come across right, I'll look to that section again then. --Alf melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the word bloody battles, but I'm suddenly hit with that term and wondering "When did the fighting begin?" It caught me off guard.Balloonman 17:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to that section to prep readers for the bloody battles. Please tell me if I've missed the mark. --Alf melmac 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sections in the Student Life appear to be heavily paraphrased from Student Life
I must admit the student section is the one I've spent less time on than the rest, I looked across the rest of the college articles and borrowed what I thought best of the comments and tailored them to Oriel, ChristChurch's must have been better than the rest. I will ask some current students for their input on this to see if it can't be made more original. --Alf melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got bored when you were talking about the buildings. You might want to condense that section... but then again, you might not.
My love of architectural history is probably to blame for that then, one the one hand I was tempted to start a sub article on the buildings so I could be fully encyclopedic about them and on the other unwilling to loose it away like I did the people, which I think did make it better, I guess those more interested in biographies than buildings would say that was the wrong way round :) I did find it a hard balance to cover adequately and remain concise, I'll look to asking a copy editor to see if the verbiage can be cut or sparkled as I am hesitant to cut the info. --Alf melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article.Balloonman 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you comments are appreciated. --Alf melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Gugelmin

[edit]

I've been working on this article for a while, mostly adding info as it has been discovered. I know that the prose needs some improvement, but I'd like to hear any comments you may have so that I can improve the article and maybe get it to good article status.

I'd welcome anything you have to say. Readro 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Intresting, first can "Personal and early life" be expanded? Does the "Career" have to be subdivided so much? makes the article look stubby. Also footnotes go after punctuation. The prose could be more polished, akward prose example would be couple instance of a year being described with an adjective: "1998 was not as successful." - Tutmosis 00:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree with all your points. I've tried to follow the standard sort of format for racing drivers (see Damon Hill for example), but Gugelmin is nowhere near as well known, and so the article has ended up looking a bit stubby. I should probably re-think the sections. The prose will be looked at soon, but my main priority was fleshing out the article, so some sections might not flow as well. Thanks for your thoughts. Readro 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey State Constitution

[edit]

This is the second peer review for the article. I was just dissapointed with how little look-over it actually got. Please make your comments; fresh eyes welcome. Any general status comments wanted!Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Peer Review

  • Can the Defunct Versions section be expanded? Secondly I would like to see some information on how it was adopted. Also it needs a copyedit because some parts dont make sense, example: "Paragraphs traditionally in Article I, eg, the banning of ex post facto laws is in Article IV "Legislative." First it makes no sense, then why can't the footnote be at the end of the sentence? Why is an abbreviation used "eg"? Also some unsourced statements come off as analysis, example: "New Jersey's constitution is often a target of criticism." - Tutmosis 00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden

[edit]

I would like to promote this article to good articles and later to featured articles. So you are welcome to review the language and content of the article. Geo-Loge 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on references. Some facts like GDP etcetera are referenced since today. Which kinds of statements have to be footnoted? Geo-Loge 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually numbers that could be challenged, opinioned statements such as "The subjects of local affairs in Dresden are often about the urban development of the city", and statements that read like a fact but could be challenged such as "19th century to the 1920s when it was a centre of fine and visual arts". Also I agree with the user below, this article could benefit from better use of summary form. The prose also could definetely be improved. - Tutmosis 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some statements are in use to introduce to a topic. Their references are the following passages. Geo-Loge 23:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing information to create a sentence constitutes as original research. Footnotes are used to specify what verifiable source you used, so anyone who doubts it can check it out. - Tutmosis 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases doubt can be cleared by the following statements (that are footnoted or link to information of the Wikipedia free of doubt). First footnote an introduction than footnote the statements the introduction is introducting to is window-dressing. Finally an introducing statement is footnoted a couple of times and knowledge can be found in the footnote section. Geo-Loge 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

  • My original thought (note, this is only useful if you realize that this is what any visitors will think): Woah. This is really long.

Correction time:

  • No matter if "Sorbian" is linked, you must link "Old Sorbian" to its respective seperate article.
  • "...is the capital city of the German Federal Free State of Saxony and situated in a valley on the River Elbe." That's only the predicate, and it stretches on before that. Break it into this: "...is the capital city of the German Federal Free State of Saxony. It is situated in a valley on the Elbe river." Note the switching around of the "river" and "Elbe." This is because the rest of the article is in American English, and I'm going to make sure you keep it constant.
For the record, I have nothing against my friends across the pond. :)
  • "Since German re-unification Dresden has been an important..." The "since" part is a clause. You need a comma. Secondly, the "important" part pushes it close to WP:PEACOCK. So it should be like this: "Since German re-unification, Dresden has been a cultural, political, and economic center in the eastern part of the Federal Republic of Germany."
  • Maybe a light condensing of the Geography section is good. No seperate article is needed.
  • Condense the history section immediately. I suggest making a seperate History of Dresden article.
  • This article has gotten way too detailed. Just like the other 99 percent of non-Wikipedians who will be reading this article: I quit. Please condense this, drop a line, and then I'll do a more detailed review.
Sorry, it's just that my skills are in better use copyediting. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old Sorbian has no article. Sorbian however is an active spoken language.
  • The vocabulary of the article is British English, I thought?
  • I dont see "gibberish" in the Geography section; Condensing means drop some information.
  • History is indeed not very good. It is the oldest part of the article and not completely renewed yet.
Geo-Loge 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Medieval cuisine

[edit]

The drive is on to (hopefully) achieve FA-status by the end of the year, so I want to put the article through a peer review first. Some of the suggestions given in the GA-review haven't been implemented, but they have been noted. If you can elaborate on them, please do.

Peter Isotalo 10:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 5

[edit]

What steps need to be taken to make this article a GA? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good, although a few of the sentences seem a little long. Here's a few comments:

  • The history section doesn't cover the actual construction of I-5 and seems pretty brief. Compare to the GA article U.S. Route 66, for example.
  • Most of the notes section could be readily merged into the text, providing some content other than the general trip-report nature of most of the content. However, some of the notes will definitely need references.
  • How does I-5 compare with the other interstate freeways in the U.S.? Can that be mentioned in the text?
  • At the border with Mexico, does I-5 connect with a highway in that nation? I wasn't able to determine from the text.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from automated suggestions)

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.[10]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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&nbsp;mm.[2]

*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[4]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 18:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS X

[edit]

Read very good comment related to the Mac OS X fac nomination. This article obviously requires a peer review. Emx 14:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lead needs to put in actual times, not vague terms like "current" or "now" (Try "As of 2006,..."). Also lead should summarize the whole article but does not (none of the cat name versions are mentioned in the lead, for example). Final point, many of the headers and subheaders contain the name of the article and should not. So "Mac OS X v10.0 (Cheetah)" could be "Version 10.0 (Cheetah)" or "v10.0 (Cheetah)" and "Criticisms of Mac OS X" would just be "Criticisms". Hope these comments help, Ruhrfisch 02:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer

[edit]

We almost completely rewrote this article with a view to getting it to featured status. Any and all input that can help us towards that goal is appreciated. We've approached this article trying to provide a good overview of computer fundamentals and a starting point for the many many computer-related articles on Wikipedia. I realize that laundry lists are frowned upon in featured articles, but considering that this is a hub-type article, I think the link tables are an appropriate and sane way to organize links to sub topics. They certainly are not there to compensate for a lack of article content, since I believe we've done a good job of writing an overview of the core concepts. Thanks in advance for your help. -- mattb @ 2006-11-12T01:04Z

Let me note at the start that articles on general concepts are the most difficult to write on Wikipedia, as they require broad knowledge and the ability to sift out important information from unnecessary detail. Writing an article about a narrowly defined subject (e.g., a famous celebrity) is easier because what can be said is naturally limited.

You have tackled an extraordinarily difficult task and I hope you are not discouraged by my criticism. I think Wikipedia desperately needs to improve its coverage of general concepts and your efforts are appreciated.

  • Too many pictures.
  • Machines, according to our own article, are mechanical or organic devices. Computers of today are electronic.
  • Second sentence defines a program. Does this really belong here? Try to define computer while introducing as few new definitions as possible.
  • Listing the physical forms computers take seems a bit of a distraction.
  • Too much detail on programming languages. Not sure the subject should be mentioned at all. A table of existing programming languages is completely unnecessary.
  • Professions and organizations is tangential.

For a topic of this size I encourage you to take a top-down approach. Rather than simply reorganize the information other people have presented, create an outline of major topics that need to be discussed. Create sections for each major topic, label them as stubs, and wait for others to fill them in. I used this technique with good results in Operating system.

Hope that helps, and again, I appreciate your efforts. --Ideogram 12:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point-by-point:
      • How are there too many pictures? The number of pictures is totally justified by the amount of text. I'd understand the concern if they were stacked on top of one another, but (at least by my screen resolution) they are well spaced. Pictures add a lot to an article and make huge blocks of text far less daunting.
      • Then the machine article needs to be corrected, not this one. OED's first definition of "machine" is: "A structure regarded as functioning as an independent body, without mechanical involvement." Computers fit that description fine. What's more, computers have not always been electronic and the concept of a computer transcends implementation.
      • I definitely think so. The major defining characteristic of a computer is its programmability. You can't discuss computers without defining programs.
      • On the next three points I disagree because I endorse the hub article approach to making articles on broad topics (see Physics). Someone seeking general information on computers may very well find it useful to see an overview of many related topics in that article. Frankly I hate the daughter article idea because someone looking for information about computers will understandably go to the "Computer" article. I see no utility in forcing people to hunt for one small and easy to miss link within that article to "List of computer-related topics". I hate these "list" articles in the first place since they only seem to be duplicating functionality that categories should accomplish. Since there are so many topics related to computers on Wikipedia, we decided that the organization tables would be a good way to keep this information readily available to readers without having a gigantic "See also" section. This isn't to say I don't see validity in the idea of child articles, but here I think it would be a terrible mistake. I've always found it odd that FAC reviewers tend to be so adverse to any form of lists; even well-executed and useful ones.
What you may not realize is that we have done exactly as you suggested. The current article is not a reorganization, but an almost complete rewrite. We've intentionally kept parts of the outline but have focused the article mainly on the programmability aspect of computers. The most difficult thing with articles of this broad scope, I think, is that everyone has a different idea of how they "should" be written (everyone I've talked to, at least). I don't think our strategy will please everyone any more than I think another rewrite would please everyone. I'm trying to figure out what parts of the article may not flow well for the reader, what needs to be clarified, etc. I realize it may very well be a pipe dream to get this article to FA status due to the aforementioned problem of nobody really agreeing on how broad scope articles are written, however I'd like to try to address the rough edges here and see whether the general organization we've chosen can possibly hold up under the FAC gauntlet. -- mattb @ 2006-11-19T18:45Z
My impression of FAC is they don't care about organization as long as you have lots of references. If all you are interested in is getting the star my comments will not help you. --Ideogram 02:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to also point out that another article on a fairly broad topic, Enzyme, also uses a largish table partially to organize some links. Thank you very much for your input! -- mattb @ 2006-11-19T18:58Z
  • Move everything in the "Further topics" section to child articles. This is what links are for. Use the additional space for more detail about the essential topics. --Ideogram 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for help; I gave you my opinion; I'm not interested in having an argument. --Ideogram 19:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to start one; I'm merely explaining why we did things a certain way. -- mattb @ 2006-11-19T19:39Z
All right, let me think about it and get back to you. --Ideogram 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I promised to PR this great try to get one of the more important topics up to FA status, but I have to say it is hard to point out anything specific. As already discussed at various places probably a hundred times, it is hard to know exactly what to include in this kind of umbrella article. I can't think of any important topics that has not been included, but I have a feeling that if this goes on to FAC, at least a few people are going to note or point out that there is relatively little information on what most people call a "computer" nowadays, a personal computer. Some might want to have a PC subsection in this article. I think you have done the best to point out the differences already in the article summary, so I see nothing more that can be done, but it might be a good idea to think about how to reply such comments (and it wouldn't hurt to actually have a picture of a modern PC in the article). Another such note might be that a "usage" section is missing. I do not see how it would be possible to have such a section considering almost everything we use today has some sort of computer in it, but the same goes here, think about arguments against such requests. Stylewise the article is very well organized, but I would like to see a standardized format for the further reading tables, that is, same width (be it percentage, em or pixels) for the first, second, (and so on) columns, and full width for all tables. Not the most important though, but that probably says more about how good this article looks than about anything else. Oh, and in the first table (Defining characteristics of five first operative digital computers), I think the cells marked "Partially, by rewiring", should probably not be more red than the cells marked "No", but instead less red or even yellow or something. Hope that helps a little... And great work! – Elisson • T • C • 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would loose the tables at the bottom and just do "see also: Category:computers". I think that the table of computer charicteristics should be shuffled off to the side somehow rather than breaking the text. The history of computing should be shortened. The example section should be removed. Overall I think the article needs to be really tightened up. More references = good. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platte Canyon High School shooting

[edit]

I've been working on this article ever since the day after the incident, and it's achieved good article status. I'm getting ready to submit it to WP:FAC, but I'd like some comments regarding the general aspects of the article first. Seeing if it complies with WP:WIAFA would be great. Thanks. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 07:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

balloonman

[edit]
  • In the intro section you might want to mention that the SWAT team that responded to Columbine were the ones who went to Bailey because of their specialized/additional training after Columbine.
  • The section where they were lined up and sexually assaulted is choppy, you might also want to mention how he dismissed people and kept only a few select people. If I remember correctly didn't he pick a 'type' EG girls who had similar physical characteristics?
    • I never found a news story or other reference that talked about his selection of girls. It looks like the investigators are still looking into the motives behind his selections. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I vaguely remember something about it, but couldn't point out a source. I do know that there is coverage about how he walked behind people and tapped them on their shoulders and told them to get out. He sent all the men and a fair number of women out.Balloonman 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The timeline is a little choppy... EG the code white followed by rapidly evaucated schools doesn't flow.
    • Not quite sure what you mean about the timeline. Are you talking about the timeline consisting of events preceding Morrison's entry into the school or the first paragraph of "Negotiations and evacuations"? Whatever the case, I'll look into it. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mention that the building was placed on lockdown and then suddenly without explanation they are being rapidly evacuated. It needed a transition.
  • name the local church,I'm sure that's public record
  • Add a sentence on CSAP/Test scores taht were being improved. Article should stand on it's own.Balloonman 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheists

[edit]

I would like comments on what needs to be done to get this article in shape for nomination as a featured list. In particular, please comment on completeness, quality of references, and the clarity and soundness of inclusion criteria. Nick Graves 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tutmosis, the intro has changed since your original comment. If this hasn't answered your criticism, pls let us know specifics. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your lead needs to be better defined and expanded. The claim that this includes "only those whose atheism has been relevant in their public life or works" doesn't stand up to examination. For example, Alexander McQueen, the famous atheist fashion designer - I think not. All Wikipedia lists of people only include notable people. If you decide to include people who are principly notable for their atheims, then you are probably left with just the Activists section and the list doesn't justify its own article, never mind FL. If you expand to include all notable people who have identified themselves as atheists (which I think this list is) then you have a longer but managable list. Notable=wikipedia article as a rule of thumb.
Ditto response to Tutmosis. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to decide whether to include the quote in the list-body or in the footnotes. I'd vote for the footnotes and leave the body text to concentrate on why they were famous/notable and (if possible) why their atheism is/was notable.
Tend to agree with Colin on this point. Some of the entries have quotes that I think work well in the list-body, others belong in the footnotes. I'll make my stab at editing the list along these lines and see what others think. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your footnotes aren't up to featured standard. I strongly recommend you investigate the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc templates and try to include the publisher, date, author, accessdate, ISBN, and title fields.
We need greater standardisation in footnotes. I'll have a go and hopefully others can chip in... Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The birth/death should use an ndash for the closed dates and mdash for the open (living) dates.
This is fixed. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent regarding the punctuation between the dates and the sentence for each person.
This is fixed. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard of references varies widely. Clearly a direct quote in an identified reliable source is best. The opposite is something like [3] or [4] where the author has retrospectively tried to guess someone's religious belief. Those sites sometimes put "an atheist" in quotes as though they are quoting some text, but if they don't identify the text, then it is worthless. A site that isn't impartial and doesn't identify its sources should be ignored completely. Build your list on reliable foundations. You must be able to trace the quote/statement back to something that has been editorially reviewed by an unbiased person - ideally in (paper) print.
I believe Nick has addressed this. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include external links for cites that are references. Don't include blogs or NNDB. There is rarely any purpose in a "List of" article having external links.
  • Don't mention "see also" if you have already wikilinked the term. The "List of people" isn't really relevant.
  • The Woody Allen picture has an unconfirmed licence status.
This is removed. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly move Richard Dawkins up to the top leftright as "poster boy" for atheism.
See my third comment below. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree--while it needs work this article is very comprehensive and is pleasing to the eye. IMO I would mix up the images a bit, for example having some on the left and some on the right, but it is fine either way. Cheers. — Seadog ♪ 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it works well with the images on the right but not too fussed either. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have a very good-looking and well-documented article now after conserted effort by a number of people. Aside from the responses above, my own observations are:
  1. The TOC template appears to be causing the paragraph following to indent, at least in my browser. Does this affect anyone else?
  2. I note we have Carlin and Roddenberry still in the list with [citation needed] tags. I'm happy to leave them there for a bit to see if we can't locate proper sources but if we want this as a Featured List we either need the citations or their entries should be removed.
  3. We seem to have made Shelley our 'poster boy', with a bigger pic and his full name plus an opus in the caption. I don't think we need a poster boy, either Shelley or Dawkins, but should treat each pictured atheist the same, similar size, surname and nothing else. If we were to have a pic in the intro, I'd suggest a book cover, say The Necessity of Atheism or another key tract. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a lead picture is useful for when the list gets featured and appears in summary form. This isn't a list of books so a picture of a book isn't relevant. The current layout of pictures combined with the large number of them, means that they don't align with where the person is mentioned. I suggest pruning the picture list, changing the layout and/or using <br style="clear:both;"> at the end of some sections (and the lead) to avoid the pictures and TOC flowing into the next section. Colin°Talk 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no argument re. an FL summary, we'd need a pic for that and a book cover obviously isn't relevant there. I was looking at in terms of the article as a whole, where the intro discusses inclusion criteria and cites a number of works; I don't see the need for a poster boy there and would also stick with the recommendation that all images should have similarly-detailed captions, either the surname only or the full name and a brief blurb. I'll have ago with that style you mentioned when I get the chance. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what I think ought to be done:
    • Prune and alternate pictures left and right, as already suggested. I think only those whose atheism has been especially relevant in their public lives ought to be pictured.
    • Delete (or reliably source) a lot of the entries that have dubious sources. A lot of the chaff is gone, but I think some unattributed quotes online are being referenced, for instance.
    • Delete entries that rely on the earlier and less rigorous inclusion criteria. Before, it was enough for someone to just say they didn't believe in God. Now, someone must have identified themselves using the word atheist, or been identified by a reliable source as such, or fit the narrowest definition.
    • Properly format the references for the remaining entries, following the guidelines Colin mentioned above. This will take a while.
    • Vigilance on the part of regular contributors to make sure that new entries have proper references or are deleted. This will maintain the list quality and help stabilize it. Stability is necessary for featured list status. Nick Graves 06:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Musical Association

[edit]

I'm trying to get this (my first article) ready for FAC. Any comments at all would be much appreciated. One problem you may encounter while reviewing, is the checking of sources, many of which are nearly 100 years old, many of which are out of print. (I don't know what one does in this case in terms of WP:V). Therefore, I'd be much obliged if you tell me what needs to be substantiated, because it's unlikely you'll find any sources on this esoteric subject matter. –Nathaniel | T 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Smith

[edit]

I was interested in getting comments on what would be needed to get the Dean Smith article up to featured status. I know I need to delete the trivia section and remove the other lists. So any other help would be appreciated. Remember 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I notice on a cursory inspection is the lead. It is both too long, and a bit disorganized. If it were more chronological, I think it would be easier to follow. MLilburne 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll look into revising that.Remember 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks-Baxter War

[edit]

I am mainly needing help with citations. Online sources for this are few and far between. I used a research paper I recently completed and tried to cite excerpts from The Arkansas Daily Gazette I retrieved from microfilm, however I'm sure I did this improperly. Also, I took the liberty of uploading the pictures of Brooks and Baxter assuming that they were both in the public domain. That needs to be double checked. Finally the article needs a good once over to get rid any POV, weasel words, etcetera. --The_stuart 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

[edit]

Very nice start, and lots of thoughtful work has gone into the article. Some quick things just to get you started:

  • Section headings need attention per WP:MOS, specifically capitalization.,
  • Have a look at WP:LEAD in terms of whether you can slightly expand the lead, making it a more compelling introduction. The lead right now is basically one and two-sentence paragraphs.
  • A copyedit may be needed: in the second paragraph, I saw Coup d'état capitalized (Wikilinks can be used with or without caps). I'm not sure if Reconstruction is a proper noun, or if it should be de-capped? "The outcome of the Brooks-Baxter war was an early end to Reconstruction."
  • References would be better off as bullets, rather than numbers - the numbers may be confused with notes as used in cite.php (the referencing system used by most Wiki articles). You may want to switch to the bullets as used in my reply here. (Never mind, I did it.)
  • Do the Arkansas Gazette articles not have article titles? Those should be given, and author if available.
  • Does the Owings article have an exact publication date (not just year)?
  • There are some unreferenced sections.
  • Some of your inline references are before the punctuation, some after, some are missing the space before the ref ... see ... state debt(Owings, 1). Also see, ... Little Rock we ever witnessed”(Gazette #291). Compare to ... voted early and often. (Gazette #299) I'm not sure which is correct.
  • I'm not up on Fair Use on images: I suggest you contact Jkelly (talk · contribs).
  • I haven't looked at the prose.

Sandy (Talk) 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now at some random prose - I picked the Baxter responds section:

Normally in order for a coup to be successful the oust official is imprisoned to prevent them from rallying support but, for some unknown reason Baxter was allowed to remain free in Pulaski County. The reasons behind this are not clear.

This passage is problematic on several levels. the oust official --> the ousted official? Unknown reason said twice - redundant. Some commas seem to be missing. Second sentence is entirely redundant; deleting it results in a one-sentence paragraph, which should be expanded or merged into next paragraph.

In the next sentence, we find another redundancy:

Baxter set up headquarters in the Anthony House three blocks away from the State Capital.

The next sentence is problematic:

Curiously, if ads placed in The Gazette are any indication, the Anthony House continued to function as an upscale hotel during the entirety of the crisis (comma) even though there was fighting going on just outside and at least one man was shot dead while standing in a (the building's) window in the building (Owings, 5).

Curiously is editorializing, which shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Commas seem missing. There is a lot of redundancy.

This is just a random sample. At the bottom of the page, WP:WIAFA, you'll find a link to Tony's exercises for eliminating redundancy. A thorough copyedit is in order. Good luck ! Sandy (Talk) 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving 1984 Nor'easter

[edit]

I'm looking to see what else this article might need in order to become a good article. Is there enough information to describe the event? Is it understandable? Are the grammar and spelling in good shape? Is there another source of information I might have missed??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatdr (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Added the nbsp notation to the text. One down. Thegreatdr 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An info box was added. Two down. Thegreatdr 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Krasnoi

[edit]

This is the first article by User:Kenmore. The guy has been working on it for several months and I think would really appreciate feedback, especially mild advices as to possible ways to wikify and improve the article before it may be considered for featured status. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My take:

  • You need in-line citations. The first 2 sections have none. The rest is- acceptible.
  • "...under General Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov, inflicted heavy losses on the remnants of the dilapidated Grande Armée." Is dilapidated the right word here? That is usually used to reference the state of a structure. For a replacement, how about desintigrating or ruined?
  • The one picture of the battle strategy is horribly confusing. Make a simplified version.
  • Napoleon's decision was not an easy one to make. Segur describes the beleaguered Emperor's predicament as follows:
“So the 1st Corps was saved; but at the same time we learned that our rear guard was at the end of its resistance at Krasny, that Ney had probably not left Smolensk yet, and that we ought to give up all idea of waiting for him. Still, Napoleon hesitated, unable to bring himself to make this great sacrifice. But finally, as everything seemed lost, he decided what to do. He called Mortier to him, took his hand kindly, and told him, 'There is not a minute to lose! The enemy is breaking through on every side. Kutusov may reach Liady, even Orsha and the last bend of the Dnieper before me. I must move rapiedly with the Old Guard to occupy that passage. Davout will relieve you. Together you must try to hold out at Krasny until nightfall. Then you will rejoin me.' His heart heavy with despair at having to abandon the unfortunate Ney, he withdrew slowly from the field of battle, entered Krasny where he made a brief halt, then cut his way through as far as Liady"[28] I would use Cquote here.
  • It's a bit long and over-detailed. Maybe make seperate articles with individual strategy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esoltas (talk • contribs) .
Esoltas:
Can you tell me more about what you mean by the "one picture of the battle strategy" being "horribly confusing"? Are you referring to the black and white map? If so, I thought I had done a good job of numbering the events "1" through "12", with explanations for each number below the map. I thought that was a good way of explaining the flow of events over time and space during the four day battle. If you disagree, I'm eager to hear more.
Perhaps the black and white map should be replaced with something more polished?
I've made contact with the librarians at the United States Military Academy, trying to find a good map of the Battle of Krasnoi. There are very few available. They recommended that I try to obtain an atlas of battles created by Jomini, Ney's chief of staff. It allegedly contains a great map. I'm trying to locate the book right now.
"It's a bit long and over-detailed. Maybe make seperate articles with individual strategy" Are you referring to that one quote by Segur, or the overall narrative of the article? I've debated with myself about the article's length...maybe it's overdone, maybe not.
Thanks for the feedback.
kenmore

Balloonman

[edit]

Overall this is a very good article and I found it to be an interesting read. You might want to have the Military Peer Review group take a look at it. But here are my comments:

Kenmore responds

[edit]

I appreciate any and all criticisms...don't worry about bruising my ego. Be as harsh as you see fit in pointing out the article's weakspots.

The peer review started without my knowledge. I was planning to rectify the following weaknesses in upcoming weeks:

1. I still need to footnote sections #1 ("Background") and #2 ("Rout of Ozharovsky"). This is especially important because some major historians confuse the Ozharovsky skirmish with the Guard's feint two days later. I want to explain the distinction in a footnote.

2. I have a few more details to add to section #3 ("Defeat of Eugene") regarding specifics of the combat on that day.

3. I need to better research the data in section #6 ("Summary of Results"). There's some controversy as to how many cannon the French lost at Krasnoi -- some say 133, others say close to 200. Also, it's not clear how many of the cannon were lost at Krasnoi itself, as opposed to being guns lost on the 40 mile road between Krasnoi and Smolensk due to Cossack raids.

4. The same holds true for the 39,000 French casualties at Krasnoi: there's controversy as to how many of them fell at Krasnoi itself as opposed to being captured on the march from Smolensk to Krasnoi.

5. I still need to better specify corps and division numbers of Russian and French units involved, and to standardize the manner in which those numbers are used in the article.

6. I still need to do a final grammar and diction dust-up. No doubt sentence mechanics and paragraph construction in many instances need to be improved...from the perspective of being well or badly written, it has weaknesses and I intend to work them through.

Kenmore 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore[reply]


Very small comment: is Krasnoi and Krasny the same thing? If they are, it would be nice to provide any alternative transliterations in the lead, but spell it the same way throughout the article. (I believe that when I looked at it it was spelled differently in the figure captions and in the text).--Will.i.am 11:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Krasny and Krasnoi are the same. My intention was to use "Krasnoi" throughout the article, but a Russian language native with an interest in linguistics changed it to "Krasny" on the grounds that "Krasnoi" is an English-language mistaken translation of "Krasny". The final rendition of the article will have a footnote regarding transliterations of the name, including "Krasnoye", "Krasnoe", "Krasnie", etc.
Kenmore 03:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore[reply]

Opus Dei

[edit]
Previous PR are at Wikipedia:Peer review/Opus Dei/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Opus Dei/archive2.

Two previous peer reviews have suggested changes for this article. A recent rewrite has tried to implement those suggestions, but it has been controversial. Does the rewrite improve the article? If so, how can the article be improved further? --Alecmconroy 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments and questions.

  • There's some repetition: "personal prelature" is explained three or more times; once is enough.
  • Activities: Does Opus Dei run its own churches, or do members attend Mass and receive other sacraments in parish churches? Does Opus Dei organize non-religious activities (for example, social, business, education, and networking) as, for example, Soka Gakkai does?
  • Membership: In addition to categories, interesting questions that readers might want to see answered in this article are (1) What is the process of becoming a member (e.g. is there a rite, or is it a paperwork procedure)? (2) What is the process of leaving Opus Dei, whether to resume being a Catholic in a diocese or to leave Catholicism? (3) Do members tend to come from specific groups (such as urban poor or suburban middle-class or migrants from other countries) or are they representative of the spectrum of Catholics? Also, the links to Supernumerary and Numerary lead to articles that are not about Opus Dei and should be removed.
  • Finances: The assets amount to over $30,000 per member. What do they do with those assets? Are the residential centers the main holdings, or are there other uses?

Some of these are quite open-ended and research may not be available; please do not feel obliged to answer all of them! Fg2 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)

[edit]

MUCH improved since the last peer review. A lot of new information has been added, and all of the issues discussed in the previous peer review have been dealt with. What's the concensus, guys? (Ibaranoff24 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • You should try to merge the trivia into the article or delete overall per WP:TRIV. Also the sountrack section seems quite out of place, I would rather wish to see it as prose in the Music sub-section in the Production section. Lastly, the lead could benefit from some expansion. - Tutmosis 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I moved the information about the soundtrack album to its own article and linked it from the "Music" section on the film's article, I moved some of the trivia into the main article, and I deleted the rest, because I couldn't find anywhere where it would be suitable to place it. (Ibaranoff24 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • I think the Plot subsection could do with condensing a bit - it seems a bit long at the moment. And the lead should be a bit longer: it should include something about the reception of the film. Apart from that, the prose is the main issue to be dealt with. Oh, and a few of the images need fair use rationales (and I don't think fair use images are supposed to be uploaded in high-res). Trebor 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahn Eak-tai

[edit]

Possible areas of peer review:

  • Fluent flow of prose, and smooth transition between paragraphs and topics.
  • Additional references, checking factual reliability
  • Checking for correct spelling in foreign phrases translated to English, and possible redirects for those phrases. (i.e. Kunitachi Music School)
  • Clarification of details, pointing out blurry areas
  • Better organization of the sections
  • Are the reference & notes done correctly?

(Wikimachine 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"She Shoulda Said 'No'!"

[edit]

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

As always, any pointers or help or suggestions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Old Town, Aarhus

[edit]

I've never done this before so I'm a bit uncertain regarding procedure. However, I would like to have some feedback on this article - what needs to be done and are there any horrible, glaring errors in this article? Ultimately I'd like to see this thing receive GA status so specifically - what needs to be done to get it there? Gardar Rurak 07:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
— Indon (reply) — 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Jameson

[edit]

This may be controversial, but hopefully won't be boring!

A few months ago, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team came to WP:P* and asked what our key articles were. We listed a few, and this was one of the most important ones, being about probably the most famous currently active porn star in the world.

She is unique in that she has actually gotten a lot of coverage from impressive sources: New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Rolling Stone. Also she has written a best selling autobiography. So unlike the other, poorly sourced porn star articles that so many see as a blight on the Wikipedia, this article actually has a chance of getting somewhere. (I think I've cited it ... just a bit. :-) )

Eventually I'm aiming high, hopefully eventually Wikipedia:Featured articles - but not quite yet, especially as this would be my first WP:FAC. Can we start with a review? Even if it doesn't get to so such lofty heights, at least we can make it of a standard for other porn star articles to aim for, and maybe indirectly help clean up an area that needs a bit of that.

Thank you very much. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific question: lead image?

[edit]

Maybe I'll get more feedback if I ask specific questions? The lead image on the article is all right, but it was taken at the same time as the one of Jameson and Jay Grdina, lower. This is obvious from her costume and background. Due to the efforts of User:Tabercil and User:Kamui99, and the kind donations of semi-professional photographers, we have other high resolution completely free (Creative Commons 2.5) images of Jenna Jameson, on commons. Would one of them be better, to avoid the repetition? Specifically, I'm thinking of this headshot (left), which had appeared on the article earlier, or this rather more dramatic three-quarters figure (right). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

[edit]

(breakdown into points by AnonEMouse, also moved picture comment up to that section.)

The article starts well and is well-cited

  • (although I question whether any sentence really needs 5 cites, 2 or maybe 3 would suffice even if the issue is controversial),
    • Reduced to no more than 3 everywhere.
  • but there's too many 1-2 sentence paragraphs.
  • I personally dislike direct external links within the article itself, e.g. to ClubThrust, and they aren't used on featured articles.
    • Moved to External links section.
  • The Mainstream Appearances section I'm unsure about. It's just a list of things she has been in, and "mainstream" is a fairly debatable term. It definitely shouldn't be kept in its current form - either transformed into prose with decent sized paragraphs (if you are able to group the appearances into sensible sections) or made into a list. A lot of it is then listed again in Mainstream Work which makes it redundant.
    • It's a list of "appearances outside pornography", which is generally considered difficult to achieve: Ginger Lynn, Traci Lords, R. Bolla, etc., spend a lot of effort on it. Will work on expanding, and sorting.
    • There. I stuck some of the items together in paragraphs by decade, expanded a few, and added a bit of an overarching theme for the section, of her trying to break into mainstream fame from solely pornography. Better? I know it's still a bit choppy, but don't really know how to improve it further without just throwing interesting information away. It wasn't even all mine, so I'd feel especially guilty throwing away others' contributions. Any specific help will be welcome. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added an academic paper about her efforts to enter mainstream - it really is important. Also added even more, and a bit of contrast between "before the book" and "after the book", which made a bit of difference. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for the filmography, "important" is a bit POV - who says it's important and why? Trebor 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The porn films are the ones unusually important to her career - first film, and award winners. I can put a line by each film saying so, but would that then be redundant with the Awards section?
      • Yeah, it'll probably be fine as it is. There's a part of me that wants to say "no, every assertion of importance must be sourced", vying with the less policy-obsessed part that thinks "well, it's pretty obvious which are most important and justifying each one is a waste of time". In this case, the latter probably wins. Trebor 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article - it's looking much better. It should easily make Good Article and (I think) would have a shot at featured. Minor things that could be changed:

  • "Massoli was raped a second time" - is this just her alleging it and Preacher denying, or was there a conviction? If it's just two opposing views, then the current wording makes Massoli's seem correct.
  • "As of 13 April 2005, she and publisher ReganBooks were embroiled in a lawsuit" and then "As of this writing" - the information seems slightly sketchy and unclear. Do we know when the lawsuit was filed or just when it was first reported on? Are you sure no resolution has been reached, or has one just not been reported? Also, saying "as of 2005" makes the information seem very out-of-date; saying "as of this writing" would require the reader to search the history to see when it was written (give the date of writing if necessary at all). Trebor 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just not been reported, unfortunately. However, it's important enough that even a New York Times article about Regan's firing mentions it ... and again not how it ends. It's linked to. Fortunately Regan's firing puts a more definite date on the time as of which it hadn't been settled or at least reported. Mentioned that, also expanded on VH1 Confessions special. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the changes are fine and I can't see anything else to improve - it's a quality article. Trebor 19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]

Nicely done! These are my remarks:

  • "She was born ... ". When you start a new section, I recommend not to start with "she". I think it would be better "Jameson was born ... ".
    • Jameson is her stage name, she was born Massoli. Wrote that.
  • "Biography" needs more coherent writing. For instance, these stubby paragraphs are not nice. Merge or expand them.
  • I think that you could also add more sub-sections in "Biography", such as "Early life and family", "Early career" etc. This might also help you better organizing your material.
    • Done.
  • Before "Autobiography" there is an uncited paragraph.
    • Cited, expanded, moved down to Business (as it is a Club Jenna thing).
  • There is a paradox with "Autobiography": The section of this article is bigger that the main article about the book! The opposite is more usual! I'd suggest that you expand the main article and then see what you want to include of the main article here. You could also link to the main article straight after the heading like that:
Further information: How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale
    • That's because I didn't write the other article. :-). No excuse, I know. Expanded the other one, more work left.
      • Expanded both this section and the other article in different ways. There's still overlap, but I do want to mention the facts that the book is a compilation of different styles, that's interesting, and the fact that it's really personal, that's important. I hope it's passable now? AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mainstream appearances" is poorly written. There are so many stubby paragraphs that it looks almost listy.
  • I read in the article about her awards, here achievements ("best renting pornographic title") etc. (there is also a long listy, which I am not sure if it is absolutely necessary, but let's see what other reviewers will say about that), but if she really is a controversial person, then there must be somewhere some controversy! Some critics, opponents etc. criticizing her style, her work etc. I think this should be further analysed.--Yannismarou 17:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! I did the quick things, others might take a bit longer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLilburne

[edit]

So far I've only had a chance to look at the "Biography" section, but I've noticed a couple examples awkward writing that could stand to be edited.

In October 1990, while the family was living in a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was gang raped by four boys after a football game. Later she would be raped a second time, by her boyfriend's uncle. She would later provide graphic details in her autobiography. In the book she writes...

There's an awkward use of passive voice, "later she would." The reader also wonders how much later. Then it sounds a bit repetitive when you continue with "She would later". There is another repetition when you have "in her autobiography" immediately followed by "in the book...".
Rephrased. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after the second rape, at age 16, Jenna left her home and moved in with her boyfriend, Jack, a tattoo artist, her first serious relationship. He gave her what would become her trademark tattoo, double hearts on her right buttock, which her brother, who would become a tattoo artist himself, later enscribed "HEART BREAKER".

Way too many commas and clauses in a row. I don't have a specific suggestion, but you need to break up those sentences somehow, and vary their rhythm a little more.
Broke up. Better?

Later in 1991, she chose the name "Jenna Jameson" from scrolling through the phone book for a last name that matched her first name, and finally deciding on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks.

Also a bit of a run-on sentence.
Broke up.

While in high school, she began taking drugs, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines, again accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin.

Either you need to set the names of the drugs apart with something other than commas, or you need to start the list with "such as" or something similar.
Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 1992 Jack left her, and a friend put her in a wheelchair, and sent her to her father, then living in California, to detox.

Another one of these strings of commas and clauses.
Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She has also avoided interracial intercourse.

This is not a stylistic point, but rather one of curiosity. Do we know why? It would be interesting to mention the reason, if so.
That's tough. Here's the thing - she's actually been called racist for this on several talk boards, but there isn't that much discussion in reliable sources. There is plenty of reliable writing about the fact she doesn't do other activities, but less for this particular one. I'm personally somewhat amused by the fact that someone can be called racist for restricting whom she has sex with, but that's beside the point.

Best of luck with the article. Hope that my suggestions will be of some use, even though they are rather nit-picky ones. MLilburne 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank all three of you very much for your excellent comments. I will try to implement them, but it could take a number of days to respond to them all - I do intend to repond to them all, and actually implement the suggestions in almost all, since they are very good, justified comments. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

badlydrawnjeff

[edit]

(copied here from User talk:AnonEMouse to keep in one place)

Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's basically what the other reviewers wrote. I'll add it to the review. However, I've noticed that it's a lot harder for me to actually put the reviewer comments into practice than it was for you - with Babb, I would write something, and you would do it, while with Jameson, it's taking many days for me to make better paragraphs out of the broken points. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream section redone a bit, see #Trebor's section, above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Business section down expanded, merged, reflowed. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job on this. I think it's certainly GA quality, and could be FA quality with some prose fixes and cleanup at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - WP:GA would be an excellent start. I'll see if someone agrees. :-).
Somebody agreed! :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

[edit]
  • Comment The "Awards" section could do with conversion from being a list into prose also, even though most articles fail to do so. If it did it'd make the article more fluent as a whole, as it could say "Jenna has won the blah blah award X times..." etc. I think it'd be more encyclopaedic that way. LuciferMorgan 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Boondock Saints

[edit]

I'm bringing this article here, to see what other editor's think the article needs work on. I hope to bring it up to FA status, and would like to have any input from my fellow editors. Thanks KOS | talk 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

[edit]

This article recently failed a FAC. I have taken care of the things people objected to in that nomination and would like to know what needs to be done in order for it to become a FA. --Maitch 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to be hard on this one because you want it to be an FA and said that it failed already. So here are some comments:

  • Second paragraph feels flighty.
  • Third paragrph 1st sentence, needs to be reworked. Simplify and include use a specific date rather than "to date."
  • This is way too long for a FA. The recommended length is 30KB, but I think they really are around 40-50... this is 63KB. Go over the article and scrutinize the entire thing cutting it down by about 18KB! It's a pain in the butt, but will be worth the effort. What sections are necessary? Which ones can you get rid of? The article seems to try to be all things to all people. You're going to need to decide what the purpose is and focus on that and use other articles to cover what you don't get to here. I cut out about 10K from my article on military brats
  • The TOC is also pretty long and intimidating. I would be surprised if 20% of the people reviewing this for FA read the whole thing---even if they are fans!
  • Movie section needs to be completely reworked. Looks like it was written before the Movie was finalized.
  • No offense, but the writing style is repetitive. It feels as if the sentence structure is the same throughout the article... for example, the Merchandise section:
    • Many episodes of the show have been released on DVD and VHS over the years
    • Many posters involving Simpsons characters are available for purchase
    • Many characters are available to buy in figurine form
  • The Merchandise section would be a section that I would consider making into a separate article and expanding.

My biggest criticism of the article is that it is all over the place. Tighten this article up...Balloonman 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will try and work with it. I would like to add that there are FA's at over 90 KB, but I agree that it is not as tightly written as possible and the main problem is the "Merchandise" section. Most of it on the other hand is already summarized with a lot of information moved to subarticles. The movie is not finalized and is scheduled to be released 27 July 2007. I take no offense on writing styles or anything else. This article is a product of a lot of people making minor edits. I'm trying to shape it up to a complete article. --Maitch 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a lot of the 'merchandise' section. The editing may seem a bit bold, but it had to be done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs)
You removed the entire thing plus several other sections. It was reverted by another user and I think he made the right move. Being bold doesn't mean that you have to delete everything that isn't perfect. --Maitch 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High-Definition Multimedia Interface

[edit]

I would like to get user comments before nominating this article for FAC. It has a great intro paragraph but maybe it should be split up into sections in the main part of the article? Any other comments are appreciated. Blackjack48 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found lead incomphresible to a lay person. I except such an article will contain technical details that make my eyes glaze over, but not in the lead. Why was this developed? What caused these companies to partner up for this? Has the partnership done anything else besides this interface? What is the significance of compressed or uncompressed streams? You also need to convert all the bullet points to prose. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man Zero 4

[edit]

Since I started editing this article, it has been strides in quality. and depth. I recently finished the characters section and I'm wondering where I should proceed next. --Twlighter 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple Suggestions:
  • It's a pretty new game, so there should be something out there about development, as well audio about the game.
  • No citations in Minigames and Modes, Characters, or story. Might want to look into that and add some.
  • The screenshot needs a rationale. Look at the coverart, or I have a page about it.
  • The spoiler has no end to it. use {{Endspoiler}}.
Have fun. --Clyde Miller 01:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but one problem I'm having is finding ANY development news. all I have is the annoucement date. I looked Gamespot and IGN. --Twlighter 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I looked at my library of websites and found that EGM has a preview, an add, and a trailer. Also, Gamzone has a couple things on it (preview, news, E3 trailer). Take a look and see if you can get anything.--Clyde Miller 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think game previews help in terms of development news. What's said in the preview is pretty much exactly the same as what's said in the review. Wolf ODonnell 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it might be worth mentioning that there was an E3 announcement, and perhaps what they give away in previews. It seems that unless a game is very very popular, finding development is more than slightly hard to do.--Clyde Miller 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Film Archive

[edit]

I'm interested in any comments anyone has to make. I'm planning on taking a photo for it, and I'd like to expand it, but somehow not simply pack it with trivia (schedules etc.) so I'd love some suggestions there. Thanks! Dina 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few comments that I had:

  • The article is just very short with two of the three references being from Harvard Magazine. I would definitely suggest finding outside sources as you expand the article to prove its "notability".
  • Definitely a photo of the archive to replace the stock photo of a film reel is a good idea.
  • There are 27 years between the archive's first screening and today, we could use an update on it's history. Were there any notable grants given to the archive? Any controversy in its history?
  • I would suggest combining many of the very short sections. E.g. Curators can go into the History. "The Collection" should probably be moved right up into the lead unless you're going to add substantial information on its films.

Good luck with the article!--Will.i.am 00:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams

[edit]

Article may have POV issues and lacks inline citations. It's marked as A class, however. Suggestions for improving subjective language and rewording would be very helpful. The article seems to rely very heavily on sensationalism and is not an encyclopedic presentation of facts - rather it is an historical interpretation. Not a very good one at that since it uses too few sources to be a decent historical interpretation. Any suggestions on how to make it encyclopedic would be helpful. --Strothra 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Horror Nights (Orlando)

[edit]

I'm looking for constructive criticism in order to prepare for a possible FA status. I know there is a lot to be done, but I want to get a base line of what needs to be done. Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to mention that I already know about the articles reliance on HHNVault for references. I'm trying to remedy that, but the sites that could be referenced to are either blatant advertising or they don't come up to snub for WP:Verifiability. Suggestions on that topic will be helpful.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not much of a peer reviewer, but I have a few suggestions:
    • It's kind of crufty, see WP:CRUFT. Specifically, a long list detailing overly specific information on every year the event took place isn't really necessary; I suggest shortening them some and creating sub-articles covering certain headers and providing some sections summarizing the list.
    • The opening section should be at least one paragraph long; for an article as long as this, 2-3 paragraphs. Provide an overview of what the article will be describing, a summary.
    • It's more of a list than an article; under many headings, there is a brief description then a list of something. Try mentioning a few parts of the list in the main part of the section, and at least a few of the lists.
    • The article is a bit long; most FAs are 32 kilobytes or shorter, this one is 38. While this isn't a very big deal for now, you could gradually shorten it over time, to maybe 35 KB.
  • Overall, you a very good job on this; while it could definitely use a lot of improvement, it's off to a pretty good start. Instead of promoting it to featured status, I suggest focusing on making it a GA for now, and once it gets there, you'll be a long way through, and though it will still need a lot of work, I'm sure you could promote this eventually. —The Great Llamamoo? 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yanam (India)

[edit]

I, have contributed my best i can do to improve this article. Ofcourse my native is Yanaon. Please review this article and give me suggestions about rectifying, editing inorder to make it a neutral article with good information. Bsskchaitanya 05:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a lot more images, citations (I can't see any), and the small sections which are currently stubs need to be expanded. It may also be worth breaking up the large chunk of text on colonial history. --The Spith 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Administration in French India

[edit]

I, have contributed my best i can do to improve this article. My native is Yanaon and I belong to Pondicherry UT. Please review this article and give me suggestions about rectifying, editing inorder to make it a neutral article with good information. Bsskchaitanya 05:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coup d'État de Yanaon

[edit]

I have created this article. Many contents were based upon the article about Moniseur Dadala, just to give enough introduction. But, the sub-sections Murder of Monsieur Samatam and Contoversial aspects and Unsolved questions were written by me only.

i met many of older people (Eg: Wife of Monsieur Kanakala, Ex-MLA during french reign, Monsieur Kamichetty Krouschnaya, a French nationality holder currently living in Yanam, etc) to get to know how was yanam merged in India. I got to know many things that went undercover in due course of time. This article is a small attempt to give real fact about the Coup. Please read the french article by Monsieur Dr. Nallam Venkataramayya. His native is also Yanam but he settled at Pondicherry. Read another article by Madame Madanakalyani in the website caludearpi. Please review my article for modifying, editing inorder to make a good neutral pointed one.

Bsskchaitanya 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowing (sport)

[edit]
Wikipedia:Peer review/Rowing (sport)/archive1

This article has undergone extensive rewriting since the last request for peer review and has since gained 'good article' status. We would now appreciate any advice on what needs to be done to get the article featured. I will try to respond to any and all comments here within a day. Thankyou--The Spith 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a citation needed for the sentence 'The first recorded race in America took place on the Schuylkill River in 1762 between 6-oared barges.' which I guess you are aware of.
  • I don't know too much about rowing, but it appears comprehensive enough, well cited and has good relevant images.
  • There seems to be a debate going on about whether or not the lead section needs citations. See here. Your lead section has information about the two forms of rowing that isn't available in the body of the article. The lead should only repeat what's in the rest of the article, and not have unique facts. If the lead is tossed out, the article should contain just as much information.-BiancaOfHell 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, excellent. With corrections definitely on it's way to FA in my opinion. I feel like going sea kayaking now.-BiancaOfHell 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I changed the unsourced fact to one I found a source for. As for the intro, I'm not sure what is best to be done about that. I see no point in repeating information, especially as the content that is there at the moment does not realy fit anywhere else. The only alternative I can think of is making a 'basics of rowing' section at the start of the article, but then you would end up with two redundant introductions.--The Spith 07:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad

[edit]
  • Try have a references for each paragraph,
  • Remove merge or expand the one sentence paragraphs
  • Fix the images under the oar section as it currently squashes everything there(messes up the structure).
  • Regarding the lead move the coxless pair image to the topright,
  • Change the two dot points into paragraphs
  • Don't wikilink solo years, ex 1900
  • You only bold text in the first sentence, Anatomy of a stroke has heaps of bold text
  • The Green Mountain Head Regatta external link in the text
  • Make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), fiber (A) (British: fibre), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), pediatric (A) (British: paediatric).

M3tal H3ad 10:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any pages on wikipedia policy discussing whether the encyclopedia should use British or American English? I'm guessing we are supposed to use the original author's choice, but this article was originally removed from another one, and there are American, Canadian and British contributors.--The Spith 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For guidance on Spelling differences, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English --Ozhiker (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso

[edit]

Some comments:

  • The lead is a little short, and does not really summarise the article as a whole. See WP:LEAD for more details.
  • I agree with M3tal H3ad that one sentence paragraphs would benefit from being expanded or merged.
  • There are a couple of laundry lists towards the end of the article. What criteris for inclusion are used for the list of Rowers of wider fame? The Terminology and Event nomenclsture section would be better as descriptive prose.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments. I'll get to work on these--The Spith 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ozhiker

[edit]

A first few notes :

  • The first sentence doesn't mention that the racing is in boats
  • I'm not sure we need to talk about "reaction forces" in the lead, it could just say "the boat is propelled using oars" and then go into detail within the body.
  • I don't think the phrase "In the United States, high school and collegiate rowing is sometimes referred to as crew.[1]" should be in the lead - it seems to be a pretty obscure name.
  • The lead refers "recreational" rowing, but the refers to rowers as "Athletes". These terms seem to be somewhat at odds, although I'm not sure how this should be resolved.
  • Gig, Coastal and Surfboat rowing are not covered - if these are not supposed to be part of the article then the article probably needs to be renamed, since these are sports too (governed by FISA). Also, the lead might need to be changed as fine racing shells are not seagoing. On the other hand, the article does cover Indoor Rowing, so maybe should include these other types of boats

--Ozhiker (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distillation

[edit]

This article was the Wikipedia:Chemistry Collaboration of the Month for Nov 2006. The article has went through quite a few revisions since. From a scientific point of view, it does cover the important parts. The field is too broad for the article to be exhaustive. How about from a non-technical point of view? Tone? Style? Examples? Pictures? Please comment! --Rifleman 82 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The W's

[edit]

I have been working on improving this article since it was a three-line stub, making great strides toward GA status (I hope). No edit has had any controversy or trouble. Please review the article and copyright status of the included resources and make some suggestions for me. Thanks much! Dan, the CowMan 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes left on talk page. -- Pepsi2786 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are just some technical things I see:
    1. City, State links should be written like this: [[City, State|City]], [[State]]
      • Fixed instances in intro and infobox.
    2. "References" section should be above "External links" section.
      • Fixed.
    3. Citations should be directly next to punctuation, there is no need for a space. (See WP:FOOT)

I plan on coming back to review the entire article for content, but I have to go right now. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed point #3. Thanks. Dan, the CowMan 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am back again. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Since The Who's was an American band, it should be refered to using American english, which uses singular verbs for collective nouns. (i.e. "was" instead of "were")
    2. Discography section should be changed to reflect common format. (No linked dates)
      • Fixed
    3. The lead section needs to be expanded. Consider adding information like number of released albums and the years that they were active.
    4. Consider changing the section titled "Music & lyrics" to "Style."
  • Just my opinions: Increase introductory section. EG what awards? How high did they go on the charts? Intro section should be 2-4 paragraphs. Get rid of sentence stating who was in the band, you have a infobox for that. The article feels somewhat choppy... eg transitions between sentences don't always work.Balloonman 09:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I (personally) have trouble with point #1 because my education was split between England and the US. It's all just English to me, I don't even see errors of the sort... lucky me.

  • Question - How to state who played what insturment if I ditch the paragraph restating the members? it looks really bad in the infobox. Secondly, I was under the impression that information should be restated; in "WP:ALBUM#Article_body" it states "The basics should be in the first paragraph: title, artist, release date, record label, and a word or two about genre and critical reception." despite the fact that the information is in the infobox.

Dan, the CowMan 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • My thoughts: I don't like the sentence "The song relies much more heavily on the bass than their previous material, and may indicate a swing toward a rockabilly sound." Judging from the context, the sentence could be reworded from ", and may indicate a swing toward a rockabilly sound" to ". This may suggest that the band would have evolved into a rockabilly sound" or something of the sort. Just my personal opinion. Also, most of the paragraphs are too short; maybe put some of the smaller paragraphs together. —EdGl 04:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compacted some paragraphs today. Dan, the CowMan 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cetaceans

[edit]

I just made this list of all of the known cetacean species. Would anyone be able to give any feedback on anything I could do to it. In particular any extra fields in the table that could be added. Thanks, Chris_huhtalk 11:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to see all the falmily divisions talk about why they are different from the other family in the subgenera. This is currently hit-or-miss.
  • Link the lower level list in a hat note like you link main articles not in "See also". Then kill the "See also" Completely as the other article is linked in the introduction.
  • Be clear about where the cut-off for inclusion on this list is. I imagine you are excluding extinct species but there are species listed with no data on their status. So I am not sure.
  • Fix the heading levels so that there is room for the Superfamily
  • I am unsure why you are abbrevating some of the Status labels. It makes sense in an infobox that is part of an article but on a list I would spell it out.

Overall I think the list has a good amount of information and besides fixing the above points it only needs have the referencing completeled. You might consider listing mass along with the picture at size as there appears to be room. Another suggestion is to arrange the species within a family by population numbers so that the reader finds the most common first.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I will work on those, just one thing, what exactly do you mean by:
Link the lower level list in a hat note like you link main articles not in "See also". Then kill the "See also" Completely as the :other article is linked in the introduction.
I guess you mean put the List of whale species, etc. as Main article: links under the respective headings. The only problem with that is that Whales are not monophyletic so will not fit under one easy heading. I can try to work around that, if that is what you meant. Or do you mean using the <ref> tag to put the List of... links in the Notes and references section? Chris_huhtalk 13:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I meant. I don't know exactly how hard it would be but if it is more than one hatnote I still think it would a better placement than See also.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i have gone through and i think i have covered all of that. Sorry, i didn't realise that those things were called hatnotes - now i do. How is that now? Chris_huhtalk 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading levels still need fixing. Look at the TOC and you will see the problem where Superfamily is on the same level as earlier famlies which are on a higher level then families under the Superfamily.
  • Some links need fixing either they should be linked to a more detailed article or unlinked or made to be a red-link to what the needed article name should be. In the lead: fluke. In Family - Balaenidae (Right Whales): Rostrum. You need to check all the links for these issues. Also if you read through the prose intros you will see the linking is quite inconsistant about what is linked and what is not.
  • I also noticed the prose often say things like "slower" "shorter" etc. without clarifing what it is slower or shorter than.
  • The inclusion criteria is better but still not completely clear. In addition, numerous species of extinct cetaceans exist in Archaeoceti (the ancient whales), but they are not listed here. That makes it sound like only Archaeoceti are not included instead of all extinct Cetaceans.
  • River Dolphin famillies still are missing prose.

This is coming along nicely! If you don't understand the heading level thing let me know and I can fix it for you. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the lack of work, i have been busy and havent had time to contribute a great deal. I am not sure how to fix the headings, so if you could ahve a look that would be great. I understand the problem but don't know the solution. I think i have removed or fixed links so that they take you to the correct pages. I could probably add some information about the different river dolphin families but since they each contain one species the main differences between the families are location, which didn't seem very useful to add since the location is given away by the name already. Could you give me an example of where the prose uses 'slower' and such, i must have missed them. I will check on these things soon, but as i say i am a bit busy. Chris_huhtalk 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poison Ivy (character)

[edit]

I would appreciate comments on any part of the article to try and improve the overall quality. Be as critical as you'd like. :)Carnyfoke 00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some notes as to why the character became popular due to feminism, as described in the lead. Wiki-newbie 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The major flaw in this article is it is largely written in an in-universe perspective, plainly recanting highlights from the comics etc. Until this is addressed, the article will remain poor. Check recent featured articles on fictional characters which may provide some inspiration.
  1. There's nothing dealing with the character's concept and eventual creation which is needed.
  2. The character's evolution as a human being especially needs writing in an out of universe perspective, drawing comparisons to how each individual author portrayed Poison Ivy.

Additionally, the trivia section needs swift addressing. Integrate noteworthy info into appropriate sections of the article, and then rid of the other info, which'll thus eradicate the dreaded trivia section. LuciferMorgan 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Flagg

[edit]

I'm trying to get this article to become Featured Article, so any suggestions on improvements (such as unverified claims or grammatical errors) would be greatly appreciated.--CyberGhostface 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merely my opinions---"so the appearance of a character whose initials are R.F. sometimes serves to clue in readers to Flagg's presence." sounds like OR---get a source to support statement. "a Lovecraft character that he may have been based upon" need to cite. "the last of which most likely stands for Crimson King," Cite. "is more popular among King's fans" is this really in the cited reference? "In Eyes of the Dragon, he is described as an aged wizard that eventually reveals itself to be demonic in nature, and in The Gunslinger, he describes himself, under his true name of Walter o'Dim, as an "Ageless Stranger". You gave the book, but not the page numbers. The motivations section seems entirely original research. "Death" section also seems to be largely Original Research... you keep saying what the fans say, but where is that coming from? Your own knowledge? It may be true, but it looks like OR. The Dark Tower and Eyes of the Dragon sections felt long to me. Balloonman 09:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is miles off reaching featured status because it's written from an in universe perspective. This needs tons of work, and loads more inline citations. Something worth noting is that this character isn't real, though the article largely talks like he is.
  1. "Origins" - The character's fictional origins have been stated. This was real disappointing. If done correctly, this article would deal with Randall Flagg's concept and creation - when, where and how Stephen King got inspired to create the character. Maybe he had rough ideas which changed throughout its initial inception etc. LuciferMorgan 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Charles

[edit]

This person is very influencial and looking for comments on how to make this better and what will be required to get it up to featured article status. --Simonkoldyk 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand the relevance of having a section listing the names of his children - that's very trivial, so get rid of it. Unless you're considering doing a section on family life? LuciferMorgan 03:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maserati MC12

[edit]

I put this article up for peer review at the end of November (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Maserati MC12/archive1). If you suggested before please don't feel obliged to again, though all comments are very welcome. I know the first reference (Motor Trend Magazine Review) is heavily used, but if you see their article it is very comprehensive, much more so than any other source. I'm looking to get this up to FA so the things I want to know specifically are:

  • Is there anything from the old peer review still pressing?
  • Is the prose good enough?
  • Do the sections need extending?
  • Is there anything missing?
  • In what ways does it not meet WP:WIAFA? (or should I just wait for the FA nomination)

Please be very harsh so it improves greatly. Thanks in advance. James086Talk | Contribs 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayan languages

[edit]

Looking for ideas for any kind of improvements to the layout and information of this article. If you know about Mayan languages what does this page need to explain better? What information lacks? If you don't know about Mayan languages what do you still want to know after having read the page? How about citations? Are sources for different information good enough? How is the style? basically all criticism is welcome and will be taken seriously in trying to improve the article.Maunus 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it and will certainly take thee noted steps for improval.Maunus 10:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read the article yet but at first glance one thing I'd like is a map that's more focused on the area where they're spoken. A tiny green blob on a map of the world isn't very helpful. —Angr 10:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion noted. Have you seen the other map also?Maunus 10:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very good start if anything. I made some tweaks to layout and structure, but there are some issues that could use attention:

  • The phonology section could use a simplified vowel chart. Avoid standard orthography as is used now unless stating how these map to IPA. Avoid the temptation of bolding individual phonemes. The section also needs to be referenced.
  • Grammar section needs to be converted to prose. Try to write for a wide audience, so be mindful of jargon here. Link linguistic terms as often as is reasonable. Explain rather obscure terms like "vigesimal" even if their linked. An explanatory sub-clause won't make it harder to read.
I did some of this--200.6.247.89 20:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on the ancient Mesoamerican hieroglyphs is really interesting and would really benefit from some pictures. There should also be a few words on how the languages are represented in writing today.
  • The inclusion of Mayan sign languages is somewhat of a surprise. I don't know if the issue's been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, but I think there are plenty of good arguments for considering sign languages completely separate entities in relation to their spoken counterparts. Either way, I can't recall seeing an article on spoken language(s) include info on sign languages.
  • {{Maya}} is useful, but it's an eyesore since it's intended to take up the same position as the infobox. Consider making a horizontal variant of it and moving it to the bottom.

Peter Isotalo 12:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional books

[edit]

Hello peers :) This list was nominated as a Featured List and got slammed pretty hard (comments available here). Those of us who know and love this list would appreciate some feedback on what we can do to make this better, more useful, better organized, etc. Thanks!--Bookgrrl 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets begin with the basic things need to be done:
  • A summary box at the beginning with the names of all authors, preferably by alphabet, listing the number of fictional books each one wrote, and an image of them.
Not sure I understand what you mean by summary box. How does it differ from a TOC? Could you point me to an example? --Bookgrrl 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure:
Author Image Born Died
↓ Michael Chabon File:Michaelchabon.jpg May 24, 1963 -
↓ L. Frank Baum May 15, 1856 May 6, 1919
Just with more parameters and colors by language/nationality. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neat, thanks. I wonder though whether it would make this list (already criticized as too long) waaaay too long? Also, this is not a list of actual books that these authors wrote, but rather a list of imaginary or fictional books that appear in books that they wrote; hence I wonder if photos of the authors are really relevant (i.e. do they add anything to the reader's understanding of fictional books)? :) --Bookgrrl 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a table for the books themselves with the number of fictional books mentioned inside them? Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images for notable books/authors with a corresponding copyright tag and fair use rationale.
Sounds good, we can work on that... --Bookgrrl 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the listed authors are English. Please try to find at least 5 notable non-English authors and include them on the list.
Clarification: Do you mean that the authors are English by nationality, or that all the books are written in English? We do have a number of non-English representatives, including French (Rabelais), British (Clarke, Tolkien, Pratchett), Canadian (Atwood), Polish (Stanislaw Lem), Irish (Flann O'Brien), Russian (Nabokov), Italian (Umberto Eco), Argentinian (Borges) and just recently Japanese Chinese (Jinyong). Their works are listed by English titles which, this being the English Wikipedia, I think is OK? --Bookgrrl 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. For non-English authors I recommend writing the non-English book titles and putting the translated ones in brackets. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once you finish with the ones above, I will continue to more advanced expectations of a featured list. This is a long list, and getting it featured will be quite difficult. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the constructive feedback; I can see how it will be tough with such a long list, but as long as it's not impossible it's worth trying :) --Bookgrrl 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused by the whole existent of this list. Can all fiction novels actually be included onto a single page? Otherwise wouldn't picking and choosing of notable authors be based on the writer's bias, and therefore violate NPOV? Honestly, I would rather sugest sorting by Fiction novels by genre on multiple pages, if such lists do not yet exist. - Tutmosis 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. We could further subdivide by fantasy, horror, mystery. Acrimonious debates might ensue over where Borges for example belongs (but hey, this is Wikipedia, debate doesn't scare us LOL!). However, it would still leave us with the majority of authors as indivisible general fiction (Atwood, Brautigan, Nabokov, etc)... --Bookgrrl 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly even if this list does have the merit to exist, why isn't it in alphabetical order? - Tutmosis 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The authors are in alphabetical order by author's last name but you're right, some of the lists of titles aren't correctly ordered. I'm embarrassed, I thought I got them all. Will check and fix those. Thanks! --Bookgrrl 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tutmosis actually touched upon the thing that bothers me the most about the list: they way it is organized. I don't approve taking selected authors and listing all (?) fictional books they have invented in their writings. It would make a lot more sense taking the fictional books and sorting them by genre/theme/time when written/etc. The inclusion of the book would not be determined by notability of the writer, but notability on its own. Renata 03:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...this is a pretty substantial change...however, since fictional books are in essence "supporting actors" serving as part of a larger story structure, it seems to me that keeping them sorted by inventor, and then by title of the book in which they appear, makes more sense and provides at least a little context. Also, sorting it this way gives the reader a bigger picture of how the inventor uses fictional books in his entire oeuvre which, given that fictional books are a literary device, seems to me to add to the usefulness of the list rather than detract from it...Anyone else have thoughts on this question? --Bookgrrl 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that what I am saying would require to re-write the list from a complete zero. But I think it would be far more useful. Because books would be included because they are somehow notable by themselves they could have a nice short description next to it - who's the author, where and why was it used, why is it notable, when was it invented, etc. And now it's just a laundry list of tons of books, and you have no clue which one was important and which one got there just because the author (somehow) was chosen to be in the list. ANd why is it limited to just books from book? Wasn't there some fictional books in movies, theatre, mythology, music, etc etc? Renata 07:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, though -- fictional books aren't notable by themselves, only as part of a larger work or as part of an author's style of writing. Yes, there are fictional books from the media you mention -- they have their own lists and are cross-referenced in the See also section. --Bookgrrl 13:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about that is this lists are already present on the main authors page and just putting them here seems redundant. Secondaly the list obviously doesn't include all fiction authors and therefore becomes biased, a bias which can't be fixed, I'm sure a lot of people have a favourite author not on this list that they think is notable. It would be much better to have, List of fiction authors, List of fiction book by genre, etc. rather than this. In my opinion at least..., I'm suprised the list survived an afd. - Tutmosis 14:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well therefore this list is tagged "incomplete", and I don't think it will ever be completed. There are actually many featured lists, such as List of HIV-positive people, who are tagged as incomplete as well. No, I don't think the mentioned lists will replace this one, as it would be a difficult task to browse through each one of the authors to find the fictional books that you're looking for. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Tutmosis is confusing this with is a list of fiction books, not a list of fictional books (i.e. books that don't exist, except within the world invented by a fiction writer). Colin°Talk 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jeez, wow am I embarrassed. Thanks for pointing that out. - Tutmosis 18:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. No worries, it happens a lot to people who run across this list :) --Bookgrrl 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point of this list. At what point is someone going to need to look up a list of fictional books? --SeizureDog 10:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Yeong-sil

[edit]
  • Smooth transition between topics and paragraphs, prose
  • KPOV, NPOV, weasel words, tone
  • Is the organization of the sections forcing the paragraphs to be too short & brief?
  • Additional details, sources, knowledge on mechanisms behind his inventions


  • Introductory paragraph
  • Research on weaponry
  • Rain gauge
  • Water gauge

(Wikimachine 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Good work here! A few things that might help:
    • AndyZ's bot is right about the lead section; definitely needs another couple of paragraphs.
    • I think the subsections for specific inventions could be done away with, with the more notable ones (like the armillary sphere) perhaps given articles of their own. That would help with flow & readability.
    • I don't know how much is out there, but more information about his life & legacy would definitely help. At the moment there is little connecting Jang's early life, his inventions, and his expulsion; this makes the article as a whole less powerful than it should be.
    • If your source is actually in Korean (is it?), you should really cite it by its original title. Romanization can still be given in parentheses. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (Wikimachine 21:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

United Airlines Flight 232

[edit]

Done a lot of work on this and wondered if we can aspire to get it to FA status, and if so, what would need to be done? --Guinnog 19:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My take:
I like the article. Good job so far.
I've added "cn" tags where I think in-line refs are absolutely necessary. You still are going to want to supplement.
"Captain Alfred C. Haynes and his flight crew (First Officer William Records, who was flying, and Second Officer Dudley Dvorak, flight engineer) felt a jolt going through the aircraft, and warning lights showed that the autopilot had disengaged, and the tail-mounted number two engine was malfunctioning." This is too long and convoluded.
"As with the Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 crash of a similarly-sized Lockheed L-1011 in 1972, the inherent crashworthiness of newer wide-bodied air transports played a part in the relatively high survival rate, as well as the shallow rate of descent and relatively low speed." Another long and convoluded sentence.
Lessons learned? Is this the best title name in the world? C'mon. It's POV and Un-encyclopedic.
Just a light copyedit needed.
I like the article. Maybe you could trim the sidepaths to similar other crashes jumbled within the prose and just make a sub-section under "See also" called "Similar incedents."
Wait. You've already started something like this under see also, but you still have the prose content in the article and only have fixed this for 1 reference. Please follow up.
Just keep an eye on your "notable survivors". There is no problem now, but if this does become a featured article and gets any bit of press attention or is the today's featured article, much junk will end up there.

Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

[edit]

I would like to know if ever this article still needs edits, corrections or even a revision. Thanks in advance --- Kevin Ray 11:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 17:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Embedded links need to be converted into inline citations; {{fact}} tags need to be replaced with references in the same format. I feel this article is generally undercited: make sure each paragraph has at least two inline citations, and of course any controversial statement or precise fact or figure needs citation. All of this is doubly true because she is a living, active politician. -Fsotrain09 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs a lot of work before its even close to FA consideration. For one, the coverage is wildly imbalanced. The economy section, for instance, has only half a paragraph with actual facts about the state of the economy. The last sentence states "the poverty situation has not improved" (though the poverty rate is shrinking) and suggests that the budget deficit problem is worsening (it's improving dramatically). The large second paragraph dominates the section with coverage of the "holiday economics" policy-- which is relatively insignificant-- and it only seems to be set up there as a straw man argument. The eVAT, the centerpiece of Arroyo's economic policy, isn't mentioned in the article. --Coffee 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that while most of the content may make sense to us Filipinos who keep watch on the six o'clock news, it may not be matter-of-fact for foreign readers. Take the "State of Emergency" section; since it was covered on live Philippine TV, most of us were aware of what was happening by the minute, and we are familiar with the personalities involved. But how will other people know that this is true if they were not in Manila when it happened? This article lacks the references/citation that will allow non-Filipinos from verifying and validating these information. --- Tito Pao 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The social weather indicators of the Social Weather Stations, see [5] can be tapped to give a broader perspective on the quality of life of the Filipinos vis-a-vis Ms. Arroyo's leadership. The satisfaction ratings of President Arroyo, on various timelines, speak a lot, too. Let me know if I can help on this angle. --Pinay06 06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are opinion polls of Pulse Asia, too, at [6]--Pinay06 09:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • The coverage on her being a Senator is lacking with the most important bills she authored not expounded regarding the implications and effects it made. Also, the Vice Presidency section lacks the behind-the-scenes of Edsa Dos. Plus her silence to the controversies surrounding Erap before the Impeachment Trial was set in motion (and even after, having only spoken against Erap vocally during the wee hours of the IT) should be included. Berserkerz Crit 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the impeachment bid on Pres. Arroyo? See: Archives for Arroyo Impeachment and other references: [7],[8], [9], [10] among others...--Pinay06 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathu La

[edit]
First Peer Review

I have been working on this article for the some time now, and trying to get it to FA level. I believe most of the suggestions from the first peer review have been addressed and I would like to know if anything more can be added to the article. Other suggestions (like on language and structure) are also welcome. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*My take:

It's actually a fascinating article. Diamond in the rough.
Do we really need "Nathu La" in 6 different character systems? Narrow it down to the Chinese or Tibetian (pick one of those) and Hindi. It's not adjecent to Nepal, or the former nation of tibet. If you must have 3 languages, the third should actually be Bhutanese (I think that's the name.)
That first sentence is pretty long because of the alternative languages, so move this: "also spelled Ntula, Natu La, Nathula, or Natula" to the bottom of the lead as: "It can also be spelled also spelled "Ntula," "Natu La," "Nathula," or "Natula."
"The pass is 56 kilometres (35 mi) east of the Sikkimese capital, Gangtok, and 430 km (270 mi) from the Tibetan capital, Lhasa." First of all, Link both Sikkimese and Tibetan to their respective pages (that would be Sikkim and Tibet.) Second of all, Tibet is not a country any more. Please change that to "the provincial capital of Tibet." Yes, we all wish for Tibetian independence. See my userpage for a nice userbox.
For the readers' sake: "Although just 5 km (3 mi) north of the all-weather Jelepla pass, the Nathu La pass is blocked by snow in winters as it receives heavy snowfall." Could you please hint why?
Make Image:Nathula-area.jpg just a tad smaller to drop the indent on the following paragraph
Your image at the end "Image:Kalimpong town and nathula.jpg" is the best picture in the whole article. Find a way to showcase it. I would switch it with Image:Nathu La-Nehru Visit.JPG
Some may ask for written resources and references. Try to find some. Although I believe your internet resources are fine, some may not while going through FAC.
"Temperatures in Nathu La regularly dip below −25 °C (−77 °F) in winters.[2]" Could we get the top extreme heat as well?
Make Image:Nathu La-Chinese Post.JPG just a bit bigger so it bumps the line below it remaining in the paragraph to the same indent. Just for style if you want to put this image on the left side, which is unusual.
To be perfectly honest, I could only get through the first half of the article. Please fix the errors above and drop a line. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 01:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply'. Thanks for the review. I have addressed most of your concerns. Here are the select few that I couldn't. I couldn't find if there's a contrast between the two passes (Nathu La and Jelep La), which brings difference in one being all-weather, and the other not. I have removed the comparison there. Also, I couldn't find any references for summer temperatures in Nathu La. Since the summer temperature isn't awe-inspiring, it is not discussed anywhere. The print content on Nathu La is limited, and most information present is sourced from the boom of information about the place when the pass was opened. As you can see, most of the sources used in the article have been published in the first week of July 2006. The only major print sources are related to the Tibetan annexation by British, but I believe that reliable sources have been used in that context so explicit print sources are not essential. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up:

You didn't showcase "Image:Kalimpong town and nathula.jpg" like I told you. I fixed this
Your picture distribution is not much improved.
Undo what you did with the Image:Location of Nathula.svg, keep it on the right.
Beautiful job with the pictures, though, in Flora and Fauna.
When you use i.e. use it like in commas like this "texttexttext, i.e., texttext"
You messed up with that here: "...ododendrons i.e. Rhodod..."
It could use a light copyedit.

Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply. I thought by "showcasing" you meant to include the image in the article body, rather than the see also section. I had done that. Your edit is also fine. Earlier one of the editors re-normalised the images to normal size, and therefore you saw a difference in size of "Location of Nathula.svg". The comma issue is also fixed. I will keep on copyediting it as and when I see something awkward. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*My take The prose is excellent & and have adequate citations. But I have some thing to point out.
1) There should be a separate subheading ‘Notes’ and put the inline citations there. Inside the reference there should be the most used books and website names.
2) The infobox is not proper. How can a borded area checkpoint have an Indian Urban Infobox?? I am suggesting a new infobox (if it doesn’t exists) with the following parameters:
Infobox name should be border checkpoint
Name
Map
Countries
States
Districts
nearest_city
lat_degrees
lat_minutes
lat_seconds
lat_direction
long_degrees
long_minutes
long_seconds
long_direction
Area
Altitude
Annual Trade (in US $)
Number of people crossed
Main Transacted Items
Regulating Authorities

3)Map – Some thing like a South Asia Map with a close up of the area than the india map.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag (talk • contribs)

  • Reply. I have broken up the references section and added often used/detailed reviews on the topic in the new section. The Infobox can be split, and I would be working on it soon. For this article, I think we can use Location of Nathula.svg itself if we colour it well. BTW, I don't understand what you expect to be written in "Regulating Authorities", or how you plan to get the data for number of people crossed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can write NA in 2006 with a footnotes that it has been started in June/July 2006. Regulating Authorities can be Government of India, BSF and Govenment of China, get the name of the military posted in chiina side.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag (talk • contribs)

I'll be giving a heavy copyedit to the article to bring it in line with FA standards. The infobox needs to be changed as well as it does not reflect the true ststus of Nathula. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature

[edit]
Prior PR: archive1

This article has undergone an extensive group collaboration effort and has received significant changes. Unfortunately it failed the GA attempt, but the mentioned issues appear to have been addressed. (Note that the philosophical aspects of this topic are covered on the Nature (philosophy) page.) I'd like to take it back for another GA attempt, so your comments on this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Hills

[edit]

Please provide additional guidance on what else needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing? --Guest818 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During the dry season, the precipitation is inadequate such that the grass-covered hills dry up and turn chocolate brown. This transforms the area into seemingly endless rows of chocolate "kisses"., hence the name in reference to a branded confection. --Pinay06 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are covered in green grass that turns brown during the dry season, hence the name.--Guest818 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Soup Cans

[edit]

I stumbled upon the WP:PR process yesterday by typographical error of another editor who was trying to send me to WP:PRO. I am in the neighborhood of 5000 edits and am preparing to apply for adminship this month. I think this process may be a good learning process to round out my experiences here at wikipedia. I have only produced unpolished articles which you can see on my user page and think it may be worth an attempt to produce a high quality article. Unfortunately, I am more of an analytical type and not a very good writer. Thus, I am not sure what type of feedback to ask for. I guess anything that will help me improve the article would be fine. I would appreciate any help in finding additional images for the gallery as well. TonyTheTiger 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs more wikilinking. Also, it requires footnotes - see WP:FN (convert the external links in the middle of the text to <ref>{{cite web|url=~~~|author=~~~}}</ref> (see {{cite web}}). The web photo gallery remark is unneeded, and in fact the gallery itself is definitely unneeded. Not only does WP:FUC call for a limited usage of fair use images unless free use images don't exist (and there is at least 1), but galleries are discouraged in general. Alphabetize the categories. Is the word "portrait" appropriate here? Portraits are of people. Also, "trivia" sections in general are discouraged as being unencyclopedic in tone; consider merging anything important in trivia sections to the rest of the article.
  • Also needs a copyedit, especially if you are looking for WP:FAC. Take a look at this (linkless) paragraph (place your cursor over the underlined words to see my comments):

He had a very positive view of ordinary culture and felt the Abstract Impressionists had taken great pains to ignore the splendor of modernity. The Campbell's Soup Can series along with his other series provided him a chance to express his positive view of modern culture. However his deadpan work, endeavored to be devoid of emotional and social commentary.

His work differed from series work by other artists such as Monet, who used series to represent discriminating perception. They showed that the painter could recreate shifts in time, light, season, and weather with hand and eye. Warhol represented the modern era of commercialization and indiscriminate sameness. When Warhol eventually showed variation it was not realistic. It was in a sense his variation in colors shown later was almost a mockery of discriminating perception.

Please see other related WP:FAs for ideas to start with. AZ t 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something Wicked This Way Comes (novel)

[edit]

This article is a self-nomination on my favorite book. I provided the summary and the recent theme section, and I would like to know if there is any other information that should be added to a book article like this one. I tried to keep the summary manageable and relatively concise, while not leaving out significant plot details (although I did leave out some side events). The analysis/theme section is new and a bit short, and I'm wondering if and how I should elaborate on it. My main question is: Is this article too short, and if so, what information do I need to add to make it a featured article candidate? Breed Zona 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length is generally not a hard criterion for FA status. You will need citations. You might start by looking for sources that analyze the work and include them to support the statements you've made in the analysis section. Kaisershatner 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm having a bit of trouble with the "popular culture references" section. How do you know all of those allusions are to the Bradbury work? I suspect that like Bradbury, they are all alluding to Shakespeare.Kaisershatner 17:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I believe that some of the references allude directly to this novel, including the South Park episode (if you read the article, it has a plot very similar to Something Wicked) and the Needful Things reference too. Most of the other references were added by other people, and are difficult to justify. I'm going to make a few minor fixes to the spelling and dates by automatic suggestion.
Your modification of the lead paragraph is well done. But I'm still concerned about the length of the summary and on what the theme section needs help on, if any. I'll begin looking for additional external references to the novel. Breed Zona 17:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, can you also please check if my summary on the image description page is correct? The last thing I want to do is to screw up this article's chance at featured-article status because of a faulty image disclaimer. Breed Zona 17:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall a good start, but if you want to get to FA with this I think you need to get to a library and look up some things. It needs more about how it came to be written, critical reception (from 1962), etc. Bradbury writes about his own work and the Wikipedia article on the film version gives two references that should be useful (both books, one by Bradbury). There are two refs to the novel by Bradbury himself on his web site: here and the entry before it. It seems there should be more reviews available from 1962 (New York Times, Kirkus, or maybe in a SF magazine). As a fairly major fantasy author, I imagine there are more books on Bradbury and his works than the book cited in the film article. The movie is mentioned in the lead paragraphs but not discussed in the article itself. Bradbury may well have given interviews for the movie that discuss the book, and a brief section comapring the two would probably be OK (especially since Bradbury wrote a screenplay for the movie). Finally, (agreeing with the previous comments) I think the pop culture section needs to be very carefully done and referenced. The Shakespeare quote is much more likely to be the source of many of these items than the novel. Unless there is a source saying it is alluding to the novel (or very specific examples can be given that show this without a doubt) I would not include it. I also like the novel very much. I always wondered (violating WP:NOR here) if the Smashing Pumpkins song "Disarm" was referring to the novel "I used to be a little boy, so old in my shoes, and what I choose is my choice, what's a boy supposed to do?" and especially "I send this smile over to you". I never found anything to confirm that, but also never looked too hard. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much, Ruhrfisch! I appreciate any comments made on my work. I'm right now in the process of putting all the information about how the novel came to be in its own section, with more references. Since there's a separate article on the film, though, I won't allude much to it in the book article, except when it's directly relevant. Thanks again for taking your time. Breed Zona 00:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved much of the lead into a new "Background and Origins" section, with a more detailed description of Bradbury's encounter with Mr. Electrico, and added two more references to the Analysis section with the aid of Questia. Guess I learned something new too -- I never thought of Something Wicked as a gothic novel, although I do now. Breed Zona 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good and you are very welcome - I find it best to (re)write the lead after the article is pretty much done. I also had not thought of it as a gothic novel, but can see that too. My thought was more that the film is more recent and it may be possible to find comments about the book from when the film came out more easily than from when the book itself was originally published. Take care, Ruhrfisch 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The popular culture section needs to be rewritten into prose, away from its listy nature. LuciferMorgan 05:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? It needs to be? The popular culture sections I saw in other articles were all arranged by lists, but maybe that's because they had a lot of items. Still, I guess that since there's only a couple of items here, that it would be better to write in prose format, so I'll go back and do that sometime later (translation: when I don't feel so lazy). Thanks for pointing that out. How should I improve the critical reception section, by the way? Breed Zona 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Days

[edit]

I have been working on this article largely using V for Vendetta (film) as a guide, however I am now somewhat stumped as to how to improve it further. I have used every article I could find on the film, and the DVD featurette. I want to take it to FA, but it seems, kinda empty somehow. What else can I do to take it to FA, besides a spellcheck? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of your references is not displaying. Wiki-newbie 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now Ref 7 isn't showing. Eh? Also, were there any more positive reviews? Themes of the film? Try prosifying the Awards section too. Wiki-newbie 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ref 7. I can't really find any reviews on Latter Days, be they negative or positive. I can add a themes section, but I'm slightly concerned about potential POV - what I see in the film may not be what others see, is this a good idea, or is there some sort of guideline I can follow? The awards section I do not think should be prosified - it is ultimately a list and a list is better off in a table. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Given that I added that link to the page, its quite strange that I forgot about them. Stupid Dev. I will add some more positive reviews soon. Anything else in the meantime? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the ref. I've just discovered a half hour interview with c. Jay Cox, so I might be able to get something out of that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Guadalupe

[edit]

I'm curious how this article strikes "laypeople" in general, and specifically I'm curious about:

a) how the telling of the "traditional account" works for people -- should it be more succinct? Contain fewer quotes? More quotes?

b) how comprehensible is the section on documentation for a person unfamiliar with the historical controversies?

c) an anonymous critic wrote on the talk page that it "gives the appearance of telling both sides of the story without really delivering on either." Does it feel vapid? Unfair and unbalanced? There's a fair amount of controversy in this material.

d) would more description of popular devotion -- the stuff that living people do today in veneration of Guadalupe -- be relevant? interesting?

Any feedback is appreciated: the Virgin's feast day is coming up in about two weeks and I'd like to get the entry in top shape... Thanks Katsam 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honoring the Virgin

[edit]

I haven't read the article in question, and this is not a "feedback," only a comment on the unpleasant aspects of the Virgin's feast, based on my personal experiences in a Mexican village. Part of the ritual is to wake up the population at dawn with screaming rockets, launched at ten- or fifteen-minute intervals into the black sky. People can say goodbye to restful nights for a week or two (I'd say, ten days is a sure bet). With all respect, it's amazing how deep-seated religious beliefs can turn the normally calm inhabitants of a village into a bunch of nervous wrecks, for lack of sleep. I don't think the Virgin Mary would approve of being honored by practices that might endanger the mental equilibrium of the faithful.(User:Marta Palos 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)December 3, 06)[reply]

Ha ha! Too bad you're not a quotable source, I've been looking for some examples of actual devotion. Screaming rockets, izzit? Katsam 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard them? If you crave insomnia, go down to the nearest Mexican village at this time of the year. (User: Marta Palos)

I wish! By the way, it seems like you're new -- welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to sign your name just write four tildes (~~~~. And in case you haven't found it, there's a discussion page under your name (click the red link with your name then click discussion) where someone else has already greeted you and tried to tell you a little about the wiki-ropes. Bang! Zoom!Katsam 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Katsam, I'm very new. Thanks for the advice--I'll check out the discussion page. By the way, I had no intention to step on anyone's religious toes; I merely wanted to point out the sometimes not too rosy aspects of religious rituals. Amigos? (User:Marta Palos 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)) 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)) Dec. 6. 06, 2:44 (MST)[reply]

Claro que si! I can't imagine who could be offended by the mere description of religious rituals involving screaming rockets. Speaking of rituals, I was in Rome when the AS Roma won the "scudetto" (national championships) for the first time in 18 years. Talk about losing sleep! Some people really know how to have fun... Katsam 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it wasn't the screaming rockets I was worried about, but my remark about the somewhat crazy rituals in general I don't think the Virgin Mary would approve of. (Maybe she'd even have a good laugh, watching them.) Although I still stick to my view, I'm getting into deep waters here, so I'd better quit the subject. Que te vaya bién! (By the way, I'm of Hungarian origin.) (Marta Palos 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

MLilburne

[edit]

A few presentational points to start with:

  • The bullet-pointed list in the lead needs to be converted to prose.
  • The pictures are excellent, but are way too big by Wikipedia standards.
  • The "traditional account" section should start by explaining what the Nican mopohua is. All you really need to say is "The Nican mopohua, a 36-page tract written in 1649 by Bachelor Luis Laso de la Vega, is considered the "primordial account" of the apparation. It was written in the indiginous Nahuatl language, and describes the 1531 meeting..."
  • Although Harvard referencing is used in the article, there are a couple of external hyperlinks. One consistent method of citation should be used.

Hope this is helpful. I'll try to come back later and address your substantive questions. MLilburne 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I already put a couple of your suggestions into action.

(I love gigantic pictures, but you're right that they're stylistically unencyclopedic -- and I put in a little explanation of the Nican mopohua.)

Thanks for the citation comment, I knew it in my heart but hadn't yet accepted it...I guess I'm off to change all those citations into footnotes (aargh). Thanks again, Katsam 14:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy adding a few "citation needed" tags to the article. You shouldn't view these as criticisms of your work, they're just a useful way of indicating where people might expect to see citations. It would probably make GA status without them, but certainly not FA status. Now, on with the substantive comments...

  • You're right to be a little concerned about the "traditional accounts" section. I was able to follow it, with no prior information on the topic, but I do think it's a bit too wordy and contains too many direct quotations that could easily be summarized. I also think that the tone is a bit unencyclopedic, as it reads more like a devotional account than a neutral summary of fact. Part of that impression is caused by the use of "Lady" and "Our Lady". It doesn't seem appropriate in an article that's supposed to be written from a neutral (ie not specifically Catholic) POV.
  • The "symbol of Mexico" section looks excellent to me. You seem to have solid reasons for using the quotations that you are using, but be aware that some people might find it a bit quote-heavy. You might also want to consider setting off the longest ones using block quotes.
  • In the "historical documentation" section, the use of "one... two... three... four..." makes the phrasing a bit awkward. If you deal with each source in at least one separate sentence, you'll be better able to inform the reader a little more about them.
  • I question the use of the term "oral histories," as it seems anachronistic. When I first read the article it took me a little while to figure out that it wasn't modern oral histories that were being referred to.
  • More information about the Codex Escalada and the oral histories would be welcome in the "Problems with documentation" section. The reader is led to believe that they may solve some of the problems with the 117 year gap, yet is not told how or why.
  • Might be good to remind us who Zumarraga is at this point. Also, the use of "explicit" begs the question.... are there any implicit mentions of the Virgin in his writings?
  • "some historians..." Which historians?
  • I found the section on historical documentation easily comprehensible, but I am a professional historian, so I might not be the best person to ask...

Hope these are helpful comments. I'm going to have to take a break now, but will come back to the rest of it. I'm being hard on the article, but this is because I feel that it has a lot of promise. With more citations, a bit of prose improvement and some expansion, it could definitely be worth submitting as a FAC. MLilburne 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Those are great criticisms, really useful. I made a Codex Escalada entry, which I'll summarize in the bigger article. And I'm going to edit the "traditional account" and "symbol of Mexico" parts as per your suggestions.

I believe the "explicit" Zumarraga comment is referring to the fact that Z. mentioned a Guadalupe, but didn't mention the apparition story. Stafford Poole -- and I believe DA Brading as well -- think that the mentions of Guadalupe could refer to Guadalupe of Extremadura or some copy of her image. It's hard to know how much detail to include.

The other thing that I'm unsure about is what to do with uncited sections made by I-have-no-idea-who-a-million-years-ago. I hate to see those "citation needed" tags, and would prefer to take stuff out and put it on the discussion page rather than have the page riddled with questionmarks -- on the other hand I don't want to be rude to the previous editors.

Once again, thanks very much for your criticism -- it's really helpful! I'm a college student and I wish I got such lucid comments from my professors... Katsam 07:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me, I would certainly refer to the fact that Zumarraga mentioned a Guadalupe. You wouldn't necessarily need any more detail than you've used here, but it seems to me to be interesting and relevant. The article is still quite short by FA standards, so I wouldn't worry about putting too much in as long as it's cogent.
As for what to do with the citation needed tags, it really depends on what your plans are for the article. If it is just going to remain a regular Wikipedia article, then it can continue with uncited statements. However, if your aim is GA or FA status, then you'll have to either remove them or find the source. If, after a bit of searching around, you really can't find a source, then I don't think there's anything wrong with taking the statement out and putting it on the talk page, with a pleasant note about why you did so. In getting an article to FA status, you usually have to risk stepping on a few toes of previous editors. But it's usually worth it, and it isn't rude... that's the way Wiki improves.
I took a look at your last few edits, and I'm really impressed. The article is improving by leaps and bounds. I'll come back later today to offer comments on the rest of it. In the mean time, keep up the good work. MLilburne 09:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out I dreamed up Zumarraga's mentions of Guadalupe. What I was misremembering was: there was definitely a shrine to a Virgin of Guadalupe at Tepeyac hill, even way back -- it was mentioned by eight bazillion different historians, priests and letter-writers. However, there's quite a bit of textual evidence to indicate that the Guadalupe at Tepeyac could have originally been something else -- like maybe a copy of the Guadalupe of Extremadura. So: mentions of "Guadalupe," completely backed by the evidence -- 16th-century mentions of the apparition? Not so much. (Maybe I should mention this in the article.)

Is there a "dealing with controversy" wikiprinciple? I've been editing with the idea that the miraculous investigations -- like finding figures in eyeballs -- are interesting (and thus notable) and that I should keep an even, neutral tone vis-a-vis the historicity of the apparition account. But I think the bulk of the evidence is on the antiapparitionist side. It's a little hard to parse -- L'Osservatore Romano seems to make a good case for the documents but then my best history book, by Stafford Poole, seems to utterly demolish any apparitionist case. I should go read some "religious figure" pages -- maybe I should go find Shroud of Turin!

You've been so encouraging I've been thinking about trying for FAC -- I really like the idea of the article being on the front page for Guadalupe's feast day (December 12). But I don't think it would be considered "stable" when I've rewritten half of it in the last couple days, and it doesn't seem long enough either, and there's still so much more that could be fixed/added --. Maybe I won't...

Thanks for your help, your criticism has been very motivating. Katsam 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited any really controversial articles, so I may not be the best person to advise. I think the most relevant principle is WP:NPOV. You have to discuss all of the major theories, of course; the trick is deciding what weight to give to each of them. You do that, I suppose, by asking which is the mainstream, majority viewpoint, and dealing with the minority viewpoints fairly, but making them less prominent.
Trying for FAC is certainly a worthwhile goal. I doubt that you would manage it by 12 December, though. The review process takes a minimum of five days, and usually more like one or two weeks. Plus it doesn't do to count on getting through the first time, as there are some pretty tough customers there. It's worth getting to know the page first, and being able to anticipate the sort of objections that are made. MLilburne 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more round of comments:

  • "Spiritual mestizaje". The meaning of this heading isn't clear to someone without any background in the area. However, the section is really excellent.
  • I like the graffiti picture, but you might want to make the caption a little more specific as to what is depicted.
  • "Other viewers interpret different aspects of the image as coded messages..." Might want to specify who these viewers are.
  • "The icon has inspired great controversy." I could be wrong... have you discussed the icon before? If not, you might want to introduce it a little more. Otherwise the reader is likely to think "what icon?"
  • "Several people have studied the tilma and found it to have miraculous properties." Can you specify what is meant by "tilma" in this context? This paragraph strikes me as a bit sketchy, somehow. A bit more detail might help.
  • "Therefore, the issue remains open until a more scholarly work is published." This sounds a bit POV to me.
  • The format used for dates in the "Catholic devotion" section is inconsistent. All of them should be month, then day.
  • " Devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe today is widespread among Catholics in every part of the globe." This seems a bit too, I don't know... general.
I think I addressed all of the concerns you had here except for the current devotional practice stuff: I'm working on coming up with some stuff about that (together with user:Rockero). Somebody put a cool link to mini-shrines around East L.A., and I'd like to address shrines and pilgrimages + etc.
I'm going to come back and give this article another round of renovations this weekend, but in the meantime I just wanted to say THANK YOU again for your criticisms. It has really been fun editing with you. Katsam 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review

[edit]

Thanks, I'm trying to fix that stuff now -- cool program -- Katsam 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarma

[edit]

I printed out this article to copyedit today. I only got through the first two sections so far, but tell me what you think of these suggestions:

Introduction

  1. The article Villa Guadalupe claims that it was the site of the apparition, yet it is mentioned nowhere in this article.
The site of the apparition is supposed to be the same place where the Basilica is today. I never heard of Villa Guadalupe -- the Basilica is also in Gustavo Madera in D.F. so I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll look into it.
  1. "Marian apparition and a 16th century Roman Catholic icon" makes the two things sound less related than they are. Perhaps "16th century Marian apparition which has (since) become a Roman Catholic icon"
I think we might be misunderstanding eachother vis-a-vis "icon." The meaning isn't "icon" in the sense of "John Wayne was an icon of American manhood" but in the religious sense, like Eastern Orthodox icons. So Guadalupe is/was both an alleged apparition of the Virgin Mary and is a...painting. Except that "icon" is slightly more neutral than "painting" because Catholics believe the image was imparted to the tilma in some divine method.
  1. "Guadalupe" should be introduced as an alternate name in the first sentence. Right now, it's used throughout the introduction and History section before finally being explained in Interpretations of the media.

You think the first sentence should read "Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Virgin of Guadalupe (Spanish: Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe) or Guadalupe is a Marian apparition and a 16th century Roman Catholic icon."  ?

  1. Is the Paz quote the best way to express the icon's importance as a Mexican religious image? I have no problem with it being elsewhere in the article (perhaps it could be moved somewhere in the Mestizo culture and Mexican identity section), but it seems kind of tongue-in-cheek and perhaps not the best thing to stick in the summary.

I like the Paz quote and think it expresses well the importance that Guadalupe has in Mexico to both religious and non-religious people (they say in Mexico "hasta los ateos son Guadalupanos" or "even the atheists venerate Guadalupe"). But I'll put it up for discussion on the discussion page. There's another, perhaps less sardonic quote attributed to Carlos Fuentes where he says "It doesn't matter whether or not you're Christian, if you don't venerate the Virgin of Guadalupe you're not a Mexican." If the other editors on the discussion page agree maybe we could substitute in that quote...

  1. Perhaps add more information to the caption of the lead image, even if this is basically the same as the image summary ("16th century painting of unknown provenance"). If this particular depiction is especially popular, you could mention it.

That particular image IS the Virgin of Guadalupe (as allegedly discovered on the tilma of Juan Diego in 1531)...that's the 16th century Roman Catholic icon described in the lead paragraph. Would it make it clearer if the lead paragraph said something like "Roman Catholic icon (pictured on the right)"?

These are minor concerns; I actually don't know if they would be correct changes or not.

  1. "Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Virgin of Guadalupe" -> "Our Lady of Guadalupe, or the Virgin of Guadalupe," ?
  2. "multifaceted:" -> "multifaceted;" ?
  3. "Finally" -> "In addition/additionally" (if only because the word "finally" makes me think of the end of a closed list)

History

  1. Add a date of origin on the etching pic (if you have one)
I don't, but I'll poke around for one.
  1. Why is the second written account summarized here? Is it simply more in-depth? Is it a more generally-accepted story than the other accounts? (The reason should be mentioned)
There's a reason but it's a semi-complicated reason. The problem with the apparition story is that the first published accounts of it came out about a century after 1531. The first was published in Spanish and the second was published in Nahuatl, and the Nahuatl version is preferred by everybody: by apparitionists (believers) because they claim it was actually written much earlier "by the Indian Antonio Valeriano", and nonapparitionists because it is supposed to be more beautiful (as a piece of literature). Would it make sense if I mentioned that directly after the "traditional account"?
  1. Is this truly all that can be written about the traditional account? Would it be appropriate to add background information about Catholicism in 16th century Mexico?
There used to be a much more extensive description of the traditional account[[11]], which I took down because in this same peer review user:MLilburne said it read like a devotional account. I could expand it to contain more details: would you be more interested in further details about the apparition account or further details of the historical context in which the apparition was said to happen?
  1. Are there any significant differences or contradictions between accounts?
Not really. Those who have researched the published accounts think the second was modeled off the first: the main differences are in language and in literary style. There's a LOT of controversy about "historical evidence" however (as contrasted with published apparition accounts).
  1. Documentation needs more content, and probably a restructuring. Perhaps organize the different documents chronologically into subsections using summary style, and if you can, beef up the information on evidence for and against their historicity/authenticity.
I've been thinking about this. There is a huge -- massive! voluminous! quantity of information regarding documentation of both the apparition and the shrine. I could write 80 gigabytes easy on the documentation alone. So I was thinking it might be a good time to start a daughter article. I don't want "documentation" to have too large a place in the article because I don't think it's what concerns the vast majority of people when they think about the Virgin of Guadalupe -- I think the vast majority of people are interested in Guadalupe because they have a religious, historical, or cultural link with the image/story, and that the "documentation" part is mostly interesting to priests, historians, and a few fixated persons such as myself. I coudl be wrong about this however.

Quarma 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your time Quarma! I can't do any substantitive editing at this moment but later this weekend I hope to tuck into the article and will take your suggestions into account. Take care -- Katsam 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid transit

[edit]

This article is very comprehensive. It definitely needs some work before it passes WP:FAC. Is anything missing? Is there any trivial details that need to go? I've also asked the Trains WikiProject to peer review the article. That page can be found Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Rapid transit. Thanks in advance to everyone who comments. -- Selmo (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Selmo (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather obviously, the {{fact}}(s) need citations. The lead could be bolstered by a bit of expansion. The "history" section has a lot of 1-sentence paragraphs that should be merged/expanded. Also suggest some copyediting and clarifying (mouse over to see suggestions):

Many of these regional railways were first built to operate in one direction from a city centre terminus, but some have been extended across the city centre, sometimes running in tunnels. By making multiple stops in the city, they can offer suburban passengers a choice of stations and also provide useful transportation within the city. A notable example is the Paris RER system, where (in co-operation with the city's transit authority) several pairs of existing suburban lines running in opposite directions from the city have been extended in tunnel to join up and form new through routes across the city. They are provided with frequent service and, within the city, the same fares as the Métro are charged, providing an integrated network. In Tokyo and Osaka, Japan private companies operate the world's most extensive suburban railways, each with their own fare system that integrates with the entire system. In German-speaking countries, the Paris style system is called an S-Bahn Italian-speaking countries such a system is called Linea S or Treno Suburbano, where as in Spain it is referred to as Cercanías. AZ t 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced statements can easily be taken care of via Google search and source checking. I have also begun to incorporate the suggestions into the article. Thanks for your review. -- Selmo (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the article does not need a greater number of images, but it does need a greater diversity of images, such as a picture of the inside of a rail car (with people in it), a monorail/elevated train, etc. Right now the pictures seem too similar. A panning image of a train would also be a good image towards the top. Maybe later tonight I will look for featured images of rapid transit. Cacophony 01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not too long ago, I saw a photo of a TTC subway car with passengers inside on Flickr. Will add. -- Selmo (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, no passengers inside. Probably a tad more polite anyway (most people don't like being published on the internet). -- Selmo (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if streetcars are what you want, but this photo of a girl on a streetcar in Austria is featured on English Wikipedia and on Commons. Fg2 05:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Extent section very confusing. Also all references to specific railways was a bit distracting. I think mentioning the most notable rapid transit systems with a minor description in its own section, then keeping the rest of the article very general would be the best way to deal with this. Also shouldn't the LA system be mentioned somewhere. I would like to work on this article. Ratherhaveaheart 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be bold and work on it! This is a wiki. Thanks for your suggestions -- Selmo (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections need to be rewritten. The content is good, but it isn't in the right order.

  • General: One of the top two pictures should be of an elevated or other overground line, since it could fool a brief reader that the article was solely about undergrouds. And the entire article needs subsections (i.e. ===s). There are a lot of text blocks right now that are long and hard to read.
  • Indroduction: According to List of rapid transit systems#Earliest Rapid Transit Systems the Istanbul rapid transit was fourth, not second. Check it out (I'm not saying you'r wrong, but both can't be right). Also, I feel that the #2 and #1 in the US, tunneling techniques and naming conventions should be dropped and instead mention the funtions of the rapid transit.
  • Characteristics and nomenclature should be split in two distinct definitions, one that defines a rapid transit, and one that mentions the three major types (underground, on-ground and elevated). The naming confusion should somehow be seperated in its own paragraph at the end. If you look at the List of rapid transit systems you see that most rapid transits are called metro in Europe, and this section might want to mention that. And please, do something with the heading title.
  • Extent needs to be restructured with a general note about the main system types, followed by seperate paragraphs on different strategies, with the examples following the theory. At the moment it is cluttery.
  • Importance, functions, and station design has a seperate paragraph for Canada and one for the US. Though this is ok in itself, I feel that there needs to be more work on Asian and European, and not at least third-world trapid transits. Though we both may be biased to Vancouver, mentioning that the new SkyTrain lines will be finished in 2009 in unessesary :P. IMO when listing up lots of cities that have a certain criteria, wikilink to the rapid transit, not the city itself.
  • Technology should be expanded. Should mention something on automation vs. manrun.
  • History I agree, it should be a seperate article, and substancially expanded, especially the section after 1900. A summary should be included in this article though.
  • Similarities to light rail There should be a wikilink to Light rail here, maybe even as a main template. Arsenikk 18:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Selmo (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved around some stuff and rewritten other stuff in the article. Personally I feel it's got better structure now, but I've modified to much to be much objective in the matter any more. The history section is still a mess, and should become a seperate article. Futhermore, subway station architecture is a really interesting and important matter that could cover many paragraphs, and should too. Some research has to be done on the matter though. Otherwise I feel that something has to be done with the introduction. As it stands now it's IMO cluttery and concerned with trivia instead of main topics. My main concern is that the sentence about tunneling techniques is far to technical for an overview, and that there is not enough about the role of the rapid transit in the city. Otherwise there have to be more citations. Still, it's beginning to look good :) Arsenikk 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Tarsier

[edit]

Much recent work has been done on this. What needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • More wikilinks will be useful. A bit more copyediting will be required (mouse over to see suggestions):

In addition, the unabated hunting of the species by humans for house pets or for trade has contributed to its decline. Hunting tarsiers to sell as pets was until recently, a thriving industry. Because of its adorable and benign appearance, many have been lured to keep the Philippine Tarsier as pets. This demand fuels the capture and illegal trade of the animal further diminishing its remaining number.[17] Moreover, the life span is 24 years when living in the wild, but only 12 when in cages and taken cared of by people. It is also known to die from psychological damage when around humans because its instinct is to be out in the wild. Moreover, its reduced lifespan in captivity is due to the fact that it is easily distressed by being displayed and physically handled during the day contrary to its natural biological rhythm.[17] AZ t 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My comments:
    • It has uniquely large goggling eyes (disproportionate to its head and body), listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest eyes on a mammal. --- If a direct link to this from the Guinness website is unavailable, is this mentioned in the latest edition of the Guinness Book of World Records?
    • Comment on the subsection Conservation Efforts. I think the style of the five sub-subsections are somewhat inconsistent: while most sub-subsections were written in paragraph style, the very first seb-subsection, Legislation, is enumerated. Would be nice if it's written in paragraph form much like the succeeding sub-subsections.
    • In-situ conservation was first spelled with the hyphen, but appears in some places without the hyphen. I believe the same thing happened to the phrase "ex-situ" or "ex situ" (I don't know which of these is more appropriate, but at any rate it should be consistent with whichever is chosen between "in-situ" and "in situ").
    • Infobox. In some animal articles (for example, great white shark and amur tiger), there is a diagram for the conservation status and a map that shows range distribution of the animal population. Not sure if these are needed, but I think these would be nice touches.

That's all I can say for now...otherwise, I find this an informative (although it's a little heavy on the "Conservation" section :) ---Tito Pao 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (rapper)

[edit]

I have done extensive work on this article and am trying to get it to Good Article status. Comments on all aspects would be appericated. --Ted87 20:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LILVOKA doesn't seem to like the extensive biography section (despite that this is a article about a person), that's why those tags are up there. He also questions the validity of the sources used in the section. Most specifically Hurricanegames.us, even though the links posted are to an interview done by Sister2Sister magazine. The trivia section is just used as a dumping ground for any info that doesn't seem to fit in another section of the article, so it definatly could/should be shortend. Thanks for the comments. --Ted87 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • OK, let's see. I like the article as a whole, but the "verify" tags keep annoying me. And talking about the Trivia section, it needs to be split to Awards, TV, Games appearances and maybe some personal "stuff", but that last one could go, if it does better to the page. Although a Trivia section is not so bad to have within the article, but these infos are so unnecessary there. Lajbi Holla @ me 11:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the consensus seems to be the trivia secton needs to be deleted/reworked. Thanks for the input. Keep it coming people. --Ted87 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's correct - trivia sections always prevent any article improving. Anything noteworthy in this trivia section should be integrated into the article, but if it isn't noteworthy it should be eradicated. LuciferMorgan 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They Might Be Giants

[edit]

I would like any comments or suggestions on how to fix this page. I believe it needs some form of an overhaul--some sections might be able to be their own articles. More or less, if you have had any experience on working on articles by bands please give me some input. The main thing this article needs is probably the organization of their works. That and more references. b_cubed 05:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well first, let me just say TMBG is my favoritest band of all time, and I would love to see them get FA. But now onto the comments:

  • Isn't the "Discography" section redundant? #1: The albums are all mentioned in "History" and #2: everything is in the template box. However, that leave "Contributions, other releases" as the odd man odd, and I'm not sure what to do which them. "Charting Singles" should stay, but "Music videos" just probably need to be mentioned in their respective albums/EP/whatever. The album images then should be speckled throughout the history section.
  • Dr. Evil is a link to the character, not the song. Also, you might want to add something about how they didn't sing that, lest someone think there's a girl in the band (I though "Dr.Evil" was just mislabeled for the longest time).
  • Extremely difficult, but perhaps try to describe TMBG's sound/style? TMBG is also certainly a band that needs audio samples to understand properly. Pink Floyd has gotten away with being a FA with 29 audio samples. You don't have to have that many, but a good range of the sampling would be nice. And actually, knowing TMBG, they may have a few songs that would be completely free use.
  • Also, what about deeper meanings in TMBG songs? This may be impossible to do without violating WP:OR, but do they actually intentionally put meanings into their songs, or is it just another "I Am the Walrus" (odd for the sake of being odd)?--SeizureDog 09:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created a discography article for They Might Be Giants. Unlinked the song Dr. Evil. I plan on integrating some album art throughout the article. Anyone else have any suggestions? b_cubed 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta@home

[edit]

Rosetta's goal is to develop computational methods that accurately predict and design protein structure and protein complexes. This computational endeavor may ultimately help researchers develop cures for human diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Malaria and many other diseases.

Baker Laboratory is based at the University of Washington. The principal investigator is David Baker, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Washington and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, who has been elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences in April 2006. The BakerLab scientific team includes post-docs John Karanicolas, Phil Bradley, Kira Misura, Bill Schief, Vanita Sood, Bin Qian, Eric Althoff, Daniela Roethlisberger, Jim Havranek, as well as numerous graduate students and visiting scientists.

Needs to get to FA status.--Records 02:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NB: Nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently, last year might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[12]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[10]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[6]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[11]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[7]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

NB: Nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U2

[edit]

Prior Peer Review

Since the last FA nomination in May 2007, the article has improved and matured quite a bit -- the writing in the lead is better, there are more references than ever (over 150), and the History section has been mostly rewritten and cut down to a reasonable length given the band's active 30-year history. The "Campaigning and Activism" section may still need some improvement, but other than that it's well-written and comprehensive. Here's to hoping it's ready for a successful FA nomination after this peer review! Wikipedia brown (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Melua

[edit]

During a recent FA nomination it was suggested that a peer review was required to check spelling and grammar errors and also to improve some of the prose. Hera1187 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some other faulty prose (mouse-over the underlined words to see my suggestions):

After completing her GCSE's in Surrey, Melua attended the BRIT School for the Performing Arts in the London Borough of Croydon, undertaking a BTEC with an A-level in music at which point, she began song writing.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3243501.stm New Music: Katie Melua] [[BBC News]] [[10 November]] [[2003]]</ref> It was whilst at the school that Melua was spotted by producer Mike Batt.

As a result of being spotted at a young age, Melua didn't attend University though she has often stated her desire to do so, citing English literature, history and physics as her courses of choice should she ever get the chance to go.<ref>[http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/melua%20takes%20time%20out%20to%20study_1013428 MELUA TAKES TIME OUT TO STUDY]contactmusic.com</ref><ref>[http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/jacek_d/sundayexp2.jpg The Sunday Express]</ref>

Initially it was difficult for Melua and Batt to get air play for the albums lead single, "The Closest Thing to Crazy", but this changed when BBC Radio 2 producer Paul Walters heard the single and put it to be played on the popular Terry Wogan breakfast show.<ref>[http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1841267,00.html Talk the talk] ''[[The Guardian]]''</ref> Wogan played "The Closest Thing to Crazy" frequently in Novmber and December 2003 in an attempt to make it that year's Christmas number one. The attempt was not successful and the single only reached #10, however Wogans support did raise Melua's profile and when the album was released it became an immediate hit reaching number-one on the UK album chart in January 2004 and the top twenty of the Australian album charts in June 2004. "Call off the Search" reached the top five in Ireland, top twenty in Norway, top thirty in a composite European chart and top fifty in Australia. In the UK, the album sold 1.2 million copies making it four times platinum, and spent six weeks at the top of the charts. It sold 3 million copies worldwide. Subsequent singles did not reach the success of the first. The second single and title track went Top 20, and the third single, "Crawling Up A Hill", only got to #41.<ref>[http://www.purevolume.com/katiemelua Melua Profile] purevolume</ref>

Bianca Ryan

[edit]

Even having been through the WP:FA process three times, I'd very much like some extra eyes on this article before deciding whether to test its FA-worthiness. Thanks in advance to all who offer their thoughts. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decent article, although it seems a little early in her career to build a conclusive story.
  • I'd like to see the introduction say a little more about her biography, brief as it is, rather than dwelling on critical praise.
  • Too many red links. Many of them may not be needed; at least those that are not notable.
  • Reference before the punctuation: "[5],"
  • I don't think the "Footnotes" sub-section tag is really necessary in the "References" section. It's considered bad form to only have one sub-section within a section.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I, too think it may be early, but it's quite comprehensive for a new artist. May I make some comments?
  • From the times I've been through WP:FAC, leads are supposed to briefly describe who the person is and why they're notable; I thought this one nailed it—and still do. ;)
I've often seen FAC comments about the introduction being too brief, so I thought I'd mention it.
The length of the article is the determining factor per WP:LEAD; it will need more there as it grows, certainly. Thanks. :)
  • I tried to link only to the most likely near-future articles; I'll look it over again. :) (Edit: I believe each is sufficiently notable for its own article in the near future; feel free to point out any with which you disagree, with my thanks.)
My experience has been that too many red links generate issues in the FAC. I'd recommend either setting up suitable stubs, or just removing the link.
That's a good suggestion, thank you.
Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags
Okay, following commas and closing parentheses is where I'm not on the same page. ;)
  • I always wondered about that, but it looked worse without, to me, because they are footnotes. I'll check similar articles, thanks.
I've been slammed for that in a FAC, so I thought I'd make mention. But, otherwise, I have no idea where that is documented. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already fixed after a review of other featureds. Anyway, great comments, and thanks again. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln assassination

[edit]

I'm hoping to get this article up to FA status, but I'll need to find the time to really edit it heavily. Until then I'd like to hear others opinions on what could be done for the article. --YankeeDoodle14 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer all cite tags. Wiki-newbie 10:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro should be closer to three paragraphs (WP:LEAD). That table you have as the first section might be salvageable, but it certainly shouldn't be the first section and might be better off as a paragraph. Kaisershatner 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at MOS. Particulary for sections and capitalizations.--BaldClarke 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Honeymooners

[edit]

I've done some extensive cleanup, and I think this might be close to a FA candidate. One sore spot I can see is under the legacy section, as some might see it as too listy. I couldn't think of a cleaner way to arrange that information, so if anyone else has suggestions I'm all ears. Other than that I'm looking for general feedback as to the worthiness of this article. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few more reliable references are probably in order (in particular, are there any for the paragraphs about the show's theme music and tributes to Gleason in New York City? Those are delightful!), though the factual accuracy and prose are very, very good. I tweaked the grammar just a little and converted a few links, but it looks quite nice overall. BotleySmith 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was hoping to find some free use images of the Kramden statue in New York, but all the ones I've found are licensed to some degree. I know if I add one of them it will get removed. I will try to dig up some refs for the music and tributes. Thanks for the kind words. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact of immigration to Canada

[edit]

Looking for feedback on content, but also grammar and writing style, in order to qualify the article for Good Article status. Any suggestions are appreciated. Deet 19:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 13:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article is too focused on recent immigration patterns. Canada has had a long history of immigration. The article should discuss historical immigration waves, eg. impact of Irish potato famine, 1880s opening of the west, United Empire Loyalists, etc. Suttungr 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. In my mind, historical material should instead generally be in the History of immigration to Canada article, and if important enough, into the summarized history section of the main Immigration to Canada article. The Economic Council of Canada comments in the peer reviewed article, which are very specific to an important economic point, do refer to the economic impact of immigration going back to the 19th century. Deet 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure you can properly understand the economic impact of current immigration without a historical perspective. Besides which, the title of the article doesn't imply that it is going to be focused solely on the present day. MLilburne 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I'll look again for historical information. I just don't think there is much historical material out there specific to the topic of the article, and I obviously don't want to get into original research. I guess I can make some generalizations about how immigrants helped to support and form various parts of the economy (Chinese building the railway, etc). Part of the problem is that the government itself does not really provide any studies regarding economic impacts (either current or historical), but instead mainly just keeps coming back to the low birth rate issue. There is a lot of rhetoric regarding immigration (from all perspectives) and I'm instead trying avoid repeating that and focusing more on statistics and studies. That's a challenge with respect to the historical information (beyond the already included Economic Council of Canada and University of Montreal studies). Thanks. Deet 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've made some changes and added some historical context. Deet 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandarban District

[edit]

Please, check out the Bandarban District article and make suggestions. It would be even more helpful if someone lent a hand at making it better. - Aditya Kabir 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey people, how do I get others to review this article? No takers? PLEASE!!! - Aditya Kabir 11:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw and Crompton

[edit]

This article (which deals with a town in England), has been developing for some time now, and is possibly at it's endgame in terms of contributions by the local editing community.

I (as a significant contributor) would like this article to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status, and feel a peer review would be the most appropriate step for assistance with this. Therefore, constructive comments (personal and automated) that help in this respect would be highly appreciated. Jhamez84 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 2006

[edit]

Now in December 2006, I am re-entering the article for a peer review (automated and manual) in an effort to further the article.

I believe the previous suggestions have been met and thus hope to receive new recommendations for moving this article towards WP:GA. I believe the format of the article is fine, it is any objectionable statements or other such entries which could be brought inline with the more obscure policies of Wikipedia as soon as possible, which I am looking for. Thanks, Jhamez84 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Instructional Television Experiment

[edit]

I started working on this article just 2 days ago. I've expanded the article and it now covers all aspects of the experiment. I have more material in the form of a UN report and a study conducted by the Planning Commission. So I can add more information if required. Till now I haven't had time to look at the prose. Any comment is welcome. I intend to make this an FA. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start. I don't know anything about the topic, but nothing jumps out to me as being left out. Unless there really isn't much more information available that is important, I think it would have to be expanded to make being a FA possible. But certainly don't fluff it up with unimportant things just to expand it. Other than expanding it in general I can't think of anything really important to offer. You'll have to re-write the lead after expanding anyway, so do that last probably to make sure you properly summarize the article. Maybe a bit more on ending the experiment. If it's just as simple as the experiment was set for a year and then it was over, make that more clear, but perhaps also add a tiny bit to what other demands were on the sattelite. It says the signal was for two dialects were broadcasted, but later says four languages were involved, can you clarify that? Did it broadcast different dialects for each language and how did the viewer choose, etc. - Taxman Talk 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt review. I have lots and lots of information about the entire experiment but just don't know how much to put in the article. I'll put some more info as I go through the UN report on the experiment. I'll also look into the languages issue. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the trick really, deciding what all is important out of the information you have, but without looking at the sources I couldn't really tell I guess. You've laid it out fairly well it seems, so maybe just expand everything with a little more detail unless something jumps out as being important to cover. The topic probably doesn't require 80kb of text, this is one I think would be perfectly fine as a FA with 20 or 30kb. - Taxman Talk 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss why the project was stopped, and what sort of programming was available. Some specific examples would help. Needs a copyedit too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riesling

[edit]

This article had a lot of work done to get it to GA quality but has since grown stall in progress. I'd like to get some fresh eyes to take a look at it and pin point some areas that need to be worked on to get it up to FA consideration. Probably my biggest area of concern is the quality of the prose. I appreciate your time. Agne 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, an article on one of my favorite wines. It's a good so far, but I think it needs a little more work. Here's a few comments.
  • The introduction covers some topics that aren't mentioned in the main text, so in that sense it isn't really an introduction.
  • While reading it I was hoping for a "History" section, but I was reluctant to mention it since the history is already integrated into the "Production regions" sections. Still, the introduction includes information that could be considered a history. So it might be something to consider.
  • "Other regions" should be under the "Production regions" section, rather than being a separate, level 2 section heading.
  • "[7] ," needs to have the reference immediately after the comma.
  • I thing the text beginning with "Three common characteristics..." should begin a separate paragraph since it starts a new topic.
  • Typo: "stablize"
  • In the sentence "In the Late 19th century..." is it appropriate to capitalize the word "Late"?
  • "...Alsatian rieslings can be chaptalized." It might be helpful to include a brief explanation of the word chaptalized in the sentence, rather than requiring the reader to drill down to find out what it means.
  • "...named Johannisberg Riesling to qualify them as..." missing a comma after Riesling.
  • The "North America" section needs more references, especially where opinions are expressed.
  • "...dessert wines-most successfully..." should use a &mdash; instead of a hyphen. Otherwise the reader is left wondering what is meant by a "wines-most". That sentence seems a little awkward anyway, so a re-write might be good.
  • The discussion in the "Other regions" section is decidedly sparse, when compared to the other regions, for example.
  • The "Production" section needs more references.
I hope these were somewhat useful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! I appreciate it. Agne 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Tarsier Foundation

[edit]

Please provide additional guidance on what else needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing, etc?--Guest818 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references go right after a full stop with no spaces. M3tal H3ad 05:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My immediate (and unfortunately very short for now) suggestion is to recast most of the bullet points into coherent prose. Much of the current article looks like a list or a pamphlet rather than a continuous article. As a reader, it's much easier to read a flowing narrative than to keep getting to new bullets and numbered lists. Good luck!--Will.i.am 09:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Hitmen

[edit]

The first of two articles that I am working to get to Good Article status or better, I am primarally looking for comments on the prose of the team history sections, as that tends to be my weakest spot when editing articles. All suggestions are, of course, welcome. Thanks! Resolute 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the awards won out of the lead
  • In spite of this, a group of eighteen investors, Perhaps just put eighteen investors or take out 'a group of'.
  • A source for the local media finding the voorhees logo violent
  • The logo in the infobox doesn't have a caption.
  • Images don't have fair use rationale, check Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale
  • Years alone should not be wikilinked
Goodluck with GA M3tal H3ad 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awards removed altogether, decided it was redundant. Reworded the investors part. Removed wikilinks on individual years. Years like "1998-99" are linked to the appropriate season page.
Four of the six images are user created and either licenced under GFDL or had copyright revoked, so I presume your comment on the images is specific to the logos. The main logo is shown to display the team at hand, while the other two are displayed to show the results of the controversy. I will try to reword the rationale on the image pages. Not sure I can caption the main logo as that is a limitation of the template. I'll have to think on that one.
The Calgary Sun article I linked (reprinted at brethart.com) mentioned that some media types were against the logo. Is this a case of my citation being poorly placed, or are you looking for an article from a specific journalist denouncing the logo?
Thank you for your comments. Resolute 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Virginia

[edit]

Requesting a peer review of this page in preparation for FA review. Jazznutuva 12:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not enough references. Some references need converting from plain links to using the <ref> referencing system.
  • The article doesn't seem to explain why the The Great Rotunda Fire occurred in the first place.
  • Graduate placement and Endowment sections are too short. Might consider merging these into other sections?
  • The Gutzon Borglum sculpture image at the bottom looks out of place.
  • Julian Bond imagine in the Faculty section needs a better caption.
  • Are there any student groups/organizations?
  • Are there any references to this university in fiction and pop culture?

— Wackymacs 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Minnesota

[edit]

I believe this article is in very good condition, but should get some review before heading over to WP:FAC. User:Gopher backer has been the main force in getting this article created and written. All responses will be attended to quickly. Your input is much appreciated! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also Non-weather person input is especially appreciated as the article should be readable by anyone. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Lithuania

[edit]

I would like to send this to FA eventually, but as always, I need a grammar check (spelling is done) and making sure everything is alright before going to WP:FAC yet again User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Blacks

[edit]

This article was just passed as Good Article standard. The reviewer said that it should be sent to FAC immediately. However I want some comments on it first. I think that the history section, lead section and referencing are good, but I'm concerned about the current/recent fixtures list, which I'm unsure about and the notable players section which I don't like. Comments regarding anything would be greatly appreciated, esp if it will help getting it to FA standard. - Shudda talk 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the up coming and recent fixtures is rather poor - not required if you ask me - classic systematic bias. The squad should be changed as well. Use {{rugby squad}}. One last thing, clean up in the see also section. Will be happy to help with this Shudda.--HamedogTalk|@ 03:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the upcoming fixtures list, may delete it. I think the squad is good enough? Why change it? It has all the current squad, maybe add the assistant coaches to it but thats about it. What about the notable players should that be delisted? If so how should it be done? - Shudda talk 04:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than a list of "notable players", maybe we should have a list of all former ABs. Then we can link to that via {{main article}}. I will fix the current squad - that one is the Tri Nations.--HamedogTalk|@ 04:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list of "notable players" is always going to be subjective and maybe has no place in a FA. However I think it would be worth maintaining a mention of the inductees of the International Rugby Hall of Fame GringoInChile 10:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's great that this is now at GA status, good work to everyone who has contributed to it. I have some ideas/suggestions:
    • I believe that the lead is kind of poor. The first sentance jumps into the name and its origins, and they should probabaly be called New Zealand's national team not international team. There is far too much info here about the origins of the name, the second paragraph is great, but the first is a little akward. I think the lead should just give a broad overview of everything in the article, but yeah, I think it needs a little clean up.
    • The History/jersey sections look fine to me.
    • The Haka section could be slightly expanded, maybe it could try and comment on the culture/popularity surrounding it...(could be hard to find sources for stuff like this, but worth a try)
    • The Record section is probably my biggest concern at the moment, all sections need to be expanded imo. Tri Nations needs more detail on their wins, and an explaination of the table would be nice. Also, I don't think Rugby Union Tri Nations is main worthy, as it's not a sub-article of the All Blacks (All Blacks in the Tri Nations would be). In Rugby World Cup, we can probably ditch Rugby from the title (as it is obvious/redundant), here, we need to get rid of the list (and replace them with one/two sentances on each appearance), and massively expand. There are heaps of sources out there on their supposed lack of titles/under performance. A reference for them being favourites at most WCs is also needed. In Overall, there is probably not a lot more that can be written about, but, maybe talk about their closest rivals, how many nations they have played, and maybe about their history on the IRB rankings. Also, though some maybe already linked previously, all the nations in the table should be wikifiied. Also, I'm not sure about external links/messages in the text (For the latest official statistics see:).
    • Upcoming fixtures/Recent results needs to go, its not needed and is probably not approprriate. It's ok to have, but not for an article striving for FA status.
    • 2006 All Blacks should just be changed to Current squad imo, and, it definantly should not be in a template like that, as when a reader gets there, it is hidden due to other templates at the botttom.
    • On Some notable All Blacks, firstly, the title needs to be changed, there is no need to mention All Blacks in the title, and Some is akward. I like the idea of making a seperate article for this, and changing the section into some text. It would take some effort, but would be worth it imo. It could talk about early notable players, those with iconic status, record holders, famous World Cup players/records, when the Hall of Fame was introduced, and what ABs are in it...etc. (See also Rugby World Cup#Records_and_statistics, the same idea was used here to delist the RWC article).
    • And yeah, See also needs a clean up, links to the World Cup and Tri Nations need to be taken out, and maybe every link could get a line or two of text explaining what it is/relation to the ABs. The External links also need little explainations. Cheers. Cvene64 10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Cvene, I agree with most of your comments but do have a few questions.
  • Is it notable to mention anything more then a sentence or two on their IRB rankings history? They have been No 1 most of the time and the rankings are relatively young?
  • Rivalries? I have a bit of a prob writing on this as it's so subjective to talk about their greatest rivalries etc. I suppose much of it speaks for itself in the history section (for examples the 56 and 96 Springbok series). I don't want to go and repeat things that have been mentioned in the history section as it'd be a little redundant.
  • Current squad? Shouldn't the squad be named for the series/tour it's from? It would not even be current anymore as the squad's definitely going to change for the June series. Just something to think about i suppose.
Anyway no questions regarding the rest, some really good suggestions. Thanks. - Shudda talk 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A sentance or two on the IRB rankings is probably enough. I guess rivalries does not matter that much if it is already covered. I'm not sure what you mean in relation to the current squad?? In any case, it just can't be a template, as no-one can see it.
    • Also, for the Haka section, current events need to toned down (eg. half the thing is currently about the Welsh game). There are some great articles right now where some of the ABs talked about spiritual preparation and so on...[12] this needs to be in there imo.
    • One more thing I forgot...there needs to be a section on stadiums. Talk about their first venue (Athletic Park?), regular venues, Eden Park and RWC 87, Stadium New Zealand and RWC2011 etc etc. Cheers. Cvene64 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you please give me another reason why we can't have he upcoming fixtures on the AB's page. If you look at most other national rugby teams and a lot of other sports teams wikipedia pages they include this. It is a very useful addition to the page. Kr123 talk

Is there really no fair use picture of the Haka being performed? The policy is Fair Use should only be used when "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." I'm sure someone could get/create a freely licenced picture of the Haka. Alexj2002 21:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo

[edit]

This page is doing well, I think, and I'd like to have some opinion on what could be done to make it a good nominee for featured article status. It's been through quite a bit of fairly well-mannered discussion and is in decent shape right now. If you can give any constructive criticism or help I would appreciate it. Resonanteye 23:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive article. For improvement, it might help to work on linking the various references in the text to actual links which seem to be included in the sections at the end. (ie. use the <ref></ref> tool.)--JAXHERE | Talk 14:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I ran that, and it seems to be fine according to the machine. I'm more concerned with anything human eyes can find, now. Resonanteye 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are my thoughts:
    • I don't know that we need a big explanation of how old the tattoo is and how long it took in the caption for the picture at the beginning of the article. I may be wrong. Same goes for the 'office manager'.
    • 'Terms' could be renamed to 'etymology'? When doing so, it might be appropriate to link to 'tattoo's' Wiktionary page.
    • 'History' seems too short to me. It should be a fairly central part of the article.
    • "Tattooing was legalized in New York City, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma between 2002 and 2006." - this confuses me.
    • 'Negative associations' should truly be 'Social attitudes', and thus to give equal weight, a 'Positive associations' section should also be included. It's a good idea to argue both sides.
    • 'Abrahamic religious prohibitions' is a) too short for something coming under its own heading, therefore unbalancing the article, and b) has a confusing title. Try 'Prohibition in Abrahamic religions' or something a little easier to swallow.
    • 'Tattoo Inks' - 'Inks' shouldn't be capitalised.
    • "Temporary tattoos are not really tattoos." - this sounds a little hostile. Try "following a traditional definition, temporary tattoos do not categorise as true tattoos"... or something.
    • It might be worth expanding 'Forensics'.
    • I can see you've used a lot of books for this, but there are only two inline citations in the entire article. You need to reference more, even if it's just referring to a book by saying "Smith, 198" or something similar. I'm not entirely sure of how to do this, so see WP:CITE for more information.
    • The other issue here is that it is heavily US-centric. A very good article will represent a worldwide view.

I hope some of this helps. Seegoon 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, I agree about the first caption.

I also agree about the sources..the problem I'm having is that, not being the original author of many sections, I am finding it very difficult to figure out which source is referenced where, exactly. But I have many of the cited books and magazines in my library at home, and I've been trying to sort through them (the two inline sources are in the sections I wrote.)

I'll change the wording in the legalization sentence. it is rather confusing.

The "negative associations" was originally there, but I agree that it is somewhat POV. I will try to get some consensus on the talk page to do a major overhaul there. the caption on the second photograph relates to statements made in that section about "respectable professions", so I think that caption mentioning the wearer's occupation is appropriate.

thank you so much for the help!

Resonanteye 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the new references you've found need to be updated from external links into inline citations using <ref> and </ref> tags. Other than that, it looks like the article is progressing nicely. In the future it'd be great to see it reach FA status, as one day it undoubtedly should. BE THAT MAN! Seegoon 01:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How about I be that chick? I don't think my insurance will cover that kind of surgery. I'm working on the ref tags today. Resonanteye 22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian arowana

[edit]

I have put a lot of work into this article, with the hope that it might one day reach FA. I would like other eyes to review it for completeness, organization, and style, and would also welcome (more accurately, "jump for joy at") contributions of content. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

balloonman

[edit]
  • what does 'piscivorous' mean, should be included in the article.
  • Ditto "osteoglossids." I'm of the camp that when introducing complex terms/ideas, even if a link is available, the reader should be able to know what is talked about by a brief explaination.
  • "all Asian arowanas were placed in this species" = S. formosus?
  • One thing I've been seeing is a dislike for bullets... but I'm not sure if there is a better way
  • Needs more wikilinks...
  • I'm not a big fan of long sentences such as, "Inclusion in the IUCN Red List as endangered was originally based not on biological reasons, as they are widely distributed throughout southeast Asia, but for practical ones, because it has been collected heavily by aquarium collectors; nevertheless, habitat loss is likely a greater threat than aquarium collecting."
  • I believe the wiki standard is to list one currency only---not two.

Overall this is a very good article, but very scientifically based, which may cause some readers to lose interest, particularly in the section where you are describing them. It is probably ready to be nominated for GA. Which is where I'd go next... then come back to Wikipedia:Academic peer reviewBalloonman 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil916

[edit]
  • Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style (Lead Section), the lead section "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". It should summarize information contained in the article. Presently it contains information that is not repeated elsewhere.
  • Comprehensiveness issues: The article needs significant expansion in the following areas:
    • Habitat. Where does it live? Describe the water chemistry? What part of the world? Include a range map.
    • Food. What does it eat? What types of fish? Do adults only eat fish, or are they more opportunistic and eat other fish and insects? How about juveniles? Do they strictly eat insects, or is it more in the category of "anything that fits in its mouth", such as crustaceans and worms?
    • Taxonomy. Evolutionary history would be a bonus, but the article is unclear whether it's about one species or several. Expand on the dispute on classification. If scientific consensus is that it is four distinct species (not "strains" as mentioned in the article), then the article may be best split into species articles and the term "asian arowana" turned into a disambiguation page.
    • Conservation. The article mentions that the Asian arowanas are listed as endangered. Are all four proposed species endangered? What is the historical and current population estimates of each species? What steps have the various national governments taken in order to prevent overexploitation of the species? If none, then specify.
    • Reproduction is too focused on breeding on captivity. In the wild, how often do the fish spawn, how many offspring are produced, how long does it take the offspring to reach maturity, and what is the average survival rate?
  • Copyediting issues:
    • The "strains" section of the description is confusing and listy. This should be scrapped and rewritten.
    • "Appearance" is way too jargon-filled. People without scientific knowledge should be able to read the prose and understand what the fish looks like without having to look up words like "elongate", "oblique", "gill rakers", "vomer", "palatines", "pterygoids", "parasphenoid", "cycloid", etc., or provide a diagram with general anatomical features for the reader to refer to.
  • Use the cite templates for references (i.e. {{Cite journal}}, {{cite web}}), information contained in the references list is very inadequate.

Hope that helps for starters. In its current form, I think the article falls short of the Good Article criteria (especially comprehensiveness), even though I notice that NoahElhardt passed it on 1 December, 2006. It definitely needs a lot of work to meet the featured article criteria. Neil916 (Talk) 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slayer

[edit]

Going for FAC really soon. I would like some last minute comments to fix any problems that would stop it from getting FA status, thx. M3tal H3ad 03:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any dates, unless the bot picks up things like In November, 1984. M3tal H3ad 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty good, but take care to give it a thorough copyedit (I spotted a couple of missing apostrophes on a skim through). There are also occasionally a run of short sentences, which breaks the flow. Also, is there nothing that can be mentioned about their influences, and the influence they had on other bands? The lead seems a bit superlative, as it is not explained later how they led a movement or defined a genre; it needs references. Trebor 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I just read every paragraph, made edits to fix the whole flow thing and i think it's better now. Never thought about that for influences, though I'll see what i can do. Good job spotting that out. M3tal H3ad 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the lead, removed the 'define genre', changed influential to in the 80's and added information that Reign in blood was ranked #1 a lot and a few influences under the section. Cheers M3tal H3ad 13:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, nice work. Trebor 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Mariners FC

[edit]

Hey all :) Myself and a couple of other editors have worked really hard referencing and making this article as rigid as possible to WPF's MOS for clubs. I would greatly appreciate some comments on the prose quality - the article was just promoted to GA status, and I really think it could go all the way. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks good, but it is wordy and the sheer number of references is a little off-putting. I suggest reducing the sprinkling of footnotes throughout the text (eg, only one reference is needed for the "F3 Derby" jargon) and place the most important of the remaining references into a Further Reading section. Since an archive of media articles is available from the club's official site, it need not be comprehensively listed here.
    • Further, I would move the History section down, after Supporters, and make 2006-07 Season a subheading of History. I know this is contrary to the style template for football clubs, but there are good reasons: History is the single largest section, and casual readers are more likely to want trivial information (stadium, colours and badge, supporters). Having a big heavy-reading section at the top of the article can also be off-putting. Finally, I may be wrong about this, but shouldn't footnote reference numbers come before punctuation and not after? Darcyj 12:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty good, but some recommendations, based on a preliminary read:
    • I see no good reason why History shouldn't stay at the top, and I don't see necessarily that casual readers won't be interested in the History too.
    • Some spellchecking/punctuation checking required - e.g. "the clubs financial worries were eased"
    • If anything the article is too referenced. Some claims, e.g. "the major motorway which joins the two clubs.[8][9]" and "domestic competition, the Hyundai A-League.[16][17]" - these don't need two references, one will do. If it is possible to reuse the same citation twice, then do so, as this would also trim down the (enormous) references section.
    • Remove the current League table - WP:NOT a news service.
    • Be consistent in subheadings in the History section - either have subsections for the club's formation and 2005-06 season or ditch subheadings entirely.
    • Current season paragraph needs as of dates.
    • Ditch the image of the current squad table - it is not necessary and to use an image to contain textual information makes the page less accessible to the visually-impaired. Also split the text squad table with {{fs mid}}.
    • Notable players and manager(s) list should be tables rather than bulleted lists. Qwghlm 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Qwghlm's comments, especially removal of the current league table. Would it be appropriate to have an image of the badge in the "Colours and badge" as well as the infobox? Punkmorten 15:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, thanks everyone for your comments. I'll go through you're points one-by-one here, to make things easier:
  • Regarding History section, I'm going to leave it where it is; however, if this ever does make it to FAC, I'll raise the point again.
  • I've removed the league table, and merged the information into one section. I changed the game wins count to be "as of", as suggested.
  • Copyediting is an ongoing thing - I'm going to read over it tomorrow closely and adjust where needed.
  • When I do this, it'll also be a chance to cut out any unneeded references. However, I suspect I'll still end up with 50+. WP:FN details where footnote annotations are placed - I've had a bot run through it, and everything seems to be good.
  • Squad section has lost image and gained {{fs mid}}.
  • With the notable players and managers, I'll get the stats on them, so I end up with something like Arsenal F.C. does.

Shuffle!

[edit]

I somewhat doubt that I can improve the article to Featured status, but I figured I should take it through a round of PR and see what everyone thinks is missing.--SeizureDog 08:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reception could do with some expansion. LuciferMorgan 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parâkramabâhu I

[edit]

Greetings all. I totally rewrote this article over the course of about three months and now think its ready for the world! Nominated it for FA but have been told it could benefit from a peer review too. This is my first article on this scale so please be gentle, but any constructive criticism and/or help would be appreciated! Thanks. DocSubster 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References go after fullstops. ex 'edicts and monuments still extant in Sri Lanka today.[3] M3tal H3ad 12:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done!DocSubster 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

[edit]

You've done an impressive amount of work in a very short time, and have an excellent start.

  • 7 Death & legacy Pls see WP:MOS, no special characters in section heading. Done
  • 8 References, 9 See Also, 10 External links Pls see WP:LAYOUT for suggested order of appendices. Done
  • Please expand external links to include descriptive titles rather than [number] Done
  • One of the See also is not capitalized. Can any of those be worked into the text? Anything that is already linked in the text need not be included in See also. Done
  • The placement of the infobox at the end of References is strange - see WP:LAYOUT Done
  • The prose may need a complete run-through by a fresh set of eyes - here is the first thing I glanced upon:
    • At any rate the brutal suppression of the rebellion appears to have worked; apart from another, brief, rebellion in 1160, Ruhuna remained quiet for the rest of his reign.  Done
      • The "at any rate" is redundant, appears to have worked sounds weasly, and the sentence is uncited. Another example - is this a typo? Parakramabahu also continued his programem of hydraulic works begun in Dhakkinadesa, ... Section heading "Construction work", work is redundant. Done
  • Specifying sources as the first part of the article is strange. Information about sources should be in the footnotes - that's a strange way to start the article. Done
  • "It is important however not to dismiss the Culavamsa wholesale – ..." According to whom? This sounds like opinion, and we shouldn't tell encyclopedia readers what to think - we just report on what reliable sources say. Done
  • Please expand all blue links in References to bibliographic entries. Entries also need publishers, publication dates, and ISBNs where possible.
  • Mixed reference styles are used - most use cite.php ref tags, yet the direct quotes use inline references.
  • The image and quote placement in War with Bagan, 1164 - 1165 creates a large white space - the article also seems to rely heavily on quotes. See WP:QUOTE
  • A lot of the article is sourced to Culavamsa - can you broaden your sources?
  • Have a look at WP:LEAD - the lead should be a two to four paragraph summary of the article.

I haven't had a close look at the prose or read the entire article, as I'd like to see the structural things addressed first. Sandy (Talk) 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copy+paste the document into MS Word or use any other spell-checking device (I believe Firefox 2.0 has one, the Google Toolbar also offers one). The PR script (click on the link above) caught 14 spelling errors, which is a lot considering the limited scope it has (rather unfortunately, it is the most I have ever seen too).  Done
  • Suggest a heavy copy-editing; the first sentence in the lead thoroughly baffles me. Parakramabahu I, born c. 1123 in Dhakkinadesa; reigned 1153 – 1186; died in Pulatthinagara; also known as Maha Parakramabahu (lit. Parakramabahu the Great); a medieval king of Sri Lanka who ruled from Polonnaruwa. Problems: over-bolded (birth/deathplaces shouldn't be bolded), doesn't meet WP:MOSDATE guidelines (the birth/death years belong in parentheses), and isn't even a sentence (it’s a combination of fragments listed together without an "and"). Plus, wiki-link Sri Lanka for those who have never heard of it before (though I can't understand why they would be looking at this article anyway then…). Done
  • The second sentence is simply asking for a citation – usage of WP:PEACOCK and weasel terms. Done(the intro does not need citations)
  • Parakramabahu unified the whole of the island under his authority somehow seems to be largely redundant to me (the whole of, under his authority). Done
  • Randomly picked paragraph, mouse over to see my suggestions: The politics of Lanka played an inevitably significant role in Parakramabahu's upbringing, commencing with the controversial marriage of his eldest sister, Mitta, to Sri Vallabha's son Manabharana of Ruhuna. Queen Ratnavali disapproved of the marriage, which was 'forced' by Sri Vallabha for fear that Mitta would secretly be dispatched to Polonnaruwa to marry Vikramabahu's heir Gajabahu.[11] Ratnavali thus has complex loyalties amidst this maelstrom of rivalries; though the wife of a king of the Arya branch she desired her daughters be married to the Kalinga heir to the throne. It was also during this time that Parakramabahu would have met his future mahesi Lilavati, who would rule Lanka in her own right after he died - she was Sri Vallabha's daughter. AZ [[User talk:]] 22:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Changes

[edit]

First up, thanks to Sandy and AndyZ|t for taking such an in-depth look at the work - I really appreciate the time you've taken and am learning as I go. I have made the following changes as per your suggestions:

  • Rewrote the introductory para, changed 1st sentence, removed peacock phrases.
  • Attempted to remove all peacock phrases and weasle words from the article.
  • Attempted to make the text clearer and more comprehensible.
  • Re-organised article as per Wikipedia guidelines.
  • Included extended bibliography, with ISBN where applicable (many of the texts used are quite old however and do not appear to have ISBNs -?)
  • Changed External Links section to incorporate descriptive text into link, and added links to online versions of some of the sources used.
  • Removed discussion of sources from article altogether (placed it in 'Culavamsa' article).
  • Edited spelling mistake -very embarassing but I've always had problems with the 'i' and 'e' thing, and I went to school in the UK my entire life...oh dear.
  • Placed pictures such that they do not create a large blank space (except the first one, which is caused by the contents menu)DocSubster 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DocSubster 11:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Known issues

[edit]
  • Unfortunately the articles is going to have to be Culavamsa-heavy as it is pretty much the only primary source for Parakramabahu's reign, apart from rock inscriptions.
  • I have no idea how to start categories. Ideally I'd like to start a proper 'history of Sri Lanka' so if anyone is interested in getting the project going with me please let me know.
  • I'm not sure what 'Mixed reference styles are used - most use cite.php ref tags, yet the direct quotes use inline references' means, could you please elaborate Sandy?DocSubster 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've converted your inline refs to the consistent style (cite.php) used in the rest of the article.
    • I also converted your named refs: whenever you use the same source more than once, using a named ref results in only one line in the footnotes - please see my diffs as to how to do that, and check to see if any of your Culavamsa sources are repeats and could be handled with named refs.
    • I also converted all of your footnotes to a consistent style (last name).
    • I left several inline comments for sources which are listed in footnotes but not in References - Wickramasinghe, Mahavamsa, and I think one other ?
    • Some of your references are missing information - readers need to know how to track down these books. Author, title, publisher, publisher location, publisher date, and ISBN (when available) should be given on all of your references - some info is missing.
    • You've changed your appendix section heading to something that is different than WP:LAYOUT. Can you please put footnotes in Notes, references which are cited in the article in References, books which are not used in the article in Further Reading, and lastly, web sources which are not used in the article in External links? The headings are mixed, References are in something called Bibliography, and some of the entries in Bibliography appear to be Further reading, as they don't seem to be used as sources. You also had links to sources included in External links - those aren't EL, they are sources. Please review all of this per WP:LAYOUT.
      • I changed this myself - pls check.
    • Readers need to know where to locate Culavamsa - it's not listed in your References, only extensively footnoted. If all of the Culavamsa references are actually to Geiger, that needs to be clarified in the Footnotes - they should see Geiger.
    • The article is still almost entirely sourced to Culavamsa, so this needs to be somehow dealt with. Can you diversify more of your footnotes, to reference some of the other publications?
    • I haven't yet looked at the prose and peacock issues.

Sandy (Talk) 16:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once all of the above is addressed, the article should have a thorough check of Wikilinking. The first link I clicked on was incomplete, and a redirect (From Rajaraja I's invasion of 993 till the reign of Vijayabahu I (1055 - 1100), ... ). The first occurrence should be linked, and unimportant terms shouldn't be linked. There is also a typo in the very first line [Parakramabahu I(Sinhala: Maha Parakramabahu, Parakramabahu the Great; 1123 – 1186)] (no space before the parenthesis), suggesting that a thorough copy edit is still needed. Here is another sentence that indicates the need for a thorough copyedit by a fresh set of eyes: Upon being informed of the child's birth, orders are sent from Vikramabahu in Polonnaruwa that the boy be sent to be brought up as his heir. Sandy (Talk) 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's looking a lot better already :). The article still needs more wikilinking (esp. sections like "The conquest of Rajarata", "Youth").
  • Copyediting an article is a difficult process- User:Tony1 has a comprehensive guide to doing such. I'll show some more random examples:
  • (caption) A temple in Polonnaruwa bearing a striking similarity to Khmer architecture. Parakramabahu's subjects were and ethnically and religiously varied populace, as is reflected in the make-up of his army.
  • The only other rebellion of Parakramabahu's reign occurred in the region of modern Mantota in from 1168 - 1169.
  • On this occasion however Lankan help came too late; by the time Parakramabahu's general Lankapura arrived in Pandya Nadu, Kulasekhara had captured the capital Madhurai killed his wife and children; his son Prince Virapandu however had managed to escape. Rather than head for Madhurai Lankapura landed in the vicinity of Ramanathapuram and captured the city of Rameswaran, which was to be in Lankan hands for the next thirty years or so.[5] Here they built a fortress called (confusingly) Parakramapura. In this early phase of the war they fought Kulasekhara on several occasions, eventually laying siege to him in Madhurai and seizing the city. Virapandu was restored to power, but apparently only as a puppet, as the Lankan army under Lankapura remained in Madhurai and continued to engage the Chola across south India.[66]
  • by the absence of Parakramabahu's army, and his most formidable general Rakkha when there are only 2 items in the list, ====Copyedit?====

Thanks guys for all the work you've done on this. It strikes me that a 'fresh pair of eyes' is needed, which excludes me; is anyone willing to give the article a copyedit?DocSubster 13:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Westenra

[edit]

From this peer review I am hoping to get this article up to the level of FA. It is already a GA and I want to know what needs to be improved and added/expanded upon to improve it. Andrew D White (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]

Just some trivia:

  • "for Her Majesty The Queen". You link the term "Her Majesty" but not the queen, Elisabeth, herself!
  • "At the Sydney Opera House she received a rare standing ovation.". I would cite that.
  • "On 5 September 2006, Westenra was named as one of the ten outstanding young people in the world by the Junior Chamber International." Citation for that. Is it maybe in the next phrase?
  • "Westenra is known as a vegetarian/pescotarian, and is currently nominated for PETA's 'Sexiest Vegetarian' for 2007.[33][34][35][36]" Two many notes in a row. This is something personally I donot lke, but this may just be subjective. Check how Sandy combines notes in Tourette syndrome.
  • The two last paragraphs of "Beyond her initial success" I think do not follow the story of the rest of the chapter and they look a bit like trivia put there, because there was nowhere else to be placed. But again I do not know if there could be any better structure in this or in a separate chapter.

Very nice indeed! I think this article is on the track to be FA! And I do not see any serious copyright problems with the pictures. Good chance in FAC!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added the source for the standing ovation and the Junior Chamber International. Good thing I still remembered where I got these pieces of information. I guess I missed putting them in. I'll look at the other stuff that you noted. Andrew D White (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So here is a question. Should I leave it how I now have it linked now (Her Majesty linked to majesty and The Queen to Elisabeth) or just to Elisabeth? I looked at the talk page and discovered why we have so many sources on that one sentence. Its because we wanted to make sure that we showed that she is known as a vegetarian/pescotarian. Without all of the sources it seemed that it could seem under sourced to say known. I agree with you the last two pararaphs do seem a bit out of place but alas I have not been able to come up with better placement for them. Maby someone else has a good idea of how to make them flow. Andrew D White (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Mullein

[edit]

I completed today a complete and thoroughly referenced rewrite of the article. Right now it's a nominee to Good Article status, but I think it has the potential to go up to Featured article status, and would appreciate any comments. Circeus 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a complete peer review, just some remarks:

  • The second year it produces a tall stem - somewhere I read the rosette does not always flower in its second year. Better check, though I may confuse it with another V. species.
    • All my sources give a bolting after wintering. The only reason I can see would be that it's not physiologically (lower there is a comment about rosette size required for flowering) or physically (stem being damaged repeatedly) possible, but the latter only causes the stem to flower later and branches.
  • The second year it produces a tall stem that can reach up to 3 m (10 feet) - Many sources give a lesser height, for example [15] gives 2 m. , same for [16]. In my personal experience heights of about 2m are normal, 2.5m are exceptions, 3m is very rare.
  • When read it I feel a slight North-American bias, probably mainly because of stressing control, ecological factors where introduced, etc come up in "Distribution", "Agricultural impacts and control", "Ecological aspects", "Medical uses". Also, why do you describe its introduction in the uS and not in Australia?
    • I fell completely short of locating any European sources that were not completely focused on the herbal uses, and there was no apparent notes about introduction anywhere else than the U.S. in the material I have used so far. I suspect introduction in Australia is more recent, but I didn't see any dates.
    • I asked User:MPFto help with that. Circeus 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should you add US distribution, pls also include European distribution.
    • I'll see what I can find. Again, sources for Europe seem pretty scarce.
      • Alas [17] does not list Verbascum. That would be a good source. [18] used to have tiny maps, but seems to have abandoned them. den virtuellen flora has a world map. Beware, their maps might tend to underrepresent presences in East Asia, possibly due to lack of data.
  • gardening: any cultivars? Yearly turnover in them?
  • wiki: why link only to senecio in Senecio longilobus?
    • No species page. A genus link seemed a relevant replacement for the time being.
  • wiki: Dioscorides might be linked
  • When I ckick on the reference numbers, the browser doesn't jump down to the references section
    • Do you mean the "notes" section? that's what these numbers link to. Maybe I should restore the references I moved outside of it though. It looks a bit silly in retrospective... Circeus 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
      • I mean, for example, the "Syracuse.[1]" at the end of the first paragraph. The [1] should link to the notes paragraph, but it didnt this afternoon. Now, when I click on the [1], I jump to the notes section. TeunSpaans 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ssp: see [19]. TeunSpaans 22:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • wouldnt it be better to move the section starting with While many insects to ecology? Btw, I like the extensive ecology paragraph. TeunSpaans 07:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to have a look at [20] for lepidoptera species which use V. thapsus as a hostplant, or add it to the already extensive list of references TeunSpaans 08:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own photo:doubt has crept in as to my own identification; I suggest your replace it with another from commons. I'll do a new determination summer 2007, they come up in our garden every second summer ;-)
    • That would be a pretty strong contraindication: V. thapsus seeds usually sprouts after a single winter. It's already been replaced in my work version. Circeus 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It complies with the opening sentence of the article: It is a dicotyledonous biennial plant that produces only a rosette of leaves in the first year. This summer I guess we had one or two rosettes in our garden, I expect flowers summer 2007. TeunSpaans 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, i thought you were referring to sprouting, not bolting. My bad.Circeus 14:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not a native speaker, so it's probably my fault. ;-) There are lots of them growing in the dunes, some 5 km from here. A 4 or 6 years ago I took a couple of seeds from the dunes with me and threw them carelessly in our garden. Every other year we have flowers, the years in between we have rosettes. Of course there will be a year when some seeds decide to skip germination for a year and come up a year later, or some rosette might decide to flower in its third year (less likely, we have fertile earth). But neither seems to have happened yet. I didnt look for rosettes this summer, so I am not sure, but there probably are some in one corner or another. The photos are from summer 2005. TeunSpaans 16:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oil phase-out in Sweden

[edit]

I would like this article polished up so I can be featured, its a very interesting topic that would generate allot of interest. Below are some points to consider when improving.

  • More citations throughout the article. Why did Sweden decide to break their dependence on oil? The decision did not come out of thin air, didn't it? What were the political implications of such a move? What actions did the government take to implement its decision? Those are just a few questions that I see are unanswered in the article.

Thanks FrummerThanThou 13:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to see more on the topic too, but since I started the article I'm biased. Unfortunately there is not much information in English, so it really needs some contributions from native Swedes - I've just posted a request on the Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board. Incidentally, practically all the article is based on the 2 references given, which explains the lack of other citations. Gralo 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For FA status, this would require a significant additions, I would think. It really needs to be more in depth. The four reasons why Sweden is phasing out oil is listed, but what is the reasoning behind each? What is the relationship between Sweden's economy and oil? What, exactly, is Sweden's potential for its own renewable energy resources, etc?

What is public opinion of this move? What political impact did it have (if any)? Are other nations watching what happens in Sweden? You have an excellent start, however. I look forward to seeing what you can do. Resolute 07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methamphetamine

[edit]

Maybe some pictures of meth-smoking? Perhaps some more facts about manufacture and percent usage. Also, a more international perspective in the first 3/4 of the article.

Dio Brando

[edit]

As well as I have tried, I still fill things are holding this article back. It's really a nagging feeling that I have. And it won't go away. - Malomeat 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No offense, but, well the page doesn't stand by itself very well. It seems to requires a pre-existing knowledge of this "JoJo universe". Who, for example, is the "megalomaniacal villain"? What is the Joestar household? Who is Jonathan? (The infobox only says "adoptive brother".) I got a few paragraphs into the page before it lost my interest due to my lack of familiarity with the setting. The intro seems a little on the short side. — RJH (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion of responsibility

[edit]

A low-grade revert war has been going for some time now over the addition of a paragraph on the definition of "responsibility". The addition has been challenged as original research. Only two editors have commented either in the edit summary or on the article's Talk page. Additional participation is needed to break the logjam. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest dispute resolution. This page is for peer review. — RJH (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programmer's Notepad

[edit]

Hey, I just made this article and I was looking for some critique with it being my first article. Also any new info is welcome.

A good start would be not copying directly from other websites as this material is normally copyrighted. If you want to use the information then you need to re-write it in your own words, this is preferable to a long list of bullet-points anyway. Other than that try reading some of the stuff that you can reach through the help link on the top left of every page and maybe try to include a good introductory paragraph (see wp:lead) and some wikilinks in your text. Also have a look at some of the other articles for ideas. If you want a good text editor article to copy then have a look Emacs. JMiall 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Borders

[edit]

I would like this to become a featured article, as this region of the United Kingdom is important in the History of the United Kingdom, and it's a fairly interesting area of geography - well, to me anyway - and it would be good to have a Scottish article on the Main Page. Any advice on making this into a featured article is appreciated. --SunStar Nettalk 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sections i feel could do with expansion as they are quite short.
It is possible some people may not like the lists of settlements and places of interest in the article. The solution would be to move these to seperate articles with a link from the main page. The template to use for that is {{main|blah}} which produces
Main article: blah
.
Also, are there any references for the Geography, History and Transport sections? If so use <ref>[www.blah.com Blah]</ref>. The reference will appear under the references section. It is vital that more than one source is used for the referencing.
I hope this is a good start. Simply south 23:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in Morocco

[edit]

I believe the article has reached a certain maturity. I think it is the right time for it to be peer reviewed. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 13:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed refs to agree with WP:FN, external jumps in text (to external websites) need to be converted to Wikilinks or referenced text; I didn't read the article. Sandy (Talk) 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the lead requires work. It's a little head-first, and uses slightly non-encyclopaedic language with "on the one hand". Of course, it is incredibly hard to strike the right tone in an article like this. A quick skim of the list of human rights articles by country brings up neutrality tags on some of the most vital articles. I don't think any of the articles I've looked at have really excelled in their leads, so that might be the most important area to work on in order to make this article shine. I'm sorry I can't actually help regarding this, but hopefully that elucidates something for you. Seegoon 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silleuksa

[edit]

Hello, Any comment(s) is(are) appreciated as I intend to expand knowledge of Yeoju County's rich historical past into an online form.

Snowfalcon cu 06:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Art[reply]

Zoophilia and health

[edit]

This article is unique on the web, I believe. All comments are gratefully received. Skoppensboer 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • References go after a full stop or comma. Not in the middle of a sentence.
  • You have links in the middle of the text
  • Second sentence of Zoonoses acquired via sexual contact has a bunch of links in the article, they should be changed to references(if it is used as one) or removed. There's also more links like that later in the article.
  • Sources go at the end of the article , not halfway through the article.
  • See Template:cite web on how to format your references
Goodluck M3tal H3ad 08:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! These errors will be fixed. Skopp (Talk) 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Suite Life of Zack & Cody

[edit]

The article looks pretty good to me, but I think it could be a little bit better. I can't quite figure out what could be changed in order to better so I'd like a little help. Any tips you can provide would be greatly apreciated :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Willey

[edit]

Wrote this page after a long summer in the Whites. I would appreciate any thoughts or additions to add. I'm looking for a summit photo; perhaps from the Crawford Notch side. Edison490 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start - as you expand on the article, break it up into sections on history, geography, etc. As it gets larger, you could make the introduction a little more general. As for pictures, I'll try to get up there and snap one. -- Sturgeonman 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

previous PR

Annamayya

[edit]

I've improved the article and hence expect a better rating.S.GaneshKumar 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upgrade to start, but the real place for requesting an assessment is Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. :) This is for getting constructive feedback once you reach a B-Class. Cbrown1023 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiaki Omura

[edit]

This article could use a review to confirm that scientific findings regarding Omura's 'BDORT' technique are presented objectively. If so, the NPOV tag can be removed since this was the reason the tag was added. Other editors may have issues to add here which have been the subject of edit disputes. Antonrojo 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inaccurate characterization of the NPOV tag's placement on the article. The POV tag was placed because the article is the subject of a long-term, heated dispute and was (until just now) under mediation (which was ultimately unsuccessful, so I, the mediator, closed the case). Although this user has declined to take part in the mediation, and therefore does not seem to be part of the dispute, one camp in the dispute has "claimed" this user for their cause. - Che Nuevara 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Che, could you summarize other potential NPOV issues with the article? Most of the mediation discussion I read seemed to be about whether to include citations critical of Omura's procedures and how to interpret the results. Since mediation is closed, a summary from someone who know about past disputes, such as yourself, would be helpful. Antonrojo 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect intended, Antonrojo. I understand you are a serious, well-meaning, and capable editor.
In my esteem, however, the dispute at the Omura article is now far more about lines drawn in the sand than anything else. But from where I see it, the actual issues are:
  1. How notable does a source have to be to speak on a topic which is only borderline notable? How expert does he have to be to talk about something about which little is known? (Shinnick citation)
  2. How can a topic with few or no secondary sources be cited? (Tribunal citation)
  3. Is it appropriate to cite a lack of sources? That is, is the absence of evidence the evidence of absence? (Disclaimers)
  4. Is the article primarily about Omura, or primarily about BDORT? If its focus is Omura, how much of Omura's notability is owed to BDORT?
  5. Is it appropriate to discuss other doctors and their techniques who cite Omura?
In my opinion, a lot of these problems comes from an AfD which was (in my esteem) closed prematurely. In short, while I laud Antonrojo's efforts, this article has many issues. - Che Nuevara 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clear summary. I'm moving it over to the Talk page to use as a basis for discussion. Antonrojo 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Nations

[edit]

I'd like to help bring this article to Featured/Good staus, but I don't know exactly what to do, as I'm fairly new to this part of Wikipedia. I'd like comments on how to improve the article, what should be added, deleted, ect. Thank you, in advance, for your comments. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is a mess. I'll try to give you some ideas, but there's only so much I can do. Firstly, the lead:
The second sentence is pure, unsalvageable original research. Cut it.
Third sentence should be rewritten to something like "The game utilizes concepts borrowed from turn-based strategy games,[citation needed] including territory, attrition, economics." Unless, of course, the statement in need of citation has not been made by the game's developers, in which case you're going to need to be creative.
The fourth sentence is clumsy and overblown. Try "Rise of Nations features eighteen civilizations, playable through [insert number of ages here] ages of world history."
The second paragraph's first sentence should be moved into the first paragraph, and placed directly after the article's opening sentence. Also, rewrite it to something like "The game was lead designed by Brian Reynolds."
The second paragraph's second sentence should be more like "On April 28, 2004, Rise of Nations received an expansion pack, Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots.
The second paragraph's third sentence would be better as "Later in 2004, a Gold edition of Rise of Nations was released, which included both the original, and the expansion."
The second paragraph's fourth sentence should be cut entirely.
Expand the lead to include discussion of the game's critical and commercial reception.
  • If you found that excessive, then I feel the need to warn you that the lead is the best part of the article. The rest is so horrible that I can only offer general help. For example:
Almost the entire article is written in a crufty, game guide-y fashion, in addition to being a review in some places (see Rise of Nations#Multiplayer), with original research everywhere. Also, it is badly written, with a seemingly endless supply of redundancies, ambiguous statements, poor grammar and punctuation, and contractions. These things necessitate a complete rewrite of the article. One thing you should take care of right away is the italicization of every instance of the game's title, or any other games' titles.
Overview, Gameplay and Units should be merged, entirely rewritten and heavily condensed. As previously stated, the article reads like a game guide. For ideas on how to write a better Gameplay section, see Empires: Dawn of the Modern World.
Awards and Reviews should be merged into a prose-based section titled "Reception". Again, see Empires: Dawn of the Modern World for ideas.
Finally, and most importantly, the article has no references. An article for a game of this acclaim could probably manage fifty references before they became excessive. See other computer and video game featured articles for ideas on what to cite.

Raised Fist

[edit]

-- the preceeding unsigned request was added by Immanuel goldstein (talk • contribs).

List of ice hockey teams in Alberta

[edit]

A list I have been working on for some time, and would like to nominate as a featured list. My primary concern is how best to cite the references. I also would like to make sure the layout is easy to read and navigate. Thanks. Resolute 22:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good.... This does need inline citations. For the sources you're using, I would recommend Template:Cite web. You can use the <ref> element to put the citations into a nicely-formatted list of footnotes -- see Wikipedia:Footnotes for details. Good luck! -- Visviva 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've begun adding inline citations, starting with the major pro teams. The difficulty I am having is where best to put them for each team's history. i.e.: After each team name, or in the notes section? Resolute 17:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way you're doing it (in the notes section) seems fine to me; it's the specific historical fact that needs citation, rather than the team name itself. At least that's how I see it. -- Visviva 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Citations pretty much complete, and I added an image. Resolute 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. About not linking headings, is this a requirement? It seems to me that it is important, and relevent, to link to the leagues that each team played in, but I am not sure of any other way of doing so that would not come off as "bulky" and redundant. Resolute 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are different schools of thought on this one. Regular articles don't generally need linked headings, but I'm fairly sure I've seen featured lists with linked headings. Of course, it's possible those were added after featuring. -- Visviva 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Human Rights Incidents in Egypt

[edit]

Mcenroeucsb 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Mcenroeucsb[reply]

Indonesia

[edit]
Previous peer review (May 2006)
Previous peer review (Sept 2006)
Previous peer review (April 2007)
Previous peer review (Dec 2006)

Storm (comics)

[edit]

Hi, welcome to the peer review page of Storm (comics). It is already a GA, and I want to collect some feedback before making this a FAC. In detail, these are the most pressing answers:

  • Is the prose already good enough?
  • This article is about a fictional person. Does it make its fiction clear enough, without getting too long-winded? Does it make its real-life history clear, without getting cluttered?
  • Is the "Historical significance" section okay, or do I need more?
  • Is the referencing ok? The problem is, comics do not really qualify as primary sources, but they are necessary to make her history clear. I tried to put in as much real world references as possible (writers, artists, essays), but still, I would like to ask other people.

Comments and input are appreciated. —Onomatopoeia 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swap the Larroca and Turner pictures, the latter illustrates her as a weather goddess better. Split the Publication History with a Fictional Biography, ala Batman, and have the two compliment each other. Wiki-newbie 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The word "currently" in the second sentence of the lead paragraph should be removed.
  • "Halle Berry plays..." would "portrays" work better here?
  • Change "Main article:" for "African characters in comics" to "See also:", since the main article isn't solely about Storm.
  • Fix citation #50 (comics2film.com) by clicking on "Close Fan Feed" and citing IMDb.com directly.
  • Two instances of "Ever since" can be reduced to "Since".
  • "When she finds out Forge has built it (she accidentally overhears a phone conversation between Forge and Gyrich), she is heartbroken and leaves him." Sentence should be rewritten to exclude parentheses.
  • "the new adjectiveless X-Men (vol. 2) comic" — adjectiveless seems awkward. Any way to rewrite it?
  • "the eponymous Storm #1-#4" Exclude the second # character to be "#1-4".
  • "Other versions" section could be re-titled as it is not immediately clear what the section is about — maybe something like "Alternate universes"?
  • In "Film" and "Other" subsections under "Appearances in other media", does there need to be a bullet for these stand-alone paragraphs?
  • Is Sounds Like a Storm's Comin' a valid external link that expands on the reader's knowledge of Storm and not just linkspam?
Just some general observations, mostly nitpicking. :) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 19:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also advise turning Cockrum's quote into prose. Wiki-newbie 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...started writing many X-Men stories (most prominently the Dark Phoenix Saga), with Storm as an important supporting character..." — "most prominently" seems POV if not explained why, and "important" might work better as "major"
  • "In Uncanny X-Men #102 (December 1976), Claremont established her backstory." — "her" into "Storm's", since it is a new paragraph and should re-identify personal pronouns.
  • "...which Storm's Egyptian ancestor, Ashake, is expert in." → "...in which Storm's Egyptian ancestor, Ashake, is expert."
  • They move to Harlem in uptown New York City, where they have Ororo..." — "have" may be unclear to some; re-word to reflect pregnancy more directly.
  • "Claremont further fleshed out her backstory..." Again, "her" should be "Storm's", as it is another new paragraph.
  • "Although Storm initially is written having trouble adjusting to Western culture, particularly the sort represented by her sometimes-vicious teammate Wolverine..." — What would be an example that Wolverine represented, to clarify to the nonfan?
  • "Claremont further stirred up matters when he wrote an arc in which her soon-to-be romantic interest..." — "stirred up matters" seems casual and not very clear about the actual effect with fans.
  • "most notably that power loss did not lead her to being a lesser fighter" — "Most notably" seems POV without clarification.
  • "In one well-known arc, The X-Tinction Agenda, she is kidnapped to the mutant-exploiting fictional nation of Genosha and is temporarily transformed into a brainwashed mutate, but then regains her memory." Two things: "well-known arc" according to whom? Secondly, the sentence is a run-on sentence ("and" and "but") and should be broken down into two or three.
  • "Lobdell made Forge propose to Storm in 1992, but due to a misunderstanding, Lobdell made Forge rescind his offer before Storm could say yes.[20] Lobdell waited until November 1993 before he made a deeply hurt Storm and Forge make up with each other." The verb "made" is used three times here. Can variation be provided?
  • "Marrow would survive due to her second heart, and would later regret her actions, make up with Storm and join the X-Men." Seems uncited; is there an actual issue where Marrow and Storm fixed it up?
  • "In X-Treme X-Men (July 2001), conceived by a newly-reinstated Chris Claremont, Storm was written the leader of this team of more street-wise X-Men (as opposed to its sister titles, Uncanny X-Men and New X-Men, which featured more straight-laced X-Men)." Can the parentheses be phased out?
  • "In the 2005 Mark Sumerak miniseries Ororo: Before the Storm #1-#4, her backstory with Achmed el-Gibar was retold in more detail." What kind of detail? Is it necessary to mention this if no detail is provided?
  • "Expanding on the relationship that Storm had with Black Panther, Dickey that Storm has..." — Need a word between "Dickey" and "that".
  • "Storm shares noteable similarities with Lt. Uhura..." Notable to whom? Another word would be better... maybe "characteristic"?
  • "In addition, since the same Uncanny X-Men #102 issue, Storm has been portrayed as being violently claustrophobic. Over the decades, writers have often used this as a plot device in order to trap Storm." This is under "Powers and abilities", which seems to be the wrong section for this information.
  • "However, Millar wrote this as a troubled romance, as Beast (written as a character with a deep inferiority complex after a lifetime of ridicule) can not believe anyone could truly love him." Phase out parentheses.
  • "Current writer Robert Kirkman has continued establishing a Storm - Wolverine friendship..." Remove "Current", and re-word to "the friendship between Storm and Wolverine" instead of using the dash.
  • "In this version, Yuriko is written as a fellow thief when Storm is still a teenage thief, and their friendship ends in a motorcycle chase which Ororo halts with a sudden rainstorm; Yuri loses control, has a seemingly fatal collision with a truck and is rebuilt into a cyborg by amoral Dr. Cornelius of the mutant superweapon project Weapon X." The sentence is too long and could be broken down into two or three.
  • "In the alternate universe What If series, written by various writers, Storm has been portrayed as a goddess of Asgard;[44] stays a thief and refused to join the X-Men[45] a potential X-Men recruit targeted by Mr. Sinister, written as the shady leader of the X-Men;[46] the wielder of the Phoenix force, calling herself Stormphoenix and being the ruthless tyrant of earth, freezing every opposition in the atmosphere;[47] marries a fellow X-Man, the feral Wolverine and bears his daugther Kendall Logan, who becomes the hero known as Torrent, having some of her mother's control over weather as well as her father's feral abilities.[48] A relationship between Wolverine and Storm was also shown in the X-Men animated series episode "X-Men: The Animated Series: 'One Man's Worth'" (1995).[49][38]" — First, "daugther" is misspelled. Secondly, this is a run-on. Can this be broken down and especially identified as separate alternate universes? When I first read it, I thought she was all these things in one alternate universe because of the run-on.
  • "In the third movie, Storm takes over as the director of the Xavier Institute, and as the leader of the X-Men after the death of former director Professor Charles Xavier." Don't know if this is a concern, but this could spoil the movie for some...
  • The ride (based on a common teacup ride) 'Storm Force Acceleration'..." — Phase out parentheses again.
Whew, sorry to nitpick even more, but I like the article a lot. Just needs some dabbing here and there. :) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a LOT of time, but I finally did it. —Onomatopoeia 08:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman-Spartan War

[edit]

This article has just failed a GA nom and I want to see what I can do to get it to GA further on FA. Kyriakos 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead reads like a classical tale, meaning there may be a lot of weasel words in the article. Start by removing 'overthrowing the legitimate king', you're not here to decide the proper bloodlines. Wiki-newbie 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that the initial wording "rightful king" was not POV. This characterization is legally and historically correct, based on the constitutional order and regime of Sparta. "Legitimate" becomes a bit POV. Maybe "king" alone would be satisfactory for everybody? I'll offer a detailed review later, but what the article needs more than anything now is a slight copy-editing by an outside English speaker copy-editor.--Yannismarou 08:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They suggested Flaminius if he moved his camp closer to the city gates the Argives would revolt against the Spartans." I think this sentence needs rephrasing. I'm a bit confused with the syntax here. I'm not the most qualified to judge the prose, but, despite some flaws, it seems good. For FAC, I would definitely recommend another slight copy-edit by an external native English speaker copy-editor (as I almost always do!). For GAC ... I do not know any more!
  • Link properly your online sources. Check Template:Cite web and Template:Cite news.
  • More secondary sources would be a + for the article.
  • External photos is a nice idea, but the article still has only one map incorporated in it. Photos are not a prerequisite neither for FAC or GAC, but they do help.
  • When you have more than one citations in a row, they should be in the correct order. For instance not [19][14] but [14][19]. I fixed them in one section.--Yannismarou 20:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I like about this article: It is very well referenced and cited, which seem to be the two most important criteria these days for XAC. I especially love the use of external images. I think this is a highly innovative idea, which I really hope catches on. What I think could be improved..well Yannismarou, brings them up above. WORDING. Since I have a near native command of English, I will gladly help with the rewording:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 3

[edit]

please review entire article. It is probably rather complete, but weighting of different sections may have to be adjusted. Any other comments are welcome. Thank you very much. --gatoatigrado 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What jumps out at me is that there is not information on how the console was received upon release. There have been many reviews in the tech media and whether the reception was positive or negative should be reflected in the article. Also, once the shortages are no longer an issue, there should be a section on how the console has done in sales. Besides that, this is a great article. jaco♫plane 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get some info on it's sales/launch? That is the striking thing that is absent to me. There is mention of the hayday surrounding the release date, but what were target goals sold? Were they met? How many units were manufactured/shipped? etc. --Ted87 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro paragraph is a little short. History paragraph is slightly NPOV, listing only problems. Marketing needs sources. Otherwise the article is well sourced. (Sorry about my fragments, just a quick look over) Userpie 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

[edit]

Can someone please put more information on the European Delay (reasons for the delay, response from the Gaming community, pricing upon release, etc.) Since at the moment this article could be seen to have a slant that is lacking information on the delays, and the cause and effects of the delay. ---User:Geraint 00:55, 22 Decemeber 2006 (GMT)

Note that information on Europe will be changing rapidly in the very near future as the release date approaches. Otherwise, echoing point above - little information available on Europe, or elsewhere for that matter; more launch discussion could be useful for North America and Japan, and the reactions section could do with expanding.Mouse Nightshirt 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put more on the firmware updates and what they might have on them and what sony has to say about it. also what are the euro ps3 hard drives dont have on them that makes them worse on backcompat plez.

Avatar: The Last Airbender

[edit]

Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MADLAX

[edit]

Madlax: First approach

[edit]

I have been advised to specifically ask for original research to be pointed out, construction/copyedit help, and help with finding sources/interviews/studies. Thank you in advance. :) --Koveras ☭ 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this article looks amazing. I'm going to enjoy reviewing this :) Just as a note to kick things off though, the title needs to be decapped (as you have done in the Russian article I see. This standard is set at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." The issue has been discussed previously on such articles as Naruto and Bleach (manga). Anyways, I'll start actually reading the article now.--SeizureDog 20:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the associated pages, replaced the "special treatment" from the main one. Will request admins' assistance with its renaming as soon as I'm done copyediting. EDITED: Edited and renamed the rest, including this page. A request to rename categories has been made. - Kov
The cats have been renamed, too. --Koveras ☭ 13:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with the abnormal use of italics for words such as Gazth-Sonika, Nafrece, Margaret Burton, Enfant, and girls-with-guns? They don't need them.
    • Agreed and done. - Kov
  • Comparitively, I'm not sure about the heavy use of bolding terms elsewhere in the article. It seems to work alright though.
    • Bolding is only applied to the central terms of a particular section. - Kov
  • Should remove comments concerning fansubs such as "In the early fansubs, the organization title was spelled "Anfan" or "Enfan" " Fansubs are technically copywrite violations and Wikipedia isn't suppose to support them and they are unofficial to begin with.
    • Done. It was there before I started working on the article, so I decided to keep it for a while. - Kov
  • In the Characters section: the Japanese romaji of the names needs to be capitalized. Same for any instance where the English word is also capitalized such as songs.
    • Done. It's just that Japanese transliterations are rarely capitalized in Russian... ^^; -Kov
  • Also for the Characters section: tighter images would be better. Half of the image is background in most of those images. This isn't must of a problem in the characters article, where the images can be bigger, but when they're small they don't offer much to see. Also consider finding a large group image that covers everyone.
  • Names mentioned in the characters section don't need to be linked to in the Plot Summary section.
    • Done. - Kov
  • I'm skipping the rest of the plot summary so I don't have it spoiled for me.
    • From which I deduce that you decided to watch it. Am I right? ^^ - Kov
      • Perhaps. I just never know what I'll watch, so I perfer to keep everything as unspoiled as I can. In your opinion though, which is better: Noir or Madlax? --SeizureDog 03:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Me, I think that even though Noir is great in itself, Madlax is way ahead of it in every aspect (except for the atmosphere, maybe) but apparently, there is only one other guy who thinks so, as well. Most people like Noir more than Madlax, yet none of them has ever written any FAs about it - go figure. ^^ --Koveras ☭ 08:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit worried about the references used. I don't mind it so much, but once it gets around FA time it's sure to come up that there isn't much variety in the sources used. Especially problematic is citing of episodes as references. Two things can be done to help this matter. One: Provide quotes where applicable. See Final Fantasy X for a good example of this tatic being used. And two: provide the times (minutes:seconds) where the events happen in the episodes of the DVD versions. E.g.: Madlax eps. 12 (13:34): Stuff happens. (in language) Publisher DVD.
    • I think it'll have to be the latter method, because in a story-driven anime like Madlax, moving any important quotes beyond the spoiler templates would result in a major spoiler itself. However, this part is gonna take some time and I don't know whether I manage to complete that over the week-end... -Kov
      • I have supplied the times and quotes where it was possible (in some cases, like the More Case, the whole episode/the majority of its scenes is taken as a reference). Please, check if there is some more timings needed. --Koveras ☭ 00:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Music section: Songs should be put in double quotes (" "), not italics.
    • Done. - Kov
Overall though, the article is looking really nice. I think it would pass for GA for sure as it is and could be FA with some tweaking.

--SeizureDog 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please strike out the suggestions you perceive as sufficiently applied? Because right now I keep wondering whether more work is needed. %) --Koveras ☭ 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madlax: Automated PR

[edit]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have applied the suggestions that weren't made by SeizureDog already and that I perceived as logical, with a few exceptions:
      • "The Bible" section should remain as it is IMO because the full title of the artbook is "MADLAX the Bible" therefore "the" in this context is not an article but a part of the title. Plus, this way, the page's URL looks like Madlax#The Bible mirroring the full name of the artbook.
      • I think, a native speaker of English would be much more qualified to remove weasel words and redundancies than me. This task requires much feel for the language... --Koveras ☭ 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all your comments and suggestions, but I have really had no time to implement them today. I'll start working on the article tomorrow afternoon, as soon as I get home from work... --Koveras ☭ 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to myself: check if Elenore's name is really spelled with the last "e" in the official translation... Also, write FU rationales on all images within the article. Plus, the references, of course. --Koveras ☭ 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madlax: Second approach

[edit]

Impressive amount of work. I'll be honest that I haven't read the article in full, but there are a few things that caught my eye:

  • Per MOS, terms should not be in bold face unless there is a compelling reason (e.g.: it's a synonym for the article's title). Use of bold face is all right in the character section, but questionable elsewhere.
  • Is it really necessary to list more than a dozen weapons that exist in both the real and fictional worlds? Providing two or three in the prose itself would be sufficient.
    • Well, we did want to remove the list at first, but decided to keep it because it looked so damn pretty within a wikitable-class table. ^^ Anyway, the whole list is available on an external source, so I guess it'd be OK... --Koveras ☭ 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving on: I'm concerned about the reliance on the primary source for citations. While they seem to pass muster in game-related article, I don't see them much in literary, film and other television Featured Articles. Quoted dialog should certainly be cited directly, but people at FA seem to prefer that other character and plot elements come from secondary sources, or that there at least be a third-party character/plot summary that can be referenced. The philosophy seems to be that they don't want to have to watch the series to verify what the article recounts.
    • The problem is, that were the only reviews we were able to find thus far. Living in Germany, I have trouble finding any paper anime magazines in English, so it's very tricky. Plus, my acquaintances in the US can't find anything either. The closest thing I've found to a plot summary is in the AnimeOnDVD reviews, plus there is a fragmentary summary on TV.com. Take your pick. %)
    • As for quoting the exact passages, I'm afraid 75% of quotations would be spoiling the entire series. --Koveras ☭ 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a little too much detail in the Background and Terminology sections. What's important is less that these things exist in the series' world, but the effect they have on the characters and plot. At the very least, I'd consider merging those two sections, as their contents seem to be closely related.
    • While they do seem closely related, there is an important difference: Background is spoiler-free, whereas in Terminology, nearly every word is a major spoiler of the series. That's why we preferred to keep them separated. There is, however, a possibility to move them both to an extra article, though I'm not sure whether such things were done in the past... --Koveras ☭ 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work and good luck!--Monocrat 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I understand the desire to keep something pretty, but axing it would I think be for the best. :) Additionally, bunches of redlinks don't go over well at FAC, so you might want to unlink some of the voice actors' names. Anyway, finding citations and reviews is difficult, I know, but it must be done. (Trimming finer detail will reduce much of the burden.) A Google search for "madlax site:newtype-usa" shows that there were several articles about it in 2005. I think Nihonjoe has some resources relating to Newtype and Newtype-USA, so check his userpage. A search for "madlax review -buy" (the last one a feeble attempt to purge merchant websites) revealed the following: AnimeBoredom has a review signed with first and last name, so that buys it some credibility in my book; and AnimeNewsNetwork, which carries some authority in this genre, has at least one review of the series. Might I propose you check the places cited in Excel Saga for Madlax reviews?
More generally, my point, that I think went unstated, was that people at FAC seem to frown on even the appearance of heavy reliance on the primary source. I suspect you'd get one or two objections on that score as the article stands. In all honesty, though, I think you could dispense with most (or perhaps all) of the Background/Terminology sections and simply introduce the key points in the article's lead and in Character/Plot sections. Doing so would encourage an economy of detail, which I think would be appreciated at FAC. Short of that, combining them and placing the combined section under a spoiler-warning would I think make some sense, but I'll defer on that. I'll be honest and say that my suggestions have been contentious and usually disregarded in previous PRs and FACs, and you're of course under no obligation to do anything I propose. I had great success with a mostly unified synopsis instead of separate character and plot sections, but that was me. :)--Monocrat 21:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the first and last names that give resources credibility, I can provide most references with them. %) That AnimeBoredom review has very little value since it only reviews the first episode. As for ANN ones, all three of them are already used extensively within the article. :) I haven't found anything of interest on Nihonjoe's page, so yoleu'll have to help me there... Lastly, I have scanned every site cited in the Excel Saga article, but only found two new reviews of Madlax (the ones on AnimeBoredom).
Generally, I dislike the idea of removing anything, so I'd rather much prefer to have it moved to another article before trimming. :) --Koveras ☭ 13:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, full names buy credibility in my book, at least. :) Other editors have different standards. :) Good to hear about the ANN reviews. About the other review that you discounted, it might have some value in that it might illustrate the point that many viewers left before the series hit its stride.--Monocrat 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then, I'll start searching for the names right away. I've also got plans for trimming the background, terminology, and plot sections.... --Koveras ☭ 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails

[edit]

Failed FAC once (it wasn't anywhere near ready yet), but there are a lot more well-cited references now, albeit no print sources despite my efforts to find some. All in all, it's come a very long way from failed GA status. I think the sections dealing with the most media-friendly period of the band's history (ie. the mid-90's) are, sadly, a little anemic - but the most recent era is well-covered. I've practically exhausted all my efforts just cleaning up what is already there, but I suppose there could be a little more added. Suggestions? BotleySmith 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older suggestions

[edit]

From what I can tell, most of the concerns below have been addressed. Unless there are any more pressing suggestions, I will continue scouring the article for copy-edits and put it back on the FAC list within the next week or so. BotleySmith 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are my thoughts - don't take any as gospel, as my own project (Isis) just failed a GA also, miserably so.
    • In the lead, you go into great detail about Trent Reznor's influence and so forth; how the band are two seperate entities. WP:LEAD states it should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". I think you go into too much analysis too quickly, without familiarising the reader with the context. Such information should be moved elsewhere - into "History and influences", perhaps.
    • "Early ambitions for NIN were slight" - I don't think 'slight' is the right word here.
    • "After spending some years relegated to underground status, Nine Inch Nails shot to international fame" - bear in mind WP:NPOV, and ensure not to use an unencyclopaedic tone.
    • "it has become cliché in journalistic descriptions" - there's something a little NPOV about cliché - maybe "common" instead?
    • "a remarkable versatility in sonic design and composition" - again, watch for NPOV.
    • ""it was only a few hours of wear on my tape heads; what could that hurt?"" - needs citation.
    • From this point on, the article seems a lot more neutral. However, in the court cases, ensure that both sides of the argument are stated.

Hope some of this helped! Seegoon 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll get started on those right away. BotleySmith 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I'll look at working on those tomorrow... do you have any specific suggestions for the lead? BotleySmith 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some suggestions about the general set-up of the article:
    • Severly shorten the "Discography" section and expand the "History" section, c.f. Nirvana, Duran Duran, Pink Floyd. (The same suggestion was made in the previous FAC.) A lot of content could be moved from the former section to the latter without too much work. Almost all the "Corporate entanglements" section could be merged into "History," too. In general, the main article should provide salient information about the band itself (which will necessarily contain references to its musical output), but detailed information about specific releases should be collected in their respecitive articles.
    • Also, the "Trademarks" section is poorly titled—it sounds like it should talk about the official NIN logo instead of the band's musical hallmarks. Expand the section to include the last two paragraphs of the "History" section and call it "Musical style" or similar.
Incidentally, great job with the clean-up so far; the article looks quite nice. -- Rynne 14:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, dude! That's quite a helpful push in the right direction, I was starting to lose perspective on the bigger picture. I'll try to get as many of these suggestions as possible taken care of today. BotleySmith 15:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take another crack at re-writing/re-organization tonight. Thanks again for all the help, folks! BotleySmith 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comments - I've had another look and decided it would be a good idea to compare it to FA-class band articles.
    • Structure - 'History' should really be the first main paragraph. Beyond that, give some thought to what order the sections should go in. Take into account how the article should flow. It may make sense to include 'Future releases' in the 'History' section, too. My personal choice would be this: Lead, History, Musical characteristics, Popular culture, Discography, Band members (the last two are probably interchangeable).
    • In addition, the article might be easier to follow if each subheading in 'History' included dates. It'd help the reader establish context a little better.

I hope some of this helps. Seegoon 18:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does! Thanks. BotleySmith 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to log in, but this edit is mine and I put the History section back to third in the TOC again. Why, you ask? I feel that even though it is traditional to put this first, it makes more sense after the setup of "Discography" and even some "Musical characteristics." Perhaps a longer lead is in order, but for now, that just reads better IMO. BotleySmith 06:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and any info there should be found in the body of the article - this is where info should be cited, and not in the lead. LuciferMorgan 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll try that then. Thanks for the tip! BotleySmith 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Musical Characteristics section needs more citations - some editors may accuse it of being original research. LuciferMorgan 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, particularly for the passage on "instrumental ostinatos". I've been looking for more encyclopedic citations to back up the rest of this section, but so far the only analyses that have turned up are on fan sites. Without using these, then, actual song excerpts (which I have provided, using the Collected DVD as a source) are currently the only references available. BotleySmith 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reznor has stated that these songs were outtakes from the With Teeth sessions, and studio recordings may see future release."

Stated? Where? With the word "stated" in the sentence, I'd like to see an inline cite. LuciferMorgan 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The band's popularity has not waned, however: Reznor's appearance in Time magazine as one of 1997's twenty-five most influential people solidified the band's status at the forefront of mainstream American music."

Solidified? Says who? The cited article doesn't. Original research this seems. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"On the heels of NIN's previous successes, a generous amount of media hype surrounded The Fragile before its release."

From what media? From where? And why was the amount "generous" in comparison to other major new releases? Is this original research? LuciferMorgan 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"They offered the album as part of an overall biddable package that also included the rights to the Television's Greatest Hits compilations and the Mortal Kombat movie soundtracks."

Why's the word "biddable" present? The previous sentence said the album rights were up for auction, so the word "biddable" isn't needed. LuciferMorgan 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ezrin suggested an arrangement of songs that would strengthen their "final continuity and flow," which he is credited for providing in the Fragile liner notes."

Ezrin has been quoted here. All direct quotes need inline citations.LuciferMorgan 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"On May 26, 2005, Reznor wrote "apparently, the image of our president is as offensive to MTV as it is to me" on the NIN website."

The above quote is externally linked, which should be changed to an inline citation. LuciferMorgan 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... nice catches. These can be easily fixed, I just need a little time. BotleySmith 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'd really like this article to go somewhere. Some pointless things like "Auction" are wikilinked too; any reason? A lot of the wikilinks are pointless - most'll know what an auction is, and if they don't they can do a Wikipedia search. LuciferMorgan 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know. It's been pretty taxing just delinking the dates and fixing the citations, but next time I review the whole article I'll keep an eye out for that sort of redundancy. Thanks again for the help. BotleySmith 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

[edit]

Since you've mentioned heading to FAC soon, I'll try to be as detailed as possible - these are samples only, not an exhaustive list:

  • Too much reliance on a fansite for references, which further can be considered self-published because of the band's involvement with the site (NIN Hotline). Worse, many of the footnotes are links to articles on that fan site which violate the original writer's copyright - per WP:EL, Wiki should not link to sites which violate copyright, and NIN Hotline contains copies of articles which appear to be copyrighted by others. For example, does NIN Hotline own rights or have permission from the original copyright holders to reprint these? [21] [22] [23] (I seriously doubt they have permission to repint an AP story)
Granted. I wasn't aware that there was a problem with citing a free web archive (which has never, to my knowledge, been found in violation of copyright and carefully distinguishes between media articles, press interviews, reviews, press releases and general information). Would it be alright to remove everything from these citations but the original source, making no reference to the fan site and leaving everything else as-is? BotleySmith 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think a fan club (Spiral) should be in External links - review WP:EL and WP:NOT
  • This is a blog - not likely to be a reliable source: Reznor Issues Cease and Desist (2006-10-25). Retrieved on 2006-11-28.
  • These (as example only) don't look like a reliable sources: [24] [25] [26]
  • Problem on this ref: a b c d e Error on call to Template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specified. Retrieved on 2006-12-24.
  • Author missing on this reference - these are samples only, starting from the bottom, so pls double check all refs: Smaller Bands: Web Propels Music Sales. NPR.org (2005-05-01). Retrieved on 2006-10-22.
  • You may have too many Fair Use images - I don't speak Fair Use fluently, so you might want to check with someone before approaching FAC - Jkelly (talk · contribs) is knowledgeable.
  • WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOS look good; I fixed the ref placement and punctuation per WP:FN, where to place ref tags.
  • The "circa 1988' is screaming for a reference: since the reader can't determine the date, it becomes noticeable that the supporting text isn't referenced.
  • Screaming for a ref (weasly): At that time, Reznor was employed as a programmer (and janitor, as some sources have it) - what sources?
  • Repeated parenthetical "sees" disrupt the article flow and speak to problems with article organization (for example, Several labels responded favorably to Reznor's material, and in what would prove a poor decision, he chose to sign with TVT Records (see: Corporate entanglements).) Try to work these parenthetical sees into the text to avoid making the reader bounce around between sections.
  • Next paragraph gives more unreferenced material, and another parenthetical see: While recording the earliest NIN tracks, Reznor was unable to find a band that could articulate his songs as he wanted and instead decided to play all the instruments himself. For the band's studio recordings, this role largely remains Reznor's, though he has involved other musicians and assistants (see: Band members).
  • In general, the writing is not bad, but I'd like to see more work on developing independent reliable sources, and better referencing throughout. Good luck! Sandy (Talk) 22:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much - I had noticed some of these before, they are definitely the most significant barriers to this becoming a FAC (except the template error - that was just a typo on my part). BotleySmith 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi

[edit]

I did a copyedit of this article today, so I think I improved it some. Besides references, what should be improved in this article to bring it to good status? —The Great Llamamoo? 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Chaos

[edit]
This page appears completely full of things that are non-notable for wikipedia. It is also poorly written and seems to serve very little use to anyone not familiar with the game. I do think KOC deserves a good article, the game itself is certainly notable, but there are no references, and other such things. I'm also curious as to what policies exactly would be useful to remember for a page like this. All comments are appreciated :). Chris M. 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so in a nutshell:

  • The lead should be a summary of what's in the body of the article. You have a good base in the lead to create an "Origins" and a "Reception" section.
  • The list of clans should go, it's pretty worthless.
  • The ages summary can stay, if trimmed down to a reasonably-sized paragraph, maybe titled "in-game history".
  • Have there been any ratings by newspapers, website, etc? These need to appear in the "reception" section.
  • You need a "Gameplay" section detailing what a player's options are, what's the conditions for victory, etc. Another one can describe the universe, etc.
  • You will definitely need to source every statement you make in the article.
  • About guidelines, see WP:WIAGA.
  • The tide of players (from 0 to 200000 to 40000 is interesting. Any verifiable explanation?

These are the basic guidelines to take it to "decent article", ie GAC. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.--SidiLemine 11:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIT

[edit]

Please address length of article (~70kb), academic boosterism or other issues of tone/perspective, topics overlooked. The article has previously been a FAC and is now a "Good Article" but substantial revisions have been made in recent months which have remained stable. Previously on RFF. Madcoverboy 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Ponting

[edit]

I have reorganised and partly rewritten this article, which is about the captain of the Australian national cricket team, who is also regarded as one of the very best players in the world. I would like to get the article up to Featured Article quality, and whilst I am aware of an uncited statement near the bottom of the article and also aware of the need for a better photo (I can personally solve that problem), it needs a good neutral reader to identify any remaining weaknesses. Thanks. Darcyj 12:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the reference tags are misplaced. It should be after the full stop and no space after it, ex leading to favourable comparisons with Don Bradman.[2] Also the sources are not cited check [27] It will explain how to cite them so that references will display the author, date etc to make it more verifiable. M3tal H3ad 12:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was attending to the reference tags - as well as correcting some and adding more references - last night when a browser crash wiped out my work. Regarding the length of the leading paragraph, per the automated review suggestions, I will move part of it to a new section. Darcyj 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An exchange of comments here has been relocated to Talk:Ricky Ponting

  • "Key achievements" needs to be moved to the end of the article, and needs to come from NPOV - right now it reads like something a fan has written. Also other article sections need prosifying. LuciferMorgan 02:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, Texas

[edit]
  • Requesting peer review for this article in preparation for featured article status. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you Postoak 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • great idea. ive made improvements to IAH/HOU and would appreciate suggestion, comments, etc. cheers. Urban909

Michael Ignatieff

[edit]

Please provide advice regarding improvement of this article in terms of POV and bringing it into compliance with WP:BLP. --Strothra 04:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added this section on the "legitimizing torture" accusations within the human rights community as well as citations. I also corrected the "Lesser Evils" section to remove specualation and focus on what Ignatieff actually said in the source used. Canuckster 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another contrib. twice removed the entire section referred to above with no discussion anywhere. This is the type of ongoing problem contributors are having. Canuckster 22:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Las Vegas

[edit]

I have followed the style guidelines for this article, and hope to make Leaving Las Vegas a Good Article. I need to make sure that I am on the right track. Thank you, Crzycheetah 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why did they choose that particular film gauge? Kaisershatner 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, compare with other FA films at WP:FA#Media.
Category:FA-Class film articles would be better. :) Cbrown1023 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cbrown1023

[edit]

Supernumerary

[edit]

Red Army

[edit]

Having copied the text to Military of the Soviet Union to concentrate on the land forces of the USSR, I've started improving this article, with refs, changing the structure more toward the U.S. Marine Corps military branch template, and filling out the new sections. There is more on all that to do, but I would appreciate thoughts on anything I've missed. Buckshot06 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

[edit]

It's clearly moving forward now. Some suggestions on the content:

  • There seems to be a pretty bizarre choice of focus in some sections; for example, the single episode of Khalkhin Gol gets more coverage than the entire Civil War. I would avoid detailed discussion of battles in this article in any case, and limit the history section to talking about wars, with individual battles mentioned in context, but not getting detailed narratives in their own right; otherwise, this is likely to become unreadably long.
  • The discussion of the Russian Civil War and Polish-Soviet War (both of which should be discussed more) should probably be in the first section (with the context of Trotsky, etc.), with the next section covering things from the end of those to the start of WWII and the Winter War.
  • More detail on the Winter War would be appropriate, I think.
  • More coverage of doctrine is needed; the bulk of it should probably be left for Military doctrine of the Soviet Union, though, as it's a very complex topic in its own right.
  • More citations throughout are needed; the entire "The end of the Soviet Union" section is uncited, for example.

Aside from that, some more minor formatting issues:

  • {{Infobox military unit}}, maybe?
  • A separate bibliography-style "References" section would be helpful.
  • More staggering of the images along both margins might improve the layout.
  • I'd replace {{main}} with {{details}} throughout.
  • The headings should be fixed to follow the MoS.

Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad

[edit]

Looking good, but a few things,

  • Years alone should not be wikilinked, i removed some.
  • References go after full-stops or commas not in the middle of a sentence. (only saw this once or twice)
  • Try to avoid weasel words like 'some critics' just put critics.
  • When using references to the web, please use the WP:CITE template. So links are organized better.
  • The image will require a source and fair use rationale Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale
  • Years with dates should be wikilinked example, December 25, 1991.

Otherwise it looks good to me, Goodwork M3tal H3ad 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dowling

[edit]

As noted by Kiril, this article is definitely heading in the right direction. My suggestions are:

  • I'm not sure about the value of the 'Weapons and equipment' section. As the Red Army must have fields hundreds of different items of weaponry over its history it's not feasible to cover even the most important bits of hardware in any detail. If this section is retained I'd suggest that it be limited to discussing the underlying philosophies behind the Red Army's weaponry (eg, the preference for mass producing of indifferent tanks rather than building smaller numbers of high quality tanks, etc)
  • Coverage of the Red Army's combat potential during the Cold War would be useful and interesting. Given the poor military performance of the USSR's sattelite states, coverage of how the Red Army would have performed using the same weapons and tactics would be really valuable.
  • Much of the material in the history section isn't really relevant to the Red Army. For example, the background to the German invasion in 1941 would fit better in an article on the military history of the Eastern Front. A discussion of the Red Army's capabilities over time would be more useful than the current material of the USSR's military history.
  • I'm not sure if this is possible, but some graphs showing the size of the Red Army could be a really powerful way of illustrating its sheer size
  • More citations are needed. I've added citation flags to some assertions which, while doubtlessly correct, require a source. --Nick Dowling 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planemo

[edit]

The article looks very unbalanced and lacks any structure.

  • Needs more words about ranks and uniforms.
  • Needs more words about army branches (especially, tanks, aviation, communications).
  • Needs more words about weapons used.
  • Needs a section about decorations.
  • Needs a short review of notable battle commanders.
  • Afghanistan war does not belong here since there was no Red Army at that time (it was Soviet Army). If the coverage of the article extended to this period, then need info about missle forces, modern equipment etc. I suggest to make two articles:one for Red Army (Civil War, pre-WWII campangns and WWII) and one for Soviet Army (Cold War, Afghanistan and Warsaw pact).
  • The USSR is generally considered to enter the WWII 22 June, 1941, so Polish campaign should be separated from the WWII section.

--Planemo 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how meaningful a split of the article at 1946 would be. While the term "Red Army" was, admittedly, abandoned (at least in official usage), it remained fundamentally the same force regardless of the exact name. Kirill Lokshin 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And present-day Russian army is also fundamentally the same force. Anyway the article will be very long if to combine the both and there is little in common between Red Army in 1918 and Soviet Army in 1985. We also need a large section for WWII in this article I feel, so it will be only fair to split it in two. The aims, doctrine and strategy of the army also were different before the Cold War and after it srtarted. Otherwise the article should be renamed anyway.--Planemo 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby (Nintendo)

[edit]

I've decided to give it an individual nomination - suggestions of how to improve this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just some random comments:
    • A screenshot of Kirby using his powers would be nice (a la Wario).
    • Some of the body paragraphs are a little unfocused; one paragraph starts talking about Beam and then switches over to multiple abilities per power, then back again.
    • A general description of the Kirby series would be beneficial, I think.
    • On the other hand, the abilities and items (which make up a grand majority of the article) should be scaled back.
    • Strange, there's no description of a personality anywhere?
  • More as I think of them later. For now, though, class. Nifboy 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the entire ==Kirby's Powers== section should go. It's too crufty for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. - The Catfish 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Garran

[edit]

Most of the prose here was written by myself, so I'm looking for some fresh eyes and some comments about the quality of the writing, as well as comments about the overall standard of the article, since I'm ultimately looking towards FAC for this one. --bainer (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One fatal accidents

[edit]

A list of people who have died while driving a Formula One car. I'm hoping this peer review will give me some ideas for it to become the fourth Featured List for the Formula One WikiProject.--Skully Collins Edits 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands War

[edit]

I'd like to make this my first real improvement project, I know it needs some trimming and splitting off, and the links to battles need summarising in the main article, but what can I do to get this to FA? I've got the automated peer review, and need to act on those suggestions too. Thanks, RHB 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • My take:
This is a nice article. Mainly, I'm gonna be a pain about making the text "brilliant"
"...of two large and many small islands..." How about "of an archipelago"?
"(See Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for the background to that dispute.)" Use the "see also" template.
Never, ever say "Falklands." It's more encyclopedic and formal to say "Falkland Islands." I've never heard the former used formally. (It's fine in the title, that's the only context I would suggest using it in.)
"...followed by the occupation of the Falklands..." Link 'occupation of the Falklands' to "1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands".
Make 2 articles from your main sections:
1. "Events preceeding the Argentine Invasion of the Falkland Islands"
2. "British Military Reaction to the Invasion of the Falkland Islands"
This (above) should shorten the article when you summarize more.
Under the "Invasion" sub-section, update the content to the main source article.
Watch out calling a section "Anaylsis," it comes off as very POV.
I agree with the previous commentary below in the point that the article is told from the British viewpoint and sympathizes slightly with them.
You don't need sub-sections for "Battle of Mount Harriet" and likewise. Just make a list at the bottom of the "Fall of Port Shanley" entitled "Notable battles."
I'll do this for you.
Please get more sources in the "Allegations of nuclear deployment," it's a controversial, potentially dangerous diplomatic matter.
"The Falklands was important for a number of reasons." Kill it per WP:PEACOCK.
Can you get at least 1 source for "Pope John Paul II visits"? I think you can.
That's all I got. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From SG

[edit]
  • Expand refs to full bibliographic entries, and websites should have last access dates. Please fix your sources throughout. Example of a web source that needs expansion:
    • How Frank was Franks? (What is this site, and include last access date).
  • Book references need publisher, pub date, and page nos on individual footnotes. Example:
    • Michael Clapp, Amphibious Assault Falklands. ISBN 0-7528-1109-6
  • News sources need author (when available) and publication date, see cite news template. Example:
    • 1982: Marines land in South Georgia. BBC. Retrieved on 20 June, 2005.
  • Please unlink partial dates and years - wikilink only full dates (mon, day, year)
  • The article is hugely undercited. For example (there are many others):
    • Argentine intelligence officers had been working with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to help fund the Contras in Nicaragua, and the Argentine government believed it might be rewarded for this activity by non-interference on the part of the United States if it invaded the Falklands.
    • especially The Sun, which ran such headlines as "GOTCHA" (following the sinking of General Belgrano). The Daily Mirror, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the war, attacking their tabloid rival The Sun and claiming that it would "damage your mind."
  • There are mixed reference styles: some inline cites and some use cite.php. Convert all refs to cite.php
  • Remove jumps to external websites, by wikifying the content, or turning them into references - examples:
    • Argentina claims that the team left for France soon after the April 2 invasion, but according to Dr. James S. Corum the French team apparently continued to assist the Argentines throughout the war, in spite of the NATO embargo and official French government policy.
    • Argentina received military assistance only from Peru--despite receiving cursory support from the Organisation of American States in a resolution supporting Argentina's sovereignty and deploring European Community sanctions
  • Venezuelan support of the Malvinas conflict (which should be listed as another name in the lead) is barely mentioned in passing. This is one (of several) indications of a slight slant to the article.
  • I could not find mention anywhere of the deceit visited upon the Argentine people by the junta with respect to the war. This raises a larger concern about the article: it really tells the story mostly from the British angle, and isn't entirely comprehensive. I suggest you'll need to locate an Argentine to comb through the text, and provide you with more sources, to help make the article more comprehensive, and NPOV.
  • The article is too long. See WP:LENGTH. Overall size is 85KB, but prose size is a massive 69KB. That needs to be under 50, and preferably closer to 40-45, by making better use of Summary style. You can find how to calculate prose size on WP:LENGTH, or the article size police may come after you.

Hope this helps, good luck ! Sandy (Talk) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Docklands Light Railway

[edit]

A lot of the jobs have been completed since the last peer review about 2 months ago. Is this too early to request another review? Simply south 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of old Peer Review found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Docklands Light Railway/archive1.

  • As a resident of Docklands who is a regular user of the DLR (but won't let that cloud his judgement), here's some comments:
    • Intro should mention when the initial system opened.
    • "The DLR system is undergoing constant expansion, with 38 stations currently on the system." - stubby paragraph and could be expanded; you could also include a description of the DLR's topgraphy (roughly five-pointed star centred on Poplar/Canning Town) and the areas served in the intro.
    • "The DLR was conceived in the late 1980s" - I'm not so sure this is true - I thought it was late 70s/early 80s, and is contradicted by the claim the original plan was scuppered by the Thatcher government coming to power. Wasn't the original plan to extend the Jubilee Line eastwards?
    • The "First System" section should detail the original railway layout actually chosen i.e. Tower Gateway/Stratford to Island Gardens (I think...) and initial number of stations.
    • "..the Tower Gateway terminus, situated at the very edge of the City of London, attracted criticism for its poor connections." - undoubtedly true, but this needs a quote and reference by a citable source.
    • "leaving Tower Gateway station on a limb." - no it doesn't, it leaves the line between Shadwell and the Tower
    • Completion of Canary Wharf needs a date.
    • Should mention the George V branch also replaces the North London Line to N Woolwich.
    • "Many DLR stations are elevated" - give us an exact number...
    • "The DLR is used by up to a hundred thousand people daily, with around 60 million journeys yearly." - needs citation
      • Additional: A history of passenger numbers over time, accounting for the increase in use, would be highly informative.
    • Future development section could be split off into a new section. Drop some of the more minor (e.g. Shadwell) or fanciful (e.g. Charing Cross/Catford extensions) plans from this main article.
    • After looking at the featured article London Underground, I would expect more on: the ownership of the DLR and how it is financed; the safety record of the line and any past incidents; design & colour scheme (didn't it used to be blue, not turquoise?); cultural, social and historical significance of the DLR (not so easy so only do this if you can cite sources). Also some general references and further reading would be good to put at the bottom of the article.
    • External links could probably be a bit beefier and be organised under sections: e.g. Official sites, History sites, Map & Geodata sites. Qwghlm 01:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explorer Scouts

[edit]

After using the automated peerreviewer from AndyZ, I've been working to resolve the issues it has thrown up... now that that is done, could I ask for anyone willing to have a look over and see what could be done to this article to further improve on it? Thanks in advance, Horus Kol 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have lengthened the lead and rewritten a couple of sentences as per your suggestions below Horus Kol 10:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note on the top should be indented (use a colon), plus why is there a "is/was"? One or other will suffice.
done Horus Kol 10:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is hard to read through; make it more parallel. The first part of the sentence describes a section; the second part describes Explorers. Other unparallel things in the sentence include the usage of parentheses (either use twice or neither) and "the age of" vs. "years old".
done Horus Kol 10:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section follows on from the Scout Troop (10 to 14 year olds) and Explorers will move onto the Scout Network at the age of 18.
done Horus Kol 10:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Units can be specialised activity Units, such as Climbing or Water Activities; Units can also be setup to provision for the Young Leader Programme; Sea Explorer Scout or Air Explorer Scout Units continue the Sea Scout or Air Scout programme into the 14-18 age range.
    • Overusage of semicolons
    • Units is redundant, as it appears twice in the first phrase alone
    • Are the Activities actually Units? If not, the modifier, such as…, is misplaced.
    • "setup" can only be used in the noun form.
    • The third part of the sentence is little to do with the rest of the sentence. Make it separate. It is worded a bit weirdly with the "or"s, try: Sea Exporer and Air Exporer Scout Units continue their respective programmes into…. Also, Units aren't 14-18 in age range.
I've done a rewrite of this sequence Horus Kol 10:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's licenced as a Scout Logo which is available for use in material relating to Scouting Horus Kol 10:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "See also" section is virtually blank; the "Further reading" section should only include books not used as references. Instead, delete the "Further reading" section and move its contents into the "See also" section.
done Horus Kol 10:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MSH, "Other Activities" -> "Other activities".
done Horus Kol 10:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments so far, Andy - I've tried to fix the points you have raised here as best as I could. Horus Kol 10:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Act 1832

[edit]

The article's a bit long, but I feel that the subject matter justifies depth and detailed consideration. Any suggested improvements would be welcome (especially ideas for making the prose more concise). Thanks. -- Emsworth 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not that long. I don't like the third paragraph of the lead - the text of Act is never mentioned again and there is plenty more to summarize that could fill in for that section. The Unreformed House of Lords section is a little flabby (especially as it has its own main article) as is the Movement for Reform. Personally, I found them interesting, but they could be pruned back without losing much substance. Some of the inline citation placement is a bit odd: there are some uncited trailing sentences in certain paragraphs. The Assessment section gets a bit wishy-washy at the end "Other historians", "One writer" etc. Since they are referenced you may as well give their names. Very interesting though, vast improvement over the list that was there before. Yomanganitalk 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode)

[edit]

Star Trek episode. As far as I can tell, no Star Trek-related article is yet a featured article, and nominations have tended to focus on things that are in-universe minutiae. But this is the second ever episode of Star Trek, and the first with Captain Kirk, and there are a whole bundle of sources about it. Would appreciate comments on the article, with an eye to getting it to WP:FA eventually. Morwen - Talk 15:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Abraham

[edit]

This article has reached GA status in August this year and it has been very stable since then. I would like to take this now to FA and would appreciate any comments or suggestions. --RelHistBuff 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive1

  • OK, I added more wikilinks, removed "The" from the subsection title, and put the punctuation before the footnotes. I believe all full dates are linked. I also took the opportunity to move a few items into their correct order. In the last peer review, the script was passed through the article, but no one commented on it at the time. It would be great if some human eyes took a look as this article as well :-) --RelHistBuff 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Hameed Khan

[edit]

This article seems to be at the right stage now for the peer review, except for the missing photo of course! While we look for photo permissions, is there any chance it could qualify for FA? if so, how should we improve it to the level? --IsleScape 13:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has been very helpful. --IsleScape 12:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Giffords

[edit]

Would like a peer review before consideration as feature article. --Utahredrock 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Robert Garran

[edit]

Most of the prose here was written by myself, so I'm looking for some fresh eyes and some comments about the quality of the writing, as well as comments about the overall standard of the article, since I'm ultimately looking towards FAC for this one. There's also a regular peer review open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Garran/archive1, I hope it's not a problem submitting this in two places, I'm just hoping for plenty of comments. --bainer (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this is an old peer review, I ran out of time to implement the suggestions that arose last time before I went away on holiday over the New Year period, but I've come back to them now. I've relisted this peer review to hopefully get some more comments. --bainer (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]
  • I do not like some prose stuff in the lead. First sentence: "Robert Randolph Garran (10 February 1867 – 11 January 1957), Australian lawyer, was an early leading expert in Australian constitutional law, the first employee of the Government of Australia and the first Solicitor-General of Australia." I would rephrase "Robert Randolph Garran (10 February 1867 – 11 January 1957) was an Australian lawyer and an early leading expert in Australian constitutional law, the first employee of the Government of Australia and the first Solicitor-General of Australia." Then:"Garran was also an important figure in the development of the city of Canberra, organising the creation of the Canberra University College and later contributing to the establishment of the Australian National University, and founding several important cultural associations in the new city." This second end extends a sentence which should have ended. According to my IMO, I think you should split the sentence.
  • I agree, I've shuffled the sentences around.
  • "Garran, like his father, was strongly involved in the Federation movement." You could explain us in a few words what is this movement.
  • I've included a brief description, and the term "Australian Federation movement" is linked to a page discussing it fully.
  • Too many read links. Officially this is not an obstacle for FA status, but it would be nice if you could reduce them, creating some stubs.
  • "Garran and his fellow staff aimed for a simple style of legislative drafting, a goal enabled by the fact that there was of course no pre-existing federal legislation on which their work would have to be based." I think we do not need "of course" here.
  • It does read better without that clause.
  • "Garran "consistently advocated the establishment of what he prophetically called 'a National University at Canberra'"" Who's the quote? Since you use quotation marks, I think you should mention the name of the person saying that in the text. Otherwise, recast into alternative language.
  • The whole sentence was cited, but only the first part of it was a direct quote, the remainder was paraphrased. I've added a comma following the direct quote and repeated the citation to make this clear.
  • "This vision was evidently influential on the establishment of the Australian National University (ANU) in 1946, the only research-only university in the country (although in 1960 it amalgamated with the University College to offer undergraduate courses)." I would like a citation here.
  • Done.
  • Try not to have inline citations in the middle of the sentences, unless it is absolutely necessary.
  • Apart from a few citations following direct quotes (see two points above), the only citations in the middle of sentences are details of books that are mentioned in the prose. It would be misleading to offer the citation at the end of the sentence as it would imply attribution to that source.
  • Garran's "personality, like his prose, was devoid of pedantry and pomposity and, though dignified, was laced with a quizzical turn of humour." Again, who says that? The same problem with the next sentence: "His death "marked the end of a generation of public men for whom the cultural and the political were natural extensions of each other and who had the skills and talents to make such connections effortlessly.""
  • The quotes are cited, did you want me to name the source?
  • The last quote of "Legacy" is Garran's. What has to do this quote with his legacy? Maybe you should place it in the sections you discuss his work for the Federation and the Constitution
  • It's his answer to the question 'has federation turned out as you expected?' posed to him near the end of his career. I think it nicely illustrates his own view of the things he gave his career to and is appropriate for that section.
  • Your printed sources have no pages (except for the articles). I'm afraid this is a problem for FAC. You should rewrite your citations, by adding specific pages..
  • I've done this for the book that's referenced the most. The first source is a specialist encyclopaedia entry, and it's all on the one double page IIRC, so I doubt it's necessary to split that one up into individual citations.
Additional comments
  • "Garran graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree with first-class honours in 1888, winning the University's Medal in Philosophy, and a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1889." I would cite that.
  • That was from the same source as the preceding sentence, I've clarified that by adding another footnote.
  • You have some red links. Though red links are not an obstacle for FA status, some reviewers do not like it, and you might lose some supports. Maybe, you could stub some of them.
  • I'll do so if serious objection arises. I would prefer to do the articles properly when I have the time.
  • "In June 1893 ... the following five years." This paragraph has no citations.
  • I've remedied that. I've also mentioned the Bathurst conference alongside the Corowa one.
  • "The creation of the office and Garran's appointment to it was to some degree recognition of his existing role". IMO this assertion should be sourced.
  • I've done so, and clarified the point by rewording it and bringing in material from another source.
  • As far as the prose is concerned, I am not the best judge, since I am not a native English speacker, but I don't see any major flaw. Maybe, in some cases it could be further improved ("The family lived in Phillip Street in central Sydney. Garran's mother "had a deep distrust, well justified in those days, of milkman's milk" and so the family kept a cow in the backyard, which would walk on its own to The Domain each day to graze and return twice a day to be milked.[2] The family later lived in the suburb of Darlinghurst, just to the east of the centre city.), but, again, not any huge prose flaws I think.
  • Hmm, a failure to read that sentence out loud on my part :) I've substituted alternative words for those cases.

In general, the article is very nice - some thinks I do not like very much are probably just personal preferences (such as the long quotes in "Legacy", which are long and IMO interrrupt the flow of the prose) - and I think I would support it in FAC. But, if you don't feel sure about it, you can go first to GAC - it is another way to get feedback.--Yannismarou 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, responses in blue. --bainer (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could go to FAC as it is - it's an excellent article. Rebecca 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Enemy

[edit]

I'd like to get it to a GA and would like to know what to expand on. Cbrown1023 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand the lead. Put in the excellent reception for the film, the release info (that it was cut down), the controversy about the grapefruit, perhaps mention that it was based off a book.
  • I added a boiler-plate fair use rationale for the poster. Check to see if the poster hasn't fallen into the public domain though.
  • Was Matt Doyle the other boy leaning against the wall?
    • What? Cbrown1023 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what I meant. Here from the first paragraph "before directing the viewer’s attention to two boys growing up with the resultant lure of corruption". You mention that one of the boys is Tom, and then in the second paragraph you start talking about Tom and Matt. Am I supposed to assume that Matt was the other boy leaning against the wall with Tom? Hmmm, on a more careful reading this is indicate, but perhaps you could clarify it by saying "After Tom Powers (James Cagney) and the other boy, Matt Doyle (Edward Woods), grow into young adults".--Supernumerary 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early on it says that Tom Powers was played by Cagney, but then you say that Cagney's character smashes a grapefruit in his girlfriend's face and you parenthetically note who played her. Later on you say that Tom's girlfriend is played by someone else. Another girlfriend or a mistake?
  • "in which the character of real-life gangster Bugs Moran was cut out" A character based off of Bugs or did Bugs play a part?
  • You need to work Warner brothers in before you say "the studio promised" because I immediately though "Which studio?"
  • Add a closing spoiler tag.
  • Your ref citing is inconsistent in style (meaning sometimes you use the template, others you don't).
  • Consider adding a picture somewhere. That one site you linked has a plethora, and a photo of Cagney couldn't go amiss.

--Supernumerary 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The film was avoided by some because of its graphic elements."
What type of people avoided the film? Also, there should be a citation for this - people avoid films for many reasons. LuciferMorgan 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I passed a GA for this. Mind, remove the out-of-universe sentence at the end of the Plot section. Wiki-newbie 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ghazni

[edit]

I wrote this article from scratch. Fixed and edited it and have it cited and referenced. Just want to know what else can be done to improve this article?

Thanks Mercenary2k 07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

[edit]

A good start, but still lots of improvement that can be done, I think; some general suggestions:

  • More citations are needed, and (more importantly) to more reputable sources. BritishBattles.com really isn't an appropriate reference in the long run; the article needs to be sourced to published historical works (see WP:MILHIST#References).
  • The lead section should be a two/three-paragraph summary of the entire article.
  • The OOB would probably work better as a table; any additional information for it (commanders & strength of each unit, mainly) would be very helpful.
  • Any chance of getting some maps, both of the campaign and of the assault on the city itself?
  • Some more images might be possible; I would assume that there would be contemporary prints and such that would be {{PD-Art}}.

More generally, any additional detail would be helpful; the article is still fairly brief, as such things go. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphageekpa

[edit]

I'm going to agree with Kirill. Probably the single biggest area for improvement is increasing the number of citations, and using more traditional and reputable sources. Websites are fine for general and background information, but the key to taking this article to the next level is going to be incorporating published (print) resources. Great start, and keepin up the good work! Alphageekpa 11:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Isle's Torn

[edit]

After writing the article from scratch and adding every piece of notable information I can find, I believe it is coming close to standing a chance in FAC. While I don't think it's there quite yet, I can't think of what else to improve before nominating. Any suggestions or comments are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 12:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holden VE Commodore

[edit]

This article has already been reviewed once before (see Archive1), but I feel that since that time the article has gone under substantial changes. Currently the article is GA, and I would like to renominate it for FAC, so any advice or comments that you give would be much appreciated. OSX 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've already tagged a section that I think needs expansion, but nevertheless I would like to know what else this article needs in order to get to GA status. Ultimately I would like to get this article to FA status, but I'll settle for GA in the meantime and if that's successful then I'll seek advice on FA. All comments welcome. Edvid 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've removed the last expansion tag. Edvid 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Brodeur

[edit]

This article still needs some work and I'd like some other people's perspectives on it. I suppose it still needs more referencing and maybe a shorter lead. Any help would be appreciated. Sportskido8 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "NHL career" section could do with generally more inline citations. Also the "Awards summary" section could form part of a "Legacy" main section - in this section you could deal with critical reception towards his career with opinions for and against. I would convert the "Awards summary" info into prose also. LuciferMorgan 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Princess Elisabeth of Hesse

[edit]

I would like to submit this B class article for a peer review in hopes of bringing it up to good article status. Please suggest any needed changes.--Bookworm857158367 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]

Nicely done! I don't think I have many things to suggest, since the article looks to me quite comprehensive. Just a few remarks:

  • The inline citations go straight after the punctuation mark. Do not leave a gap between the punctuation mark and the inline citation.
  • 17 of the 22 citations are based on one book. I'm a bit concerned that the article relies so much on a single source. But this could be a problem for FAC; I do not think it is a major problem for GAC.
  • Since you have "References", there is no reason to have all these details of Sullivan's book in note 1. The same with notes 6, 15 and 19.
  • I see ISBN only for Sullivan's book (and in "Notes" - not in "References", where such details should be). What about the other two books published in 1997?--Yannismarou 18:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Žirmūnai

[edit]

It was pormoted as a good article just yesterday, but I believe it could be taken further. What do you think it needs to become a featured article? Renata 12:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Decide upon European English or American English style usage in the article and change the spelling accordingly.
  2. Then maybe equalize the usage of % or percent, km or kilometres
  3. Consistent use of italics and "commas" would be very welcome
  4. a common standart of providing Lithuanian-to-English translations required.
  5. a question of italization of Lithuanian names should be solved.
  6. some redundant wikilinking might be fixed
  7. too much (brackets) make a text look amateurish

these are minor issues indeed, yet they contribute greatly to the quality of any article. Iulius 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Edson's Ridge

[edit]

I'm just about done with the article and respectfully request a peer review to help identify any problems or issues with the article that need to be corrected. Cla68 01:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

[edit]

Excellent article, as usual; just a few minor formatting issues:

  • All month+day dates need to be linked in order for date preferences to work correctly.
  • Multiple footnotes in the same place should really be combined, if possible.

Once those are fixed, this should be ready for FAC. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]

Obviously another FA by Cla68! But I have the impudence to make some minor suggestions! Here they are:

  • Linking of years is not consistent I'm afraid. Per WP:MoS a date should be linked if it includes day and month. If not "there is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article." According to this I understand that you are entitled to link single years as you do with 1942. But in this case, 1942 has already been linked more than once above. So, why do you have to link it again here: in September 1942 and here: late October, 1942 in "Significance".
  • And something else: why do you use a come here: late October, 1942 and not here: September 1942? I'm not a native English speaker, so you may be correct, but, when I saw that, it looked to me as a syntactical inconsistency.
  • "The landings on the islands were meant to deny their use by the Japanese as bases for threatening the supply routes between the U.S. and Australia, and to use them as starting points for a campaign with the eventual goal of isolating the major Japanese base at Rabaul while also supporting the Allied New Guinea campaign." Uncited as the whole paragraph.
  • Your link to assault leads me to a disambiguation page. Does this link offers anything really useful?

I really liked the narration of the battle!--Yannismarou 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate both of your suggestions, and I've made most of the suggested changes/corrections. However, I see conflicting advice on the date links, either that they should all be linked, or only linked if a full month-day-year is involved. Cla68 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They should be linked whenever both a month and a day are present, as that's the criterion for the date preferences settings to kick in. Compare 2 October with October 2, for example. Kirill Lokshin 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I basically agree (although MoS is not so clear, Kirill), but I concentrated my comment on just two case where there was a single year (1942) without month and day. In one of this two case the single year is linked ("The Japanese never came closer to victory on the island itself than in September 1942, on a ridge thrusting up from the jungle just south of the critical airfield, best known ever after as Bloody Ridge" - why? Is there a particular reason - you have already linked above 1942 in full dates with month-day), while in the other it is not (October, 1942: not linked ). Anyway, this is a minor detail.--Yannismarou 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERcheck

[edit]

Thorough article. Only a few minor suggestions to improve clarity:

  • Background section, Paragraph 6, 2nd sentence reads awkwardly: "Attacks and damage to a different ship convoy during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons that was carrying the rest of the troops from Ichiki's regiment as well as some naval troops caused the Japanese to reconsider trying to deliver more troops to Guadalcanal by slow transport."

— ERcheck (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the sentence. Thank you for the suggestions and help with the article. Cla68 05:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ a b c See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ a b See footnote
  5. ^ See footnote
  6. ^ a b See footnote
  7. ^ a b c See footnote
  8. ^ a
  9. ^ a
  10. ^ a b See footnote
  11. ^ a b See footnote
  12. ^ See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/December_2006&oldid=211555796"