Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Iowa Hawkeyes football from 1889 to 1899

I recently put this article up for peer review but no one has replied yet. Hopefully here I can get some advice on how to improve this article. My hopes are to get it up to good article status. Suggestions? DanThaMan17 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a few comments to the talk page. I hope they are of some help. Good luck. SriMesh | talk 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Megan Zheng

Over the last 3 days, I significantly expanded Megan Zheng, and have just nominated it for DYK. I would appreciate any suggestions for improving the article, so that the nomination is successful, and Megan Zheng becomes my third DYK. As all my references are newspaper articles, I'm concerned that the article may have a newspaper article-like tone. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (creator of RFF)

Megan Zheng has become my third DYK, but I'd still appreciate feedback and suggestions that would help me improve the article (although I doubt it can achieve GA status). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a few comments to the talk page. I hope they are of some help. Good luck. SriMesh | talk 05:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Community website link

Recently I updated information about a website which provides a directory of resources for families in Halton, Oakville, Milton, and Burlington, Ontario. This website provides a useful source of activity ideas, events and information; much of which are non-profit organizations. As with a local paper, this site provides a tool for visitors to access their community.

I would like permission to re-enter this information into the Halton Region page, realizing that adding a link in each city may be accessive.

Here is the 'dif' link for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_Municipality_of_Halton%2C_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=131692018

ParentInProgress 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Parrsboro, Nova Scotia

I have made an effort to improve the quality of Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, and would like some feedback. This [1] is the page before I started editing it. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 19:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Health Hazards of Carbonated Drinks

Please enable feedback of comments about above article. Also, is there anything else I need to do for acceptance of article? And do I automatically get informed of its acceptance?

Thanks, Dr Edward Willhoft --Edward Willhoft 08:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

When I attempted to wikilink your title per the instructions for this page, I got a red link, so you'll have to tell me what you're on about. If you are not actually seeking feedback about your contribution to a particular article, then this question really belongs elsewhere, but until I know what you are asking, I can't help. Adrian M. H. 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Edward Willhoft's post at the Help desk, the article he is requesting feedback on has been deleted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the article either. If it is reposted, please publicize it as I would be interested to read & review. 08:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC) <The preceding incorrectly signed comment was left by VisitorTalk>

When editors post asking for feedback but fail to include a link, industrious respondents can find the article in question (assuming it hasn't been deleted, as this one was), by checking the contributions of the posting editor. It's regrettable that both of this editor's articles were deleted, hopefully he won't give up and will create articles that conform sufficiently to WP's norms, or will have fun contributing to existing articles. Anchoress 08:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

University of Saskatchewan

Have been working on this article, and comparing it to other University articles which have reached feature status. Would like to get the U of S to feature status as well, but find, every new concept requires a new article which provides a main article for the sections in U of S, but all these tangents do not help the U of S article to achieve feature status. How do I improve my focus from creating articles to refining the editing of an article? SriMesh | talk 02:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend using the article about UCLA as a template. You can use that article's table of contents as a guideline to reorganizing your article. VisitorTalk 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Luis Federico Leloir

Can someone review and help clean things up from this article? I just translated it from the Spanish edition, where it was a featured article.

You re-organised the Spanish article to English in a tidier format, and incorporated the trivia into the text which works much better. SriMesh | talk 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice article. What languages did he use? Did he do his work in the language of whatever country he was in at the time? Were his publications all in his native tongue? VisitorTalk 09:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to ice-minus bacteria wanted.

ice-minus bacteria is a genetically altered version of the P. syringae. It has a surface protein producing gene removed. The surface protein is usually used to aid in ice formation, thus "ice-minus" bacteria prevents frost development on plants.

Please help me make this article better!

Responding to your feedback request: The article gives a good overview of the subject that is understandable by a layman. Is the process patented? Are there legal issues involved in sale of ice-minus-treated plants, or in their use for food? Are their certain countries where the process is widespread, others that are cold enough for frost but where the process is virtually unknown? VisitorTalk 08:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quills

Hi there! I've been working on the Quills film article pretty extensively for the last week or so, and as a novice editor, I'd like to make sure I'm on the right track and everything looks and sounds good. Any comments/suggestions/critique would be much appreciated! Here's the article when I started [2] and here it is now [3]. Thank you in advance!

I think the title should be Quills (film) so that people expecting an article about animals structures or writing implements can use a disambiguation page. I also recommend highlighting the beginning and end of the spoilers in the plot summary, so that people who like to be surprised by developments in a movie can skip that section of the article. A link to a page with more information about the soundtrack album would be a nice touch. Otherwise, it looks like a comprehensive article. I like your including the comment in the introduction about historical accuracy vs. the filmmakers' intentions. VisitorTalk 08:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rinkhals (Hemachatus haemachatus)

Rinkhals (Hemachatus haemachatus)- request feedback on newly created article.

Profberger 06:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a template for articles about animal species? This article seems incomplete, but as I'm not a biologist, I'm not sure what else should be in it. VisitorTalk 08:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

rewrite of stack overflow stub, still in sandbox here User:Abaddon314159/sandbox

I just did a major overhaul and expantion of the Stack overflow article here to include lots more info, sources, and some original visual aids I made for the topic. Its my first article though so before I clobber the existing stub with this I'd like get some feedback from more experienced editors. The new version is still in my sandbox here --Michael Lynn 10:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it and reply on either here or on your talk page later this evening. Looks promising at first glance. Adrian M. H. 13:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some good material there and it is well written. However, it desperately lacks references. See WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS if you haven't already, and I recommend looking over their talk pages for further insight. As it stands, this article at least deserves some unsightly tags and could go to AFD. There is some good stuff there in kit form, but the policy failures need to be sorted as a priority. Adrian M. H. 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I get you (or anyone else) to put some tags in where you think I need further citations and I'll get to it, because at present I don't see many uncited claims in the page (i mean its got almost 30 sources for a little more than a page of text)... --Michael Lynn 01:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is fine, but I'm not sure if the introductory sentance is accurate. "In software, a stack overflow occurs when a program reads from or writes to an invalid memory address on the program's call stack." My understanding is that a stack overflow only occurs on the attempt to WRITE more information than the stack can contain; that writing to an invalid address inside the stack would be a bug, but not a stack overflow; and that no form of reading from a stack can cause a stack overflow error. If this is correct, please revise: "In software, a stack overflow occurs when a program attempts to write more information to the program's call stack than the stack can contain." If my understanding is incorrect, then the article needs to explain why. I would also like to see a section about how managed code runtime virtual machines, such as the Java Virtual Machine and the Common Language Runtime, prevent stack overflows. 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC) <The preceding incorrectly signed comment was left by VisitorTalk>

Thanks for the feedback, I was sort of iffy on whether or not to include reads in the definition, because traditionally that is not what we think of as an overflow, the reason I included it is that so many of my sources define a stack overflow (or alternatively a stack buffer overflow, which is likely what this article will be titled due to some conflict on the issue), as an invalid (i.e. out of bounds) "access" of memory...I interpret that as either a read or a write...but you are right, it seems to me that write makes more sense in this context, at the very least it wouldnt be incorrect just perhaps missing a bit...I'll make that change when I get some free time...as to the section on Java and the like I'll need to do a bit of research into that topic, but you're right that might be an interesting section to include...thanks for the comment --Michael Lynn 09:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where in Stack overflow are there any references or even sources? Adrian M. H. 13:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't, not a one, thats part of why I was rewriting it in the first place ;), the confusion here is that its still in my sandbox (see title) :)...User:Abaddon314159/sandbox the new one has lots of sources --Michael Lynn 09:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You should have transferred your version before requesting feedback, ideally, because we are here to comment on articles, not sandboxes. If you felt that doing so might be premature, don't hold back, because anything that needs fixing can be fixed. It is better to use new article content as soon as possible and that is what I had expected to see. Adrian M. H. 10:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Workbench (woodworking)

I have lots of experience with the subject, but this is my first attempt at a wikipedia article. Feedback requested. Bob 02:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Two issues really jump out, one that is comparatively minor and one that is major. The section headings are non-standard in places, which is readily fixed. The big issue is the failure of WP:V, with no references at all, not even a list of sources. Other than that, it is not a bad first effort, but the verifiability needs to be fixed ASAP. Adrian M. H. 09:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm working on the references and should have something by the end of the day. No doubt it will only be a start. Bob 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the size of your thumbnails, although you have far too many images anyway. And what are you going to do about Workbench, from which Workbench (woodworking) is an expanded content fork? Adrian M. H. 09:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do about the main Workbench article. This article describes woodworker's workbenches - which is a large specific area but doesn't include other types of workbenches such as machinist, gardeners, etc. So I just put a link in the main workbench article to here. What would be a better way? Bob 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand about the number if images being too many. I used images that specifically illustrated the parts and devices mentioned - generally one for each. I figured that the illustrations were much better than an attempt to simply describe the items. How should I do it different? Bob 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In an encyclopædia, an excessive amount of images (very excessive in size and quantity in this case) is not appropriate. The best articles have only a small number of well placed images because this is supposed to be about the writing and images distract from the text. You really should cut some of them out. Expanded content forks are not generally appropriate, at least not in this context. A good example of expanded content forks can be found in articles such as World War II, in which sections are often led by main article: Example. You cannot get to that stage, at least not yet, because there is not enough material. Your most appropriate course of action is to merge your content into the original article, making the new title a redirect, and use what you have to improve and expand that article. There is too little difference between the different uses (metalwork and woodwork) to warrant separate articles. If the new article went to AFD because of its lack of sources (which in practice, is unlikely, but I am using it as an example) the consensus would ask for a merger. Adrian M. H. 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a list of references. Following the guidance in Wikipedia:Citing sources, I just added the references that I used to learn all this stuff at the bottom. If I understood correctly, in-line sources make sense when a particular statement is likely to be challenged - and this article doesn't lend itself to much controversy. Is it any Better? Worse? Hopeless? Bob 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on your advice I've moved most of the illustrations to a gallery. Is it still too much? Bob 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Roy Masters (commentator)

I made a major revision to this article about a currently living person. My revision reused some material from the existing article. The previous version was very disorganized. The talk page is primarily used by people either reciting their admiration for Roy's comments and their opinion of what he really meant, or arguing at length about why they consider his comments to be reprehensible and dangerous. I believe the article should summarize the man's biography, work, and major themes. I believe the article should provide links (but not endless details) for those who wish to further explore either the commentator or his detractors. This is my first Wikipedia article and I would welcome constructive comments, especially about whether I succeeded at providing a neutral point of view in my version. Also, there is a conflict between the wording in the disambiguation page - "Roy Masters (Radio Presenter)" - and the biography page itself - "Roy Masters (Commentator)" and I wonder if they need to match. I believe Commentator is the more useful term, as he is an author, public speaker, and minister as well as a radio presenter, and the radio show came after and was based on his earlier in-person work as a preacher and counselor. VisitorTalk 09:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry and the Potters

I've done a major re-write of this page but so far very little response by other editors. One editor liked the lyrics and reception section but found the career section awkward. Since then, I've revised again including breaking it up into sub-headings and shortening sentences. If as an editor this topic is new to you, does the article read well? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New topic to me. The subject is interesting, and I believe you have enough research. The article could use another round of rewriting and editing. For example, "a concert set for the DeGeorge family’s back-yard shed which fell through" could be read as meaning the shed collapsed, rather than people didn't show up for the concert. What is "political" about promoting literacy? The organization of the article is not quite chronological, but also not quite thematic. Descriptions of concerts, touring, press response, recording, and audio response are somewhat grouped into sections, but also mixed together. The article reminded me of a person who is enthusiastically excited about a new discovery, and who hasn't yet caught enough breath to tell the whole story in a step by step manner.

For a well edited band article, try the one on Rush (Band). Notice the sections: Band members; Musical styles and influences; History; Reputation; Live performances. Obviously for a younger band like Harry, there would not be as much to say about each of these areas as for a band with Rush's body of work, but the framework would still be useful. From Discography on down your article seems fine - but my goodness, no "see also" reference to Harry Potter himself? VisitorTalk 04:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lanner Gorge

Request for feedback on Lanner Gorge which was created at the request of an editor to form a link with my article Makuleke (I'm a new contributor so still learning). If this is ok, I'll add Luvuvhu River as requested.

Profberger 09:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice start. I think you could have a longer introduction which gives more of an overview: mention it's in South Africa, comment briefly on the geology, floods, fossils, and wildlife, and mention whether it is important as a tourist area or a national park. A good article to use as a model would be the one on the American Grand Canyon. VisitorTalk 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Generation Y

Generation Y is in desperate need of help. It is almost entirely original research and uncited claims. I feel like just cutting and slashing most of its content, but thought it might benefit from review by other editors first. Please advise. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be trimmed to some extent anyway and removing unreferenced material is a good way to do it. There is some decent material there; it just some fluff taken out and citations added. Adrian M. H. 00:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Generation Y is in desperate need of help." At first I thought that was intended as a sociological observation, rather than a comment on the article. The article needs to be reconsidered. It is extremely negative in tone: uncertainty about how demographers label Generation Y; a list of social problems and character flaws associated with Generation Y; a list of pop culture items associated with Generation Y; and, most telling, a complete lack of anything positive to say about this generation as individuals or a social force good for anything but consuming pop culture, creating social problems, and confusing demographers. It's not hard to find at least a few sources propounding the increased plurality, openness, speedy adoption of new technology, and comfort with high-tech innovation that some say characterize Generation Y in a positive way. There also is a complete absence of any consideration as to whether Generation Y is exclusively an artifact of socioeconomic forces in certain countries, or a worldwide phenomenon. I'm not a member of Generation Y by anyone's standards, but I am disappointed in this apparently pointless and whiny article. 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC) <The preceding incorrectly signed comment was left by VisitorTalk> Thanks for correcting the reference, I had not yet learned how to use four tildes as the time I left the comment. VisitorTalk 08:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I've moved large chunks of this article's original research to Talk:Generation Y/Original research. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The revised article is much better edited. However, it still has a very large block of assertions without any supporting references - about sociological cohort theory in general, and about GenY in particular. In the "Background" section, the article "Many Generation Y members are labeled..." should be moved to a different section, since this is assertion about GenY character rather than an overview of the sociological definition of the cohort. The revised article unfortunately continues to define GenY in terms of negativity, bad attitudes, technology that happened to be released and widely adopted by GenY - with most of the statements unsupported by any citations or research. Where is there anything positive about GenY or its unique perspective on life? Where are the sources for the sweeping generalizations about what they think about and about what other generations think of them? VisitorTalk 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seniors On Stage

How do we know when article will be published on line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorsonstage (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 August 2007

"We"? If you mean your edits to the sandbox at Wikipedia:Introduction, that will be wiped shortly (it's a sandbox, you see.....) To be honest, I'm not at all sure that the content that you have posted there is notable enough for inclusion, so if you did create an article about it, it might be speedied or Prodded. Incidentally, RFF is (as it says at the top) for getting feedback about your own work on a specified article that has been subject to some development. Adrian M. H. 17:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Peaches Geldof

• I have recently taken partial responsibility for the wellbeing of this article, since a) it was in bad shape, and b) it would probably be a candidate for fairly high traffic, especially in Britain. While it remains a prime target for vandalism, I believe I have got rid of all the spurious rumour and libellous defamation, as well as making the article look a little bit pretty and sorting the references out in a organised way of which I am quietly proud. However, its not quite ready for peer review yet I don't think. Obviously it needs a picture, but can anyone give me some pointers on how to improve it quicksharp, I'd like to put it up for peer review probably within the month. Any help greatly appreciated. Jdcooper 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you add the picture, I recommend you go on to the peer review stage. Really, how much more can be said about a rich, wild young person who is famous for being a rich, wild young person? If there is something of notability or depth in her writing and broadcasting, other than their demonstrating that she is rich, wild, and young, then those notable items should be discussed in the article. As I'm not in the UK and am not interested in socialites, I had not heard of her before, so my apologies if there is more substance to her than I would guess from your article. VisitorTalk 05:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WSJT (Amateur radio software) rewritten

I have done a substantial rewrite (diff here) of WSJT (Amateur radio software), a piece of digital signal processing software used in amateur radio. The article now includes some history of the program, a new lede section, technical details about each communications mode in the software, a software infobox, and several sources. A more detailed log of my changes is available in the history of User:Iknowyourider/Workspace/WSJT (Amateur radio software)/Draft — I worked on the article in my userspace because I knew I would make it a lot messier before getting things back to something I'd like to see in the mainspace. Oh, I've also suggested some todos on the talk page.

I'd really appreciate any feedback on my changes, as this is the very first time I've done substantial article writing for Wikipedia. Thanks! ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The article seems fine as is, although non-hams might appreciate a brief explanation of the terms "propogation" and "contact" as used in ham radio. Relevant "see also" items could include software radios in general, and ham radio software in general. Not all the sections refer to the bands which can be used. If radio hardware needs to have a particular type of interface to work with WSJT, that should be mentioned as well. VisitorTalk 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Castillo de Salas

I was reading about Maritime incidents in Spain and found that there was no entry in Wiki about this ship's disaster, so I took another disaster as a template and worked on it. I based it on a stub under the same category and probably what I have written continues to be a stub. It is my first article and perhaps the template I used was not the best, so I'm looking for pointers of what to do next, what could have been done better, etc.

Figarema 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Venezuela

I have added a great deal of material on the history of Venezuela. It is generally accurate and objective. but some bias does show. I would advice review and further editing. 122.163.181.21 04:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Dr. Carlos Ramirez-Faria, author of Concise Encyclopedia of World HistoryItalic text' and other works.

I know nothing at all about Venezuela so can't offer any advice as to content, but something that does catch my eye is that the article for Guyana has a lengthy section on boundary disputes with Venezuela, which the Venezuela article barely mentions. The History & Culture sections should probably be split into subsections as well as they're quite long. While the "Venezuelan's are the happiest people in the world" quote does have a source, it seems a bit of a dubious claim; in light of the fact that the same website claiming this also shows Venezuela as having the 4th highest murder rate in the world, the worst business efficiency rate in the world, only 95th in the world for adequate sanitation etc etc etc; I think a claim like this needs more evidence — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Elite Force II

Star Trek: Elite Force II is a sequel to Star Trek: Voyager: Elite Force first person shooter which both take place in fictional Star Trek universe. In my opinion the article can no longer be considered a stub - the Plot section has been expanded [4] and internal links have been added [5].

I'd like to find out what strengths and weaknesses the article has - NPOV in the plot section, further information which should be included in the article and other possibilities for improvement. If possible, add your rating into the template on the Talk page. Thank you. ILorbb | Talk 07:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the first thing that must be corrected: Cite your sources. Adrian M. H. 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Conveyed_concept

Looking for input/feedback on this article in Linguistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.183.192 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't give feedback on a non-existent article. KTC 03:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Referenced article was case sensitive- corrected

Maybe you could define the context in which the concept conveyed concept is used. In this case this would be linguistics? Maybe you could also add and wikilink the word Linguistics somewhere. – Ilse@ 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a context and a wikilink to Linguistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedosmann (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 August 2007

Golden Film

I would like to ask an English native speaker to check the article Golden Film on language and flow. The article has been peer reviewed in order to become A-class and this is the last remaining task of the current comments. Your help is most welcome! – Ilse@ 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My only comments would be:

1. Change the "for the first 100,000 cinema tickets sold" in the lead paragraph to something along the lines of "selling over 100,000 cinema tickets" or "once it has sold 100,000 tickets" to make it clearer.
2. Clarify somewhere whether all 100,000 tickets need to be sold in the Netherlands - if a Dutch film was unsuccessful domestically, but popular in another country, would it qualify?
3. Clarify what criteria a film needs to meet to qualify (would an English-language film filmed in the Netherlands qualify? A Dutch-language film filmed in Belgium, Suriname etc?)
4. I can't see any particular stylistic or grammatical problems in the article itself, although some of the sections could possibly do with expanding.
5. Finally, I don't like the sentence "The Golden Film should bring good news about a film when the media attention for the film's release has stopped" as it's a bit unclear - does it mean that the award is intended to bring the film more publicity, or just intended to give the film's achievement official recognition — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning 1, 3, and 5: I changed the wording to deal with the unclarities you pointed out, based on your suggestions

Concerning 2: the award section gives the information.

Concerning 4: great!

Thank you for your comments! – Ilse@ 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Eclogue

This is an article which "defines" what ecologes are, and is from the prologue by Alexander Barclay in his book written in 1570 which was titled, "Certayne Ecloges". While many articles mention that writers of old "wrote" ecologues, few bother to discuss what constitutes an ecologe other than to say that they are pastorial. And, the old spelling, ecologes, seems to have given way to ecologues. Here, Barclay provides not only a discussion of what an ecologe is but goes on to describe his writings.

The article may well be in the wrong place within Wikipedia and direction on how to properly place it is requested.

sidi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidi j mahtrow (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 June 2007

Please include a link to the article. VisitorTalk 09:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Found it at Eclogue. The article's a bit of a mess and violates NPOV ("wrote remarkable eclogues", "the whole pastoral genre was ripe for parody" etc), and whilst references are provided, with no way of checking them there's a whiff of WP:OR about the whole article. As an aside, I'd strongly suggest making Ecloge, Ecologe and Ecologue into redirects to this page to save anyone else the same wasted time I've just had. (You yourself use all three spellings above without once actually using the actual article title, so it's obviously an easy mistake to make!) — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Iridescent. The article should be reorganized to first define the literary form, then discuss notable examples of the form. References to sources should be put inline in the body text of the article. The entire poem on the talk page should be replaced to a citation where the entire poem can be found (perhaps Project Guttenberg might have it?). Look at the articles on Sonnet and Haiku for examples of more appropriately comprehensive articles about poetic forms. VisitorTalk 03:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States

This is an article, recently created by another, that I have edited with some frequency. I initially nominated the article for deletion because it had been heavily POV at one point, but the deletion failed after improvements were made. Having re-read this newly-revised article, I feel that it belongs within the History section of the osteopathic medicine article, or perhaps this article should be renamed to "the history of osteopathic medicine" and expanded. I recognize that these are all crucial events in the history of osteopathic medicine, and I think the title of this article should reflect this. The conflict between medicine and osteopathic medicine looms large in osteopathic medicine, but as you read the material, it becomes clear that it is far less relevant to the history of 'allopathic' medicine. Because I'm uncertain as to what non-medically-oriented people think about this, and because I (an M.D. student) have been involved in a conflict with another editor (an osteopathic medical student), I'm interested in getting independent feedback regarding the proper location of and title for this material. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend leaving this article as an independent article, but change the title using the phrase in the introduction: "schism between osteopathic and allopathic medicine." Add links to this article from discussions of the history of each type of medicine. Leave the detailed discussion of the schism outside of the overview of osteopathic medicine. In general, I believe that extensive discussion of controversy, schism, debunking, etc. should be outside of primary articles on topics. 08:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Updating to include my user ID. VisitorTalk 08:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a usual policy on this, but in this circumstance I agree with VisitorTalk. Controversy, schism, debunking between these two groups should receive a brief mention in each parent article of the groups involved, but really deserves its own article so as not to distract or detract or inflate the controversy in the parent articles.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 04:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, are you satisfied with leaving the article as a separate article, or do you want to leave this feedback request open for further comments? VisitorTalk 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade

I recently added a section to the Mircea Eliade article on Eliade's philosophical views. (Eliade was a historian of religion.) Click here to see the section. I have not yet received much feedback. I suspect that's because not many people are very familiar with Eliade. However, feedback would be appreciated. --Phatius McBluff 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, that's a long article! I'd strongly suggest cross-posting this to WPP; this is a very specialist piece of technical writing & they're likely to be the only people qualified to comment on it — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend having the discussion of Eliade's philosophy put into a new article, separate from the biographical overview article. Not sure if hierophany would be the appropriate title for this article. Look at the article on Einstein for an example of how to keep the more technical material out of a general biography, while still noting its importance in the author's life. VisitorTalk 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Babylon 5: Legions of Fire - Out of the Darkness

I did a fairly major edit of the article by adding a detailed plot outline of the novel.

Here is the Diff

I am new to wikipedia so I would appreciate feedback regarding style, format and length. Also, since my native language is Russian, I'd appreciate comments regarding English, especially the usage of definite and indefinite articles.

Thanks, Nsk92 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the inappropriate section about availability and pricing; availability is quite irrelevant to an encyclopædic article and mentioning the price goes against content guidelines per the MoS. Mention a price only when notable and pertinent, such as in Sunflowers (series of paintings). The next most obvious thing that jumped out at me is the exact same issue that is evident in an article a couple of sections below this: Cite your sources. On the upside, you have little to be concerned about with regard to your second language; it needs only minimal copy editing. One more thing that you can fix: view it in the edit window and you will see a swathe of truncated lines, which looks a mess and does nothing to assist editing. I fixed the first two paragraphs for you. Adrian M. H. 18:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good, thanks for the comments! Regarding the price and availability info, I basically agree with your opinion. I kept that section from the previous stub version of the page written by somebody else. At the time I did not give much thought to this issue. I just noticed that after your edit, someone (85.156.229.176) edited the page again and he/she added an "availability" section at the end of the page. I don't have particularly strong feelings about this issue, but I would appreciate if you take another look and see if you want to modify this last edit by 85.156.229.176.

Regarding citing the sources, could you suggest some specific places in the article where this might be appropriate? Most of what I wrote provides a detailed plot summary for which the reference is the book itself. There were a few places where some info from the TV episodes/B5 movies was mentioned and in such places I gave links to the articles for Wikipedia entries for these items. There was one specific fact for which I would like to get a good external reference but so far I could not find one on the web. This concerns the statement that the novel is considered "canonical" by J. Micahel Straczynski. This statement is being made (but without giving an external reference) at the main B5 novelization page. Thanks again, Nsk92 19:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just found a statement by Straczynski himself confirming the "canon" claim and I added a reference to it from the page. Nsk92 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In practice, there is probably little that you can do to reference a plot summary, though the strict interpretation would be that you are synthesising content from a primary source in a form of original research. Because OR is prohibited, it needs some verifiability. We have to avoid using other WP articles as sources because (a) that is self-referencing, which should always be avoided for reasons of respectability, and (b) the material may not be accurate unless it is itself properly referenced. So what you should do is try to find some outside references (secondary and reliable) that support the material. WP:V does not require that we provide citations for all material, but a complete lack of citations is definitely a bad thing. We discuss issues like this at length on the policy talk pages, and they are worth following. I reverted the anon edit; feel free to do the same if it returns. Adrian M. H. 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

R.M.R. Hall

I recently created this article about the late Linguistics professor from Queens College. I'm putting in as much information as I can, and earlier this week I got an email from another QC professor willing to assist! In the meantime, please let me know what you think of the article, and the best ways I can expand it. --Procrastinatrix 22:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the article to the one on Noam Chomsky, I see that you could include:

• In the lead section, mention any notable theories, research, etc. that were Hall's key contributions to his field.
• Expand the biographical section.
• Discuss his work.
• Discuss his influence.
• Note any notable controversy if there was some.

Of course there will probably not be quite as much to say about someone who was not as much of a lighting rod for both praise and criticism as Chomsky. But the outline might be useful nonetheless. VisitorTalk 03:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Physical Geography

Hello, I have recently expanded the Physical geography article quite a bit and wanted to know of any other sections that could be included and what can be done to the present article to improve it thanks. AlexD 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Link to Diff

Nice use of pictures to illustrate some of the fields. Can you continue that for the whole list? I would also like to see a discussion of when "physical geography" was used as an umbrella term for all of these fields; is it currently the mainstream term to indicate all these fields; and how it relates to the term "natural history." VisitorTalk 03:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you VisitorTalk for your feedback, I shall make a history section on physical geography in the article as this should allow for a link between 'natural history' and phys. geog. to be developed along with recent developments and its use as an umbrella term. AlexD 16:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Severus Snape

A number of editors have been working away at this article, but we need fresh eyes to read it and see the problems we've become blind to. We'd appreciate any comment as we'd like to take it to Wikipedia:Good article candidates soon. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to say alot, but one thing I notice is there is alot of spaces after full stops missing. It looks crammed when there is no space after a full stop. Consider changing this, that's my feedback :) → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Meg & Dia

I recently did alot of additions to this article and to the albums they have made. To say there isn't much info about the band on the net, as they are a rather small band, I feel I did pretty well. I would like feedback on what could be improved. Please note:

• Could I do it again, I would make less edits, but add the same content.
• There isn't many sources I can find, but I think I have made good use of the ones I found.
• I added the image of the band, and the images of two of the EPs.
• I also created If You're Poor Find Something to Sue For, one of their albums.
• This is what it was like before I started my major revamping.

Thanks for any constructive feedback, criticism, or whatever you decide to say! → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance fair

I started work on the rewrite about two weeks ago -- It was just too muddled pre-August 23rd. And tried to cut down on the number of images. Better? Artemis-Arethusa 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks alot better, try fixing the references so you can remove that tag from the top. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Real Time Opera (trying to avoid COI)

I'm hoping to avoid getting tagged for COI again. Could you please give me some pointers for Real Time Opera? Many thanks Vicvaughan 01:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, it still reads like an advert. The article has to be rewritten from a neutral point of view, to just say what the organisation does. Most importantly, it urgently needs independent, non-trivial sources for every statement; because Wikipedia's a tertiary source, we should only be reprinting things that other media have already said — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Flugpo

I am currently in the process of improving the article Flugpo, which is being recreated on User:Saracity123/Sandbox. The article has been greatly modified since being deleted and now better incorporates Wikipedia's policies. As I am greatly dependent on feedback to help further my knowledge of this interactive, I am definitely interested in any and all helpful suggestions you have. Thanks! Saracity123 10:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nadine Baggott

I've made extensive edits and corrections to this article, I'd specifically like someone to check it for NPOV. DMcMPO11AAUK 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mini blind

What do you guys think of this article? Mini blind. I think it needs a lot of work, or maybe should just be merged into window blind. What d'ya think?

I think the merge would be appropriate. Other than the size of the slats and their decorative look, is there anything about mini blinds that's really different than "full-size" horizontal window blinds? VisitorTalk 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep it. Obviously, someone went to a lot of effort on it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, effort has no bearing in mergers, redirects, deletions, and other procedural methods. Adrian M. H. 20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. i meant, someone spent a lot of productive effort on it, which resulted in what appears to be a high-quality article. --Steve, Sm8900 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

XSCapacity-Terminology -Freight and Manufactures Slang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XsCapacity

I wam wanting to insure that I did this wiki right, this is my first try

XsCapacity is a term being coined for the utilization of excess semi trailer space. This new term references the use of under utilized or excess capacity in semi-trailer space for the movement of cargo and freight around the country. The meaning of this title is two fold and is utilized in the marketing of this type of services by various entities including freight brokers, freight forwarders and other.

1. Creates a significant reduction in pollution by reducing the amount of trailers on the road at any given time.

2. Reduces the cost of manufacturing overhead by reducing the cost associated with the shipment of finished goods around the country.

XsCapacity is a shortened version of Excess Capacity and definition is defined the same as excess capacity published by Glossary of Industrial Organization Economics and Competition Law, compiled by R. S. Khemani and D. M. Shapiro, commissioned by the Directorate for Financial, Fiscal and Enterprise Affairs, OECD, 1993.

Definition of Excess Capacity, the fully lengthened version of XsCapacity: Excess capacity refers to a situation where a firm is producing at a lower scale of output than it has been designed for, in this context the production of goods is the empty trailer space that is utilized by shippers in the reduction of cost and pollution.

Source Publication: Glossary of Industrial Organization Economics and Competition Law, compiled by R. S. Khemani and D. M. Shapiro, commissioned by the Directorate for Financial, Fiscal and Enterprise Affairs, OECD, 1993.

I had heard of services like Consalidated Freightways' "CFS Moves You," but I didn't know there was a generic term for the service. Thanks for the article. VisitorTalk 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some new categories

Hi folks. How do you like these? did these myself. curious to get some feedback from some other editors. compliments welcomed, as well as constructive feedback. :-) thanks.

Category:Diplomatic conferences

Category:Political charters

Category:Star Trek starship simulators

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly not within the remit of RFF. Adrian M. H. 15:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. ok, sorry. thanks for replying. anyway, hope you like these new categories? any random thoughts? :-) anyway, that'll be all from me. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Baal

Along with practices of human sacrifice sexuality, orgies, etc is the practice of cutting (1Kings18:28) with lancets, knives, which is now being practiced by youths of various countries.

Er... what's your question? — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, this IP user hasn't even edited that article. So I feel this "comment" can be deleted now :) — jacĸrм (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Kunichika

I have changed this article extensively and would welcome feedback. Carrie

The things that jump out to me are:

1. The article is unreferenced aside from a single book;
2. It contains some non-neutral statements ("At his worst, Kunichika's work was banal and derivative", "His appearance was shabby" etc) — these are statements of personal opinion, not fact. If critics said this you can mention this with an appropriate citation, but otherwise it's a non-neutral review;
3. There's no list of works, or even a "he is best known for", for anyone wanting to see examples of his work;
4. In my opinion, there should be a least a brief explanation as to how he differed from other Japanese artists of the period;
5. I'm not convinced by the statement that "Kunichika was unique in that his output straddles the old and the new (Edo to Meiji eras) represented by his classical subject matter and his use of modern (western) materials" — while I don't know much about the subject and may be wrong, does this not apply equally well to the (probably better known) Hokusai?

Hope that helps — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I have tried to address the issues you raised. Hokusai was an earlier artist who worked in a different genre. Kunichika does not have any famously recognizable prints, though his mature style is usually easily recognizable. He has only recently begun to be rehabilitated from a neglect of members of the Utagawa school. --Clhowson 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[6] I have added many more external links, some "see alsos" and a new category. I also clarified reason for only one source in bibliography. [7] Added picture to illustrate "beauties." [8] Added picture to illustrate "big head" portraits. Added info about student Toyohara Chikanobu. [9] Added portrait of Kunichika, more examples of his work, examples of his signatures. --Clhowson 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

History_of_East_Asia

Hi. I've tried to introduce a few stub remarks for the History of East Asia article. It is a challenging topic. There isn't a lot of scholarship about East Asian culture. However, there is still a common history shared by East Asian nations, even if it is not nearly as unified as the history of Europe. I hope that we can have a thorough article even 1/4 of the size of its European counterpart.

A few historical events that shaped the entire region:

Early History:

• the start of Taoism and Confucianism and its spread throughout the region
• the Mandate of Heaven, and how this affected notions of sovereignty and suzerainty for nearby powers.
• the arrival of Buddhism from India and its spread throughout the region
• the growth of the silk road and its effect on the region and its culture

"Middle" Ages:

• the invention and spread of the stirrup, and its influence on regional warfare
• the birth of the Chinese civil service and its influence on other governments in the region
• the surge of neo-confucianism (I think this affected the whole region, but I'm not sure)
• the advent and spread of gunpowder from China
• the spread of printing technologies from China
• the arrival of the Mongols
• the arrival of the Europeans

Other General Requests

• any events of regional significance in the industrial era onward
• modernization of the region -- didn't this take place around the same time for most countries?
• pre-history, like ancient nomadic tribes
• wars from any time, if they had a significant regional impact

Experts on any of these topics would be helpful, especially if they can find interactions between East Asian peoples.

You should probably post this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan etc as well (there's a full list of the regional WikiProjects here) as those are the pages the people with relevant experience/expertise are likely to be reading — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons and Marcus Dixon

Hello Wiki-experts! I'm still fairly new to creating new pages, the two above being my first attempts to break into creation from editing. A am not an expert on either subject and have had to research pretty much everything that's in these two articles.

Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons are an action group trying to save wild birds in Trafalgar Square, London from starvation due to recent legislation changes.

Marcus Dixon is a young man who was involved in a high profile rape case, who's conviction was overturned. I feel the article is worth due to the wide-spread notoriaty of the case.

I was wondering if you could have a look at them and let me know what I'm doing right, but especially what I'm doing wrong! Many Thanks LookingYourBest 09:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing that leaps out at me from the "pigeons" article is the sentence "STTSP members moved an area of the Square not under GLA jurisdiction"; since the GLA (Greater London Authority) is a devolved government body, all of London is under their jurisdiction aside from embassies and a few military sites. Since there are a few embassies on Trafalgar Square it is (just) possible that the group is operating in an extraterritorial enclave, but if so that's such an unusual situation you need to explain it; none of the three embassies there (Canada, Malaysia & South Africa) are of countries that seem likely to risk the diplomatic backlash of trying to enforce their own laws against the will of the host government. There is also a notability issue with this article, as I don't feel you demonstrate multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage of this organisation in the media.

It seems that part of the square (North Terrace) is under the jurisdiction of Westminster City Council and not the Unitary Authority. This is not uncommon, for example in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton are "Unitary Authorities" but Police and Fire services are still provided by Hampshire, but Hampshire does not control planning, education, trading standards etc in the unitary authorities. Searching "trafalgar square jurisdiction" on google / altavista throws up a couple of BBC articles discussing this case including one that contains the text "The north terrace is the only section of the landmark that does not fall under the control of the mayor - it comes under the jurisdiction of Westminster City Council." DMcMPO11AAUK 08:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the above is correct. The North Terrace is part of Westminster City Council, thus GLA have no jurisdiction on it. I've found and added a source from the Daily Mail as well as peice about the fact this has now also been banned. LookingYourBest 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Marcus Dixon article has a lot of problems and I think it's likely to be deleted; please make sure you're familiar with WP:BLP and particularly WP:BLP1E before you work any further on this article. Not only is it dangerously close to an unsourced attack page (the seven references are misleading - two are from a self described Communist agit-prop agency, one is from Snopes which is definitely not a reliable source, and two are a duplication of the same reference to Oprah Winfrey's website) but there's nothing to suggest either that the case is particularly unusual (and for situations like this the article should be about the case, not the suspect), nor that there's anything notable about the suspect other than his involvement in the case — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all your help! I think I understand - the Marcus Dixon case needs to be changed to be a page about the case itself ... although I can't think of name for it right now and I need to find more mention of the Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons in the media? I would have thought that the BBC would have been a good source? I think I may have read the GLA thing wrong ... but I'm sure that's what it said ... I'll check! Thanks again for the heads up on both articles! LookingYourBest 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Convention seems to favour a populist approach along the lines of Marcus Dixon trial, although I would have expected to see the formal name of the case (as used in case law) instead. WP:NC makes no specific prescriptions. Adrian M. H. 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed Marcus Dixon for deletion. Notability seems to be based on (a) criminal conviction (b) reversal of the conviction and (c) having been on a talk show. I don't believe this is sufficient notability (WP:BIO). DMcMPO11AAUK 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on the above - if you put "Marcus Dixon" into google pretty much every entry on the first 3 pages is to do with this case! Millions of people world-wide have heard of this trial and imprisonment and I'm shocked it's never been mentioned in Wikipedia. As discussed above though, I agree it may not be suitable as a biography, but could be more appropriate as an article about the trial?! LookingYourBest 06:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The article really needs a picture of Trafalgar Square with the pigeons! While people who've been there easily remember the square and pigeons, those who haven't need to see what all the fuss is about. Should be easy enough to find a picture with suitable licensing. VisitorTalk 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't a suitable image at Commons, Iridescent might have one that he can upload. He has provided a lot of good photos of London. Adrian M. H. 15:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are less that 400 pigeons left, though... that's the point! — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, at the height of the pigeon population you'd have pictures of people COVERED in pigeons! I'm going to add this one;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:People_feeding_pigeons_in_Trafalgar_Square_c.1993.jpg until a more suitable one turns up! LookingYourBest 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The posture theory

"This article lacks information on the notability of the subject matter. Please help improve this article by providing context for a general audience, especially in the lead section."

What do you mean by "notablity"?

I am eager to learn!Paula Syptak Price 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

RFF is not the appropriate venue for questions about editing, which should be clear from its description in the header. You need to know about notability in order to contribute, as it is one of the most basic and fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. Please take careful note of the links that I placed on your talk page on the 24th, because they answer this very question and take you to the appropriate venues for questions such as this. Adrian M. H. 00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

References and links

• [10]
• [11]

</nowiki>

Maybe now you see why I made it here and not an actual article. What can I add to the article to make it more notable? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have omitted some important information, this does not meet the notability guidelines. This band has not had/done one or more of the following:

1. Released at least two albums on a recognised label
2. Been on a national or international tour that has featured in reliable independent sources
3. Been the subject of editorial in such sources (passing mentions not accepted)
4. Had a chart presence or a gold release
5. Had a notable member (notability is not normally inherited, so I don't know why this got through)
6. Represented the vanguard of a notable style
7. Had a major award nomination
8. Had repeated and regular national airplay
9. Placed in a music competition (that's a really lax criterion, in my opinion)
10. Been used for a notable TV show or film
11. Been the subject of a music documentary or similar programme

Or any of the five points in the Others section of WP:MUSIC. The only sources that you have are considered unacceptable as references. Adrian M. H. 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Efficas Inc and Efficas Care

Dear Moderator,

I wish to contest the immediate block that continues to impede my posting of information to Wikipedia about a medical food called Efficas Care™, and the company that produces it, Efficas Inc.

After a first set of flags on these contributions, we have made significant edits to reduce “marketing” type language. These entries are purely informational at this point, and include proper academic references from peer-reviewed publications, both internal and external links and historical references that set these entries in a class comparable to others you have posted. And yet, when trying to re-post, the entries were blocked before the content could possibly even have been reviewed. In addition, I have seen similar-type medical product entries on Wikipedia such as the Restylane stub that have not been flagged.

As a registered dietitian, I feel the essential fatty acids available in this gel are an important natural remedy for allergy and asthma sufferers. I see that Restylane is classified under “WikiProject: Medicine” and the write-up is in a format that is considered a “style guideline” by the Wikipedia community. Can you please advise whether this is a more appropriate path/classification for Efficas Care and Efficas, Inc.?

Any insight you can offer into how I may be able to post information on Efficas Care and Efficas Inc. for the Wikipedia community is much appreciated.

Thank you for your consideration.

I assume you are User:Wendyweiss123 or User:Dean Stull. I suggest you familiarise yourself with What Wikipedia is not. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal web host; if you are looking for somewhere to host advertising for your company I would suggest a commercial ISP, and if you are looking to post your resume for free, might I suggest Myspace. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)