Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/October 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 (~~~~).

History of the board game Monopoly

[edit]

Derek Ross must be given a lot of credit for expanding the history section of the original Monopoly (game) article. In doing some research of my own, I also expanded the section to the point where I thought it best to fork off the section into its own article, and thus reduce the size of the main article. History of the board game Monopoly has recently reached 30K in size, which is, I think, a testament to the amount of material available on the game. I have acquired many of the sources myself, to use as proper references (including three books by Philip Orbanes, one of which I've owned since it was first published in the 1980s, and even a self-published book on the game's early history, which can be purchased by contacting its author, or finding it on eBay). I have also added four images to the page (the patent reproduction image "came with the move"), all of which have proper fair use rationale. I am awaiting publication of Phil Orbanes's Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game-And How it Got that Way to finish polishing some of the sections. For instance, I know the 2000 World Tournament was held in Toronto, but can't find the winner. Any help and advice is welcome. --JohnDBuell 03:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall, the article is pretty good. Here are some comments (note that, since the article is pretty well written, personal comments are just that, and is not necessary to listen to them):
    1. Some cosmetic changes would be good (in example, moving the image found at Monopoly as a brand to the right to prevent clashing the See also title at 1024x768 or lower).
    2. No instruction, advice or ideas per Wikipedia is not (however, one can most likely avoid violation by producing a board and rules that are functionally identical while using different words and graphics.)
    3. Follow the dash guideline, instead of -- use mdash, and instead of - use ndash with spaces around it. In example, instead of money--with, use either money—with or money – with.
    4. References should follow immediately after the word or punctuation mark. In example, number 40 has a space. (1950s. [40]) There are others that need to be cleaned.
    5. Decide whether put punctuation marks inside quotes or outside it. In example, without "Rich Uncle Pennybags," and the car on "Free Parking",
    6. Try not wikilinking heading, per heading linking guidelines.
    7. Per conversion guidelines, don't use $300, choose an alternate (US$300, in example).
    8. There are a few red links; you may consider creating those articles, or unlinking them until someone else has time to write them.
    9. (Personal opinion) I hate ibid. I know it is professional, and this is my own point of view, but wanted to make it clear.
    10. (Personal opinion) I am guessing Image:Monopoly logo T-shirt and model cars.jpg, Image:Historic U.S. Monopoly game boards.jpg and Image:International Monopoly board game editions.jpg could be dual licensed.
    I will let someone else check the prose, I found it very well except in a few situations (like the previously mentioned one can most likely avoid...). Congratulations, you may have a winner here :) -- ReyBrujo 04:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent and very quick responses, thanks! To the specific points: #1 - done. #2, that "came with the move" and has been removed (also added that the game is protected by copyright and trademark laws, not just one). #3-#5 I'll look at later, as a lot of that requires my eyes not to be so tired! :) #6 Done. #7 For this I might copy the disclaimer currently at the start of Monopoly (game) about currency marks, as it's really play money. #8 I'll think about - I've always been pro-red links, but I know there's a considerable anti-red link faction. #9 So noted; I've always used ibid. #10 - The photographs are mine, and original, but they depict items protected by law, so I'm going to leave them as fair use. I'm going to err on the side of not getting sued :) Thanks again! --JohnDBuell 04:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After having another look, it seems that only two uses of $ had to do with play money, which was still US Dollars at the time (no editions had been published outside the USA yet). All other references had to do with "real" money, so I changed them all to US$. --JohnDBuell 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't misunderstand me (I stroke something I should not have written, must be the hour). I don't really care about red links, but if those links are notable enough to become articles in Wikipedia, it is better to have them as stubs rather than red links for several reasons: anonymous users can't create articles, but they can expand; new users can create articles, but rarely stub or categorize them, while you should be able to do both (and indirectly help me having one less article I need to discover while browsing linkless articles); and a casual user searching for information about a determined article can at least read the stub without having to first find the Monopoly article and then going to the History of the board game Monopoly one. -- ReyBrujo 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A minor comment, but one that concerns accessability: using "ibid." is not a good idea in an encyclopedia that is intended for the general public. Most people aren't used to footnotes nor the standard shorthand notation of academics. Simply writing out the source isn't going to bother anyone even if it's repeated a few times.
Peter Isotalo 09:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at changing some of the "Ibid." statements. The <ref> system IS the current de facto footnoting standard, but the current WP:MOS doesn't seem to state one way or the other about using Ibid. I do note that it says page ranges should be indicated with an ndash, though, and not a hyphen. Peter, I did the article naming per WP:TITLE, specifically: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Because even the main game article itself is Monopoly (game) (due to the existence of economic monopolies), I felt from the moment I forked off the article that "History of Monopoly" would be asking for trouble as it's too ambiguous. --JohnDBuell 11:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to appeal to academics, use "ibid.", but not if you want make it accessible to a wider audience. But using dashes instead of a hyphens...? It sounds like a very subjective and overly detailed recommendation to me.
The title issue doesn't seem all that irrelevant to the PR, so I've responded over there.
Peter Isotalo 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the ndash request was odd, it's the first I've seen it, and would mean I've been "incorrect" in a lot of ref tags. Still, with a proper text substitution, I don't see that it or the spacing/punctuation issues that ReyBrujo mentioned would be difficult to do, it's just not something I really had the spare time to do during the day. Same would apply to ibid. tags - looking through recent FAs, there's no real usage of it. --JohnDBuell 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's been a while. I've been ill and haven't spent any time on Wikipedia in a couple of weeks. I took care of ReyBrujo's #3 and #9 points. I still need to do #4 and #5. --JohnDBuell 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered all of ReyBrujo's points now. I've also received a copy of the Anspach book, which I've started to read. --JohnDBuell 01:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station

[edit]

I have contributed to this article a while ago. Now somebody has asked for a peer review as a preliminary stage to getting it to FAC-status. The main issues the article has are 1. citations and 2. the criticism section (as far as I see it). More input on that article + help resolving problems would be appreciated. Especially in the light of this article being on the front page under the news section quite often, we should make a special effort to get it into perfect shape. Themanwithoutapast 20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a quick read-through and so I only have a few comments:
  • I would like it if the first sentence of the page presented a definition of the ISS, rather than listing the agencies involved. I.e. presume the reader knows nothing about it. For example, "The International Space Station (ISS) is a manned research facility that is being assembled in orbit around the Earth," or something better. In fact I'd be sorely tempted to move the list of agencies to the end of the introduction and jump right into the meat of the topic. The list is the least interesting part: it's better to start the article with a bang and try to capture the reader's interest.
    Has been changed. Still think the partners have to be mentioned upfront in the first paragraph, it is the most important information just like in any joint venture. Themanwithoutapast 07:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on that: the five space agencies have to be mentioned in the article introduction. // Duccio (write me) 23:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be important information in the context of getting the project done, but it makes for exceedingly dull reading. My eyes just skipped right over it. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assemply process is spread between three different sections: the history, a building progress section and the assemly section. Perhaps this can be re-organized into a single logical structure?
  • Too many "planned" in "It was planned to combine the planned space stations".
  • In the "Structures and design" section it discusses a particular orientation of the structures. (I.e. starbord, port, aft-forward). It would be helpful if this was explained in terms of some type of orbital orientation, or else it could state that the directions were chosen arbitrarily.
  • Sun should be capitalized and can be linked to the article.
  • If the Habitation Module was cancelled, how do they plan to accomodate a crew of six? Will they be using a hot-bunking system?
  • Sleeping places are spread throughout the station. There will be 3 in the Russian segment once the ISS is completed and 3 in the US segment. But actually it is not really necessary to have a separate 'bunk' in space, what they do right now for some visitors is just strap their sleeping bag to the wall of a module get into it and sleep. Unity is the preferable location for that. Themanwithoutapast 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where inline citations are used, it would be preferable if the cite templates were employed to give more information about the link. E.g. {{cite web}}.
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Structures and design" section it discusses a particular orientation of the structures. (I.e. starbord, port, aft-forward). It would be helpful if this was explained in terms of some type of orbital orientation, or else it could state that the directions were chosen arbitrarily. — What do you exactly mean? Something like west-east or nadir? The use of a local coordinate system is mandatory since, when completed, the station's attitude will be fixed with the aft-forward axis laying in the direction of the motion (aka velocity vector), but untill all four photovoltaic modules are in theis definitive position the station's orientation may vary depending on many factors, like the angle between the sun and station's orbit plane. There's a much better explaination than mine if you go here: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/iss_attitude.html — as you see, we can't use terms like north as what is north today might be west tomorrow... // Duccio (write me) 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that there is a local coordinate system at work, and no I very clearly didn't mean East/West/North/South/Nadir. (Why did you even introduce that?) But the reason for this orientation of the local directions should be explained to the reader. At present the text just tosses out terms such as port and aft-forward without clarifying this particular orientation. If they were chosen by the designers because of the station's expected orbit/orientation upon completion (with forward being in the direction of orbit and down being toward the Earth) then stating such is needed. (Note that I can't read that link you sent me because of my browser's security settings.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding, I made the connection between the local coordinate system and the velocity vector explicit in the article. As port and starboard (as well as aft) also might not be obvious to the reader I linked them to their articles, which I will improve in the near future to cover not only the naval use of the terms. The link I provided has been added as a reference using the proper {{cite web}} template. Please see if I fully addressed the "Structure and design" point. // Duccio (write me) 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So the forward direction is established by the velocity vector. Are the port/starbord facings with respect to somebody on board turned forward and with their feet toward the Earth? — RJH (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as that should be obvious because of the meaning of port and starboard in the naval context I'm not sure I'll be able to find a reliable source stating that explicitly... // Duccio (write me) 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's really that obvious. Port could be oriented toward the Earth, for example, and which side of the truss is "up" or "down"? — RJH (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you would like - if I understood correctly - is a second connection between local coordinates system and orbital orientation, stating that the station doesn't roll freely - am I correct? // Duccio (write me) 18:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it there are two possible orientations that satisfy the port-starbord axis definition in the text. Perhaps a simple graphic showing the both axes relative to the station layout, the orbital velocity and the Earth would work? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a graphic would probably help a lot. As soon as I'll find one, I'll put it in the article. In case we have difficulties finding one we could see if someone with drawing capabilities can do it for us, I remember there's a place here on wikipedia where you can make similar requests. All the other points you arose seem clear to me, thank you for your review :-) // Duccio (write me) 20:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requested pictures as well as the Category:Wikipedia requested images templates. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments, hopefully of some use:
  • The history section states that, "the science conducted aboard was limited due to the crew size of two." It would be helpful if the text put this in perspective by explaining what a crew of two spends most of their time doing. (I.e. repair work.)
  • It would be good to have some mention of the concerns that were generated during the two-man space walks; the entire ISS crew. Also that the ISS was deliberately designed to minimize the number of space walks required for construction.
  • I think "logistics&maintenance" needs spaces.
  • I'm puzzled by the statement that: "In contrast to common belief, the overall majority of costs for NASA are not incurred for initially building the ISS modules and external structure on the ground or for construction, crew and supply flights to the ISS." Isn't that almost the entirety of the costs? It never explains where the majority of the costs are being spent.
Yes that point should be made clearer. The majority of the costs is in spacecraft operations and maintenance, that is the thousands of people on the ground and the facility costs that have to be paid for that are not related to building the modules or crew and supply flights. Roughly stated spacecraft operations amounts to 65% of the overall costs, 15 % is building the modules and other segments on the ground and the rest is for supply ships, ATV and HTV development, COTS etc. The Shuttle fixed costs (some 3-4 billion per year) are not included into that calculation as they are technically not ISS costs (although the Shuttle is only used for ISS construction right now). Themanwithoutapast 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take this for FAC, they may complain about the amount of text inside parentheses. You might want to rewrite some parts of the text to reduce that issue.
  • There are a few punctuation issues. E.g. "...very often cited as USD, ESA, the only agency actually ESA, the only agency actually stating potential overall costs on its website estimates 100 billion EUR)".
RJH (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments RJH, I hope someone can start implementing them into the article. I will only have some time to do work on the article in a couple of days. Themanwithoutapast 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm glad to be of some assistance. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only Fools and Horses

[edit]

I've been working on this for a few weeks now, hoping to get it up to GA and (eventually) FA standard. I'm just looking for general comments and criticisms of the article; what it needs to bring it up to standard, what needs to be sourced, added or clarified etc. All comments will be much appreciated. SteveO 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several things:

-Burn the Trivia section, then spit on its corpse. Sorry to be so brusque, but this article will not reach FA with a Trivia section.

-An article this size needs much more than 18 citations. Sometimes whole sections go uncited.

-The Characters section needs prose beyond just the descriptions of the individual characters. You could talk about the themes that developed between the characters, their interactions, and so forth. Or you can even talk about why certain actors and actresses were chosen for the roles.

-The Merchandise section needs to be either expanded or merged with the Cultural impact section.

-Needs a good copyedit. Ask a user that has experience with these types of articles to help out.UberCryxic 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I sympathise with how you feel about trivia sections. Anything worthwhile can be merged into the main article. I'll try and rectify what you suggested. Thanks once again. SteveO 11:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox

[edit]

I didn't write this article, but this article definitely deserves a peer review. -- Selmo (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly weak. It's very short (more like a list) and the prose needs some work (too much passive voice, for example). I also question the perspective on some issues -- especially ActiveX. Why is lack of support necessarily a criticism? As the cited Cnet review notes: "Firefox doesn't support VBScript and ActiveX Controls, which are often the source of attacks and vulnerabilities within IE." -- bcasterline • talk 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't use it per severe lack of features and unreliability compared to Opera. I have not read any independent reviews on this myself, but I guess some would exist somewhere. Just a thought.--Konstable 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Web Controls, such as Active X, are seriously over blown to make it APPEAR they only pose security threats. I atribute this to the average FireFox noob (a sect of the FF community) who does not understand what Web Controls are. In the IE6 Crits they referenced an IE4 article stating that Active X controls can allow a person to takeover your computer, obviously we are not working with IE4 as IE6 and IE7 have enhanced security procedures in place.

Active X is often used on any site containing media that is run with software currently on the clients computer or will install the software needed. For online installers (such as mcafee) Active X is cruicial in deploying their software to the clients computer, it protects mcafee against illigally distributed versions and also makes it easier because they only need to update certain files rather then the whole installer. Because FireFox does not support Active X (I believe all 'Active X' type controls have to be manually implemented by plugins. Not certain though.) it can not experiance the media web as easily as browsers that implement Active X.131.247.243.121 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Strict web standards compliance - I don't understand how this could possibly be classed a "criticism" of Firefox ! It reads to me more like a criticism of Internet Explorer. Following w3c recommendations is, by definition, correct behaviour for a web browser. Not following the standards is buggy behaviour.
A similar argument could be made the previous section "IE Compatibility". A developer who codes a page in a particular way to work around or take advantage of a bug in one browser, shouldn't *expect* that quirk to work in any other browser. The fact that the Mozilla developers have taken the time to accommodate developers who don't follow the standards is not even necessarily a good thing. It encourages developers to continue coding in the same way, and doesn't alert them to possible problems in the future (for example, what if that quirk were to be removed from a later version of IE ?). On the contrary, you could make a better argument criticising Firefox for having such a "quirks" mode !
The article should also mention the particular version which is being described, since new versions are released on a fairly regular basis. For example the section about "Memory usage" may be correct as of the time of writing, but could very possibly be fixed in a later release.
Overall, I think this is a very poorly written article, and in fact it seems to violate the NPOV policy of WP: - the article seems heavily biased in favour of the idea that the way Internet Explorer does things is "correct", and everything else must be incorrect.

--Salsa man 02:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not really necessary. Information could be taken from it and put in a subheading under Mozilla Firefox, but it is not written well enough for it to stand alone. I agree with Salsa man; the information should be kept, but not in its very own article.P.L.A.R. 01:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool World

[edit]

Cleaned this article up a bit from its original state. How'd I do? (Ibaranoff24 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

My $.02 worth:
  • Is it "Holli Wood" or "Holli Would"? The spelling is inconsistent.
  • Suggest changing "Brad Pitt plays Detective Frank Harris, the Cool World cop (who has chosen to stay in Cool World) out to make sure humans..." to something like "Brad Pitt plays Detective Frank Harris, a human who has chosen to stay in Cool World and serve as a cop. His job is to make sure that humans..."
  • Shouldn't "Noids" be lower-case?
  • "Deebs and Holli heads..." => "Deebs and Holli head..."
  • I question whether the "Real World" needs to be capitalized. The Cool World is a place, whereas the real world is a state. (I.e. real versus fantasy.)
  • The entire "Conception and production" section consists of a commentary from the perspective of Ralph Bakshi. How about some other viewpoints? There's almost nothing about the animation process, for example.
  • Did Frank Mancuso Jr. ever state why he rewrote the script?
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest avoiding slang, such as cop. Better to call them police officers, or find a more appropriate term. TheMadBaron 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived PRs - PR2 PR1

Thiruvananthapuram

[edit]

Formal request for a peer review for this article as a way of preparing for featured article.

-- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 09:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely got some good features so I'll just point out some of the things that need fixing. 1. It's got some awkward and possibly non-native speaker writing that needs a significant copyediting to improve, and turning colloquial phrasing into more encyclopedic wording. 2. It also still has a lot of statements of opinion that are not backed by sources "of India’s most literate and socially developed state", "however, much of this high potential growth would depend on the investment and trade union reforms of the government.", etc. Neither are forgone conclusions and need to be worded more neutrally or replaced with referenced statements. 3. What about the infrastructure? Water, power, sewage treatment, etc. It tells about the transportation, but nothing else. The coverage of transport is relatively too much and should be shortened to make room for discussion of other facets of infrastructure. 4. The education section lists some schools but doesn't tell us about the overall quality compared to national and international standard, or even the literacy rate. 5. Demographics could be expanded to discuss poverty and wealth distribution. I hope that's enough for starters to help you improve further, though this is well on it's way. Let me know if you finish this and I'll see what else I can find. - Taxman Talk 01:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient references are added to support the statements like "of India’s most literate and socially developed state", etc. I will soon try to fix the other points also. -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The inline comments by Taxman in the article is addressed, and fixed. -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The article is prepared so as to match it as per the standards mentioned in WP:INCITIES. -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 13:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of Australia

[edit]

I've been working on this article to complement Fauna of Australia. Since it's the first article of this type on Wikipedia I was hoping for some feedback on scope and things people would expect or like to read about in an article about the flora of a country.--Peta 23:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One thing that jumps out at me is that in the second paragraph of the article is the statement, "The settlement of Australia by Indigenous Australians more than 40,000 years ago, and by Europeans from 1788, has had a significant impact on the flora" -- yet there is little or no explanation what this impact was. How did the earliest Australians alter the landscape of the continent? Obviously, European settlement has had a greater effect, & not all of it good. Even if this is a topic better treated in another article, I'd expect at least a paragraph addressing each of these, with a link to the relevant articles. Once this is dealt with, the other problems -- & strengths -- of this article can be addressed. -- llywrch 05:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's coverd in the final section of the article - I just haven't finished writing the lead.--Peta 05:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's definitely improved now that I look at it. However, a lot could be said about this matter. For example, there's the matter of introducing rabbits to Australia. I remember the description of a rabbit migration into a rabbit-proof fence in one of Arthur Upfield's mystery novels about Bony; one can't have that many introduced plant-eating animals in an environment without resulting with some measurable degredation. (I hope I'm not beating a dead horse -- or lupine -- by mentioning this.) -- llywrch 01:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Joslyn Baum

[edit]

Other than finding my sources and citing them (which I will do eventually, and have asked for help on the matter from other Oz fans who will have read much the same material I have), does anyone have any other suggestions for improving this article? --Scottandrewhutchins 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto peer review

[edit]

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 WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • 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.
  • This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under WP:IUP and WP:IT that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[1]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[2]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • 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.[3]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[4]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • 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>.[5]
  • 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 the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, BrianSmithson 12:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fly to the Sky

[edit]

I want peer review on grammar and tone, and to see if it lacks details on their albums. I hope this article would have GA status very soon, because there aren't many pages of asian artists that are so. mirageinred 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Springs Massacre

[edit]

(See previous review here).

Looking for overall comments, going for GA, eventually FA with this one.

Current issues (any elaboration on specifics would be appreciated):

  • Citations: Aware that I need more (IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)) (if you see anywhere that needs {{fact}}, please add it. Also, aware that some are not linked, as I retrieved many of the articles from microfiche I didn't originally have web links, I am in the process of finding digital copies via research database and will slowly be adding links to increase verifiability. : )[reply]
  • Need for copy edit: any specific problems you see, it would be helpful if you can point them out.
  • Lack of images- added some, still need more, should be some public domain stuff out there. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead length: expanded a bit, may need more.
  • WP:MOS issues: again, point these out; I can think of WP:DASH, but there are probably other problems.
  • Further reading section is a bit redundant at this point, but I am using it for reference right now, it will probably be reworked though: Still plan to rework. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering about:

  • Could use some suggestions for some more wikilinks.
  • Is it too lengthy, where could it be trimmed? What info specifically?
  • Are any relevant aspects of the topic missing, glaring omissions?
  • Any other suggestions?
  • Major prose issues?

Thanks ahead of time for anyone who responds. I worked pretty hard on this article. IvoShandor 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


POV discussion

[edit]

The following is from the Rock Springs Massacre talk page. It has been copied here as it developed in the midst of this peer review. Feel free to add to it.

The subsections from "Post-massacre violence" are the makings of separate articles entirely, and are not about the Rock Springs Massacre directly; they should be placed in other articles and each section here should have a "Main" template; all that's necessary to say is that other violence broke out; this is not a history of THOSE events, but is supposed to be only about Rock Creek. Also, if stuff like this is trotted out as though it's connected, but some source hasn't said it's connected, stringing all this in one place to expound a thesis about post-massacre violence is actually original research, and a no-no. But it's clear from the tone of some of the content here that there's a thesis being expounded ("the NYT was 'just as guilty'" and other POV language). Please remember this is an encylcopedia article and NOT a political tract.Skookum1 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment could have been before the peer review was posted but the article is still being worked on. Some of the sources HAVE connected the events to Rock Springs. So it's not original research. Guilty was probably a bad word choice, but they did do it. Will look for such things as I work. Political tract? IvoShandor 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"just as guilty" is clearly a political statement; also IMO is the seeming effort in the article to tie in general historical materials and also other not-necessarily-connected events; it comes off like a tract, and is full of not-neutral language; like so many Chinese-American/Canadian history articles. Just the facts, please, no editorializing. And no introducing extraneous materials as if they had to do with things; if the sources make that connection, it should specify that it's the sources that made the connection, and which sources.Skookum1 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the inline citations are for. I have no political agenda related to 19th century America. IvoShandor 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would hardly call a wave of anti-Chinese violence beginning with Rock Springs and encompassing events for the next six months a general connection, the Oregon stuff might be stretching it, but I thnk you're wrong. IvoShandor 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, there is absolutely no question this was a racially motivated attack, even the President agreed with that assessment, in 1885. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
And what in my post led you to think I was disputing that? Your re-asserting it seems to indicate that you think it was THAT that I was criticizing; but that's just more POVism, i.e. assuming that a criticism is about something that it's not. The point remains that the language of this article is very accusatory. And THAT is POV. It's possible to report facts and events without brow-beating people or using invective.....Skookum1 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you just fix it instead of making general objections. I have changed some of the wording but as the writer it can be hard to flesh out stuff, at least for me, that I have done myself.IvoShandor 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Go ahead, if its just POV, it won't matter to the material. I'm not that worried about, if there are any problems presented by your edits they can be fixed and discussed later. Go for it, it would really help. Sorry if I seemed hostile, I think I missed your point at first. IvoShandor 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with the events to edit conscionably; as you can tell I'm also prolix - infamously so - and my edits tend to be emendations; I find it easier to point out issues here, unles I know the material well.Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed some POV wording, a lot of which is leftover from when this article was started, about eleven days after I registered for Wikipedia. : ) The Post Massacre section is already set up for WP:SUMMARY, I believe the sources confirm that this violence was related to the massacre in Rock Springs, but if you don't please point out where and I will try to verify. Remember there is a difference between "unverified" and "unverifiable" information. Also, if you are using caps for emphasis, could you please use italics, it looks like you're yelling. IvoShandor 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in another parallel case, the Anti-Oriental Riots in Vancouver were seen as some historians as an offshoot of or reaction to the Boxer Rebellionsm the ongoing Nationalist uprising after that, and fears of Asian imperialism in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War, and also by various labour practices of Chinese workers and Chinese labour contractors; yet to mention any of these, despite their presence in sources, is dismissed as "racist propaganda" and no recent histories go anywhere near the background of the events, choosing instead to condemn the antagonists instead of understanding "why" - it's so much easier to paint people simply as goons, or to try and boil everything down to "racism" and "racists" (and "racist" is often used as a dehumanizing term, often by people who are very racist themselves....). So I appreciate your un-POV'ing this; the point, central point, of this is what THIS article is about, or supposed to be about. "Splinter events" certainly have their place; but if they're so notable as to be mentioned, they should ahve their own articles, and a summary of those that sources state are connected, should be made (but no others).Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care if I moved this discussion to the 2nd peer review? So it would be archived? This article will take some work but I can make it shine. I wrote it way back when I was a wee little youngling wikipedian, didn't know as much about policy as I do now. That and no one ever mentioned this before, some help that other peer review was! ; ) IvoShandor 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akatsuki (Naruto)

[edit]

The article was delisted from Good Article status. This is to help it get there again. Nemu 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, the concerns which resulted in its delisting were:

  1. Too much "non-notable trivia"
  2. In-universe perspective
  3. Lack of inline citations

So those should probably be the primary focuses of this review. --tjstrf 20:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fin Whale

[edit]

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Fin Whale/archive1.

A link to this article appeared on Wikipedia's main page on October 23 in the current events section. It has been cleaned up significantly and in-line citations added since its last peer review. I'd like to get an idea of what it would need to push it into good or featured article quality. An older version of this article was listed as a featured article candidate and time hasn't run out on that yet even though I don't think it's getting many eyeballs any more, so I'm not sure if I'm doing things out of order by requesting another peer review at this point. Neil916 (Talk) 07:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cetaceans project or not, "fin whale" is a sufficiently common-sounding term that it looks awkward capitalized. What's the reasoning behind that standard?
    It's a long debate, and I agree that it looks awkward. See some of the historical discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna), Talk:Spinifex Hopping Mouse, and other places. It's not a standard that I support, but for now it's the community consensus and I have not been able to generate any consensus to change it yet.
  • The phylogenetic tree and Image:Fin whale.jpg clash on my screen, so that the lower image is pushed to the right, leaving an unslightly leftmost gap.
    When I view the article at 800x600 resolution, I see that the taxobox and the phylogenetic tree get squished together, so I get several one-word lines mashed between the images, but I don't see the problem with the Image:Fin whale.jpg image, which is in the next section. What browser are you using and at what screen resolution?
    1920x1200, Firefox under Windows. I still see the problem at 1600x1200 though. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm...I don't think I have a system available with the horsepower to handle 1920x1200 to test it myself, but it would explain the problem since the paragraphs would be very wide and shallow. In HTML markup, there is a way to add a tag to say "don't insert this picture until the left/right/both margin(s) are clear" or something to that effect, so I'll try to figure out how to implement that in Wikipedia. I had been assuming the problem you were describing was a result of your screen resolution being too low. Neil916 (Talk) 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've experimented with inserting breaks between sections and repositioning the images. Can you check if this is still a problem on your browser? I don't have a system that can display greater than 1280x1024, and it looks ok on that resolution and lower resolutions. Neil916 (Talk) 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know what exactly the branch lengths on the phylogenetic tree represent? (Genetic distance or assumed time to coalescence, or nothing in particular?)
    As I understand it, the lengths of the branches do not mean anything. The branches represent evolutionary divergences, not timelines. So, for example, the Rorqual phylogenetic tree shows that the Bryde's Whale has a closer evolutionary relationship to the Sei Whale than the Southern Minke Whale.
    OK - sometimes these are plotted with an explicit axis; just wanted to make sure it was correct. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the size difference between hemispheres? Is the magnitude of that difference statistically significant?
    I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying size in terms of the size of the North Atlantic Fin Whale vs. the size of the Antarctic Fin Whale? Are you referring to the size of the existing population? The size of the habitat range? The primary reason why the three main groups of Fin Whales (North Pacific, North Atlantic, and Antarctic) are described is because they are generally recognized as different subspecies that do not interact or interbreed.
    I was referring to this sentence: "It reaches lengths of up to 24 meters (79 ft) in the northern hemisphere and 26.8 meters (88 ft) in the southern hemisphere". If that's referring to the northern and antarctic species, it would be clearer to name the species rather than the location; I read it as implying regional variations. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's an inconsistency resulting from different sources that referred to the regional variations in terms of location rather than subspecies. I'll work on that section. Neil916 (Talk) 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The whale has a series of 56-100 pleats or grooves along the bottom of the body...." - any chance of an up-close image of this?
    I doubt it, due to the difficulty of photographing this fast whale. The image of the whale shown on the stamp does depict the grooves, and the diagram on Baleen whale also shows the grooves, but I'm not sure if including that diagram would be too redundant on this article. What do you think?
    That's fine - I think the other diagram might be extraneous considering this has quite a few images already, but I don't have a strong opinion. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose could use some minor work; in particular there's a lot of switching between singular "the fin whale..." and plural "they..." (eg "The Fin Whale was relatively safe from most whalers due to its quick speed and the fact that they prefer the open sea")
    Thanks, I've been hunting down such inconsistencies.
  • "most hunted cetacean in history" is a big claim without a footnote, even if it may be implicitly supported by the next sentences.
    Agreed. I have removed it until a source can be found.
  • I don't know anything about whaling, but 10 whales per year for a widely distributed species doesn't sound like a lot. Some sense of scale (eg, a corresponding number of some non-endangered and plentiful species) would be useful here.
    I'm not sure that the article is trying to imply that 10 whales per year is a lot and I've taken care not to imply whether it is good or bad per se, it's simply providing information of the current status of whaling for Fin Whales.
    There doesn't have to be any implication one way or another; it's just hard to have a sense of scale on the subject. Compared to the earlier numbers (750,000 in 74 years? wow.) it seems like a miniscule "why bother" kind of number. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the relevance is that this whale is still listed as "endangered" by several international agencies, so any commercial hunting of the animal is still very controversial. I've uncovered more sources containing information about different causes of mortality for this whale, natural and not, so I'm hoping to expand/rewrite this section in the next few days.Neil916 (Talk) 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a redlink in See also for Restaurants in Iceland?
    It was a nonsense addition from an anonymous user last night who has a history of adding nonsense to that article. I removed it an left a note on the user's talk page.

Opabinia regalis 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Neil916 (Talk) 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I forgot to come back to this. The image conflict problem is resolved now. Looks very good! Some of the recent material, ie in the abundance section and the lead, could use a quick prose run-through (for example, "This shows a substantial recovery compared to a survey in 1976 showing..."). IIRC naked years don't need wikilinks, and somewhere there's a mention of the "2007-2008 season" where only one of the two years is linked. The abundance section has a lot of great data - maybe a table would help to keep track of which trends are in which places? Opabinia regalis 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Newman

[edit]

Peer review requested, as this article is in danger of becoming a battleground between supporters and detractors of the article's susbject.BabyDweezil 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first, most obvious improvement that could be made is adequate sourcing. Read through Wikipedia:Cite sources, and apply. This would improve the article a lot, and quell some disagreement as well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LEAD, WP:MOS, WP:GTL, and a sample philosophy article, Hilary Putnam. This article currently is uncited, and has no structure. The lead should be about 3 paragraphs, summarizing the rest of the article, and everything should be referenced. Sandy 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your imput and suggestions. The Putnam entry seems an excellent model to use. The Newman entry clearly needs to be begun again from scratch, on that sort of model. Current version seems strcutured only as a template for the author to be able to present the subject in the most unflattering light.BabyDweezil 14:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert

[edit]

Soliciting feedback on this article, which I'm hoping to improve to FA eventually. The article has had a previous peer review here; it was listed by another editor when I was on a bit of a wikibreak, so unfortuately I was unaware of it and unable to respond to comments. I've improved the issues that were raised since then, so hope you'll give this a second look. Thanks in advance, -- Bailey(talk) 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone, including Andy Z's hardworking script. I'm going to start working on those automated suggestions tonight, and the em-dashes too. -- Bailey(talk) 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee

[edit]

Am hoping to bring this to featured article status. Article has undergone a radical overhaul since the last peer review and would appreciate some advice on anything that needs doing to meet the FA criteria.  YDAM TALK 21:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replaced a few repetitions of 'the city' with 'Dundee'. Berek 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty good. I didn't check everything, but the lsit of notable Dundeeites needs to be converted to prose and mention only the most notable ones who's notability can be cited to reliable sources. Also I'm assuming most or all of those listed in Dundee (disambiguation) are named after this one. If so that's quite a number and I think it would be worth researching and mentioning if there is some particular reason so many have been named after it. If there's no importance to it, then maybe it's too trivial to mention. - Taxman Talk 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted that list. Most of them were already listed in the prose anyway. As for other places being named after it; as far as I know there isin't a significant reason any more than there is for Boston or Birmingham. I suppose that list is pretty typical of such cities  YDAM TALK 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying, I don't think many cities so small have that many named after them. There may be something there. But since you've responded so quickly, I've searched for more of what separates this article from featured standard. 1) The twin cities section needs similar treatment to the list of people. If it's not important enough to have some cited prose analysis of the international relations and whether the twin city status actually amounts to anything, it's probably not important enough to be it's own section, and possibly not important enough to be covered at all. 2) Too many short paragraphs cause choppy flow and highlight areas that either need to be expanded, merged with related material, or removed. 3) The word outwith appears to be classic scottish, but arcane enough that most would not know what it means. If you really feel it's valuable to include, figure out a way to define it in context so that it doesn't require looking up so that the sentence is accessible. It looked like a grammar error to me before looking it up. 3) The Wharfs section seems out of place and not important enough to justify it's own subsection. Merge it into wherever is appropriate, either economy or history depending on its current importance. 4) The transport section should probably be replaced by a discussion of the infrastructure in general. 5) The education section needs to discuss the general quality of the school systems by national and international standards. In relation to that, perhaps there is too much coverage of individual prominent schools. 6) Look to other FAs on cities for ideas of the balance of coverage in them. The most useful would probably be Ann Arbor a city of similar size, though its lead is now too short and it's sister cities bit has no context either. If you want my consideration of whether it looks like all that's done and this is ready for FAC, let me know here and I'll have another look. - Taxman Talk 15:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for those very detailed suggestions. I will get them resolved ASAP and lat you know back here.  YDAM TALK 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article to try and address your suggestions. There's less short stubby paragraphs, "outwith" has been replaced with "outside of". Wharfs has been spun out to the history of dundee article. The transport and education sections have now been expanded. I couldn't really find any context for the sister city's section but I have moved it back under the politics and government section to try and make some. We could always drop it completly if you really feel it won't pass WP:FAC with it.  YDAM TALK 19:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truly excellent, excellent work. Now the lead and perhaps the geography section just need some more context. Prioritize the first few sentences in the lead to be the most important overview things about the city. The best way to do that is to give us a little more context, particularly of where it is at. Currently we don't know where in Scotland it is unless we already know where the river Lay is. I reallize the map is there, but it should tell simply in the text also something like "it is near the coast of ____ on the east side of Scotland". The image is nice, but it should be made clear what landmass it is representing and the surrounding bodies of water and other land should be labeled. To give better context on the size for those that don't already know the subject, ideally also you could reword the phrase referring to the 4th largest city by fitting in the population, otherwise unless we know the approximate sizes of all the top cities in Scotland the fourth largest doesn't tell us much. Finally add just a bit more to the first paragraph in the demographics or try to fit it in more successfully, it's a bit of a jarring change from that short paragraph to the next section. Try for improved narative arc there, making the section cohesive. I may not be able to respond here very soon, so if you really feel you've implemented these well, and really want to get this to FAC soon, it will have a great chance of passing with these fixes. Or if you'd like to wait for more input feel free of course. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have implemented most of your suggestions (will have to get in touch with somebody who does map to sort out that bit) I'm not really in a ruch to get it through FAC. Would rather get it right than rush it. Give us a shout if you think it's ok. Oh and thanks for the compliments.  YDAM TALK 01:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at how other cities did their maps and saw they used captions so I used that to give the map more context without making the map look cluttered. Hope that's sufficient. Is there anything the article needs doing before FAC  YDAM TALK 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whistler-Blackcomb

[edit]

Looking for any and all comments on the article. We want to get this page perfected to use it as an example for all ski resort articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zzz345zzz (talk • contribs) .

Not enough citations for starters. Andjam 12:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[edit]

First Peer review request I'm responding to a request to feature this article. I'm going to have a look at it myself, but I would also like some others' comment. Thanks in advance. -- Selmo (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this article has had several FA nominations in the past but failed them all. I think it would meet the same fate if you were to take it in like this. My main problem is with the sources. An article about such a recognizable entity needs more than just random internet sites and newspaper reports. Books, books, and lots more books!

Some citations in the 'Notes' section have been done improperly. Some works there are described in a way that they should be described in a 'References' section, not a citation section. You need to fix that. I'd recommend getting an editor who has experience with country articles to take a look at this as well. They'd probably have more and better suggestions.UberCryxic 16:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fortunes of Richard Mahony

[edit]

This page was rated high importance by Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and a class B before I had even completed entering my summary of Ultima Thule. What suggestions do others have for improving the page? --Scottandrewhutchins 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooook....some more citations are a must. The comment "This is now recognized as one of the greatest novels in the English language" really needs to be cited. You might also want to elaborate on whether that's just his opinion or the opinion of reputable literary critics as well. Right now, the article just basically describes the novels. This is fine and dandy, but also a bit boring. How about putting in a section regarding popular and critical reception? This would give readers a better idea of the influence these works might have had. Try to also find some images of book covers and put those up as well. Wikipedia articles usually have a 'Notes' section that is separate from a 'References' section. The latter lists the works cited in the article whereas the former actually gives the citations. That's what you need to do here too; currently you've thrown the references and the citations together in one section. I would also request a copyedit from users who are familiar with articles on novels or literature in general.UberCryxic 15:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much more specific a citation to a book jacket can be: "Although now out of print, at least outside of Australia, its publisher, William Heinemann Ltd claimed on the jacket to the 1965 edition, 'This is now recognized as one of the greatest novels in the English language.'" The 1965 is the edition I used to write the article, and it's listed as such in the references section. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin drive hunting

[edit]

Pretty much wrote all of this article from scratch. Would like to get it to GA status at least. I'd mainly like to know if the article is neutral enough and if the structure and layout is ok. Obviously though, all comments and suggestions are welcome. BabyNuke 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions:
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be expanded to briefly summarize the article. As it is now, it also makes some claims that should be sourced -- that those are the "most notorious" towns, and that Japan is the largest consumer.
  • Under "Method", you say that "the hunting is done by a select group of privileged fishermen." I think that fact could use some explanation: Why are they a select group? Who makes that decision?
  • The second paragraph of the first "Criticism" section is poorly written. The sentence about the video, especially, doesn't really fit. I would include more information about the video and the reaction, and make it a separate paragraph.
  • The "Criticism" section would benefit from more inline citations, especially to guarantee WP:NPOV and WP:V.
  • The prose can be awkward. I would replace passive voice with active voice. You could also use some more commas, and the word "mainly" is overused throughout.
This is not a bad article. It could use some WP:NPOV work, though. I also see areas you could expand upon, in addition to those I mentioned above: more on traditional hunting culture, more on health concerns, more on the legality, etc. I don't think it's quite ready for WP:GAC. -- bcasterline • talk 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will work on these issues. BabyNuke 09:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, while I find this practice repugnant, I still feel there's a few NPOV issues with this. There are no gross violations, but I still feel it could be improved. Lankiveil 06:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I think I'll rewrite the cricism section since I feel that's causing most problems neutrality wise. BabyNuke 19:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swissair Flight 111

[edit]

I worked hard to improve this article, and it is now a good one. The next logical step is to get an outside review (since I am too close to this to be impartial) before I go for FAC. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
  • Because the article is about a flight, not a location, I would remove {{coor title dm|44|24.55|N|63|58.4|W|scale:400000}} to avoid confusion and potential display errors. If you're going to keep it, I believe it should be placed at the bottom of the article. (See usage discussion.)
  • Summarize the findings of the TSB investigation in the lead -- not just how much it cost.
  • Merge "The aircraft" with another section because it's so small. I would also place that information before, not after, the crash.
  • As is, "Examination" is too small to warrant its own subsection.
  • "TSB Findings" still has some awkward wording, though I did reword some of it. At what speed did the plane hit the water?
  • Maybe include some quotes/information from the cockpit voice recording?
Good article, though I think it's unlikely to pass FAC due to its size. It'll also need more references and inline citations. Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 17:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The recovery of remains proved difficult as the force of impact (approximately 350 G) caused fragmentation and the environmental conditions only allowed recovery along with wreckage recovery. (TSB Report, p. 103-105) The latter part of this sentence can be rewritten better (e.g. not use recover...recovery). Otherwise, the article reads well. Good luck.--Riurik (discuss) 03:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kuan Yew

[edit]

Im trying to make it a Good article or if possible a FA. Any feedback is welcome Leidiot 05:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your references are few (mainly in a single section) and erratically formatted (make them all inline citations). As I have discovered, a FAC will fail immediately without them. Good luck!Dev920 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Below is what has been discussed with one of the Wiki editors about what is written in the Lee article.

Good day. I've noticed your concerns regarding this article at Deletion Review and elsewhere, and would like to give you a bit of assistance in dealing with this matter.

Firstly, your edits are not being undone by agents of the subject, they're being undone by Wikipedia editors enforcing our policies and guidelines. Most importantly, your edits are not neutral - they are written with a distinct point of view, which is against our policies for articles. Articles must be written in a neutral tone. Secondly, you are not citing reliable sources in the edits. All edits must be verifiable to be included in our articles. If you have good reliable sources - and please read that link to ensure that you are using reliable sources - then your information may be useful in the article.

I highly suggest that you discuss the additions you wish to make and the sources you wish to use on the article's talk page before editing any further on the above subject. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tony,

I am not sure if this is how or where I am supposed to talk about this issue but here it is:

The Lee Kuan Yew article that exists now is not neutral, it claims that Lee cooperated with (first it says pro-communists and then it says communists), this is the point of the declassified British documents, their investigation carried out by British police in Singapore during the era could find no evidence that Lim Chin Siong was a communist. Dr Greg Poulgrain of Griffiths University observed that the British Governor of Singapore and his Chief Secretary in their reports to London had admitted that the police could find no evidence to establish that Lim was a communist. Lim was the main opposition leader who broke away from the PAP which he helped found. The name of Lim's party was the Barisan Socilis, they never claimed to be communists and the leaders of the communist parties in Malaysia and Thailand also said that Lim was not part of their organizations. I cited the book 'Comet in our Sky' which details all of this.

Dr. Chee Soon Juan the current Singapore opposition disident that is in lots of hot water lately says that Lee Kuan Yew came to power unjustly by imprisoning the opposition party and claiming they were communists. There is no evidence that they were communists, Lee was just using this as an excuse to get them out of the way. Wikipedia is letting the dictator Lee Kuan Yew use Wikipedia to further his propaganda by letting this article continue to claim that the opposition were communists.

You can read all about it on www.yoursdp.org , http://singapore-democracy.blogspot.com/ and also http://singaporegovt.blogspot.com/2006/07/history-of-pap-part-iv-lim-chin-siong_06.html

Chartliner (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly know little about the topic myself, which is why I suggested you take up the discussion on the article talk page. However, looking at the sources you point out, two are blogs - which are not considered reliable sources - and the third doesn't resolve right now. I looked at the book's results too, and they were kind of slim, but it would be at least one reliable source. You need to consider relevant sources such as magazine articles, newspapers, and similar references as far better options for sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The first source I cited is the main opposition parties website in Singapore www.yoursdp.org , it seems to be offline at the moment, they have been having problems with their server. Below are paragraphs taken from their website, which has a review of the book 'Comet in Our Sky'.

This is as good a referrence as it is possible to get, this book is quoting two scholars from top universities:Tim Harper who teaches Southeast Asian history and the history of the British empire at the University of Cambridge in London.

The second is Greg Poulgrain, a professor at Griffiths University in Australia who has been researching Southeast Asian history for more than 20 years.


"Schools teach Singapore children that Lee Kuan Yew heroically delivered Singapore from the evil clutches of the communists and gave us what we have today.

Whether such an assertion is historically accurate or not, the Government seems intent to seal this version in the annals of Singapore. When filmmaker, Mr Martyn See, released Zahari's 17 Years in which Mr Said Zahari talked about his 17-year detention, the Government promptly banned it.

It, it stated, "will not allow people who had posed a security threat to the country in the past to exploit the use of films to purvey a false and distorted portrayal of their past actions and detention by the government."

When Lim Chin Siong, another of Lee Kuan Yew's prisoners, died in 1996, the PAP was equally anxious to make sure that Lim's portrayal as a revolutionary communist remained etched in the minds of the people.

In response to a tribute that the SDP had written about Lim, the PAP through then MP Dr Ow Chin Hock, said that the Barisan Sosialis (Socilaist Front), of which Lim was its leader, fought the Government in 1966 "on the streets, according to the teachings of Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution."

It was a bald-faced lie. Lim was already in prison under ISA detention in 1966 and could not have led his party in anything.

This, it seems, was not the only untruth that the PAP has been telling us.

For example, Dr Ow pointed out that Lim was not fighting for a democratic Singapore (the cheek) but a communist one. Lim would have turned Singapore into "Mao's China or Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam", the PAP insisted.

Besides, it was the Internal Security Council (ISC) under the command of the British and not the PAP Government, who ordered the arrest and detention of Lim and colleagues.

This was because there were only three PAP representatives on the ISC and they were "outnumbered" by the other four members on the Council, three British and one Malaysian.

Nothing could be more untrue.

Top-secret documents held by the British Government, now declassified, reveal some jaw-dropping facts about Lee Kuan Yew and how he came to power.

Two history scholars studied these papers and presented their findings in the book Comet In Our Sky (available at Select Books at the Tanglin Shopping Centre).

The first is Tim Harper who teaches Southeast Asian history and the history of the British empire at the University of Cambridge in London.

The second is Greg Poulgrain, a professor at Griffiths University in Australia who has been researching Southeast Asian history for more than 20 years.

This SDP feature presents a summary of Dr Harper's and Dr Poulgrain's chapters. It contains some shocking archival material.

It also attempts to answer questions like who were people like Lim Chin Siong and Said Zahari? Did they really pose a security threat to the country? Were they communists hell-bent on undermining constitutional/democratic means of governance in Singapore? Was it really the ISC that was responsible for their arrest and imprisonment? Most important, is the PAP's version of history based on fact?

Remember, this narration is not the SDP's rendition of events past. It is a collective summary of the research done by two historians.

To ensure that this present essay remains faithful to Professors Harper's and Poulgrain's works, quotes from the historians' chapters are used liberally.

Still, don't take our word for it. Get a copy of Comet In Our Sky and read for yourself the real history of the PAP and Barisan Sosialis."

The full name of the book is 'Comet in our sky: Lim Chin Siong in History' There are several reviews of it using a google search.

Chartliner (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the opposition party's website woudl be considered a primary source, which would be disallowed under WP:RS; the blog entry is interesting, but again it's essentially the opinion of the writer, and that again is not a neutral viewpoint. I strongly suggest you find some references that are in magazines, newspapers, etc. if you can, and work with those on the talk page of the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC) There is a double standard going on here, the article as it stands on Wiki does not give any sources for claiming that Lee Kuan Yew formed an expedient relationship with the "pro-communists" or as it states later the "communists". Who wrote this and what is the source? It is really Lee kuan Yew and his People's Action Party propaganda which as I have pointed out has been disproven by declassified British documents.

As for the opposition party's article the below information clarify's things... "Remember, this narration is not the SDP's rendition of events past. It is a collective summary of the research done by two historians.

To ensure that this present essay remains faithful to Professors Harper's and Poulgrain's works, quotes from the historians' chapters are used liberally. Still, don't take our word for it. Get a copy of Comet In Our Sky and read for yourself the real history of the PAP and Barisan Sosialis."

There are plenty of biased magazine articles out there too, they are not always such a good reference. I have not had a response in the talk area of the Lee article. Chartliner (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chartliner"

Battlestar

[edit]

After some pretty extensive changes and references I am pretty hppy with the article now, could anyone suggest any changes that could possibly be made to imrpove it, I would like to get this article up to a GA. Thank you . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like it's on its way. I would recommend expanding the introduction per to a good-sized paragraph or two as per WP:LEAD. Aside from that, the only hitch I forsee is that all the references are episodes of the show. It's not necessarily the end of the world, but it does make them difficult to check, for those who don't own them on DVD. I remember there being tons of novelizations back in the day, and there must be some magazine articles about the ships in back issues of Starlog and the like. Sources are a touchy subject at GA right now and a wider scope will most likely help to avoid any objections. Kafziel 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well thats the problem, I've tried to keep to references of the show its self for cannonicty reasons etc, and the poblem with magazines etc is getting them if there from the 80s etc, and any web based sources i can find are primarily of a speculative nature and i want this article not to stray into the realm of speculation, thansk for your sugegstions . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense about the novelizations not being reliable; I hadn't thought about what BG's canon is made up of. Starlog's online archive doesn't have much. Still, I would imagine that Encyclopedia Galactica: From The Fleet Library Aboard The Battlestar Galactica or The Official Battlestar Galactica Scrapbook would qualify as canon, at least as far as the original series goes. There are partial blueprints of the ship out there, too (officially released, not fan-made stuff). Personally, I agree with you: I think that the best reference for an article on a fictional ship is the work of fiction in which the ship is featured. I don't know if everyone will think that way, though. Just a heads-up. Good luck! Kafziel 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finland Plot

[edit]

This article was recently created to fill a hole in in Wikipedia's coverage of key events leading up to the recent September 2006 Thailand coup. This particular topic, the so-called Finland Plot, should be fairly static, since the principals, namely Thaksin Shinawatra, Sondhi Limthongkul, and the People's Alliance for Democracy have been either deposed, dissolved, or stopped any further allegations. The military junta has not formalized the Finland Plot accusations, which probably means that they wont be investigated in any depth. I'd like your inputs on:

  • NPOV. It is a controversial topic, and I want to make sure that I'm being fair to all parties.
  • Wording. My wording has been noted to be a bit off sometimes, so please feel free to copy-edit.
  • Anything else that needs improvement would be greatly appreciated.

-- Patiwat 02:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review

The article seems neutral as far as I can tell, and wording is fine. I made a couple of very minor edits to words - hope you don't mind. Visually, an image in the synopsis (perhaps of Thaksin Shinawatra?) might balance the top of the page, but that would only be an aesthetic thing.

Stormfront (website)

[edit]

In general how can the article be improved? In between here and FAC, what needs to happen? --Alecmconroy 17:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few points:
  1. Your lead paragraph is only one densely written paragraph. FACs should have three summing up the entire article.
  2. The history section jumps from 1997 to 2006: what happened in that time?
  3. The references, while good, do not have authors. There are also not enough of them; some sentences make bold assertions without any links to back them up. Example, "Critics accuse Stormfront members of supporting violence, genocide, and ethnic cleansing."
  4. You may want to expand the article, which is too short, by mentioning reaction to Stormfront, in favour of them: any neonazi organisations promote or affiliate to it? You can then spin this, along with mootstormfront into a "reaction" section, rather than keeping it in controversy and criticism.

That's all I can think at the moment. Good luck! Dev920 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic (1997 film)

[edit]

This would make a lovely featured article. What should be done to achieve this? Never Mystic 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production needs to be expanded, this should not be difficult there are several books and DVD features that describe the creation of this film. Synopsis needs to be cut down greatly, it is way too detailed. A Promise Kept section is very unencyclopedic, its reads somehwat like an essay. There can be a section on themes, but interpretations of the film's themes need to be referenced from reliable sources. Cast section is too large and should be cut down to main cast. (The Strauss' didn't even have speaking roles in the film) Criticism needs to be rewritten, it reads as if the reviewers opinions were tacked on randomly. Deleted scenes and parodies lists need to be removed, they are completely unencyclopedic and irrelevent. The fact some scenes in the film have been parodied should be explained in the Response section. Trivia either needs to be removed or integrated into the relevant sections. The whole article needs to be referenced, including inline citations. Medvedenko 01:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Medvedenko has said but would also add that every link and every citation needs to be current and any internal links need to have relevent articles or stubs. Edward Lalone 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to incorporate your suggestions ASAP. I'm just curious if either of you are aware of print sources for the film? I guess the DVD would be useful for non-online citations. Never Mystic 23:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an offical book about the making of Titanic which I think is named James Cameron's Titanic, that includes information about thr film's production. While looking for the name of the previous book I found a book called Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbuster which I imagine could be very useful because it was written several years after Titanic was released. Also check out books about movies and the real Titanic written after 1997 which may include information about the movie. Hope this helps. Medvedenko 01:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three reviews that are available online as well as off-line and would be good secondary sources for this article on the Titanic. They would also serve as good jumping off points as you look for more sources to add detail to the article.
I would use these sources as good reference works or in other references even if you do not think they should be included in the article. Edward Lalone 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the links yet, but I'll be sure to immediately after posting this. Thanks for the suggestions. Never Mystic 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The online references won't permit me access. Looks like the print-based would be most reasonable, then. Never Mystic 00:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about references for the box office information? Also quite a bit of red links in Cast and Awards. Mentioned in the article itself, but some organization on Parodies is needed. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 03:34 (UTC)

Yes, the parodies section is disastrous, requires trimming, and needs extensive referencing. It will be a job — practically — but I hope to get it done. Never Mystic 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This movie was freaking awesome. Some general tips:

-Needs a lot more in-line citations; three just isn't enough for an article this size.
-Every single section in the article has to be written in summary style. You can't have lists. FAC reviewers will gnaw on that point for eternity. For example, in the Cast section, instead of just listing out the cast, why not talk about how and why some of the more prominent actors were selected? That would make for a much more interesting read.
-Destroy the Trivia section! No more needs to be said on that.
-Some sections like Soundtrack, Awards, and DVD have to be expanded. They are too short right now.

Overall, I think this needs significant work before it reaches FA status.UberCryxic 19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your points are relevant. You should have seen the trivia section in this edit, which I trimmed down to the significant points and hope to sort accordingly when I find proper sources. Thanks, nonetheless! Never Mystic (tc) 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the parodies section is hideous. I'm going to remove it now. The JPStalk to me 19:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a small bit of tidying, and added a ref. 'Critical reaction' should also include what was been written academically. The JPStalk to me 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good suggestion. Never Mystic (tc) 20:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All That

[edit]

First peer review

The article looks a lot better than it did in the last peer review. Since then, it has been listed as a GA, and I think All That meets all the criteria for FA status. It is very well-written, no original research, sources are reliable, images have fair use rationale. What can I do to improve this article for FA consideration? This is very important, as I feel this article must be FA as soon as possible. PF4Eva 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... nobody has replied yet? I'm surprised. I guess this means that there is nothing to improve upon and I can vote this for FA. Thanks anyway. PF4Eva 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast

[edit]

previous peer review

Journalspace

[edit]

Looking for comments. Still needs a bit of detail and an image for the infobox. --Andy 00:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs details galore. There's only one prose sentence and it gives next to no information. [I]t...has always been rich in features." What are these features? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but this does not belong at peer review which "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." This is not a high quality anything, it has not undergone extensive work and it is a sub-stub with no content but some lists; about as far from a featured article as can be. I'm not even sure from the present article if it is sufficient to meet our inclusion criteria for web based subjects. I suggest looking at an article on a similar subject for ideas on how to start writing the article. You might get some useful ideas, for instance, from Gmail which is listed as a good article.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not harsh. I wasn't really sure what stage it should be before peer review. Mostly I wanted comments before I proceeded further. I wasn't sure if I went too far with the features and details that it might be interpreted as just a spam article and killed off.--Andy 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... already considered for deletion. Although I was a bit surprised journalspace didn't have an entry, I can see it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Other than some notable users and that it gets 30-40 million hits per day according to [alexa's] stats, it is otherwise not particularly notable. Oh well. --Andy 12:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alû

[edit]

There's not a whole lot of information on this subject. All but one source I found was from the nineteenth century. Does anyone have any idea how I can improve this article? --Scottandrewhutchins 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is this Pamela Allardice, and why should I trust what she has to say on the subject?
  • The article could do with a picture (a drawing or painting, obviously), given the grotesque description of the monster given, it's only natural that one would want to actually see it.

Those are my first impressions. Lankiveil 10:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Great power

[edit]

This page has recently been through a degree of upheaval. Large quantities of unsourced material have been removed and most sections have been rewritten. While the regular editors catch their breath, we would like to invite comments and suggestions for any further improvements.

Comments regarding both substance and style are sought, including (but not limited to):

  • readability of prose,
  • effectiveness of the tables as an alternative to prose in the Great power listings sections,
  • sufficiency/reliability of current sources,
  • comments re. substance of article from those with an academic background in the subject are keenly sought,
  • suggestions for future improvements?

Many thanks, Xdamrtalk 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Poland. --zippedmartin 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Kidding, obviously. Sources are a bit all over the place, but that's at least partly not editors' trough (hi cite.php!!!) 6, 9 and 29 are currently nowikied, but I dare not press the edit button to try and find them. Article is quite readable, though not polished. The quote 'an empirical one, and common sense can answer it' appears in the lead and later too (it's not *that* thrilling)... Formatting of second table is bothered by the image float. India and Italy? Hey maybe Poland wasn't so funny after all.[reply]

Garrincha

[edit]

Article about a Brazillian footballer. It has had a major re-write during the time it was the Football Article improvement drive (See Changes). What other changes does it need to have to get the article to featured standard? Kingjamie 12:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is by most considerations a good biography. I have some issues, though:

  • He is considered one of the best dribblers in football history, and the best Brazilian player ever after Pelé. - by whom? For a statement as bold as that it is worth putting in whose opinion that is so that the reader can make up their own mind about the reliability of that statement.
  • ...yet he still became one of the greatest players in football history - peacock term; tone it down, consider changing it to something more objective like ...a Brazilian twice World Cup-winning international or something like that.
  • ...would often end on an accurate pass to a teammate in position to score. - Needs some sort of statistic to back it up, or at the very least examples of when he did so.
  • ...became a symbol of the history of the club. - this sounds a little awkward. Maybe instead say he was one of the club's greatest or most well-known players, with a citation to back it up.
  • The club career is quite short, considering he played 12 seasons for Botafogo, I'm sure more can be said about it. Did he have any particular standout seasons or games for the club? It doesn't quite match the quality of the international section.
  • The article is not clear - did Garrincha play in his own farewell match in 1973? If not, consider moving it out of that section and into a Trivia section, or even a separate section entitled "Recognition and tributes" with other similar cases (e.g. his funeral and epitaph)
  • Consider transwikiing the quotes over to Wikiquote.

Hope the above helps. Qwghlm 08:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmate

[edit]

I think the article is close to FA status, but IMO, as a general guideline, an article should go through the peer review process before the FA process. I would like to know in advance why the article may fail a FA nomination. -- Selmo (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some points (feel free to address the ones you think are necessary, and to strike them from this list if you feel comfortable doing so):

  • Only four inline reference for the whole article. Could more be added?
  • Some parts could be considered inappropriate tone, like See Wikibooks - Chess/The Endgame for a demonstration of how the king and queen versus king mate is achieved., Again, see Wikibooks - Chess/The Endgame for a demonstration of how the king and rook versus king mate is achieved. and (see Troitzky line).
  • Most sections read like an instruction manual (Here are the two basic checkmate positions, This diagram shows the basic checkmate position, These diagrams show representatives , etc).
  • Make wikilinks more direct. In example, opposition in the Queen section is wikilinked against Chess terminology, when it should be wikilinked at Chess terminology#O or Opposition (chess). Another example is rank, pointing at Chess terminology as well.
  • Checkmate#Basic checkmates has checkmates bolded in the body. However, it is not necessary to bold it in that section. You can use italics in the word after the leading, although that is not necessary as the term is pretty well known.
  • Without references, some sections can be considered original research, weasel words or peacock terms (This checkmate is the most difficult to force,, With white to move, checkmate can be forced in at most sixteen moves from any starting position., checkmate can be forced in at most nineteen moves., etc.
  • Instead of * ''Main article: '', use {{main}}.
  • The article is mixing two types of inline references (see Checkmate#Origin of the word, in example, both {{ref}} and m:Cite/Cite.php). That is pretty confusing (for a minute I thought there was just one inline reference). Try consolidating both styles.
  • There are some red links. Some frown upon them when going for a featured article. Redlinks in the references templates have been removed.
  • When using mdashes (like in captured — the) there should be no space between the dash and the surrounding words. If you want to add a space, use a ndash (in other words, either captured—the or captured – the). The dash guidelines explain this in deeper detail.

I think those are all the ones I can think of right now. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 03:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would add to ReyBrujo and recommend some sort of different formatting for the explanations of the moves in the "Quick checkmates" section. I don't know what's traditional for chess articles on Wikipedia, but listing them as they are now (like they are words, with spaces in between them) is rather painful to read and seems unorganized. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that, after the etymology, you dive straight into a list of the basic checkmate combinations. You might want to start by explaining that checkmate occurs when (a) all squares around the king are either occupied by a non-capturable piece or under threat themselves, and (2) the piece which threatens the king is neither capturable nor blockable. This is described in the article Check (board game), but is just as applicable if not more so to your article.
  • Also, on the diagrams you might want to use either highlighting or sweeping arrows to indicate which of the above mentioned squares the threatening pieces influence - it makes more sense for those who don't see that instinctively.
  • In conjunction with my first suggestion, you might want to include a few examples of things that are NOT checkmate, and explain why not.

Robert Rapplean 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Bliss

[edit]

I just completed a three month overhaul of the article, and (IMHO) have drastically improved the article Fort Bliss. I would like to take this all the way to Featured Status, but I now need imput from the community about what needs improved. I can not spell to save my life, so if someone could check that and the grammar I would be much obliged. More importantly though I need to know what could be better cited. Aside from those two points specifically I am open to any suggestions for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this could be deleted

[edit]

Following a note that 32K is too big, I had a quick look. Compared to others, this is too precise; on the other hand most items are interesting. So looking for repeat patterns

  • End of very top is repeated in history.

Fort Bliss has seen three major military composition changes and one territorial change since its creation. Originally a United States military base with an infrantry garrison, the facility was occupied by Confederate forces at the outbreak of the United States Civil War. Following the defeat of the Confederacy the infantry units gradually gave way to calvary units. During the time of two World Wars the post shifted from calvalry to anti-aircraft artillery, and then to its present role of air defense artillery, which incorporates guided missiles into the air defense arena.

  • This is my take for the intro

Fort Bliss is United States Army post in El Paso County, Texas, United States. The Fort is named for Lieutenant Colonel William Wallace Smith Bliss. Fort Bliss, with 1.1 Million Acres, is the largest installation in TRADOC (U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Within the Army it is second only to White Sands Missile Range, which is adjacent to Fort Bliss. Unsurprisingly, Fort Bliss is the largest Maneuver Area in the Army, at 550 square miles and also provides the largest contiguous tract of virtually unrestricted airspace in the Continental United States (1500 Square Miles).[5]

...... need clever referencing what happened to [1] [2] [3] [4]? ...... need info somewhere on the fort being also a place; this seems to be a touchy subject .

  • looking for bad spelling
  • Structuring ... FortBliss Today.


Dilane 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look over the introduction again and see if it can be tweaked in a manner more befitting the article. As for the page length, Wikipedia:Article size states that an article can go as high as 50 kilobytes before any serious consideration should be made to split up the article. The number 32 is displayed to to old techinical considerations. Numbers 1-4 are present in the article, 1 and 2 are in the infobox next to the titles "built" and "in use"; 3 and 4 are at the end of the first two sentences in the second paragraph. I am not entirely sure what you mean by the fort being a place, so if you could maybe elaborate a little on that point so I can see what you mean I would be most apreciative :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at it for a while I decided just to scrap the last paragraph in the intro entirely. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Son Goten

[edit]

I believe Son Goten is nearly a decent article; the article contains decent images, describes his appearance, and the like. But, I think the article has a lack of organization, verifiability, and information, if possible. SGFF 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the most obvious to the less obvious:
    1. The article is mainly written from an in-uinverse perspective (as if he were alive), while it should be from an out-universe perspective (talking as a character). See the guideline for fictional characters.
    2. No references.
    3. Image:Son Goten photo.jpg, Image:Songoten.jpg and Image:Gtgoten.jpg lack fair use rationale and source. Image:Bebi-Goten.jpg lacks fair use rationale.
    4. Without references or sources, most can be considered weasel and peacock terms, in example, Goten is famous for his mispronunciation, In Dragon Ball GT (which most fans consider non-canon), etc.
    5. Too much original research: It is possible that Goten had the potiental to become the strongest Saiyan., The ease at which he does so has been a matter of fan controversy, Another theory is that the strength of a child, It is unknown who won the bout but it is safe to assume that Goten won, etc.
    6. The name could use the {{nihongo}} template.
    7. Capitalise the first letter of the first word and proper nouns only; see the heading capitalisation guidelines.
    8. In the Power section, there is a bold Super Saiyan. There is no sense having a subtitle there.
    9. The movies and videogames sections are lists, which are usually frowned upon. Try expanding the character's participation there.
    That is all I can say after a quick glance. Overall, it would be nice if you could find references, and rewrite the article from an out-of-universe perspective (authors' comments, why he was named in that way, why Toriyama decided to make him similar in appearance as Goku, while Gohan was so different, when he first appeared in the manga and in the anime, etc). If you need more comments, I can do that sometime later. -- ReyBrujo 02:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Japanese Wiki would be a good source (or other languages). We would need a translator for that, though. However, you can use Google as a translator. SGFF 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can use the sources the japanese Wikipedia uses, but you can't use Wikipedia itself as reference. -- ReyBrujo 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what all this is about, but I'll do what I can. Kabuto Yakushi 10:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see whta I can do about this. Hopefully the article can be a decent document within a month -- Kotenks 19:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nihongo template added.--Rmky87 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur

[edit]

There is a few editors that is working in the article lately, and I really want to get this featured soon. It failed FAC around April here. I would work on the reasons why it failed the FAC tommorrow, I would also work on whatever helpful comments can be made. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments:
    1. References should be put after punctuation signs. In the leading, it is used between the word and the comma worldwide[2], while it should come immediately after the comma. Don't leave a space between the word and the reference, as in the third reference.
    2. Any possibility of using {{cite book}}, {{cite video}} and {{cite web}} in every reference?
    3. Do not use contractions unless quoting the subject. In example, use did not instead of didn't
    4. Image:Tupac1.jpg has no fair use rationale.
    5. Image:Tupac-mugshot.jpg is tagged as having no source information.
    6. Image:Pacsnoopsuge.jpg can be considered excessively big, tagged with {{fair use reduce}}.
    7. The Legal issues section, especially the third paragraph, has too many short sentences, which may not be good for the flow. In example,

      According to the complaint, Shakur sodomized the woman and then encouraged his friends to sexually abuse her. Shakur vehemently denied the charges. He had prior relations days earlier with the woman who was pressing the charges against him. She performed oral sex on him on a club dance floor and the two had later had sex in his hotel room.

    8. Don't use $2000, use another notation like US$2000, or another way indicated here.
    9. When using mdashes, don't put a space before or after it. If you want the space, use a ndash, per dash guidelines. In example, instead of shooting — of setting use shooting—of setting or shooting – of setting
    10. The prose could get some polishing to remove unnecessary wording. In example, Family and friends plan to spread the remaining ashes during a ceremony in Soweto, South Africa. The ceremony has been delayed from September 13, 2006, to June 16, 2007, which is Shakur's 36th birthday could be rephrased as Family and friends plan to spread the remaining ashes during a ceremony in Soweto, South Africa, on June 16, 2007. Or, In one interview that appears on the documentary Tupac: Resurrection could be better as In an interview appearing on the documentary Tupac: Resurrection.
    11. Weasel stuff, like Many supporters of these theories and It was believed by many listeners that in the first few seconds of the album The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory, one could hear a voice saying "Suge shot me", or "Suge shot 'em". This voice was of Kadafi. Who were those "many listeners"? Do we have a reference? Also, the "This voice was of Kadafi" is typical of a mystery book, not an encyclopedia. In example, It was believed by many listeners that in the first few seconds of the album The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory, Kadafi's voice could be heard saying "suge shot me", or "Suge shot 'em". The "one could hear" is of inappropriate tone too.
    12. I suggest rephrasing this sentence:

      This, along with reports of Knight's strong-arm tactics with artists and other illegal/unethical business tactics including involvement with the Mob Piru Bloods street gang gave rise to a theory that Knight was complicit in Shakur's murder, as it was reported that Suge Knight owed Tupac up to seventeen million dollars in back royalties, but no evidence has been provided to support this theory.

    I think that is all for now. Someone else may check the prose better than me for sure. -- ReyBrujo 04:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Velíšek

[edit]

This is only my second article and I know there are problems with it, I would greatly appreciate if someone would be willing to take a look at it and set me on the right path in terms of form and links, etc. Many thanks, --grendelsmother 14:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your second article then I think you'll have a fine future as a Wikipedia editor. In order to lift the cleanup tag, I have two suggestions:
  • Neutralize the wording. One example of purple prose is ...where his conceptions adorn everything from the walls to the head-rests he invented for urinals. There's a tone of praise in the use of adorn that doesn't fit very well in an encyclopedic article. It would be fine to quote a source that praises him.
  • Cite sources and name examples. Per WP:WEASEL it's much better to put a statement about critical acclaim into the active voice and name the critic or publication.
If you'd like to raise this to good article status:
  • Create line citations.
  • Eliminate redlinks by creating stub articles.
  • Expand the coverage. Exactly what awards has he won? What artists are his influences? Create subheadings for his different media or his most important works. Is there some notable aspect to his life other than art? (For example, Vladimir Nabokov was an avid butterfly collector).
This is a fine start for a new editor. Have a look at some of the biographies that are already FA or GA and use them as models. Best wishes, Durova 06:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westport Country Playhouse

[edit]

I'd like some feedback about the organization of the article, as well as the History section. The article is already Good, I'd like to see it featured some day. As such, any feedback would be appreciated. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance, it seems very list heavy. Like a bunch of random facts thrown on the article. Perhaps some of it can be put into prose? I'll look deeper and see what else I can see. --198.185.18.207 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it is list heavy. The problem is that much of the information is best presented in list format, namely the notable artists and some of the technical information. I'll try prose-izing some of the lists and we'll see what looks good. Rmrfstar has also suggested moving the list of notable artists into a separate article. Do you agree with this? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I really see with that is that we lose a lot of information that way. Without the lists, the article becomes much more encyclopedic. Without the information from the lists, the article becomes much less informative. Perhaps someone with more experience can come up with ways that make the information easy to digest, but less list-like. --198.185.18.207 13:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

[edit]

I did what I could to clean up the article, but as yet, there is little actual content about the Playhouse to work with: the main article about the actual Playhouse has not yet been written, while the article focuses heavily on minor details and content of lesser importance. I also removed the external jumps: please don't link to outside websites for basic definitions - if a definition is needed, the term should be wikified. I also dealt with the hanging footnotes: please review WP:FN. I removed the 2006 season (unencylopedic, Wiki is not for advertising and is not a website, and that info was old anyway). There is SO much that can be said about the Playhouse, that info isn't needed. Focus on telling the story of the Playhouse, using the Somerset-Ward book, and augmenting it with local press.

The significance and importance of the Playhouse in American theatre is not yet covered. To elevate an article to FA status requires a committed and passionate involvement with the topic: Cryptic, I'm wondering if you have read the Somerset-Ward book cover to cover, or if you are summarizing from lesser sources? There is a rich and thorough story of the Playhouse in that book; the article needs to cover that material, rather than including a lot of lists about technical specs, the season, non-notables on staff, etc. Several months of involvement with the material in the Somerset-Ward book should yield a high-quality FA, as there is excellent material to work with, but the content work needs to be done still.

It troubles me that GA status is conferred to articles without a serious review of the criteria: the article is very listy, although the criteria for GA specifically refer to listiness, the article headings did not conform to WP:MOS (I changed some of them), and it appears to me, more seriously, that the article is a copyvio. This needs to be addressed ASAP, or I'll tag and speedy delete some portions. The lead also needs work: once the article is thoroughly written (and the prose will need polishing), the lead should be an enticing and compelling two or three sentence summary of the article. It should not cover details of minor importance (for example, the mention of Annie Keefe, who has resigned anyway).

In terms of sources, some questions: did Rabinovitz *really* write a book about the Apprenticeship program? It is cited as a book, which I've never seen. Is that a pamphlet or a book? If it's a book, a publisher should be listed. Similar for the Smith technical information.

I see from the Playhouse website that the apprentice and intern info comes from their brochures - perhaps it would be better not to cite it as a book, and to source it to the information download on their website, again, taking care that you don't violate copyright by using too much of their exact text. Sandy 05:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio here is a serious problem: please address it immediately. I have reworked/reworded several sections to eliminate possible copyvio, but the list of notable performers is a big problem. In its current form, it appears as an egregious copyvio (and, besides, it has some errors in relation to the Somerset-Ward book). I have separated that info to a daughter article (where it belongs), but I believe that entire article is a copyvio. If it isn't fixed soon, I'll speedy delete it. I suggest fixing it by summarizing important performances and performers, rather than verbatim copying the entire history of performances at the Playhouse.

Reviewing more closely the Playhouse website, this appears to come from their site: "In order to more easily transfer Playhouse productions to Broadway, the stage was built to match the specifications of Broadway’s Times Square Theatre on 42nd Street. The idea proved immediately useful when the playhouse's first production, The Streets of New York (starring Dorothy Gish), transferred to Broadway. Dozens of new works followed suit over the years." Text from the brief history on the Playhouse website should be rewritten to avoid copyvio problems: a number of other sources are available, including local press and the Somerset-Ward book.

The content of the article needs to be expanded to begin to tell the story of the Playhouse. It can certainly be FA some day. If you ping me in a month or so, I'll have another look. For now, please deal with the copyvio ASAP. Great start on an article which has great potential !! Sandy 14:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did not replace the phrase "back of the house", but try to avoid theatre lingo that might confuse the non-theatre, average reader. Sandy 03:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the offspring and relatives of notable performers who have interned at the Playhouse isn't really encyclopedic content: the Somerset-Ward book has plenty to say about the various educational programs, and I left more on the article talk page, so that you should be able to easily fill up those sections with relevant material. Sandy 03:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that the images should be upgraded in order to make FA quality: two of them are superb, but several of them are very dark, and of equipment only, not adding anything anything meaningful, and yet, there is no picture of the old Playhouse or the construction, and a strange picture of the new rehearsal room. A current FA is Abbey Theatre; it provides an example in terms of content, although it's a bad example of referencing, since it was passed FA before the current inline citation requirements. If you look at Abbey, you'll see that a lot of the current content can be replaced with the kind of information you can find in Somerset-Ward and other local sources. I hope I've given you enough to get your arms around for a few months! Sandy 03:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image Fair Use?
[edit]

I'm wondering if you ever got permission to use these two images: Image:WPC 02 cropped.jpg and Image:WPC interior.jpg Perhaps a phone call to the Playhouse to make sure they approve the use is in order? Sandy 05:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia

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

Lee Harvey Oswald

[edit]

After many contentious debates, this page has reached its current form. However, there may still be room for improvement with regards to the article structure, grammar and whether it is sufficiently NPOV. Please adde comments for improvement's you'd like to see. Ramsquire 18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General prose needs a little improvement; resusing words like 'ardent' and 'resulting' gets a little dry. Run on sentences need to be broken down. I noticed that this is one helluve a long article, so details like 'he shot himself in the elbow with a small, unauthorized handgun' should drop details like 'small', or even simplfied to a 'he shot himself accidently with a handgun'. i lended myself to the first section for a copy edit to show sorta what i mean, but maybe a copyedit template could get more eyes on this thing for that purpose. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester City F.C.

[edit]
First peer review available at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leicester City F.C./archive1

Right I'm resubmitting this for a second review. I've done some work recently collecting references and starting a rivalries section. Also I shortern down the managers list and started a new article with the full list. The takeover section is a mess at the moment but as it is due to go through today (12/02/07) or tomorrow I will clean then, whilst it's all still up in the air I can't see much point. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad article. What it does need is more references.

  • Comments like: "is regarded as one of Leicester's worst managers", "many supporters refer to the ground as Filbert Way", "This change was unpopular" and "a strong feeling that the naming rights had been underpriced", to name a few, are uncited.
  • A few emotive and pov terms like "would break the clubs heart", "more playoff heartbreak" and "easily the best manager of recent years" don't really need to be there.
  • The links to external websites in the colours section should be converted into inline citations.
  • The records and statistics section needs citations.
  • Why are the listed managers significant? Some criteria should be established for this, such as all managers who won a trophy, or took charge of 200+ games, for instance.
  • The last decade of Leicester's history gets almost as much coverage as the previous 100 years. Perhaps more could be trimmed?
  • Can some of Leicester's older crests be uploaded and added to the page?

Hope that helps. SteveO 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as SteveO's comments, I'd like to highlight a few things:

  • I don't think you need to say what the club hasn't won in the lead. The lead also needs expanding a bit
  • "Under the new name the club enjoyed moderate success in the 1920s." Perhaps needs rephrasing. If they reached their highest ever placing then I'd say that was more than moderate, although losing that word might make the sentence a bit POV.
  • "City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949,[1]captained by Norman Plummer, losing 3-1 to Wolves." I suggest changing that to "City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949.[1] Captained by Norman Plummer, they lost 3-1 to Wolves."
  • "emerged into the first team" is a bit clunky. Can't think of a viable alternative right now.
  • "After the Premiership was founded in 1992 Leicester tried desperately to gain promotion to it." Doesn't everyone? I'd suggest merging that into the next sentence. "Were close to joining the newly formed Premiership when they reached the play-offs" or something better worded than that!
  • "First Division clubs for TV rights), the large wage bill, lower than expected fees for players transferred to other clubs and the £37 million cost of the new stadium. =[4]" Rogue =!
  • What colours did Leicester wear before 1910/between 1910-1940?
  • "have been used every season since the mid 1940s" Well, they haven't, seeing as the next sentence details a 1-season colour change.
  • "In 2004, the current kit also features white pinstripes, which have previously featured in kits from the 1980s." Lose the odd "in 2004".
  • "this led manager Martin O'Neill to say he used to "lead new signings out backwards" so they only saw the Carling Stand.[7]" Why the Carling stand? Surely the whole ground was undeveloped?
  • You need a full list of managers in a sub article.
  • A few pictures would be handy.

Hope that helps, HornetMike 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What SteveO or HornetMike said. Some additional thoughts of my own:

  • Intro could be little longer.
  • Recent history could be a little shorter.
  • What exactly caused Leicester Fosse to fold? "Financial difficulties" is a little vague.
  • Singular/plural should be used consistently.
  • Some sentences are little short, making the prose quite abrupt.
  • Years should be unwikified, and seasons used rather than years.
  • Citations needed for unpopularity of the new white kit, the fact the naming rights are underpriced, fans disregarding the Walkers Stadium official name.
  • "a new jazzed up version" is unencyclopaedic and vague
  • Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference, as the M69 derby reference does - and to be honest it's such an innocuous claim I don't think it needs referencing anyway.

This diff on the first two paras of the History section shows some of the changes in style I recommend - cutting out unnecessary repetition of certain terms, and tidying the prose (e.g. two sentences in a row starting with "Under") a little. Qwghlm 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been ill since I submitted this so I'll go through whats been said in the next week or so. Did notice one thing, someone said about an sub artcle of managers, I already did that, strange it wasn't spotted.Jimmmmmmmmm 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European-American Unity and Rights Organization

[edit]

This article needs to be peer reviewed by other Wikipedian editors for fact checks, clean up, and neutralty. 66.246.72.108 07:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is for reviewing articles that have undergone extensive work and not for requesting "fact checks, clean up, and neutralty." If you wish to ask other people to do "fact checks, clean up, and neutralty." then place following tag codes {{not verified|article}}, {{cleanup}} and {{POV-check}} into the article which will request exactly those things. - Tutmosis 19:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Association for the Advancement of White People

[edit]

This article needs to be peer reviewed by other Wikipedian editors for fact checks, clean up, and neutralty. 66.246.72.108 06:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is for article that have undergone extensive work and not for requesting "fact checks, clean up, and neutralty." If you wish to ask other people to do "fact checks, clean up, and neutralty." then place following tag codes {{not verified|article}}, {{cleanup}} and {{POV-check}} into the article which will request exactly those things. - Tutmosis 19:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krusty Krab

[edit]

This article needs to be peer reviewed by other Wikipedian editors. Please give me any feedback you have for this article to improve. -AMK152 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite article with an Out-of-universe perspective if you wish to see it featured. It contains alot of trivial information which goes against Plot summaries under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page. It also has no references except the actual show. When improving an article I would recommend seeing how it stacks up to Wikipedia:What is a featured article? and improve it based on that criteria as much as possible. Not trying to be rude but the article needs alot of work if you wish to push it up; meeting featured criteria. - Tutmosis 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorology

[edit]

I have requested a peer review to try to improve this article greatly. It needs considerable work that should be specifically identified. CrazyC83 19:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in serious need of inline references. How did it ever get rated B class? Thegreatdr 12:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Phonetic Alphabet

[edit]

I'm refiling a peer review for this article. We started a sort of cleanup drive a few months ago in order to improve it, and the article has really come a long way. Many editors have done a lot of work on it. I'd like some response to how well the article shapes up, and what needs to be fixed (I'm already looking into the {{fact}} parts). Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the "For a treatment of the English language using the IPA..." paragraph from the lead. It's irrelevant to a general article on the International Phonetic Alphabet.
  • History section is too short. I think it should also adress a few of the most important revisions, for example the 1989 one. Also, the most recent addition (labiodental flap) could be mentioned (it is only alluded to in some footnotes).
  • I think this article would also need to cover the policy governing changes and additions to the IPA. It is my understanding that linguists can propose new symbols (on the basis of their own research), and that these proposals subsequently are voted on by the IPA Council. However, any details are unknown to me, and it would be nice if this article covered this procedure.
  • The section on Educational initiatives seems very vague to me. 'There is some interest' -- where? 'The rationales for such projects' -- it would be better to specifically name some of them. Also, there are some well-known projects based on rationales 1 and 2 (for example the UCLA Archive), but I would be curious to know a project based on the 3rd rationale given ('universal language acquisition').
  • The statement "The labiodental nasal [ɱ] is not known to exist as a phoneme in any language." is rightly marked with {{fact}}; in fact, I think Constance Kutsch-Lojenga has argued for its existence in some central African languages she worked on; I'll try to find a reference for that.
  • The section on "Unicode and tonal symbols" seems out of place to me. I would expect it in one of our articles on Unicode, but not in our most general article on the IPA. It's too specific.
  • In "Other phonetic notation" (shouldn't that be notations?), it might also be good to mention a few well-known historical phonetic alphabets, such as Lepsius' Standard Alphabet and Westermann's Africa Alphabet.
  • I must say don't really like the See also's for Dutch and English, especially because both currently are requested to be merged into their respective "X phonology" articles. Besides, why only these two languages?
  • That'll be all for now. — mark ✎ 08:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I can't speak to the content, but the structure needs some improvement. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be 3-4 full paragraphs summarizing the most important facets of the topic. The prose overall is very choppy. Part of this is from the short paragraphs that should either be expanded into a full idea, merged with related material, or removed. Some of the problem is also from having so many lists. Convert lists and bullet points to prose wherever possible — I don't really see any that couldn't be done, the charts already summarize the material that isn't ideal to be in prose. - Taxman Talk 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ikiroid had asked me for more detail on what the lead should cover, and I'm not sure I can help more specifically. That would have to be handled by those that know the subject well to prioritize what's most important to cover and to summarize the article. The current lead does seem to do that pretty well to me at least. The biggest thing left I can see, as I mentioned above is the flow of the prose throughout the article needs to be improved. - Taxman Talk 03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I think should be added to the lead is a sentence or two on the history, since the lead should function as a short summary of the article per WP:LEAD. — mark ✎ 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[7]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[8]
  • 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 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
    • correctly
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[9]
  • 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.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oregon State University people

[edit]

I've been working on this article since January and it's currently at good article status. I think it's getting close to being a featured list but there are some issues I'd like cleared up before nominating. The primary things in my view holding this back is that there are a good amount of red links, which I am slowly getting rid of by making articles, and that it needs more images towards the top. Unfortunately this is going to be harder as I'd like to only use free images. Anyway, the formatting issues I had a question about is repeated wikilinking to the same article. The MOS says this shouldn't happen (at least in the same section) but I was under the impression lists were different, I asked a question about this here but didn't have it answered. Basically I want to know if:

  1. We should only link the first instance of MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. or if the way it is now is good.
  2. The "Please" in "Please note that the people listed may have only attended the university at one point and have not necessarily graduated" seems a little like we are asking the reader a favor, I was tempted to get rid of it but I originally copied that from another list of people by university, any thoughts on removing that?
  3. After each baseball player I list the position they played, but ones that played multiple positions I left simply as player. Any ideas on what to do about that, or just leave it? I don't know which positions the unlabeled players were best known for.
  4. The basketball player position of guard links to essentially a disambiguation page between the 2 types of guards, unfortunately I don't know which type each player was. I could guess but that would be original research, the source only states guard in general and not the specific type they were.
  5. What do we do about people notable enough for the list, but not enough for their own article? (For example, noting that Bobby Henderson, the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an OSU alum seems appropriate for the list, but Bobby Henderson (FSM) redirects to Flying Spaghetti Monster, showing he isn't notable enough for an article). Do we remove a link alltogether? Right now clicking on his name brings you to Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it is repeated right after that.
  6. Right now general references follow the inline references and notes. Is this correct? Also the first inline citation is a repeat of the first general reference, I didn't know what to do about that since it fits both as a general reference as as a citation for the statistic in the lead.
  7. I wasn't sure about how to signify someone who is both an alumni and a former or current faculty member, so I simply added a note to each person that applied to, does this look good?

That's about it. Some other things worth noting is the football alumni isn't complete, there are still a lot of players I need to copy over from the football database, but they would all be redlinks so I figured I would do that after the current players listed all had articles (other than the free agents who I don't consider notable enough to have a page). VegaDark 08:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. i would only link the first instance, but like you i dont know how it is different for lists
  2. The please thing could go either way. i would take it out as it is just one more word that does not have to be there.
  3. baseball players without a usual position are often referred to as utility players.
  4. just because there is no article for henderson doesnt mean he isnt notable enough, just that it hasnt been done. i would either delink him or redlink if he meets WP:BIO. either way there does not need to be two links to FSM.

Sosobra 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A completely unreferenced article should not be GA, and would not make featured without inline citations: the notables need to be referenced. We can't ask readers to take our word for it. Sandy 23:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I'm not sure if you looked at the bottom or not but there are plenty of references. Having an inline citation after each name all pointing to the same reference seems kind of...ludicrous. I haven't seen any such lists of people done that way, having general references at the bottom like it is now makes more sense. VegaDark 23:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying they all come from one reference, then that can be noted. The problem with your logic is that articles on Wiki are not static: long after you stop tending the article, other editors will be inserting names that come from different sources. How do we know if future insertions are legitimate? Yes, every line should be sourced, and yes I've seen lists where they are. Featured articles require inline citations: of course, you're free to ignore the requirements. Sandy 21:55, 1 October 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 WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and 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.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[2]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.[10]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[4]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[8]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scout Association of Hong Kong

[edit]

After editing this article into the current state, I would appreciate feedback on the things that could be improved, aiming for Good Article status (I'm humble). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Suggestions:
  1. more refs
  2. move one of the pics so that there is not a huge white space between the see also heading and the first item in the list
  3. maybe a bit more on programs
  4. It seems during WWII the Japanese let the Scouts continue; I thought they interred a lot of people. What affect did the occupation have on Scouting in Hong Kong
  5. Re the return to Chinese control a few years ago...what affect did this have on the movement, if any? No mention is made of this. Rlevse 14:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Randy. The most notable issue is indeed the dependance of this article on merely one major reference (history of HK Scouting). Pics have been moved (could do with some more), programmes are pretty standard in The Scout Association, so don't need elaboration here. And personally I'd rather not include too much political information, as it easily askews into non-NPOV. Given the stability of the response here, would a GAC already be reasonable? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think the WWII and return to Chinese control would skew it as long as it was factual and referenced. For example, did HK Scouting cease to exist under Japanese control? IF SO, that is fact and not POV. I'm asking, what if any affect was there during these times? Leaving them out leaves the reader wondering. Rlevse 18:41, 29 September 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, Ruhrfisch 14:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruhrfish. I use the peerreviewer script too, so it isn't surprising that it doesn't find anything wrong. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Islamic architecture

[edit]

I have extened the article and added pictures (to once what have been a dull article) in a massive construction work on the article. I have nominated the article on the WikiProject Achitecture but no-one (apart from me) supported the article to be extened, therefore I extened the article by myself, added more information, merged some articles to the Islamic architecture, added a gallery and I have added sources. And now I want someone...anyone to read the article so it can become a featured article. Thank you!

Abdullah Geelah 19:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Very nice work. Not heavily referenced enough for a good article, but well laid out. Policy wanks may object to the gallery. You've taken on a huge subject in effective summary form. Durova 02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this article and think it has great potential. A few comments:-

  • The Lead needs expanding.
  • The first couple of paragraphs after the lead are a bit too list driven. I'd generally put lists at the end of the article and begin with prose summary style.
  • You'll need to thoroughly reference the article, preferably with in-line citations (This is the bit everyone hates, but it'll need to be done to get GA or FA status).--Mcginnly | Natter 10:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remove the gallery. Wikicommons is for image galleries. There are plenty of pictures already. You should expand inline refs throughout the article, and there is a problem with exiting inline citations. Medvedenko 04:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very nice article. Please remove the gallery, as Medvedenko has said. Many of the sections (especially the lead) are too short. The templates and images alongside them create gaps in the text. The lead talks too much about Persian architecture; spend that space discussing what Islamic architecture is, not what it isn't. The last sentence of the section on Fatimid architecture doesn't make sense. The images are very nice. NatusRoma | Talk 03:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very pretty. At first it looks like there is too much images in the article, but it's really the paragraphs that are too short. --SidiLemine 11:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text needs a bit of work to remove some heavy repitition of words that makes it seem to "labour the point". For example:

One of the first civilizations that Islam came into contact with during and after its birth was that of Persia. The eastern banks of the Tigris and Euphrates was where the capital of the Persian empire lay during the 7th century. Hence the proximity often led early Islamic architects to not just borrow, but adopt the traditions and ways of the fallen Persian empire. Islamic architecture borrows heavily from Persian architecture and in many ways can be called an extension and further evolution of Persian architecture
There is a repeating of "borrow from... Persian". Really, the last sentence is unnecessary. This pattern occurs in a number of places.
QuiteUnusual 20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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: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.[3]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[7]
  • 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,
    • arguably
    • correctly
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[9]
  • 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.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky

[edit]

I've been working on this for quite a while now, 2 failed GA nominations, i am in the process of acquiring and citing some reviews but some other thoughts would be nice

(The Bread 09:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

My comments:
  • In "Production", I wonder if its necessary to have that same citiation after so many different sentences.
  • About the original script: "...Rocky throw the fight after realizing he didn't want to be part of the world he'd entered." That could explained. What world did he enter?
The prose could still be improved, but it might be good enough for WP:GAC. The article somehow doesn't seem complete, though. In addition to a section on critical acclaim, maybe a section influence, legacy, etc? You could also include the video games there, which would take them out of the lead where they don't really belong. -- bcasterline • talk 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is missing info on critcal reception (both from 1976 and today) and box office reception (outside the intro paragraph). Also the article needs to go into the film's legacy. The film came out 30 years ago and people are still running up those steps. A statue was placed by the Museum of Art just this past weekend. Also it should have a brief paragraph on the sequels similar to Halloween (film). Medvedenko 02:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone got some critical info, It's from a couple respected newspapers and a magazine as well as added a section oninfluence where it talks about the statue and the steps scene. The inline citations have been cleared up, I added a section on video games all that is left to be done is the box office takings which are difficult to cite and as for the sequels I'm a bit iffy on that one, there's little you can say without branching into info belonging in one of the sequels articles
†he Bread 03:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through the article, and there's a number of spelling and grammar errors (try to write less passively). However, I've corrected them :) Also, the fact about the inspiration for Rocky didn't really flow with the lead paragraph, so I removed it and moved the reference down to the Production section. CloudNine 17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I have been thinking about that one for a while
†he Bread 19:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[11]
  • 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.[3]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[4]
  • 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.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[7]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverwind

[edit]

An article about a fictional character in the Dragonlance series. The article has been rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective, and would like some more tips before sending it to a Good article nomination. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 02:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, Oakland, California

[edit]

When I first found the article it was full of directory information: addresses, telephone numbers, links laying around EVERYWHERE. I'd just like general info about what needs to be done with the article, and help if you're willing to give it. --Daniel Olsen 04:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a good article inside. It still needs some pruning, though you have made very substantial progress. I would recomend the following reordering: Intro, Geography, People and Culture, Infrastructure (tighten), History (tighten), Government, References.

Serious question: if the article is Chinatown, should it be highlighting Asians and Asian-Americans anywhere in Oakland? If not, the history could be considerably reduced, the subsection Other Asian-American Oaklanders (quite long) could go in its entirety.

40 websites seems a lot. (this is the first time I have responded to a request for peer review. if i am way off base, let me know) Jd2718 02:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is about Asian-Americans in Oakland, rather than Chinatown. For example, there is discussion of Japanese in West Oakland, which really has nothing to do with Chinatown. I also agree that the list is notable Asian-Americans is far too long. (If they are so notable, why do so few warrant Wikipedia articles?) I would be tempted to cut it entirely. If their contributions are truly important, then they should be mentioned within the article. Lagringa 07:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think you need to rework the section of web references too. They don't appear to be in the proper format that FA standard demands off.

There may be some copyright concerns. Compare to this site. Lagringa 07:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Lead should summarize properly the article. The list of languages and communities is not mentioned in the article, and a history background is not included in the lead. CG 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto peer review

[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.
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • 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.[3]
  • 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.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • 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.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, BrianSmithson 12:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very listy, notables aren't referenced, and the sections don't conform to WP:LAYOUT. Sandy 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erast Fandorin

[edit]

All comments are welcome. Currently a GA candidate, I'm trying to improve it even further. Errabee 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read just the last passage, about adaptations. I have two suggestions. First of all, The Turkish Gambit was the greatest box-office hit in the history of post-Soviet cinema (although its record was topped by the 9th Company later that year). Appropriate citations are easy to find on Yandex. Secondly, I recall Akunin's TV interview in which he said that he regards Oleg Yankovsky as the ideal actor to play elderly Fandorin and that, when he wrote the novels, he imagined Fandorin looking like Yankovsky. By the way, The Councillor of State was directed by Yankovsky's son. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found an English reference about the box office record, and added the Golden Eagle Awards as well. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find Akunin's quote about Oleg Yankovsky. Errabee 02:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last night it passed GA without any problem. Please give additional comments, so it may one day go up for FA. Errabee 11:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superb article. Can't see anything wrong with it KaufmanIsAwesome 23:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miami,Queensland

[edit]

I want to know what needs to be done to get FA status Nathannoblet 08:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some current photos, a longer history, and make the lists into prose, along with much better inline references please. Are there any famous events or people from Miami? A "geography" section might also help - are there any rivers/creeks/canals/hills/lakes? What kind of soil? I've done a quick format-and-spelling pass. --Scott Davis Talk 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nathan. Thank for your interest in Miami. A good start would be to have a look at Gold Coast, Queensland. See what you can contribute there and get a feel about were we are at with the Gold Coast articles. The Gold Coast article is nowhere near being ready for a peer review for FA. Have a look at Suburbs of the Gold Coast, Queensland. Miami is not even formatted in the way we are developing for our suburbs and the links were in a shocking state till Scott sorted them out. The only other advise would be to go through the guidelines. --WikiCats 06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease

[edit]

Long and well-referenced article, maybe it could be featured one day. I'd like to get some feedback to know which sections to work on. NCurse work 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

[edit]

Territory I know: I'll spend some serious time in there, NCurse. Organization looks good per WP:MEDMOS, and Table of Contents initially reassures me that you've likely covered the controversy from all sides, and sources used look good. On first glance, I don't like the listiness of symptoms: listiness so early in an article can be off-putting, but that could be just my personal style. I'll spend detailed time in the article, and be back :-) Sandy 17:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back with detail:

  • The article is quite long: Controversy is worthy of its own article, and is the best candidate for Summary style. In fact, I strongly suggest you move Controversy to its own article, with a very careful summary back to the main article, as it's a POV magnet, which could result in deterioration of your article over time.
  • No, not just the first paragraph: I suggest very careful attention to how to best summarize the contoversy in a way that will attract less POV, speculative editing, and long-term deterioration of the article, while still covering the controversy. I had a similar problem with the summary of Notable cases into Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, and the balance *seems* to have helped minimize the speculative edits which occurred at a high rate. Aim to make it say enough that it is comprehensive, and all sides will be satisfied so they won't vandalize your article :-) 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Further reading needed, there are some good books on Lyme.
  • External links - remember that Wiki should not attempt to be a "support group" - have a look at how we addressed the problem at Tourette syndrome by linking to DMOZ. There must be a DMOZ category for Lyme disease associations, so that you don't have to link to all of them. Since Lyme is so controversial, many of those organizations have a POV, and I'd rather not see Wiki become a repository of various viewpoints - let DMOZ do that.
  • Can you follow WP:MEDMOS more closely, or is that not possible?
  • History, Epidemiology, a large patch in Ecology, and several other areas are completely unreferenced. I find a number of random sentences throughout the article which need cites, considering the controversy (example, "For early cases, prompt treatment is usually curative." All too often, this is not true.) The article may appear overcited, but moving Controversy to its own article will leave a much more manageably sized article, revealing that more inline citations are needed.
  • The long strings of citations which occur in numerous places suggest that the author is not necessarily citing the most seminal research on the topic. It concerns me. It should take one or at most in extreme case four cites to cover the seminal research, and the concern with a long string of cites is that the "good" research hasn't been sorted out from the "bad". If extremely long citations are needed, can you summarize the issues and cites into one ref tag, which explains why they are all needed? (See how this technique was used effectively in the recently-promoted Daniel Boone.)
  • Mixed referencing styles (see Transmission by ticks).
  • There are some external jumps in Prevention which should be converted to proper citations.

That's my initial look: I haven't even read the content yet. Sandy 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] - Back with some content-specific questions: I may be wrong on some of these:

  • Lyme is the larger town, but was the main original epidemic not in Old Lyme?
  • Since the article relies (or should, since Lyme doesn't always travel alone, and that is a big treatment complication) on Tick-borne disease, I'm wondering if the list there is thorough? It doesn't appear to be.
  • What is in the lead so far looks good, but it should be expanded to three or four paragraphs to thoroughly summarize the article.
  • Problematic prose, and needs to be cited: "The longer the duration of tick attachment, the greater the risk of disease transmission, but, typically, for the spirochete to be transferred, the tick must be attached for a minimum of 12 hours, although, only the first part of this statement can be said to be strictly correct. (see Proper Removal of Ticks)."
  • Stubby section: Congenital Lyme disease. If it's worthy of its own section, it should be expanded; if not, merged to another section.
  • Microbiology is another good candidate for Summary style.
  • Yikes. Numerous studies have demonstrated persistence of infection despite antibiotic therapy.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] We know this is true: can seminal research be cited, or this combined into one ref tag discussing why all citations are needed, and covering the various seminal conclusions from each?

I stopped there: hope this gives you some ideas at least. Sandy 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Opabinia

[edit]

A lot of my concerns have already been covered by Sandy, especially regarding the uneven referencing. (You could check out photon for a solution to the many-cites-for-one-fact problem that puts all the citaions under a single footnote, which is less distracting - I didn't read the cited papers specifically, but on points that misunderstood by the public, I can see the utility of referencing multiple studies even if they come to the same conclusion.)

  • If the evidence for sexual transmission is only "anecdotal and largely unconfirmed", then it's not really evidence. This definitely needs a citation, but I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned at all.
  • These sound like interesting bacteria; splitting and summarizing the microbiology section could make this more accessible to the general reader.
  • Some of the "supplemental" treatments sound very suspicious to me. The effects of melittin were apparently shown only in vitro; the text implies that these results have been dismissed or not pursued as a potential treatment, but instinctively, an active component of bee venom doesn't sound to me like a promising treatment candidate. The vitamin C stuff is even worse, since there are already so many urban myths about all the marvelous things vitamin C can do - the statement about it here is uncited and sounds very biochemically unlikely. How exactly is ascorbate supposed to kill bacteria (and viruses, cancer cells, parasites....)?
  • The large table under standards of care is another good candidate for splitting and summarizing - possibly into Sandy's proposed controvery article. The whole section is likely to be a POV magnet and will fill up with pseudoscientific nonsense if it isn't watched, which is easier if most of the controversial stuff is sequestered in its own article. There's already some POV stuff floating around, eg "When taking it off the market, the manufacturer cited poor sales, though some people believe that the actual reason was that the vaccine was not safe or effective at all." (there's one cite, but is it to the manufacturer's claim or the "some people"? do they have any reason to believe that or is it just the usual nonsense?)
  • The "proper removal of ticks" section is a) uncited, and b) giving medical advice. It should be rewritten as a neutral report of the recommended technique, not as a tick-removal tutorial.

Opabinia regalis 23:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Ewiniar (2006)

[edit]

I think it's pretty well-written, and adequately sourced. The storm history is concise, and I'm in the process of adding nbsp's. Would appreciate any comments. – Chacor 14:21, 15 September 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 WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[4]
  • 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 10 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.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert

[edit]

Advice on structuring the article (it is rather unweildy with chronological organisation) and advice as to use of quotes and other structural elements would be very useful. Vanished user talk 05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Noticed afterwards that it also qualifies for the more specific Biography Peer Review and have thus requested one. It may be better to reply there. Vanished user talk 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead-in is very short in comparison to overall size of the article, and reworking the in-line citations will also help tremendously to make it FAC (assuming that this is your eventual target). - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going to try and fix the lead-in today Vanished user talk 15:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! In-line citations are still a WIP, though. Vanished user talk 11:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In-line citations imporoving.... Vanished user talk 19:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, last month might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[11]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • 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.[3]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • 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.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quite nice, but (i) I don't see the need for a list of "selected" works when there is already a separate List of W. S. Gilbert dramatic works, (ii) it is rather odd that the whole of his life is in the first section! I would promote some of the 2nd level headings to 1st level, (iii) it seems rather short - surely there is more to say, given the number of good references you have used? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed point i - the list of selected works was, in fact, everything he wrote (!), due to renaming the section but not actually replacing the contents. Point ii... I don't follow, to be honest - it only covers his life up to when he was 31 or so, which is around when he started his career as a playwright. The rest of it continues his history, with the last section covering his later life. Point iii is valid, and it could use an expansion drive - but it's a somewhat slow process as there's only three people really active in the project at moment (that I know of - it may be that there's other people in aspects I'm not as involved with - so we do what we can. Hoping that a push towards FA will pull in more editors. Vanished user talk 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On (ii), what I meant was that pretty much the entire article is under ==Life and career== (from ===Beginnings=== to ===Later years===). On (i), the "selected" bullet-point list is, to my eyes, worse than the original full one - ones worth mentioning surely are already? But, anyway, good luck! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virender Sehwag

[edit]

I did notice that there are two FAs on cricketers, but one was about a schoolboy cricketer and the other was a very historical cricketer, so I was wondering what kind of style was the best for a modern cricketers (with ODIs and whatnot). Also I should really do up the references etc properly, but I was mostly looking for suggestions about the style of the article. I do tend to be rather dry, trying to avoid anything which isn't statistically bulletproof, so I was wondering in particular whether I should permit myself a bit more of a newspapery/magazine style flourish - in particular to comments about Sehwag's playing style. I am a matehmatically oriented person and am always terrified of making any remotely vague comments in this sort of thing. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do think you need to "zoom out" a little bit - I think you've hit the nail pretty much on the head, it is rather dry and filled with stats, and there's little connection between each sentence, it's just result after result. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sehwag made his international debut in the one-day arena, in a match against Pakistan in Mohali in April 2001, batting in the No. position. He made 1 [10], and did not play again until late 2000, in the home series against Zimbabwe [11]", did he travel back in time to play his second game? And where did he bat in his first game? Lankiveil 00:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Sam Vimes is right. The article is a bit dry, and sounds like a fact book. More info on the cricketer's life outside of cricket would help. Many Indian cricketers are involved in the Mumbai "scene" or are part of charitable orgs, you may want to look into that.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A biography by Vijay Lokappally came out last year. Taking a look may help to add more flesh to the article. (Not sure if it is worth buying, though). Re. too many numbers, pushing some statistics into the notes section sometime helps to make the main text more readable. Tintin (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Running out a batsman in the 50th over of the first innings notable enough to be added to the biography. I understand that it may be important when a batsman is run out in the second innings (with 3 runs to win) or (in the first innings) if a well set batsman is run out in the 35th or 40th over triggering a minor collapse or slow runrate. Running out in the 50th over of first innings in the present context may not be notable. Any comments please Doctor BrunoTalk 14:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of points:
    1. If you're going to go for featured article status you will need a photo and you will need to expand the introduction to at least two paragraphs. *#Early years: Joint family will need explaining in the article.
    2. People only "hail" from somewhere in journalese. In normal English you come from somewhere.
    3. The order in which points are raised is not the natural one - which is chronological. You're born first. Then describe the parents and what they do. Conditions in which someone is brought up in early childhood. Then schooling, etc.
    4. Use "Under-19" not "U-19".
    5. "He was seventh in the 2000-01 season with two centuries" - what does that mean?
    6. "Leicestershire" not "Leicester"
    7. ODI career: what position did he bat in?
    8. I agree with the comment about this reading like a list of stats. It would be better to refer to fewer matches and to expand on the key moments of his career. Merging this with the "Test career" section so that his whole career can be considered chronologically would be better.
    9. Test career: "The 2004 home Border Gavaskar Trophy" - ???? what does this mean?
    10. He "earned" selection. Not "earnt".
    11. Playing style: Leave out Tendulkar's middle name.
    12. Outside cricket: Again, this reads like a series of one-off facts rather than as a coherent whole. Maybe expand the language so that one bit of info segues into the next, jguk 17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few points which you may or may not take into account.
  1. Add wikilinks when we're talking about common cricket phrases that may not be known to the rest of the world (eg. What would Americans think of part-time off-spin bowler?).
  2. Do we really need all that stuff on his tooth getting broken and him not being academically gifted etc.
  3. Sometimes, the significance of achievements need to be explained, again, for a non-cricketing audience (eg. During the 2006 West Indies tour, Sehwag narrowly missed out on scoring a century in the opening session of the Second Test in St Lucia, ending with 99 at the interval, a Mexican wouldn't know that its rare to score such a century).
  4. References need major fixing, but that's pretty obvious, some of them don't even link.
  5. Information on his inconsistency and his recent lack of form (if you can find a good source which analyses this).
  6. Like mentioned above, a few too many numbers.
Good luck. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the article i feel it can be greatly improved if, instead putting links to his career stats in the references section, the statistics are directly put on to the article page and references removed.I feel that will make the article more informative without the reader having to go to external links.What do you feel? Doctor Evil 17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • 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.
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • 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.[3]
  • 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.
  • You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 2(c) highly recommends.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demosthenes

[edit]

This article had already goon through a peer-review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Demosthenes/archive1). It is now a GA and I intend to nominate for FA. But I need your input and help. Especially, about style, content and prose. Please, make your suggestions!--Yannismarou 15:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good. Looks well researched. The biggest thing is the huge number of quote boxes seems to detract rather than add to the article; they're large and break up the text a lot. I've not seen them used in other biographies, especially not in that number. Second is the references in pop culture needs to be removed unless it can be referenced and the references show that the mentions are important enough to warrant coverage. - Taxman Talk 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the quotes: It is not the only biography with quotes. You can check two featured biographies: Pericles and President Ford. Demosthenes was an orator and I believe that some monumental phrases of him would be nice to be available for the reader. I chose a different kind of quote box. Is it less detractive? Section "Refs in pop culture" is a small opening to a sub-page. I've also doubts about this section, but I thought not to remove it, since the way ancient personalities are treated by novel writers etc. is a quite interesting topic. Anyway, I'll check for references. Thanks!--Yannismarou 07:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is there are just too many quotes. I'm not saying you have to cull them, but I'm predicting you're going to hear the same thing when you take this to FAC. Make sure they are relevant to the section they are in as much as possible. And the pop culture section should at minimum be demoted to a sub sub section, perhaps fit it in at the end of the previous section. It fits in with the legacy/importance idea covered there. But yeah, you bring up a good point, if the way he is treated is interesting it's worth covering. But it definitely needs to be replaced with sourced analysis about how he is covered, not listings of cartoons etc he is referred to in. - Taxman Talk 12:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of the "Refs in pop culture" and "See also" sections. I incorporated the first one in "Rhetorical Legacy". The links of the "See also" section have been incorporated in the prose. I replaced some of the quote boxes to be more relevant with the text, but I haven't yet cut any of them yet. But I'm still thinking about that!--Yannismarou 15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also got rid of some of the quote boxes. I hope it is better now.--Yannismarou 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. If there's any problems left in it, it would be in the content which is beyond me to judge. You may get people in FAC that will still think there needs to be less quote boxes, but that's an opinion, so you don't need to jump on it right away until a consensus developes that it needs to be done. I'd say you have a fair chance of successfully passing FAC, so send it up, I'm sure you can deal with anything that comes up there. - Taxman Talk 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is overall a very nicely done article.

If you feel bound to act in the spirit of that dignity, whenever you come into court to give judgement on public causes, you must bethink yourselves that with his staff and his badge every one of you receives in trust the ancient pride of Athens.

Demosthenes (On the Crown, 210)

My suggestion with the quote boxes is to try to somehow tie them into the section of text more / better (like a caption on a picture will often explain its relation to that part of the article). While the source of the quote is listed, it was not always clear to me exactly why it was placed in that section of the article. So, could you add some sort of brief explanatory note / caption to make the relation between the quote and the article there clearer? For example (see box), if I read it right, the quote in the "Career as logographer" section is Deomsthenes defense of the serious nature of the courts in Athens, so after the identification could it say something like this (my quick sentence - more to show the idea of a caption than as a suggestion for one here). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 14:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions! You have a point. I'll try to figure out a solution, although I donot know if the system with the captions can work. Maybe more information would do the job. I just ask this peer-review not to be archived, until such issues are settled.--Yannismarou 14:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the quotes a bit more informative, following your suggestions. I also chose another type of quote boxes, which I think serves better this purpose. What do you think?--Yannismarou 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The boxes seem fine to me (I made a few minor copyedits to clean up the captions - please revert if I erred). Thanks for all of your work on this and the changes - I look forward to see this as a Featured Article someday soon. Ruhrfisch 17:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One minor quibble - in the section Rhetorical Legacy, you quote Juvenal in Latin, but do not translate into English. Assuming this article is submitted for FAC, I would imagine they will want this translated. Ruhrfisch 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem and thanks for the nice words. And in case you find any syntactical or grammatical errors (since you are a native English speaker), just tell me to fix them.--Yannismarou 15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

[edit]

Archive 1

I helped get this article up to GA status a little while back, and I made the decision that I would try to get it up to FA status. I already had this article peer reviewed on the CVG peer review, and I I think the review really helped improve it. However, I think that adding it to the standard peer review will give it the final push of improving whatever's necessary to make it a featured article. Any help would be appreciated.--Clyde Miller 15:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's definitely a solid article, but one that needs quite a bit of improvement before an attempt at FAC. In the lead:
  • Exact release dates are nice to have, and are standard procedure in computer and video game-related featured articles.
  • "In many ways, it is a spiritual sequel to Empire Earth, Stainless Steel Studios' previous game." - This sentence is original research. To remove this, simply merge it into the following sentence, with something like "The game has been referred to by the press as an un-official sequel to Empire Earth".
  • "Although a slightly compressed version, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is based on world history, spanning 5 epochs from the Medieval Age to World War II." - Clumsy wording causes this sentence to be unclear. Try something like "Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is based on a slightly compressed version of world history, spanning five epochs from the Medieval Age to World War II".
  • Gameplay needs some work, but like the rest of the article, it's mostly solid stuff. Some suggestions:
  • As big of a pain as they can be, a few more citations could probably be used.
  • Needs some copyediting to remove a bit of the clumsiness, with things like "Empires is based around gathering resources and using those resources to construct buildings and an army" being changed to "Central to Empires is the gathering of resources, which are used to build structures and armies." Another one that stuck out to me was "Resources are gathered by citizens, who bring it back to Town Centers." Try "Citizens gather resources, placing them in Town Center structures," or somesuch. If you want, I'll give it a once-over a bit later.
  • The bolded list needs to be integrated into the main text body. For starters, I recommend placing "Resources" after the "Resources are continually gathered..." sentence. However, it contains some original research with "The resources of Empires are not unlike those in many other RTS games." The best way to get rid of this is cutting it entirely, reducing the part to "The resources of Empires break down into food, wood, gold, stone. Each is used in a variety of ways, and must be totally utilized to achieve victory." The rest could be similarly integrated.
  • "...are only the center of attention at the beginning of it." Original research. Please find a citation for this.
  • "After the beginning of the game, the construction of an army takes top priority for the player, as an enemy cannot be defeated by anything other then an enemy army (or if they resign). Resignation is used if a player is going to give up, and usually coincides with imminent defeat." - As with the above, this is original research. In addition, "then" should be "than", and the last bit could be rewritten into something like "as enemies are defeated through military conflict. Players may also resign from the game."
  • "To be victorious, players must raise a balanced and organized army. To be balanced, micromanagement is important. Micromanagement is breaking down an army into groups, whether it is by unit or several different types of units put together to make several smaller divisions of the main army. Micromanagement is important because it helps a player command quickly when they are attacking an opponent." - Original research, and needless discussion of micromanagement that could be left to the micromanagement article. Try "To be victorious, players must raise balanced and organized armies, utilizing micromanagement by breaking armies into groups," and adding a citations at the end.
  • For Campaigns, the main issue is the... rather odd use of spoiler tags. I do not believe discussing world history counts as "spoiling".
  • Development needs an overhaul, particularly with its strange want to discuss the company instead of the actual game. The details about its development company could probably be cut and the rest editing, leaving something like "Empires was developed by the now-defunct Stainless Steel Studios. The game was developed on an upgraded version the "Titan" engine, which was used in the company's previous title, Empire Earth. A demo of Empires was available before the game's release[14] and news was released about it in E3 2003." If applicable, include information about all of the game's appearances at E3, Games Convention, Consumer Electronics Show and the like, along with dates and citations for each appearance. In addition, include information from "designer diaries" and announcements made about the game's development.
Wow. I took care of the lead and the spoiler issues, and I'll start working on the gameplay and devolpment as soon as I get a chance.--Clyde Miller 20:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on most of the article suggestions you gave me, and I usually used your ideas for the sentences. Your ability with word choice, prose, and grammer structure far excedes mine. However, finding citations may be a bit harder, so I'm working on that. On a different note, any copyediting you would like to do would be greatly appreciated.--Clyde Miller 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit and the advice. I've fixed pretty much everything, with the exception of finding news about the game at the Games Convention and Consumer Electronics Show. I'm still looking into those. Is there anything else I need, didn't correct, or missed? Thanks.--Clyde Miller 03:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General citations are usually not accepted in FAC. I recommend you switch the bulleted items in "references" to inline citations, and cite the necessary prose with them. Also, while the reception section is pretty good, I note two problems:
  • I have a hard time believing that the game only received multiple criticisms for its lack of a good tutorial, so you should dig up some more info there.
  • While there are plenty of different sources used, I think it would be best to include some magazine reviews. Sources like Gamezone aren't as notable as GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy and the other big players. I think you should try tracking down reviews from PC Gamer, Computer Gaming World, and Computer Games Magazine. According to Metacritic, these are the Jan 2004, Feb 2004 and Feb 2004 issues, respectively. I can't offer much more help than that, but I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Magazines if you don't have access to those sources.
Aside from that, its looking good (aside from the information you're digging for). I don't think you should go for FAC yet, though - wait for a few more reviewers here. Perhaps request some feedback from willing people over at WikiProject Computer and Video Games? JimmyBlackwing 06:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the CVG review has this on it's peer review page, and it's only one of six games there (pretty low at the moment). I was hoping maybe some of the people on the CVG review would add something, but all I can do until someone helps out is wait. I don't think that Empires appeared in the CES (it was all speakers and the like), and the GC info is buried so deep I'm buying a shovel, if the info about it actually exists. If there wasn't any news about Empires at the GC or CES, I'll at least add more E3 news. I'm still looking though.--Clyde Miller 13:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally exhausted every source I know regarding the game conventions, so I added a little bit more about the E3 annoucement instead. Is this Okay?--Clyde Miller 22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely better. I'll give the subject a look and see if I can't find anything that could help. Game conventions aren't the only thing that may be used in development sections, after all. JimmyBlackwing 22:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool. You probably have more places to look, and thanks. I also never got a chance to thank you for the help with the reception section, which I'm currently working on. I have the reviews for Computer Gaming World, PC Gamer, I got a little tidbit from Gamepro, but I couldn't find Computer Games Magazine other than the quote on Metacritic. I'll find a place to put them in, whether it is in the first reception paragraph or in the section about what the critics didn't like. I also may put more in from some of the other reviews I have already used, and include more of the gripes of the critics.--Clyde Miller 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good. I only managed to find a little bit on the game's development, but it was a nice touch, I think. With the addition of the magazine reviews, this article will really come together. Drop me a line when you decide to try for FAC and I'll help you out. FAC can be pretty harsh, but I've gone through the process a few times, so I can give you a hand with whatever gets requested. JimmyBlackwing 14:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everything, and the development section looks excellent. I'm gonna add my part about the reception, then I'll drop a note on your talk page or here when it's put on FAC.--Clyde Miller 21:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well Empires is now a FAC. I guess this can be closed up now. Thanks to JimmyBlackWing for helping me get this far.--Clyde Miller 00:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bereishit (parsha)

[edit]

Would be quite cool in theory to make all the parsha readings FA. To start with this one as a template for the others, what would be good to do to this to make it FA? Dev920 (Tory?) 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Can I therefore assume that because no-one has replied in 5 days, the article is already almost FA standard? :) Dev920 (Tory?) 12:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Revolution of 1956

[edit]

We're trying to get this ready to be featured article on Oct. 23, the anniversary of the revolution. We've made progress but would appreciate any comments and suggestions for how to make it even better. Thanks! K. Lastochka 16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice start:

  • I don't like the dates in the section headings: any way to change that?
  • Further reading - make it alphabetical.
  • Expand all footnotes to full bibliographic entry: example, "US State Department Commemorates the 1956 Hungarian Revolution" is one big blue link.
  • Current ref # 11 is missing.
  • Referencing is uneven: there are still large chunks of text with no inline citations.

I'll look at prose in the morning: haven't yet read the article, but wanted to give you that to start on. Don't get your hopes up for a certain date on FA: it rarely happens, and you're cutting it really close :-)) Sandy 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New section headings are much better. Looking now at some of the prose:

  • "The Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a spontaneous revolt from 23 October to 10 November, began as a student demonstration which quickly attracted thousands of eager participants." Spontaneous revolt against what or whom should be spelled out, right there. "Eager" sounds like editorializing.
  • "This crowd swelled as they walked across the Danube to the Parliament building. A handful of demonstrators who attempted to air their demands by radio were arrested." Ugh - this is mundane, and not very compelling detail, rather than the summary of the entire article that is supposed to be in the lead. If this is how the prose is in the lead, it's going to need a lot of polishing.
  • "As protesters called for their release, members of the State Police (ÁVH) shot into the unarmed crowd. At that point, the population rose against the dictatorship and State Police (ÁVH)." At that very point, the entire population rose up? The lead needs some work on brilliant and compelling.
    • Does this paragraph intend to be saying something along the lines of: "The Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a spontaneous revolt from 23 October to 10 November, began as a student demonstration against censorship, economic stagnation, and poor working conditions under the communist dictatorship installed in Hungary after World War II. The student protest progressed quickly to a general uprising against the Hungarian dictatorship and State Police (ÁVH) after members of the State Police arrested demonstrators and shot into the unarmed crowd."
  • Skipping further into the article to look at the prose:
    • The State Protection Authority (ÁVH)
  • Above, the reader is told that AVH is the State Police. Don't confuse people who don't know anything about this subject material (like me :-) Which is it?
  • addressed, its all "state police" now - this is the clearest reference, as the literal Hungarian translation is muddled, ambiguous, and changed in 1950 anyway. Istvan 06:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph from which I took that snippet (in Repression and Decline) is unreferenced. "Thousands of Hungarians were arrested, tortured, tried, and imprisoned in concentration camps or were executed (ironically among them ÁVH founder László Rajk)." Why is the founder a parenthetical, ironic insert? Should be better worded.

  • Skipping further down:
    • "At this point, the crowd swelled to at least 100,000 and had no clear leader."
  • This an example of numerous statements throughout that should be sourced.
  • This sentence doesn't have a constant tense - it switches several times, and I don't know how to sort it out: "The written demands of the demonstrators were at first relatively peaceful: requesting that reformist Imre Nagy return as Prime Minister, a national policy independent of the Soviet Union, greater pluralism in political life, ending forced collectivisation, free elections, and that factories be run by workers and specialists instead of bureaucrats.
  • Skipping further down (to another uncited paragraph):
    • At the Melbourne Olympics, the Soviet handling of the Hungarian uprising led to a boycott by Spain, the Netherlands and Switzerland. A confrontation between Soviet and Hungarian teams occurred in the semi-final game ("the Blood In The Water match") of the water polo tournament; the play was extremely violent. The match was called off in the final minute to quell fighting amongst spectators. Some members of the Hungarian Olympic delegation defected after the games. The match became the subject of a Quentin Tarantino documentary called Freedom's Fury.
      • Spain, the Netherlands and Switzerland boycotted the Melbourne Olympics over the Soviet handling of the uprising. The semi-finals of the water polo tournament pitted the Soviets against Hungary, in what became known as "the Blood In The Water match" and was the subject of a Quentin Tarantino documentary, Freedom's Fury. Play was extremely violent, and the match was called off in the final minute to quell fighting among spectators. Some members of the Hungarian Olympic delegation defected after the games.[citation needed]

If you all are seriously aiming for featured status by October 23rd, you will need to quickly source every statement in the article, and an independent copyedit by someone who knows the territory, but is a new and fresh set of eyes, is needed. Possibly someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history can help copy edit the article once it is thoroughly cited. I'm not a great copy editor, but am adding comments here because Paul asked me to help, and I can see some prose polishing will be in order after the article is referenced. Sandy 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you all understand that my examples above were only examples, suggestive of changes needed throughout the text. Sandy 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Vancouver

archived discussion
I'm trying to get the article featured. I'm going to fix all {{fact}}'s, and copyedit any sloppy sections. What is the article missing? What needs to go? Are there any stubbish sections to address? Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I think of Vancouver, I immediately recognise it for having films shot there. Why is it so popular then? Wiki-newbie 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article I've been working on, Hollywood North answers some of those questions. I have yet to work it into the Vancouver article though. Mkdwtalk 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surinam Airways Flight PY764

[edit]

I am determined to bring this up to FA status, and so any kind of contributions about what needs/should be done are apreciated. If you want me to expand, thats fine, but please tell me what information the article is lacking. Blood red sandman 11:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent featured candidate comments the article lacks brilliant prose and more references should be provided along with footnotes. Please convert embedded citations into Wikipedia:Footnotes. Article also seems quite short which is usually an indication of missing information but I can't really think of anything to add since I'm not familiar with the crash. Try to dig up anything you can. - Tutmosis 19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't relise there was a preference for using footnotes. Tomorrow (it is getting late here now, I live in the United Kingdom) I will convert to footnotes and tackle research again with a different search engine and see if I can uncover anything new. - Blood red sandman 20:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other commitments getting in the way - damn. Will get round to it.

Deuterium arc lamp

[edit]

This is a peer review request not intended to ready the article for featured status but rather to validate my notations to the image of the spectrum of a deuterium arc lamp included with this article. I would specifically like to know if my marking of the location of the "fulcher band" is correct. I am pretty sure of the locations of the molecular continuum and balmer lines but not really sure of the emission band at 560 to 640nm and would very much like to hear from a physicist or chemist familliar with this phenomenon. I have posted the question to the science refrence desk but nobody there seems to know.--Deglr6328 18:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you will find someone here after asking at the reference desk but looking through page histories of Deuterium I found User:Kdliss who claims to be a physician so you might want to contact him. - Tutmosis 20:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is in no way my specialty, so don't take my word for it, but AFAIK the Fulcher-alpha band should be about 600nm, so it looks like you're in the right place. I wasn't aware it would be so spread out - for example, here are some data on H2 that are all in the 600-630 range for the various transitions (table II). But their "expansion" figure (fig 3) showing the Fulcher region is 590-650nm, which is more consistent with your annotation (though not performed under remotely similar conditions). Opabinia regalis 06:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks very much for both of your inputs! Yes I have seen that paper and I remember seeing that spectrum (if I recall it was the lowest reaching spectrum of the band that I found anywhere) but looking at where it appears to slope down to 0 at about 590nm (though obviously I can't be certain that's where it really ends) that would mean the isotopic shift for deuterium would have to be in excess of ~30nm since in my spectrum it cuts off at around 560nm! I just don't know if that's even possible. --Deglr6328 06:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have found what I'm looking for [2]. Apparently this has all been known for ~100 years!! humbling.--Deglr6328 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPD

[edit]

As a physician with MPD/DID having done a lot of research on this, I find this article inaccurate. I am new and don't have experience in Wikipedia editing so I need help with this. I don't want to step on any toes here but I don't want someone looking for information to come here and find this. Thanks for your help. P L Logan 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well welcome to Wikipedia P L Logan. I'm not really sure what you are asking but I think you asking for permission to significantly improve this article which in no way do you have acquire permission since this article is merely a stub. I would also like to point out wikipedian policy of being bold. If you wish to see how a good medical article looks then I would direct you to Biology and medicine section of Wikipedia:Featured articles. A quick glance at that list I would say that Asperger syndrome comes the closest in subject.
Basically all you need to know when improving an article is you should write in a neutral point of view and not side with any opinion even if you writing about Hitler. Provide information that is already been published (per Verifiability page) and do not do any original research. Remember also to always provide references and inline citations. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a good article to learn about this. Assuming you have finished college/university to become a physician you should be quite familiar with a Bibliography. Inline citations are basically a link to a source after a statement that might be challenged (Example:15 percent of the world buy canadian produced chocolate.) Wikipedia:Footnotes is a good place to familiarize yourself with this. The last and least important in my opinion is Wikipedia:Manual of Style page (since its all things that take little time to fix unlike researching) where you can learn different page style/code preferences of wikipedia.
Anyway that's about it and I hope you can make this article into a fine piece of work. Good luck and if you need anything I'm sure anyone would be willing to help including myself. - Tutmosis 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MPD was a disambiguation page with many possible meanings of this three-letter acronym. An editor changed it about a week ago to show her interpretation of Multiple Personality Disorder, but we have a much better developed article at Dissociative identity disorder. I've reverted MPD to the original content.-gadfium 00:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! P L Logan 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kroger Babb

[edit]

Looking for any help or pointers available. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few things: 1)The section about Mom and Dad never actual explains what the movie is about. The section would not make sense to someone who has never seen the film. 2)The lead is fairly short. Does it summarise the entire article? 3)Is the lead photo really a promo photo? That is a fine specification. --198.185.18.207 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) I should probably spend some time fleshing out the Mom and Dad article a bit, too, now that you mention it. A paragraph expansion would be very useful, though, you're absolutely right. 2) I'm horrid at leads, I admit. Any help here would be great. 3) It is indeed a promotional photo, it went out with his promotional materials for his flicks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy (dolphin)

[edit]

Aiming for FA standard. A withdrawn FAC mentioned prose quality as one issue. Andjam 22:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formatted to help, please expand the sections that seem weak or small. Also, this article is about this dolphin or its marriage? You should add tons of non-marriage information about the dolphin to the article. What does it look like? How is it treated? Judgesurreal777 05:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has some way to go. Provide some more details on the actual dolphin not just the marriage (its weight, personality and any distinctive marks it may have). Expand the one or two sentence sections and also expand the lead. Provide more quotes from Tendler. Provide the scientific name of the subspecies in brackets (T. truncatus ponticus, I believe). Provide a photo of the dolphin. Cedars 00:41, 1 October 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 WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and 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.
  • This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under WP:IUP and WP:IT that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[1]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[2]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • 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).[9]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Thailand

[edit]

I've already put the article up for a Request for feedback and have done my best to implement the suggestions.

I'd like to request further comments on this article, as a further step to nominating it for Featured Article status. In particular, I'd like suggestions on:

  1. Whether the article is too long. The article body (not including Intro and References) is currently less than 5,700 words long. This is just less than the 6,000 to 10,000 word length which Wikipedia:Article size notes as the limit at which readers may tire of reading a page. But the content of the article is somewhat meaty, and covers 16 constitutions and 70 years of turbulent Thai political history, so I'm concerned that the reader would just get lost.
  2. Sufficiency of contextual information about Thai politics. You can't cover changes in the Thai constitutions without also explaining the context of Thai politics and Thai history. So I've tried to include what I consider essential details of how each constitution came to be and how and why each constiution influenced the nature of government. But I'm concerned about going overboard. Is the current balance OK for a reasonable reader who has no strong understanding of constitutional law, government, or Thai history?
  3. Any other comments would also be appreciated.

-- Patiwat 10:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your timing, given recent events, is incredible. The article appears to be pretty comprehensive. However, the section on the 1959 Constitution doesn't give any information about the content of that document. That section, as well as the ones describing the 1946 Constitution and the 1977 Charter, have no references, and the ones on the 1968 and 1974 Constitutions have very few. The sections on the 1997 Constitution and the 2006 Interim Charter are much longer than any the sections on any of the other constitutions; cutting them down would preserve a sense of balance. However, the section on the 2006 Interim Charter should include the timetable for the proposed new charter. The vocabulary needs more variety throughout: in particular, "stipulated" and "promulgated" appear too frequently, even two or three times in a single paragraph. The image Image:Evolution of Thai constitutions 1932-2006 not bold.png is fairly illustrative, but it needs to be updated to include the 2006 Interim Charter. The references to Thai history generally seem justified, but often the importance of a statement in one section does not become clear until the next (e.g., the king's death in 1946, the results of the 1969 elections), which is a bit jarring for the reviewer, but perhaps less so for the reader. NatusRoma | Talk 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • 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: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.[3]
  • 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.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[8]
  • 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 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,
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[9]
  • 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 30 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.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

[edit]

There's been some fairly significant changes, and now that it's well into it's mission, I'd like to try and do a FA push again. So, here's the nomination again for a peer review Tuvas 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 30 is no longer working! The other footnotes are nearly all from webpages, a view references from peer reviewed journals are no harm. They are available not so easy but for a longer time. --Stone 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, removed the link as it's redundant anyways. There aren't a whole lot of peer-reviewed journals at the time on MRO, but I'll dig up what I can. Tuvas 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ACTA ASTRONAUTICA 57 (2-8): 566-578 JUL-OCT 2005
  • PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE 52 (1-3): 157-166 JAN-MAR 2004
  • SAMPE JOURNAL 40 (5): 22-29 SEP-OCT 2004
  • SPIE, Volume 5167, pp. 63-71 (2004)
  • (MARCI on Mars Climate Orbiter) JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS 106 (E8): 17651-17672 AUG 25 2001
  • SAMPE JOURNAL 40 (5): 22-29 SEP-OCT 2004
Should help.--Stone 07:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Floyd (Virginia politician)

[edit]

This is a recent GA article that I'd like to see what it needs to reach FA -- any and all comments/criticisms welcome! --plange 02:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One thing that bothers me with this article is that the image in the infobox 'looks away' from the body of the text, drawing my attention to my kitchen (which is located to my right from where I sit, FWIW) rather than the article's body of content. Perhaps flip the image? -- Longhair\talk 10:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know... I like the picture that way. Would we flip a more famous portrait just to have it face the article? Pretty good article, though. The reference section is pretty long with only few different sources, but there's not much we can do there. It just looks odd Ambler (or whatever it was) all the way down with a one or two page differential between the two. For some of those (where there are say [sentence](Cooper 21, 22) [sentence](Cooper 25-27), would it not be better to skip the first reference, and just say [sentence][sentence](Cooper 21-27)? Make any sense? --198.185.18.207 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan War

[edit]

I want to see what can be improved in this article and what needs to be improved for it to make FA standards. Kyriakos 07:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article very good, but it could be improved in terms of language both in usage and in clarity.
e.g. "The war started with Philip of Macedon having Spartan and Aetolian pirates raid Rhodian ships". Was this the cause for the war or was it the first stage of the war, which was caused by something else? Either way, the wording could be changed to reflect more clearly the intended meaning.
--Atavi 17:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest any other improvements? Kyriakos 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In time, I will proof read the article to find other points, and either will correct them myself when I can, or write about them here, so you can attend to it.--Atavi 08:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes, of which I hope you will approve.
Regarding
"The Athenians were so pleased by the rescue that replaced the recently abolished pro-Macedonian tribes, the Demetrias and Antigonis tribes with the Attalid tribe in honour of Attalus."
myself being unfamiliar with the subject matter, I don't quite understand the background of the tribes, how they were abolioshed, how they were pro-Macedonian etc. Maybe you could expand a little, or write a separate article and link to it.
Thanks for the cody-edit the article needed it and thank you for all the other work you've done for the article. Do you think it could make it to A class or FA? Kyriakos 09:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome.
Again based on my comprehension of the text, perhaps this paragraph could be rewritten so that they are more clear:

In response to these complaints the Romans sent three ambassadors, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, Gaius Claudius Nero and Publius Sempronius Tuditanus to Egypt with the orders to go to Rhodes after speaking with Ptolemy

Was it the ambassadors who spoke to Ptolemy and then went to Rhode, or was it Rome that spoke with Ptolemy and then sent the ambassadors to Rhode?
Regarding, A class and FA, I must say that I'm not really qualified to speculate on the judgement. The article is very informative and exemplary sourced, but this is as much as I can say with certainty. You'd be better off asking someone else.
My opinion is that you did great work on the article.
Regards, Atavi 10:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again thank you for your support and work. :) Kyriakos 10:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would check each redlink (the concern is that there are quite a few) to see if either a)at least a stub or longer article can be written for it, or b) if there is little chance an article of any length will ever be written for it, black it. -Fsotrain09 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other suggestions? Kyriakos 08:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FoxTrot

[edit]

This is the second peer review. (Archive1) The article has seen consistent improving since the last peer review; and I believe it meets Featured quality with the exception of references. Which at worst can be sprinkled into the article and refer to compilation books. - RoyBoy 800 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the LEAD, maybe include some of the prominent characters or history behind it or something. It's too brief. Kaisershatner 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, WP:FOOTNOTEs will be needed. Outside of referencing, sections like "Other languages" need more information, or should be merged into other sections. About every single image in this article needs a fair use rationale- see WP:FUC- this is certainly pushing WP:FUC to the limit. See WP:DATE for date-linking issues, for example "May 7th, 2005" should be "May 7, 2005". Images (outside of those book covers in the tables) should have captions as per WP:WIAFA. The ToC is also pretty long, and should probably be cut down a bit. Thanks, AndyZ t 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denver, Colorado

[edit]

This article was recently made a Good Article, and as part of its FA push, I am looking for feedback. What does it need for FA candidacy? Judgesurreal777 05:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might look at the Chicago article as a way to make it better. Think about fewer lists of things and more paragraphs. The Hosting stuff under Sports may need to be cut down a bit. Try looking into the history for elements that are of broad interest. For example, the United Way had its roots in the Denver church community. Climate seems a bit big--how about a graph that summarizes the climate instead of the 2 tables? Are there neighborhood articles for Denver? Hilltop? 5 Points? LoDo? Bonnie Brae? A paragraph about these might be good content. I also do not see anything about all the houses in Denver being brick after the fires in the 1920s. This is something that stands out, to me at least --Chrispounds 13:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
San Francisco, California, which recently passed FAC, is another one you could look at as a guideline for ideas. It is one of the best articles I've read here on Wikipedia. --Nebular110 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please punctuate your refs correctly. The lead is killing me: it's way too busy, and not enticing or compelling. The TOC is rambling and overwhelming, suggesting the article needs better organization. Some of the sections are short and stubby. Is all of that See also necessary, or can some of it be incorporated into the article? Sandy 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti

[edit]

Hi Everyone,

I came accross this article a few days ago, and learned that it's a former featured article. It's become my personal ambition since then to restore it to its former glory, so I rewrote it over the course of around three days, added refs, and converted the existing refs to footnotes. I'm now nominating it for peer review to see what my fellow wikipedians have to say. Hopefully it can get back up to FA status soon! Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 10:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is in pretty good shape. A few suggestions:
1. You may want to clean up the use of the word "writer" to refer to a graf artist. I think that it may confuse some readers. I don't know a better word to use, or I would do it myself.
2. At the end of the "Government Responses" section, "United States" subection, I read that paragraph to say that spray paint isn't legally sold in Chicago. Is that the case?
Keep up the good work! -- BillWeiss | Talk 16:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We really need more editors like you, Ultra! Active resurrection of FFAs is very good for the project. Per WP:LEAD, the introductory paragraphs should summarize the entire article. For an article of this length, that tends to mean two to three good sixe paragraphs, just to be a complete summation. Keep up the good work here; I hope to see this as a FAC in the future. -Fsotrain09 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions and encouragement, guys - it really helped. I've changed the word "writer" to "artist" or "graffiti artist" depending on the context, cited a ref for the "graffiti isn't sold in chicago" line, and rewrote the intro. Is there anything else I should look at? Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædia Britannica

[edit]

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1

The family of Britannica articles has expanded significantly since its last peer review, as may be seen from the new category Category:Encyclopædia Britannica. New pages have been created on the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Propædia, Macropædia, Micropædia, Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Bicentennial of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Dobson's Encyclopædia and numerous biographical articles. It would be helpful to get advice on how to improve this article before submitting it to FAC; thanks! Willow 21:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by bcasterline

[edit]
  • "History of Editions" reads somewhat like a list and could probably flow better -- but that's a fairly vague criticism.
  • You might want to rework the treatment of systemic bias; the language as it's written now is wishy-washy. Instead of using terms like "seems" and "presumably", I would mention the critic by name -- "Kister identifies a systemic bias..." or something. (Unless it's original research, in which case it should be removed.)
  • "Staff" contains another "presumably".
  • Whether Britannica does or does not contain an entry on Wikipedia seems irrelevant, especially under the "Competition" section.

In general, looks pretty comprehensive. Good luck with FAC. -- bcasterline • talk 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnard's star

[edit]

I feel this one is ready for peer review. I realize it's not exceptionally long, but it is comprehensive, with every paper I could find introduced. It is absent pics, unfortunately, because I can't find a damn thing. I would like some eager volunteer to look at the abstracts and see that I am representing the details properly (I'm a numbers dummy). Particularly, I'd like an explanatory note for "msin i", but I'm not confident I'll represent it properly. Here is one explanation. Any other comments appreciated. Marskell 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why no more on the process of Van de Kamp's "discovery" of an extrasolar planet? This could give it a tad more length, plus it's interesting (the group all independently measuring the plates and averaging their results). Oh well... very good article, in my first glance. --198.185.18.207 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had worried in that section about straying too far from the subject itself and not using summary style. However, an extra sentence won't hurt. I'll look back at the source. Do agree it's interesting—the planet controversy is the colour that raises up what might be a dry list of numbers. Marskell 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, where exactly are you reading/interpreting "the group all independently measuring the plates and averaging their results"? Marskell 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read it elsewhere, but you can see it in a source you already have: [3]. --198.185.18.207 21:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, thank you. I hadn't looked at that one in a while, as the George Bell piece seemed the more comprehensive. Marskell 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it looks good. I could only find a few minor issues:
  • Suggested links: celestial equator, effective temperature
    • Done.
  • "...received more attention than any M dwarf star given...": you probaby meant "...any other M dwarf star...".
    • Done.
  • Could you double-check the 34.6/10000 value? I think it is an order of magnitude too high.
    • Does (3.46)×10-3 = 34.6/10000? Yes, really, I'm a numbers dummy, so I need everything written out real nice: ten to the negative three equals 0.001 (right?) or 1/1000. I realize the value for this "bolometric" luminosity is an order of magnitude higher than visual luminosity, but I understood the latter as only referring to the visual spectrum (thus it makes sense that there is a large difference, as B's Star likely emits largely in radio). Here is the source.
      • Probably my bad. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
  • The text lists a temperature of 3134, but the infobox lists 3,000. Perhaps you could clarify the reason for the difference in the text?
    • I haven't touched the infobox yet. Numbers in the body are often more precise because I'm going right to papers. I believe the infobox is from SIMBAD like other stars I've looked at; but then I don't totally get it, because SIMBAD doesn't actually seem to list that much info, unless I'm missing something. Anyhow, if I change one number in the infobox I'll have to cite everything, so I'm saving that for last. I'll post when I do.
  • There should be a space in "m sin i" with m and i in italics to indicate they are variables. You should probably also indicate that m is the planetary mass and i is the orbital inclination. Possible reference: "Kepler’s Laws, Newton’s Laws, and the Search for New Planets"[4]
    • I'll look at the PDF and post again. This has driven me nuts—more than anything, for proving how inept I am at digesting mathematical formulas.
  • I would suggest adding Professor Kaler's article[5] to the external links.
    • Kaler is an interesting source I'd never seen. I just put it in the external links and will work a reference into the body so that it's more obvious. I'm a little uncertain though, as he doesn't list his own sources. There's the radial velocity bit above, and he also simply says 10% metallicity, with no range provided. I haven't seen anything that has nailed it down so (apparently) easily.
  • Finally I would suggest nominating this on the good article candidates list.
    • My feelings on GA are clear on the talk page (technically, it's already a GA). I don't have much time for that process, but I won't protest again if someone else posts the tag. I would like to take this to FA. Though, obviously, I need some help... Marskell 23:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Updates.
Added a brief sentence about averaging plates, per anon.
Added Kaler to the body (the angular diameter of the full moon bit, which I thought a good way to render the speed understandable).
"“Msini”, represents the mass of the planet times the sine of the angle of inclination of its orbit, and hence provides the minimum mass for the planet." I've literally done a cut and paste of this from the PDF you've helpfully provided RJH, and put it in as a note. You'll have to explain it to me like I'm a two year-old, but that may take to long. Marskell 13:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a shot, and hope I'm not just blowing smoke. The M sin i value is what we know from radial velocity measurements, but we don't know the value of i. However sin i is always between 1 and -1, and its absolute value is between 1 and zero. So M sin i is less than or equal to M, and represents the minimum value of the planet's mass. (I.e. only if i were exactly 90° would M sin i equal M. Otherwise it is less than M.) — RJH (talk)
"sin i is always between 1 and -1, and its absolute value is between 1 and zero" makes this much more understandable. I just want it to be clear in the note that the formula determines a relative value, so that people don't walk away thinking "oh, they've refined it all the way down to 7.5 Earths". Marskell 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the resulting net velocity relative to the Sun would be about 140 km/s. (Square root of the sum of squares of velocities.) Professor Kaler gets 139 km/sec.
    • SIMBAD lists it as 106.8 (see next) as does this. But I'm scratching my head over the sum of squares of velocities, so perhaps you can enlighten further.
      • The proper motion gives the traverse (sideways) velocity. The radial velocity is the motion along the line of sight. So the two velocity components are like the sides of a right triangle with the hypotenuse giving the total velocity. The total velocity comes from the Pythagorean theorem:
D'oh. I was simply mixing up radial velocity and proper motion, I think. Marskell 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute: proper motion is simply listed in degrees of arc, yes? So it has a proper motion of 10"3. Would the above value actually be its true motion (or "peculiar velocity"[6])?
Some searching tells me they are distinct terms. I have listed the above body as "true velocity" in the article, and thrown your formula in for good measure. Marskell 16:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "transverse velocity" would probably be a better term when speaking of the estimated traverse motion in units of km/sec.[7] :-) — RJH (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm thinking the term we need is space velocity. A diagram here seems to explain it. Marskell 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Files

[edit]

This entry is comprised of information gleaned from the LA Times article series cited in the first external link. To comply with the copyright rules it is largely paraphrased, however certain short passages are employed verbatim (summaries of the contenst of the documents). I have attempted to contact both Deborah Nelson and Nick Turse to vet the entry for accuracy and hopefully clarification. Especially regarding the current status of the archive and its date of reclassification.

I would appreciate commentary on all aspects of this article from neutrality and copyright to style and punctuation, as this is my first contribution. I feel its a rather important discovery which warrants inclusion within the war crimes network of articles.

(Ice Czar 05:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

EastEnders

[edit]

Please comment on any improvements that should/could be made to this article to make it featured class. Also, comment on whether you think it could pass an FA nomination... Any other creative criticsm would also help! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas, Texas

[edit]
Archived: 16 October 2006 peer review

Still trying to get to FA status. It's really close: very well referenced and such. could use some fresh eyes though with the prose and such. -- drumguy8800 C T 08:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of red links that may cause problems later in the FAC stage. These should be resolved somehow, preferably by creating the articles.-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sci Fi Channel (United States)

[edit]

Seeing as the article has had its ups and downs, I was wondering what means to which can Sci Fi Channel (United States) be improved and strengthened. DrWho42 06:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks decent, albeit a bit sparce in places. Here's a few (hopefully useful) comments:
  • The introduction is too brief. I'd suggest another paragraph at least.
  • The article could mention some previous successful and long-running shows such as Andromeda (TV series) and LEXX. It could also mention MST3K and their relatively successful TV series Dune (TV miniseries) and Children of Dune (TV miniseries).
  • $1 should be linked to United States dollar. Other nations use the dollar sign for their own currency.
  • The "Farscape and cancellation controversy" section needs sources.
  • I don't see why the trivia section couldn't be worked into the main text.
  • I'd like to see some criticism of the channel's made-for-TV movies which have become almost a cliché for really bad Sci-Fi movies in some circles.
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro should be expanded to summarize the article per WP:INTRO. Footnotes should be after punctuation with no spaces before or in between footnotes per WP:FOOT. Include triva into body of article in paragraph format per WP:AVTRIV. Group the hoaxes / controversies under another heading such as "Controversy". "See Also" goes before "References" that might be better named "Notes" per WP:GTL. On a personal question - Where is HD SciFi in the U.S.! Morphh (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Australian legislative election, 2006

[edit]

Round 1 failed

  • Hi everyone. This is my first attempt at doing a featured article and have had assistance from various South Australian wikipedia editors. Suggestions as per the discussion page have been made and the best has been done to accommodate them. I'm not sure what else to ask for or suggest here... basically please review the page and see what you can suggest in my efforts to get it up to FA status! Thanks for your help! Timeshift 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to clarify a lot of things for people who aren't used to South/Australian politics. For example:
  • The Liberal Party is not a 'liberal' party in the 'normal' (yet incorrect) sense; it needs to be clarified as a classical liberal / liberal conservative party. In fact, both party's idelogies will have to be noted so as to not confuse readers.
  • There is no explanation of how the the electoral system works, or the differences between the two Houses.
  • In my view, too little attention is given to the fact that almost 40% of voters deserted the major parties in the Legislative Council.
Hope this helps. I'll try to pitch in a bit too. michael talk 07:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, let me know what you think. By the way, if you can edit to make correct exactly what sort of quota system the LC uses (in electoral procedures), that would be much appreciated too. Timeshift 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but the 'party backgrounds' section, while reasonably neutral, is hopelessly point-of-view and smacks of hearsay. I've tidied the Libs and the ALP and may get around to doning the rest. michael talk 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to think I did a pretty good job about keeping it NPOV. What hearsay? Timeshift 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying its not neutral; I'm just saying that its very point-of-view (the two things are not exclusive), very commentary, very tabloid editorial. I'll tidy them up. michael talk 05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I would say the images of the candidates (at the top of the article) are much too big. There's no source for info on the Greens, Family First, or National Party. Not enough of the Results are sourced either. Good job at maintaining neutrality. Right now, some lone years are linked (e.g. 1945), and some are not (e.g. 1946). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates indicates that years shouldn't be linked unless they are part of a date (e.g. June 1 1947), although not everyone agrees. But randomly linking some and not others in not ideal. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou for your comments. Much appreciated. In regards to the size of the party leaders, I was hoping to keep it consistent with the other leader tables (as can be seen through the templates at the bottom for other state and federal elections), as they are all 175px. Linked lone years (hopefully this is ok as you said it's debatable). All results can be referenced in the 'State Electoral Office - Official 2006 Election Results' link at the bottom - is this ok? I'm not sure how I can go about referencing each individual percentage and number or if it's feasible. Have now sourced info for Greens, FF and Nats, hopefully now they are sufficiently sourced. Thanks for the neutrality comment, and thanks for your review! Much appreciated! Timeshift 17:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding footnoting of stats, if all the stats in a section come from one source, you can footnote just the first one, with a comment like "This and all vote totals in this section come from. . . ". Regarding the year links, there is disagreement about what's ideal, but I don't think there's any disagreement that what you have now is not ideal. Some (including me) would say that no lone years should be linked. Others would say only the most important years should be. Others would say all of them should be, but only in their first instance. But linking every instance of 2002, for instance, is clearly overlinking against guidelines. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have now changed to ensure each year mentioned only gets linked once. Are you able to provide me with an example of a blanket footnoting of stats? I'm not sure how to go about it. Thanks again. Timeshift 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The party sections shouldn't be about factional battlegrounds; most of the information on the ALP was just taken from my Don Farrell article, with a bit of spin thrown on it. For an introduction into South Australian politics, there should be a general idea of what the party stands for and its history, not a quick story about recent factional shit-stirring. I'll be making changes. michael talk 05:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I did not take any information from your article. Timeshift 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding whether you did or not, it strongly followed the theme of the marginalisation of the left by the SDA. Elsewhere, you stated the ALP are 'libertarian'! I do agree that one is not SA-centered enough, so there is work to be done there. michael talk 05:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because there is marginalisation of the left by the SDA... lol Timeshift 06:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed unrelated federal and added related SA info to the ALP section until we can work toward a compromise. I do wish other wikipedians got more involved with this though, it is hard to make a well written article with such few helpers. Timeshift 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the size of them, but surely you can find better pictures of Rob Kerin and Mike Rann? The ones you have there look like photoshop cutouts... Apart from that, I'd take into account that lots of people reading this page wouldn't necessarily be familiar with SA politics so some explanation of some terms might be helpful. Otherwise great. (JROBBO 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
They are the pictures from the official Parliament of SA website, therefore easier to upload to wikipedia with fair use rationale. Mike Rann has a decent picture on his wiki page but for Rob Kerin, unfortunately I can't just pick any old image from the net that looks good. I wish I could. Timeshift 05:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for your assistance. I believe I have updated the article as appropriate. If you come across anything that you covered that the script still believes needs work, please let me know. Timeshift 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are very welcome - it is a semi-bot, so sometimes it finds things that are not there. I am trying to get caught up on automated peer reviews, but if you want me to run it again, drop me a line on my talk page. Ruhrfisch 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 failed

Round 3 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Australian legislative election, 2006 Timeshift 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Stephens

[edit]

I think this is a well-sourced article that provides a NPOV about a colourful member of the Assembly who recently lost one of the most memorable local races in decades. MrPrada 00:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed wikilinks, you generally shouldn't wikilink things more than once within the body of the article. There are alot of short stubby paragraphs, most should be merged into larger paragraphs or expanded. Also you should alphabatize the categories. Medvedenko 04:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's All Coming Back to Me Now

[edit]

I've written all of this article and would appreciate some suggestions of how to improve it, please. I think it's reasonably comprehensive. I'd be particularly interested on what would need doing to reach GA. The JPStalk to me 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I don't know much about GA criteria: The lead needs expanding -- it should touch on all the major points addressed in the article. Tell us something about who these musicians are; we shouldn't need to click on the links to understand that, for instance, Meat Loaf performs in a very different genre than Dion. The description of the music videos is a little confusing. It needs to be more obvious to the reader that the article discusses three different music videos for the three separate covers. I would much rather see a fifteen-second side-by-side comparison of the Dion and Meat Loaf versions than the 30-second Dion sample. Are the videos at YouTube infringing copyright? Have we decided we don't care about linking to infringement (I cannot remember)? The article is rather obviously lacking in any discussion of the lyrics and music -- we seem to be assuming that the reader is familiar with the song. There is an editorial aside "and images of them together (presumably their "nights of endless pleasure")" that I'm guessing is a lyric quote, for instance. The strength of the article is the treatment of the three different releases, of course, and there's a good balance struck in that. Why is Meat Loaf's album the title of his section, when the others are named after the performers? I hope that this helps, and good work on the article. Jkelly 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your useful comments, Jkelly. I've corrected a couple of the (easiest) points you mention. I'm worried/confused/unsure about discussing the lyrics without stumbling into original research; there isn't an obvious narrative, or such. There doesn't seem to be guidance on the use of copyright material on the talk page on the YouTube template: however, there are comments that at least if the template is used then infringements can be found and removed quickly. What aspects of the video descriptions do you find confusing? My writing style has always left something to be desired, and I'm not always sure what doesn't make sense. I thought it was clear that each description belonged to each section...? The JPStalk to me 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely some reviewer has commented on the themes of the song -- right now we have Steinman's description of what the song is about, but I think some expansion with other commentary would be good, and I think we're safely outside of WP:NOR when we, for instance, provide a short quote directly from the chorus. If there's really nothing out there, however, there's not much we can do. As for the video thing, I suggest that we lead the reader along a little more gently. Instead of "The video was directed by Smith..." we can use "Smith directed the video for the Dion version, which also featured a motorcyclye." or something similar (note that I also avoided passive voice here). As a rule of thumb, avoid surprising the reader when moving from thought to thought; if there is nothing in the preceding sentence that clues the reader into what the next sentence will be about, throw in a few words or a clause to guide them along. All of that said, it wasn't really unclear, I just noticed that I had to check what section I was reading when in the video descriptions. Jkelly 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend changing the infobox setup. If I were to just glance at the infobox for info, I would think that this song is a collaboration performed by Pandora's Box, Celine Dion, and Meat Loaf as opposed to a song released as a single by each of three different acts. My recommendation, as I'm not very knowledgeable of other ways, would be to give each of the three versions a separate infobox, or to pick the two that most necessitate them (i.e., as of right now, I'm not sure Meat Loaf's would particularly require one to facilitate the presentation of information). I imagine this is a minor point within the context of the article but just thought I'd toss it out there. GassyGuy 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment, thanks -- and if I were being honest, I thought it looked odd when I first put it in. What's the convention about multiple infoboxes on a page? That would leave the very top of the page without an infobox... is that OK? The JPStalk to me 23:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's okay as long as they appear at sensible parts of the article. You can see conventions about infoboxes at that section of WP:SONG. I'm pretty sure the general rule is that there shouldn't be more than three on any one page, which shouldn't be a problem in this case. If you look at my user page, I went ahead and started playing with the infoboxes. I would have placed them directly in the article except I'm not sure where the best placement of them is, so I'll leave that to another editor. On an unrelated note, I'm not sure if this info merits inclusion in the article or not, but one other version of this song was released (to much less success) by dance music performer Natalie Browne in either 1996 or 1997 after Celine Dion's version became popular. Thought that might be worth a sentence or two somewhere. GassyGuy 10:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, folks. I've done quite a bit more work on this to hopefully address all your comments The JPStalk to me 09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the only thing missing from Jkelly's suggestions, I think, is a description of the different styles. I'm stuck. I don't have the terminology to describe it, unfortunately: I'm not incredibly sure there's a big difference in these tracks. The JPStalk to me 20:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been granted GA status. Thanks to everyone who commented on it. The JPStalk to me 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Gold Rush

[edit]

I would like this article to undergo peer review. It has received careful and substantial attention from a number of editors over an extended period. The topic is one of wide interest.

If I may suggest, with some further careful attention, the article may merit consideration as a Featured Article. I would request that reviewers assess the article and offer edits/comments/suggestions with an eye towards that goal. NorCalHistory 06:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As I understood the Peer Review tag instructions, the Peer Review tag was to appear at the top of the Discussion page. I do see it there. Here are the directions from wikipedia:peer review:
To add a nomination:
1. Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
2. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page.


If I misunderstood the directions, should it be in an additional/different place?
Regarding your comment about text citations and footnotes - footnotes will be easy enough, but I'm not sure what the difference would be with "text citations" - would the text citations appear as footnotes? Finally, the "what not" part! I'm interested to know any more solid suggestions.
Other than the (relatively easily) fixable footnotes and citations, are there other suggestions that you think would improve the article (such as writing style or content)? Thx! NorCalHistory 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tag looks fine to me. I've added an example in-line citation/footnote to the article. As for other advice, the lead/head section is too short. It should introduce the subject by summarizing the article. --Paul 23:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion - thank you! I'm going to be adding a graphic about subduction shortly as well. 216.203.62.5 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What jumped out at me is that there is a section entitled "History" in an article that is about history! This section is really what the bulk of the article should be. If you start subdividing this section, you will probably discover where the gaps in the information are. The "Geology" section doesn't really belong here. While it's interesting information, the topic is a specific historical period, not the existence of gold in California generally. The section "Recovering the gold" has an awkward name and most of this information can be incorporated within the main section. The development of different technologies was central to how the Gold Rush progressed. Lagringa 07:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observations - thank you! With all due respect, I do think how this specific gold got to these specific places in California is an interesting (and germane) topic. How economically-recoverable gold accumulated in other places in the world would also be interesting topics for those gold rush articles. Your point about renaming the sections, and incorporating the "recovery" section as part of the main narrative makes sense to me. Thank you! NorCalHistory 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction ought to be longer than one paragraph for an article of this size. The geological history might work better at the start of the article. Referencing is spotty: I'd like to see more for the mining techniques and geology. Perhaps add a section about how California's economy adjusted after the gold rush itself ended. I'd also like to see something about the legal issues involved: gold prospecting claims, bank scrip, etc. A few words about ghost towns would be good. I understand that the largest gold rush fortunes were usually made by the people who sold supplies to prospectors - could we have something more explicit there? There's also the issue of transport: how did the people and supplies reach California, and how did the gold leave? I seem to remember at least one shipwreck of California gold off the East Coast. Also, how did this affect the national economy? Finally, while the far northern counties are discussed, I've seen abandoned mines as far south as the San Bernardino Mountains. Heck, I've even panned a few flakes out of SoCal streams (fun for an afternoon but not productive enough to be worth the effort). I don't think this meets GA standards yet, but keep working. Best wishes, Durova 06:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this potpourri of interesting suggestions. These articles are always a trade-off between throwing in a ton of topics and trying to keep the length to manageable proportions! Each of these suggested topics sounds great, and many of them might even merit their own separate article! I'll start following up on these suggestions.
Any other reactions to Durova's list of possible additional topics to add to this article? Thanks, Durova - great food for thought! NorCalHistory 12:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article starts to have real length problems you can always go to summary style with daughter articles for the individual topics. One more idea: the California gold rush as cultural myth - both in the sense of novels and films about the gold rush and in terms of metaphoric application of "gold rush" to other situations. Durova 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again - A ghost town reference (Shasta, California) has already been added, and your excellent shopping list is out there for comments and article additions.NorCalHistory 00:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With an eye towards FAC, the lead is too short, not compelling, and doesn't entice the reader in (see WP:LEAD); the organization of the sections doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT; books used as references should have ISBNs; the article needs serious attention to inline citations. Also, shorten your ibids as follows:

  • Starr, Kevin (2005). California: a history. New York: The Modern Library, p. 99.
  • Starr, Kevin (2005), p. 85-86.
  • Starr, Kevin (2005), p. 84-87.

I don't have time to look at them, but make sure all of your images are in the clear in terms of copyright/Fair Use before approaching WP:FAC. In terms of prose, please check for redundancy in the text: there are several good information sources to help you prepare for FAC at the bottom of WP:WIAFA. I haven't read through the entire article, but a text search for "Columbia" tells me the article probably needs work in terms of comprehensiveness. The prose needs some polishing: make sure to get several good copy edits once you've beefed up the prose. Picking a completely random sentence from the middle of the article:

  • To meet the demands of all the new arrivals, ships bearing goods from around the world poured into San Francisco as well - porcelin <---TYPO and silk from China, ale from Scotland.
    • To meet the demands of new arrivals, ships from around the world poured into San Francisco, with goods such as porcelain and silk from China and ale from Scotland.

Good luck !! Sandy 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting and useful - a good amount of technical detail to improve the article. I'll certainly take a careful look at the information you've offered. If I may, I might have a follow-up question or two after I've reviewed your suggestions! NorCalHistory 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the follow up questions on my talk page, I was referring to the fact that the article is seriously undercited. For example, look at the Gold in California section (not a single cite), and Effects of the Gold Rush, where numerous instances of hard data are not cited. This problem is evident throughout; those are just samples. Also, there's a problem with your References section: examination of Notes shows that the text only relies on five of those sources (Bancroft, Wells, Heizer, and two Starr books). If the remaining References aren't actually used as References, they should be listed as Further reading. I'd like to see you seriously and passionately beef up the text/content before coming to FAC, as there is a rich history to be told about the Gold Rush. Work on compelling and brilliant :-) Should there be more discussion of the Chinese component? Sandy 16:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS, since I'd like to see you succeed at FAC, don't make the mistake of comparing to an older FA like History of the Yosemite area: it needs to be sent to Featured article review. For an exemplary recent Featured article in the History area, have a look at Daniel Boone. Sandy 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again - brilliant and compelling is a tall order! More citations being added regularly, and reference works not yet cited will be moved to a Further reading section.
Per peer review suggestions, additional material has been added regarding transportation and Southern California, and the citations have been added to and re-formatted. Thanks, Sandy, your input is quite useful, and your suggestions will receive careful further attention! NorCalHistory 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts: A section called "Effects of the Gold Rush" in an article called Gold Rush doesn't fit with WP:MOS. Maybe you want something like "Effects on California" or something else. Also, Gold rush is listed in See also, when it's a basic definition you might want to link into the text, rather than in See also. Please ping me after another month or whatever of work, and I'll have a look before you approach FAC. Sandy 17:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's comments in last paragraph also implemented. NorCalHistory 07:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestions, added more details regarding Chinese and other non-Americans, by adding a new section entitled "Who were the Forty-Niners." The intent is to add the refs shortly. NorCalHistory 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many refs added, and many more could be added. Suggestions/advice needed on how many refs are appropriate! Virtually every phrase could be the subject of multiple footnotes, but I starting to worry about basic readability! Any suggestions how to handle a plethora of potential cites? NorCalHistory 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from article talk page)
Image suggestion
I don't know what previous versions of this article looked like, but I think it would have more visual impact if one of the images could be moved to the top of the article. That "History of CA" box is certainly useful, but its placement at the very top tends to understate the importance of the event. Just a thought. --cholmes75 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Steamships
I noticed a mention of the SS Central America in the article. You could also incorporate a mention of the Winfield Scott, which sank off the CA coast in 1853. -- cholmes75 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, very useful suggestions, both - by "the top" you mean next to the intro section. I'll definitely add mention of the Winfield Scott. Thank you! NorCalHistory 04:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestions, more new material and refs have been added. In addition to the main text, there are now some 88 footnotes, and I'd like to get a reaction to that number of footnotes.NorCalHistory 08:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestions, substantial copyedits to clarify, tighten, and focus. Intent is to begin to approach the outskirts of "compelling and brilliant"! Other editors, please continue to jump in . . . NorCalHistory 08:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to everyone - GA/FA submission?

[edit]

Many thanks to everyone who contributed suggestions and editorial comments during the recent peer review of this article.

I would like to repeat here the following comment from the Discussion page of the article:

Excellent improvements
I first read this article in the early stages of peer review. The editors here have done a fine job of improving it. In my opinion you're safely into good article territory and possibly featured article quality. I've recused myself from awarding GA because I participated in peer review, but since that's about to close I recommend you open a good article nomination. Warmly, Durova 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this comment, I would like to suggest that this article be submitted for good article or featured article status. Responses please! NorCalHistory 10:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Lone Wolf series

[edit]

I was wondering, after I had to collapse all of my articles into this one, what does this article need to get to GA status? Judgesurreal777 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your referencing is bizarre. Some sections are littered with citations, and some don't have any. You might want to correct that. Also, maybe expand your lead section to give a little more background to the world in which your chracters live. Dev920 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people swear by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
  • Images claimed under fair use should state who the copyright holder is, and ideally the artist too.
  • No secondary sources, and only one thing that's not the gamebooks themselves.
  • The lead section needs to be a better introduction to the subject.
  • Use Project Aon links?
  • The use of the succession box is a bit... weird.

Overall article feels very pasted together currently, really needs some work to get it encyclopediay. --zippedmartin 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harper

[edit]

Submitting for FA soon, and wanted to know what this article needs for FA status. Judgesurreal777 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to be careful with the length, since it is quite long. Might want to trim it a bit.
  • Eventhough there are a lot of inline citations several sections have none. Fx. 2004 federal election and Policy
  • All the website footnotes need to show when it was retrieved.
  • Lead could probably be a bit longer.--Peter Andersen 19:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charun

[edit]

After the huge edit-war, the page may finally be getting somewhere if original research isn't added by the primary contributor to the edit war. Please give feedback, espcially in light of the discussion page. De Grummond tells me the material will be on pages 213-220 of her book, but since what she provided was a Word document, I can't transte that into specific pages yet. --Scottandrewhutchins 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just from a brief reading by someone without any foreknowledge, a few things come to mind. Lead section should be a bit more descriptive, as it uses some pretty technical vocabulary for the average reader. All inline citations should be outside of punctuation marks. The references section is an oddity. The writing there needs less pov and most red links are unecessary. Joshdboz 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Etruscan experts like Massimo Pallottino, Nancy de Grummond and Larissa Bonfante instead of authors of sci-fi and children's books (Jeff Rovin) or pornographic materials like Alice K Turner might help reduce POV significantly. --Glengordon01 08:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry, did I say pornographic materials by Alice K Turner? Yes, my bad. Please ignore this link and don't consider how insufficient the references might be based on the fact that input from valid Etruscan experts are few and far between. --Glengordon01 08:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Scott on Charun, Jeff Rovin, reknowned author of children's books and science-fiction but not a single academic resource in Etruscan studies says: "He is depicted with a hammer with which he is believed to have bashed the souls of the dead, after guiding them on horseback to the underworld."

As we all know, children's books are much better quality than university books and we should never go to university because we might get crazy ideas :)

Larissa Bonfante & Judith Swaddling. Etruscan Myths, University of Texas Press, 2006. p.33:

"Many scenes feature the two purely Etruscan underworld demons, Vanth and Charu, whose job is not to punish the dead but rather to escort them to their final destination. This is the only aspect of the Etruscan Charu, aside from his name, which connects Charu to the Greek Charon, the boatman of the dead."

The "edit-war" was provoked when Scott was unwilling to fess up to shoddy references and probably still isn't. --Glengordon01 08:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the finding of Wikipedia admin: [8] --Scottandrewhutchins 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd parties avoided offering any "finding" on Charun here, any more than there is a "finding" about your recent 24-hour block for accusations and abusive language by Doc glasgow. Let it go. --Glengordon01 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just briefly looked over the list of references. Most of them appear respectable although I have never actually read any of them, although I would not use Jeff Rovin, as his book is a children's book and shouldn't be used as an encyclopedic reference for such an academic subject. Alice Turner's is more iffy, so I would say use your best judgement. Does she have a bibliography or notes section? If not, I would be careful using her book unless you can find a second verification for each statement of her's you include. Joshdboz 11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rovin's book is not a children's book. It mak not be the best source, but it is a reference book from a respectable publisher. I know of no libraries the shelve it with the juvenile books. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the citations. I haven't followed this disagreement over the hammer, but making it clear that debate surrounds it is definitely going in the right direction if that is the case. I would reiterate though that the Encyclopedia of Monsters is not a great source, especially seeing that it is relied on several times. Rovin obviously got the information in it from somewhere, so it might be better to retrace his steps if possible. Other than that, I would get rid of all the redlinks to authors' names and move the notes section above the reference section. Joshdboz 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the cover of this book. Now imagine you're walking in the corridors of your local university library. Do you picture that book leaping out at you? I just don't see stuff like that at the University of Manitoba libraries. What's your university like? --Glengordon01 03:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, wait. Check out this irony. "I know of no libraries the[sic] shelve it with the juvenile books." Well I guess we're going to have to tell Amazon.com that they made a mistake of classifying your references from Jeff Rovin in the "children's books" category: [9]. (Look at the breadcrumb links to the left up top: "Books › Children's Books › Jeff Rovin") Hahaha, so cute. --Glengordon01 03:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the place to leave Peer review comments? If so, I have two:
  1. If two editors are still fighting over this article, I think it is premature to ask for input here; obviously the text is still in flux. Try WP:RFC first.
  2. I'd say this article is long enough that the Stub notice at the bottom can be removed.
Bring this article back to Peer review when the editors involved have come to a consensus about the article's contents & its sources. -- llywrch 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note to peer reviewers

[edit]

Glengordon01 has been the subject of a user conduct RfC for behavior related to the Charun article. Three neutral editors agreed that his conduct was inappropriate; none supported him. Scottandrewhutchins has raised this page from a redirect to Charon to a reasonably sized article with over 20 line citations and a variety of sources. Durova 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be mentioned, Durova, please explain the whole story, not the parts that suit you.

First, you were the one entering the request. So your mention of it here has bias, a kind of subtle personal attack in order to attempt to invalidate my points above by emotional rhetoric rather than logical considerations or knowledge of the subject in question.

Second, Scottandrewhutchins is in denial that certain books he cites are children's books (which at least two people here understand to be true). Certainly having showed what Scott has cited to my real-life contacts who are high school teachers by profession, all I can say is that Scott would have a tough time passing. It's not sufficient in high school so why is it acceptable amongst mature adults?

Third, if I should suggest that they be removed, Scott has continued to attack me as "incompetent" and the like (which is all explained in the Response section of the RFC filed against me. So at this point, I refuse to edit the subject because Scott clearly needs to boost his ego by "hijacking" the article for himself. As you can see in the history, it's Scott's page and if it should be replete with factual errors and low-grade references, the existing admins think that's okay.

I don't think it's okay, and filing RFCs against me doesn't make me shutup about pseudoscience. --Glengordon01 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for peer review on an article that Scottandrewhutchins has been working to build. The other disputant agreed to stop editing the article at RfC. Since he did not disclose that with his comments, I deemed it appropriate to add a link. Scottandrewhutchins appears to be making a sincere effort to improve the article and seek fresh input. I hope more editors will assist this effort with substantive feedback. Durova 05:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skipper Roberts

[edit]

The old peer review is archived here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Skipper Roberts/archive1.

I'd like to know what this needs to reach good article status. Should it be rewritten, should information be added/removed, and are there any formatting errors? If so, what are they? Tikallover 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any more information on what trends the different Skippers were created to take advantage of? A few more citations could be nice - as a rule of thumb, anything that's controversial, any quotes or dates need citing. Any less direct assertions need citing too - "some collectors say this", for example. The history of the doll's shape is quite complete, which is good, but it feels lacking in how the doll was recieved in the wider world. How popular was Skipper compared to Barbie? Some of the doll-collectors' terms such as Mint In Box could use a wiki link, or a Wiktionary link. -Malkinann 13:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll try to fix those problems. Tikallover 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of dollars are you using for prices? US$? CA$? FJ$? AU$? NZ$? -Malkinann 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's US dollars, and I tried to fix it. Thanks for pointing that out. Tikallover 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narnia (world)

[edit]

Hoping to get this article up to GA and, eventually, FA status. I recently merged two articles to get this one, and the shakiest part of the move was the History section. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me that the article deals with strict canon — the seven books — but in the beginning maps created for the movie are used. Did Disney strictly follow the books creating them? Perhaps they took some freedoms? The article says nothing about that. // Duccio 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not too sure about those images, and that's something I need to look into. However, the caption of the second image reads, "Traditional map of Narnia (top); map released to promote the 2005 Narnia film (bottom)." They are slightly different; thus, I would assume that the filmmakers took some liberties. I suppose there should be a section on the accuracy of artwork/maps. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narnia (world)#Witches: "...the one Nikabrik brought to council in Aslan's How in Prince Caspian, and other evil beings which might be classified as witches under our cultural definitions..." that is extremely POV, perhaps the author of that sentence meant western culture? European culture? American culture? C.S.Lewis's background culture? // Duccio 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some stuff is a bit too in-universe: present tense would be better, as is a bit more context to elements of history: why is the land often under siege and evil? Referencing too: what were some of Lewis' inspiration is something I'd like to know too. Wiki-newbie 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)] - Read this carefully, this article has a long way to go, starting with a major restructuring. Also, take a look at something like this Palpatine or Spira. Judgesurreal777 03:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I was going to say was mentioned already, but here is some more:

Serial Experiments Lain

[edit]

Submitting to peer review before going through GA nomination process. Please advise about style, content value, general interest, and any other criteria you should find relevant (GA or not). Many thnaks in advance.--SidiLemine 12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article need to be expanded to be less "in-universe". Try adding a criticisims section and a section about how the show was developed to bring it out of this perspective. Tarret 13:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section is included in the "reception" section. Do you think there should be more? I'll try to find stuff about the origins of the show, althought that would probably fall in "Influences".--SidiLemine 14:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm focusing on organizational and format issues here. The list of episodes link should be linked to under the Plot heading, with the empty section of that name being deleted. The spoiler tag should preceed the text of "Plot." The "Influences" section needs more citations. As it is, most of "Research" risks being cut per WP:NOR. Also, the subsections for writing and character design in should probably be titled "Writing" and "Character design," with the people discussed in the text. On that note, use the manual of style for Abe's name. The PS game should probably be given an infobox. And a brief reading of the article suggests that most of the "See also" section should be cut. I understand how the topics might relate to Lain but the article's text doesn't really establish the connection. (The way I see it, is that See Also should be used for other anime/manga/games or relevant people. Things like "theodicy" should be linked to in the text as they are warranted.)--Monocrat 05:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also is too long, try merging with main body and removing anything that is already linked there or not that relevant.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Monocrat. That's appreciated. Do you mean there shouldn't be a "List of episodes" section, but just a link under "Plot"? For the influences section, all is referenced; precisely, for Konaka, all info comes from the same interview. Should I put several inline citations pointing to the same intetrview? About Yoshitishi ABe's name, this is the way he states it is written in romaji, with the B capitalised. About the "See Also", I think you're not supposed to put things mentionned in the text there; so it would be hard to make a connection. I think most of it will go thought. I'll get an infobox for the PS game; but the manga (a few-pages doujinshi in an artbook) will do without ;)--SidiLemine 09:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sidi (is that right?), you're correct that there should not be a separate section for the list of episodes link. The {{main article|List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes}} should go just above or below the spoiler warning in "Plot". (I personally would prefer above the spoiler warning for aesthetic reasons, but I'm unsure what is officially sanctioned.) You might want to, as you suggest, add a few more inline citations in "Influences" even if you don't add any more sources. I withdraw the comment about ABe—policy seems to have changed recently. :) What I meant about the "See also" section is that concepts like "Artificial intelligence" and "Theodicy," and their relations to Lain, need to be introduced in the text. Right now, no real link between Lain and these concepts is spelled out.--Monocrat 03:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speckled the articles with some {{fact}} tags, try to cite them.
  • Japanese names needed for all characters.
  • Lead is very poor. Polish it up.
  • List of episodes should be under "See also" section. Or, a template box should be made to include it. I don't think there are any other Lain related articles atm though, so that method should wait.
That's just my opinions from my first read through.--SeizureDog 19:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's Sidi. I'm OK with not having a section with no text, and just a link. But on the other hand, it's a one-season-series, so I figure the episodes should be in the main article. On the third hand (make it a foot), the episode list looks really cool by now, so I was thinking about keeping it, and having a single line by episode in the article, with name, air date, and maybe a non-spoiler sentence. But I guess that's not the most urgent.
I'll add multiple refs to the same source in the same sentence. I sure understand the point, but I still feel funny about it.
About the "see also", I'm still puzzled... I mean, I wonder how you can introduce something in the text, and not mention it. I guess that'll leave only Kairo for now. And the relationship is a distant one at best. Or, is the "see also" for similar stuff (ie concepts for concepts, works for works, etc)?
SeizureDog:
I'll go ahead with the sourcing, I think only the "1:15 am" thing is going to be hard. Nobody records audiences that late :).
It'll probably be easier to just remove the comment about hardly anyone seeing it and let readers assume.--SeizureDog 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the lead, I thought it was good, being short, formal, and informative. By "polishing", do you mean going deeper in the substance of the anime? (example please!)
It doesn't have flow (i.e. jumps around too much). You've got 4 short paragraphs where you should have one or two medium/long ones. Also, technical details (who made it, when it played) generally come before the primise in the lead.--SeizureDog 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the Japanese names, I'd be glad, but I don't even have the japanese plug in (oh! the shame! the whips and scorns of time!).
It shouldn't be too hard to find, desho?
Thanks guys, I'm on it. I'll let know when done so you can come back and beat me some more.--SidiLemine 12:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the audience. Maybe when I'll get time I'll try to get some sources to say that shows broadcasted at this hour generally don't get lots of attention :).
I'll look around for good leads and copy one.
Haï, haï! To tell you the truth, I can't configure this PC to see anything but big squares in place of japanese language. So it'll have to be someone else's doing.
About the colon, I'm pretty sure it is with colon, but didn't change the title as I don't have a copy of it, and the litterature on the subject is itself inconsistent (see "controversy" on talk page).--SidiLemine 10:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, so I've rewrote the lead. Any better? I'll wait consensus about the colon before taking action. About the Episodes List, I thought it would be good to have a list with the titles, as they are quite evocative, and for anyone who remembers an episode but couldn't tell if it's in the beginning or the end (knowing Lain, it happens). I've managed all the {fact} tags except one: the one about the game. I think I know where it came from: a forum transcript from "thought experiments lain". Is that somthing I can cite? I don't think so, but it's the maximum I could get on the game, so I'm afraid the whole section would follow if I deleted it. And the article needs a section about the game. --SidiLemine 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer's disease

[edit]

"On November 3, 1906 Alois Alzheimer travelled to the university city of Tübingen, Germany to present an unusual case of dementia. Auguste D. would become known as the first documented case of Alzheimer’s disease." We have a good article in Wikipedia that with some editing might qualify to be the featured article on November 3 2006 to commemorate the 100th year of its first public documentation.

Some points to consider:

  • the article is long, what sections might be abridged?
  • is it in line structurally with other diseases? The Manual of style has a slightly different format
  • do we get too technical?
  • are the risk factors too numerous and poorly substatiated

There were treatment recommendations produced by the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatrists that we could reference more heavily for the risk factors. The press has said that their review is fairly balanced, even though payers are not in favor of some of the therapies. --Chrispounds 00:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it seems that the clinical sections got a lot more attention than the biochemistry-related sections. The clinical information is much more thoroughly referenced than the rest of the article, which is rather bare of citations - particularly the pathology section. There are also a few external jumps to PubMed pages that should be converted to references before a FAC. I'm going to focus on the biochem-related information because a) it's in need of the most work, and b) I'm much less familiar with the clinical angle.

  • The emphases in the pathology section strike me as a bit odd, or possibly out of date. There's no specific mention of AD as a protein misfolding disease, for example, or that amyloidogenesis is hypothesized as a common disease pathway among AD, PD, and others. The fact that Abeta is a proteolytic byproduct of APP isn't explicitly mentioned either, although both are mentioned separately.
  • First, I'd suggest either expanding the "neurochemistry" subsection or merging with "microscopy" to form a larger subsection titled something like "biochemical characteristics". Perhaps some of this really belongs in the amyloid beta article, but there's a large body of literature on Abeta's mechanism of cytotoxicity that gets very short shrift here compared to the tau-vs-Abeta dispute, which admittedly has a cute name but as far as I know the tau-initiator hypothesis is fading fast. The more relevant dispute for drug development seems to be whether it is mature aggregated fibrils or intermediate oligomers that mediate cytotoxicity, and whether formation of fibril is actually protective. It might be worth noting here that a lot of drug-development work has been done with the aim of destabilizing or inhibiting fibrillization and that the toxic-oligomer theory would imply that that is a poor choice of approach.
  • You don't mention the well-established fact of Abeta-induced calcium influx causing apoptosis in vitro. If you wanted to get into detail, you could also discuss the membrane-permeabilization hypothesis of oligomer toxicity.
  • (Minor question) I remember having read studies suggesting that smokers have lower rates of AD compared to age-matched nonsmokers, and that nicotine inhibits fibrillization. Any recent data on that?
  • You don't seem to talk about the (hypothesized) role of oxidative stress in AD.
  • Last I knew, the synuclein-Abeta connection had only been made in mouse models - is there more recent data on humans?
  • Your rates of incidence are largely uncited, and sound like figures from US data alone. I don't see any discussion of rates of incidence globally, or possible country-by-country variations. IIRC India has an unusually low incidence.
  • There is a statement "The American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry published a consensus statement on Alzheimer's treatment in 2006" - this isn't very useful to know unless you're also going to add information on what the statement said.
  • The "risk factors" list has two lonely footnotes on their own line on my screen - are they meant to apply to the whole list? For completeness, I'd include one footnote per factor, even if there's some redundancy, unless they all come from a single source.

Opabinia regalis 22:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you have taken care of all of the issues you brought up--and in magnificent and well documented style. I am going to review the clinical side and add some more cross-references. Thanks for your contribution. It is getting long, but it presents all prominent sides of the disease mechanism. If we created another article (with your new content), say "Alzheimer's Disease Mechanism Debate" and then summarized things into a paragraph, it might be easier for the reader. --Chrispounds 14:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to cover the biochemistry - I would suggest more citations for the clinical features and diagnosis sections; especially if it goes to FAC, this will be a rather high-profile article on a subject that the public has a high interest in. I agree that the section I added is a bit long - I was initially thinking of forking it off to the individual pages on tau and Abeta, but I like your idea better. I think something like "Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease" would be a clear title that allows room for expansion - emphasizing the debate in the title has the potential to get out of date if someone's research goes unusually well :) Opabinia regalis 01:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LAYOUT, External links should be last. Please include PMIDs on all of your journal studies (see cystic fibrosis). Notable patients should be referenced: refer to WP:MEDMOS and Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. Sandy 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to the PMID updates and will look at options for the notable patients. Do we want a section or just a link to the list? Thanks! --Chrispounds 04:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the link to the list is that the list is completely unreferenced, so the reader is not given sources anywhere. The first known case might be mentioned in History, and Hayworth would also be worthy of mention in the main article, but all need to be sourced somewhere. We see the same problem at FACs for Universities, where Notable alumni aren't referenced: we can't ask Wiki readers to take our word for it. Sandy 16:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a PBS series made from a book called The Foregetting that can be a great source for the public figures. I have a copy on order, but the website can be a source. The documentary won an Emmy in 2004. --Chrispounds 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look, since you're hard at work. The lead really needs to avoid definitions and medical jargon; that detail can be provided in the body. And, there are some broad swatches of text with no inline citations. Sandy 23:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hroðgar

[edit]

As a part of my general overhaul of Beowulf-related articles, I have expanded this article from stub status into an article that seems rather complete. I have worked on it in tandem with the Halga article. I would be very grateful for opinions on the article.--Berig 09:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The research in general looks good, but I have a few problems with the structure. The several sections do not hang together well; they almost read as if several independent articles had been concatenated together. Also, how do we know that the Hroðgar of Beowulf is the same character as the Ro of the Chronicon Lethrense? Was there a scholar or philologist who first proposed this identification? -- llywrch 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for great additions to the Beowulf section! The sections were written to enable them to be read independently of each other, so that the reader would not have to read the Widsith section in order to proceed with the Chronicon Lethrense section. It should not be a big problem, and it may be solved with a few introductory lines. As for the identity of Hroðgar with Hróar/Ro, I am not familiar with any scholars who question it. Their names being identical, being contemporary with the Swedish king Eadgils, being Scyldungs, having the same family relations and being Danish royalty are pretty strong arguments. AFAIK, their identity is a given and what is debated is the connection between the character Beowulf and Böðvarr Bjarki, which is much less obvious.--Berig 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I believe that the alignment is simply taken for granted. Whenever I check the role of Halga vs Hrothulf, Beowulf ressources say that Halga was the father, or probably the father of Hrothulf (see this google search of +halga and +hrothulf). However, this information never appears in Beowulf itself. It is simply taken from the Scandinavian sources, where Helgi (i.e. Halga) and Hrolf (i.e. Hrothulf) are always defined as father and son.--Berig 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halga

[edit]

As a part of my general overhaul of Beowulf-related articles, I have expanded this article from stub status into an article that seems rather complete. I have worked on it in tandem with the Hroðgar article. I would be very grateful for opinions on the article.--Berig 09:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently using the <ref></ref> tags for notes, as opposed to inline citations, which are preferred in GAs and FAs. -Fsotrain0915:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleg recording

[edit]

I've done an extensive rewrite on this article, creating a better lead and organization, and adding many references. I know that it needs more/better print and book references, but I don't have them handy just yet. Any other suggestions on improving structure, flow, prose? Anything that seems to be missing from the article? I'd appreciate any opinions you have to offer.

Also, opinions on the desirability of the external links would be helpful; please review the talk page. — Catherine\talk 08:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, it's not that boring a subject... Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, smuggled tape recorders, DMCA, Clear Channel, why bootlegging and piracy aren't exactly the same thing... I would really appreciate a few pointers! — Catherine\talk 05:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion for expansion is non-US information. The circulation of bootlegs is very popular in Europe (perhaps more so than in the US) and a lot of the high-quality production bootleggers are based in Japan. Not much is said about those countries. Also 1969 sounds like a rather late date for the first rock bootleg? Is that just for vinyl? There must have been bootleg reel-to-reel tapes circulating earlier (i.e., the Beatles). RelHistBuff 13:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone federal excise tax

[edit]

Would like to have any information you can provide to help on this, especially historical details about the cases that led up to this very rare decision by the US Treasury. Would also like to hear thoughts on any appropriate graphics that could be used in this article and also any relevant trivia that may be out there. I would like to work this thing up to Wikipedia:Featured_articles by tax time. --Shortfuse 02:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reeve

[edit]

I think it's a solid article right now. It is long, but everything seems important enough to be included.Gunkyboy 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worthy of being a Good Article actually. Wiki-newbie 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would keep it from becoming A-class or Featured? 67.161.26.190 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't want Reeve as Superman in the infobox. Put his Autobiography picture instead. Wiki-newbie 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

[edit]

Previously nominated. Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is {{A-Class}} for the Films WikiProject. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see if become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:15, 16 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.

  • 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 WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and soon might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[11]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5ft, use 5 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5&nbsp;ft.[3]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[12]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
  • 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 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,
    • arguably
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[9]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), armour (B) (American: armor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), organise (B) (American: organize), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), program (A) (British: programme).
  • 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 44 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.”
  • 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. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze

[edit]

Hi, I thought I would put this on peer-review to get some ideas about what needs to be done to further improve the article. Thanks! Davey4 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are WP:WAF compliance problems (now tagged), and the prose and spelling in these sections could use some serious work, also. Sandstein 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandstein, thanks for the help. I think I have improved the sections enough to remove the notes: Plot ([10]), Cast ([11]) Any other help would be great. Let me know if I can improve those sections anymore. Thanks. Davey4 05:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAUX

[edit]

The article might be too complicated. It's quite a complex issue, but maybe somebody can help. WissenVeredeln 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)WissenVeredeln[reply]

Oh, there are many issues for a non-technical reader to spot. No references, not even a section. And a listy-thing in the introduction. Both of these major issues need to be fixed right away. -Fsotrain09 21:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and these references need to show it meets WP:SOFTWARE, or it's likely to be nominated for deletion at some point. Sandstein 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influenza

[edit]

NOTE This article has now been submitted as a FAC. The nomination page is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Influenza. TimVickers 23:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to bring this article to FA quality, so comments on content, format, completeness and accuracy are very welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flu sounds boring until you realize that bird flu could create a flu pandemic that according to the world's top expert could "kill a large fraction of the human population" [12] WAS 4.250 23:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influenza (flu)
H1N1 virus
Types
Vaccines
Treatment
Pandemics
Outbreaks
See also
H5N1

Hi Tim. Rather than list various copy-editing comments here, I've made some changes to the lead, which you can review. I haven't gotten beyond the lead yet, but I would suggest a new third paragraph: its current contents do not summarize the body of the article. I suggest that the third paragraph relate to the "prevention and treatment" section. –Outriggr § 03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hippocrates first described the symptoms of influenza over two thousand years ago." The reference given here is Hippocrates' own account which I seriously doubt can support the assertion that this is the first description of the flu, or even the earliest surving description. You should check your sources, especially the ones you are using as primary sources, and make sure there no other instances of original research.
OK, added secondary source for this.
  • When talking about the the Spanish flu you do not mention its most notable quality. That was more lethal the adults in their prime while most other outbreaks were more fatal to the elderly and the very young.
Good point. Discussion and data added.
  • The history section is mess. First you need to touch on human history more than once every 500 years. Then put the information in chronological order. Then perhaps you should mention historical treatments, when the vaccination was invented, how vacinations were first received and when they became a common annual appointment.
History section completely re-written and expanded.
  • There is nothing on contraversies. I do not know a lot on the topic, but I think there are different opinions on the amount that should be stockpiled by the govt, and who should be getting annual vaccines. Definately there was a problem with plant being unhygenic and a shortage of vaccine when it was shut-down. Quite a lot of contraversy followed that.
Belongs in the flu vaccine page, rather than the general article on the virus and disease.
Flu, Bird Flu, Human Flu, Swine Flu, Horse Flu, Dog Flu, and H5N1 Flu are about the disease in both numans and nonhumans. Influenzavirus A, Influenzavirus B, Influenzavirus C, H5N1 genetic structure,

are about the virus. Still other articles cover vaccination. Still other articles cover the spread and social effects of H5N1. And we have both pandemic and flu pandemic.

Information concerning research about it can be found at:

I think this actually needs significantly more research and information gathering and probably a second peer reveiw before going for FA.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions, thank you. TimVickers 16:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware there are many articles in the flu and H5N1 series of articles and not all facts belong in the article flu. I have provided the navigation boxes for those two suites of articles for your convienience. WAS 4.250 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

My suggestions:

  • "The common cold and the "stomach flu" are very different from influenza." (a publication would be useful)
Added, also discussion of influenza vs cold diagnosis in Symptoms section.
  • History section: the see also part should be fixed, and the history is undone. What about today's pandemics?
No pandemic at the moment, thank god! Current situation is referenced at the end of history section, but not discussed.
  • Further reading and external links should be divided
Done.
  • in section Types of influenza virus, there isn't any word about the family Orthomyxoviridae.
Discussion and link added.
  • You could insert the commons link and pick some images from there: [13].
We've already culled some images from there, link added.

NCurse work 09:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work. Please drop me a message when you nominate it in FAC. Rock on! :) NCurse work 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another look

[edit]

I took another look and the article is really improving. What I have now are some questions I really don't the answer to, but if the answer is negative this still might be worth mentioning in the article.

  • "The world's current influenza pandemic threat is H5N1, but this virus has not mutated to spread easily between people." This is a current threat to humans, but is it not an actual pandemic for birds?
Clarified in intro. TimVickers 23:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any significant historical pandemics among non-humans?
Data added to 'Infection in Other Animals' section. TimVickers 23:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the symptoms and mortality rates for non-human mammals?
I've added symptom info to the 'Infection in Other Animals' section. TimVickers 16:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I think you need to be more clear right off the bat if a section is about Influenza in General or Influenza in Humans. Also I think you should work to make certain sub-sections (i.e. Microbiology) handle the topic only in more the more general terms. This is coming along really well.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pandemic (from Greek pan all + demos people) is an epidemic (an outbreak of an infectious disease) that spreads worldwide, or at least across a large region, in humans.
An epizootic is an epidemic in nonhumans.
A panzootic is a disease affecting animals of many species, especially over a wide area.
See the sub-section labeled Infection of other animals in the Flu article. WAS 4.250 02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that section. That is why I was asking for some non-human mammal information which is current given about birds. You can change pandemic in my above questions to panzootic, however I think general usage of these terms is sometime a little fuzzy. Especially with epidemic.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva

[edit]

The main area I imagine this article needs work on is the general prose of the career sections. If there's a paragraph link or a sentence which doesn't flow very well, please let me know which one. I've worked on and re-read the article so many times, it has lost virtually all meaning to me. I think that some fresh eyes could really improve it. If there's anything else which a biography/football article normally has, and this one is missing, please let me know what that is.

In general, I'd love as much criticism as possible on this article; I am willing to spend however long it takes to make it an absolute top-notch article. So please be ruthless, this is a chance to be as critical as you possibly can without worrying about offending the article's author in the slightest. I want to improve anything which would stop this article reaching FA status. Thanks, GilbertoSilvaFan 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • Rather than saying 'he played over 160 games and scored over 10 goals' why not just say the exact number of games and goals.
  • I'd replace 'make ends meet' with something less colloquial and generally rewrite this sentence, maybe merging it with the previous one.
  • 'Water carrier' needs linking or explaining also the 'cement' sentence reads oddly - could you use 'establish' or something else instead.
  • If the information is available it would be good to know why having thought that he would never play football again he managed to make such a quick (and presumably full) recovery.
  • The 1st reference that I checked [28] does not support the sentence that you have put it against - 'whereas critics of Gilberto usually prefer attacking midfielders to defensive midfielders'. All this reference shows is that one person who doesn't like Gilberto does like Juninho more. The earlier part of the sentence needs a reference too.
  • 'While the case was never going to have negative repurcussions for Gilberto' - why not? implications of dodginess in transfer dealings could potentially have negative repercussions on a player.
  • 'As Arsenal and Brazil are both notoriously attack minded' - citation for this? Arsenal at the moment are probably most notorious for passing well and trying to walk the ball into the net, not for a particularly gung-ho attacking mentality.
  • 'Gilberto is considered a useful tool in the defending of long-ball oppositions.' - this is not good english and could do with a citation (unless 42 applies to this too)
Overall it is a good article but I'd be very tempted to check all the references really support the things they are next to, change the style so it is less less personal, more encyclopedic i.e. all the 'this was good, this was a disaster' stuff and try to get some references that are books not just websites. JMiall 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JMiall, thanks for all your comments. It's going to take me some time to address all your suggestions - so I'll get started straight away. The only thing I'm uncertain of now is this: how many book references do you think are needed in an article of this size? At the moment there are only two, but I'm pretty sure this isn't enough (especially as there are over forty web references). Guidelines which I've read have only ever said "include print references" - but never how many. What do you think?
Anyway - just that question for now. I'm sure that once I've implemented your suggestions, the article will be much better; so thank you!
All the best, GilbertoSilvaFan 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many you should put in, if you look at a lot of the other featured articles & candidates for youngish people then a lot of them actually have very few print references. In general though I'd suggest that most sport books are probably better researched than the average newspaper/website sports article which often seem to have a lot of speculation.
For someone who plays for Arsenal I'd suggest that there should be quite a lot of books around that you could look at. Arsene Wenger must have a biography or 2, Ashley Cole has one out at the moment, probably some more of the current or recent Arsenal players will have them too. There must also be yearbooks about recent Arsenal seasons. Any of these could be good sources for Gilberto Silva info. Try your local library! JMiall 23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to the peer reviewers: I've completed most of JMiall's suggestions - all that's left to do from his comments now is to make the article less 'sensationalist'. It's a difficult balance to try and write like I know Gilberto and yet try not to sound like I'm his fan. Also, I'm going to find some more book references by looking through a few Arsenal books for info. -GilbertoSilvaFan 11:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fix citation 48. For some reason, it is empty.--Yannismarou 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yannismarou; I've fixed it now. Good spot. -GilbertoSilvaFan 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Ruhrfisch. I've gone through the suggestions the bot made, and ticked all the points which were flagged. If anyone wishes to see the ticked list, it's here. Some suggestions still come up when the article is automatically reviewed, but that's just the bot being crazy. Anyway; thanks! -GilbertoSilvaFan 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC) PS. good job with all those automated peer reviews, it gives a lot of good suggestions.[reply]
  • You are welcome and thanks for the kind words - I found it very helpful when I went through peer review and since AndyZ is on wikibreak, thought I would try to help out. Take care, Ruhrfisch 00:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Fabian

[edit]

I just finished the article, and would like some feedback before I put it up for FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism

[edit]

This article has taken a beating lately, but it's definitely shaping up to be providing valuable information, and Twintone requested that it be put up for pier review. I would like to request comments regarding the completeness, formatting, and audience appeal of this article. I'm particularly looking for "what have we missed" perspective, "this is really meaningless to me", "this isn't explained very well", and possibly input on a "common misconceptions" section, if appropriate. Robert Rapplean 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is undercited, and doesn't appear to refer to the highest quality medical sources. I suggest a thorough read of WP:RS focusing on the guidelines for medical articls. WP:MEDMOS might help orient your work, and a look at Cystic fibrosis will give you an idea of how references should look. Don't forget to include PMID cites for all medical studies, which are in short supply as references on the article now. It's also missing a medical info box (see AIDS, Tourette syndrome, cystic fibrosis.) Sandy 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


i've finally finished peer reviewing/copyediting. Some overall comments:
  • This article needs forked articles; identification/diagnosis, effects and treatment are all too long & multifacited to not do so. I meant, this article is big, like 30k, and it gets a little tough to stick with the article when it's this daunting. It took me like a week to get through it myself for Peer Review/Copyedit.
  • More cites. It isn't usually an NPOV thing, but alcoholism is a very studied condition, and there just isn't any excuse not to have a shit-ton of sources to this baby. Someone might also look around userpages for a substance abuse counselor or something to help with these.
  • A lot of the sections seem sort of disconnected; i even caught a few repeats of something that had been said in a previous part of the article. Like a good essay, each needs to lead into each other to make a better flow.
  • Stop using that damn word 'result'. ;) Getting 'results' is one thing, but having everything 'the result of this' and 'resulting in that' makes this article seem like a robot.
  • As previously mentioned, more diagrams and images would better this article. Also, i know there is a ton of statistics out there, and it'd be great to have this article peppered in them.
Anyways, i've really enjoyed working on this baby, and i'll be around to help it out. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Carver Meadows Frost

[edit]

I've been asked by User:Bzuk about getting this article peer reviewed so can someone take a look. Thanks. Ian Dunster 09:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a biography, it couldn't hurt to add more personal information. - Triviaa 16:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely no inline citations at all. The external links at the bottom of the article are set out weirdly(see an FA for examples). The lead section needs to be two or three paragraphs. However, there is a hell of a lot of info here, just needs fiddling with. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freetown, Massachusetts

[edit]

Trying to make this a quality article. I'd like it to be a featured candidate someday, but I don't think it's remotely there yet. Looking for general comments on how it could be improved. Sahasrahla 08:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • You might want to add a bit of information about the climate.
  • Article could use more info about geography and topography. What cities/geographic features is it near? What is the altitude? etc.
  • The government section has too many lists. First of all, it isn't necessary to list every politician that represents the area at every level of government. You can remove some of those lists entirely (probably state and fedaral should go). Most of the others should probably be converted to prose.
  • The culture section has no references.
  • Article needs information about the town's economy. What are the major industries, if any?
  • The See Also section is redundant
  • What is a "Proprietary settlement"?
Kaldari 02:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just seeing this now for some reason (must have missed it on the Watchlist before).
  • I agree a climate section would be useful. I know the article on Boston has a decent one, but I've no idea where to find that type of information. Someone out there with a better weather background will have to surface!
  • On geography, again, agreed, and again, no background here. Hopefully others will step up.
  • Disagree with removing government information. Not against prose-ing it; will need to look at how other articles are handling it.
  • As for culture, it's hard to try reference things you simply know from living somewhere for 20 years. An outsider's perspective would be needed here.
  • I'd have to check, but if the article mentions Stop & Shop and Samuel Adams (beer) then it lists the whole of the economy. It's a bedroom community still recovering from the late-80s recession.
  • See Also; true.
  • Proprietary settlements don't exist in Massachusetts anymore, and I've yet to find a clear-cut definition on what they were. It just happens to be that that's how the town started.
Thanks for your input! Sahasrahla 08:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of mathematical notation

[edit]

This appeared as a request in the mathematics portal. It was created primarily by P.L.A.R. and the main source was Carl Boyer's A History of Mathematics. It obviously needs more information, but the beginning is there. Any comments at all are appreciated.P.L.A.R. 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very interesting article. This reads more like "Types of mathematical notation" rather than "History of . . ." I don't understand how the different notations interacted with each other. What caused old notations become insufficient and require the the delveopment of more advanced models? How did they spread to different areas and who is responsible for one type becoming standard instead of another? Why do clocks still use roman numerals? :) Seriously it is a good start but the sections do not flow together and I am unsure of the reasoning for the current order. Obviously there is much missing. The entire New World for one. Also I wonder if historically there was any connection between "math" and "astronomy" notations? One nitpick you say For example, the four vertical lines used to represent four were replaced by a single horizontal line. This was first introduced in the Rhind papyrus Do we really know this is where it is first introduced, or is it rather the earliest example we are aware of?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No quick fix here. This will just require more research. Mathematical history has a lot of very good sources. - Taxman Talk 20:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it's an interesting article, although it seems a little short. Here's a few notes:
    • There is no coverage of the still-used Roman numerals.
    • How did π come to symbolize the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter?
    • There are some sections that are devoid of references. What reference, for example, would I consult to confirm the claim that arabic numerals actually started in India?
    • Pre-calculus could also cover × and ÷.
    • How did we get the square root symbol?
    • Calculus can also cover the use of the ′ (prime) for derivatives, such as .
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you; all this advice is very helpful, especially the point on the article being more "Types of mathematical notation". Once the basic research is done, the entire article should be gone through and made to flow together, not only in terms of prose, but in how the information in each section goes into the others. There are two books I think would be very helpful, A History of Mathematics mentioned above and A History of Mathematical Notation, by Florian Cajori. Both of these are in nearby libraries, I hope to get them as soon as possible. The order is a bit arbitrary, it is based more on the information at hand than actual history. And the notation outside of Europe should certainly be mentioned too, thank you for bringing it up.P.L.A.R. 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to be a bit broad in scope. History of numeral systems is worth its own article. Some materal duplicates other articles. Personally I find the name Pre-calculus rather jaring as we don't use it this side of the water, algebraic symbols might be nicer. To × and ÷ I'd add the equals sign. Also important is the notation for functions f(x). Modern computer typesetting LaTeX, MathML etc, might be worth a mention.
  • A few remarks:
    • There should be a link to the article Mathematical notation.
    • The first sentence suggests it's all about symbols. But it is also about how these symbols are put together (syntax).
    • A reader who knows absolutely nothing about the topic might think from the second sentence that these symbols are all letters.
    • Worth mentioning: the introduction of letters to stand for arithmetic quantities, the start of algebraic notation. Vieta is credited with making the custom popular. In older mathematical discourses, everything was expressed in natural language, as in: If the number of things is augmented with the part that was taken away from ...
    • The origin of the square root symbol, a lower-case r  for radix.
    • The < and > symbols (if found in Cajori).
    • For the integral symbol ∫, refer to Long s. (See also the article Integral.)
 --LambiamTalk 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the new comments. There should be a link from this article to Mathematical notation; I think the converse is true but it doesn't make sense to have only one. I agree that Pre-calculus is a poor title. Algebraic symbols would work, or maybe Renaissance (although as more material is added, that title may become a misnomer). I think the biggest problem is still lack of content, which will hopefully change soon. Also, I recently discovered something about Benjamin Peirce's idea for notation, that would fit in with whatever the section Pre-calculus will become or the section on Euler. The section on Euler is connected with a question I have: should he have his own section? He was very important in notation, but it doesn't fit well with the chronological order of the other sections.P.L.A.R. 02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. I also think this cries out for a figure at top right - maybe a bunch of the symbols used in notation? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can certainly benefit from more inline citations. At the very least, each para should have one, at best, each fact.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evansville Tornado of November 2005

[edit]

Recently did a lot of additions and editing of this article, and I am wondering what else can be done for this to move towards becoming an FA. CrazyC83 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice short article. I have one nitpick though, since your sources (footnotes) are all websites, can you use the preferred Template:Cite web style? - Tutmosis 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will. Is that everything? Can it make a serious FAC nomination as is? CrazyC83 23:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would definetely go for it since no one else has any problems with it. Although I'm pretty sure the issue of the quality of the prose will come up. I'm no professional writer so I cant help you there. Anyway, good luck. - Tutmosis 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting read some thoughts/suggestions:-
From the lead "deadliest in Indiana since 47 died when several tornadoes hit the state during the Super Outbreak of 1974."
suggest "deadliest in Indiana since the Super Outbreak of 1974".
also from lead
"It was also the most deaths caused in a single day by tornadoes since 39 died on May 4, 2003 in Kansas, Missouri, and Tennessee during the May 2003 Tornado Outbreak Sequence. It was the deadliest single tornado since 36 were killed on May 3, 1999 from the Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak in the Oklahoma City area"
suggest
"It was also the most deaths caused in a single day by tornadoes since the May 2003 Tornado Outbreak Sequence. It was the deadliest single tornado since May 3, 1999 from the Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak."
The section "Confirmed tornadoes" reduce one level to subsection of "Meteorological analysis"
The table on the number of deaths looks out of place/cramped, maybe because theres not enough information

I'd say it would pass WP:GA as is but still needs some more work for FA Gnangarra 15:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Navy

[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian Navy/archive1 Chanakyathegreat 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second peer review required. Chanakyathegreat 03:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't had a full read yet, but a recommend checking for redundancies. In the lead "With a total of 55,000 men and women, including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and 2,000 Marine Commandos (MARCOS), it is the world's fifth largest Navy in terms of manpower." can be reduced to "With 55,000 men and women, including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and 2,000 Marine Commandos (MARCOS), it is the world's fifth largest navy." without changing its meaning at all. Double checking the entire article for other things like this can definitely improve the overall writing quality. The general term "navy" is not a proper noun, so you should refer to "a navy" rather than "a Navy". Jay32183 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy assassination

[edit]

This article is a lengthy mess. It appears that in the past no consensus was formed but instead each side of the debate merely dumped its material into the article. It could use some dedicated editors to assist in forging consensus, eliminating some of the material, and disproving some of the wilder assertions presented as fact. Gamaliel 01:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll have a go at refactoring it into a main article with a number of subpages. Expect to see something drop in soon. jguk 08:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since the prior peer review there have been an almost complete overhaul of the article. If anyone has some ideas for improving the article in its current condition, please assist. Ramsquire 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all you need to get rid of the neutral tag. Secondly, the "president's motorcade" section contains too many red links. If those people are notable enough for an article, at least make a stub. If not, don't wikilink them. Borisblue 05:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Traffic

[edit]

A fairly short article I've worked on. A previous revision of the article was peer reviewed here. I think I did a pretty good job with the current revision. Any thoughts? (Ibaranoff24 18:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure that forums are great reference points. Seegoon 14:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the director himself speaking on his own website. You can't get a better reference than that. (Ibaranoff24 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, indeed you can, second party sources are often better. Punkmorten 12:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dupas

[edit]

I'd like some feedback about the organisation of the article on this alleged Australian serial killer, mostly whether it contains too much detail, too little, or if the general flow is a little awkward. Any other feedback or suggestions on improving the article are most welcomed also. Currently listed for consideration at Good articles. -- Longhair\talk 14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a glance, the intro is a bit confusing: he's said to be an "alleged" killer, but then the lead paragraphs seem to assume that he indeed is one, and mention his convictions. Can "alleged" be removed here? Otherwise, looks very good, but maybe GA/FA should wait until the judicial proceedings are over and the article is stable. Sandstein 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. After I requested an outside opinion on the article from another editor, they added the "alleged" wording, and I somewhat agree with their reasoning. Whilst it's widely believed and reported in the media that Dupas *is* a serial killer, the Wikipedia article on serial killers states serial killers "are people who kill on at least three occasions". Dupas has only been convicted of two murders thus far but is a suspect in a further three. I guess it's open to debate how we label him for now. Time will tell once the current judicial process has run its course. -- Longhair\talk 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus

[edit]

This was formerly a featured article (way back before they were called featured articles) and was downgraded after review. I've almost completely rewritten it, and am intending to renominate it for FA soon. Any comments on omissions and typos would be appreciated, and if anybody can get a decent free photo or illustration for the taxobox then you'll earn my undying gratitude (I had to remove the excellent photo that was there as it appears to be a copyvio). Yomanganitalk 15:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Excellent article overall. A few comments:
    • In the description section I would prefer to start with the physical description rather than a unique biological adaptation. Also wouldn't the body temperatur info be better placed in ecology and behaviour section, right after the mention that the species is endothermic?
    • "Research suggests this has been a gradual adaptation on the part of the small number of surviving species to harsh environmental conditions rather than a characteristic of monotremes." Which small number of species are we talking about? Could use clarification.
    • "In common with the Tasmanian Devil,[12] the platypus uses the tail for fat storage." Sounds akward.
    • "..rubbery snout that are appear closer to a duck's". Are or appear?
    • "In the platypus, electroreceptors are located..." Is in the platypus redundant? I believe it is obvious we are talking about the receptors in the platypus.
    • "In captivity platypuses have survived to seventeen and wild specimens have been recaptured at eleven years old". Akward. Missaing something after seventeen.
    • "...with mating occurring in late winter or spring." Can you specify which months? If memory serves me correctly winter does not equate to the same months for each hemisphere.
    • "The platypus and other monotremes were very poorly understood for many years, and to this day some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them endure, for example, that the monotremes are "inferior" or quasi-reptilian" Break up, rewrite. One solution is to move "for example, that the monotremes are "inferior" or quasi-reptilian" after 19th century myths.
    • In popular culture has no sources. Joelito (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the comments - all good points and I've rewritten most of them as you suggested. I'm now citing the popular culture items (not sure why I hadn't done that already - I forgot about it after I rewrote it). Yomanganitalk 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the External links actually References, or should they be separated per WP:LAYOUT? Sandy (Talk) 02:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always have problems with this when rewriting - as I'm sure the sites listed were used as references for the original article it seems a little unfair to downgrade them. Anyway, I've now moved the websites that are no longer cited directly to "External links". Yomanganitalk 09:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jawaharlal Nehru

[edit]

Hi - I submit this article to your attention after some revisions. I need your advice and criticism in making this a featured article. All input is most welcome, Rama's arrow 21:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nirav, I have no idea where messages for you should be left, so I'm just leaving this here for now, please replace it wherever you would like after reading: Thanks for working on the Nehru article. I have a few points, but most importantly, could you please cite the 11 state working committee - central working committee split between Nehru and Patel? I remember looking for a ref for that some months ago and not finding it. Also, while he was criticised for naivete in foreign affairs and his socialism domestically, as well as a personality cult - which he himself deplored, as should be stated - was he criticised for nepotism during his lifetime? I find that hard to believe, as he made no secret of his disapproval of Indira's election to the Congress Presidency, and I havent found any citations for that either, at least in Sarvepalli Gopal's bio of him. Hornplease 22:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing this article needs is more citations. FAC reviewers will demand at least one per section. One per paragraph is better. Also, at the risk of adding a tabloid element, it was my understanding that his affair with Lady Mountbatten was an open secret. Seems worth at least a mention considering when it (probably) happened. Durova 06:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, U'll work on that. The article as it stands doesnt have enough information about the post-1950 period; even the 1940-1950 period focuses primarily on his relationship with Patel, a minor aspect in terms of his entire life. This may be because Nirav, who's been a major and tireless contributor to this and other article, knows his copy of Rajmohan Gandhi's bio of Patel backwards and forwards, and finds it easiest to cite from there. I'll try and balance the citing a trifle over the next few weeks. Hornplease 17:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Hehehehe...) I understand your point, but lemme give you my reasons (1) the section is more of Gandhi-Nehru-Patel, with emphasis on Nehru. As Patel enjoyed immense influence in the Congress and government, it is important to highlight how Nehru as PM in 47-50 was so different from post-Patel years. I agree that post-1950 data is weak - there's still a lot work to do. Rama's arrow 17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red rain in Kerala

[edit]

For old peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Red rain in Kerala/archive1

I'm hoping to get this up to FA status for April 1 (April fools main page) so I would welcome some input as how best to achieve this RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you write up some fair use rationales for the images first. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by =Nichalp «Talk»=
  • Needs an SVG map
  • Images should be thumbed
  • Table should be right aligned. A pi chart of the data can be shown
  • Copyedit required. low content of phosphorus is puzzling , is by no means rare
  • Astrophysics and Space Science should be in italics
  • 4.1 and 6.1 sections are bad style. Merge with parent or promote to a higher level.
  • References should be preferably formatted using the citation templates available.
  • Dr. - remove
  • Populating red links should give the article a more professional touch
  • Remove low value linking (eg wells, rainwater, milligrams etc)
  • Gallery should go, merge images with text
  • What was the reaction of the local people? I'm sure such an unusual phenomena should cause some sort of consternation among the local populace, even giving rise to superstitions.
  • The following domains can also be combed for more information: gov.in, nic.in, ernet.in, gov ; and so too google news.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant

[edit]

I tried to nominate this as a featured article, but failed. So, before i attempt that again, I would like to see its Peer Review.

Daniel10 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the {{fact}} tags need to be replaced with sources in the form of inline citations. That's the most urgent thing. -Fsotrain09 17:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here some of my general observations of this article:

  • Zoology is way, way too long. Use summary form.
  • please merge or delete "Usefulness to the environment".
  • please merge or delete "Elephant traps".
  • convert "Elephants in culture" into prose.
  • "Elephant rage" need to be merged with Zoology.
  • That "External links" in "Humanity and elephants" needs to be deleted.
  • "Other causes" section has to be merged somewhere or deleted.
  • "Rogue elephant" needs to be merged into Zoology.

I would suggest divide the page in following section/subsections: (don't have to use exactly this names, I used them to be self-explanatory)

  • Species
  • Zoology
    • Physical Characteristics
    • Habitat
    • Social Behaviour
  • Interaction with humans
  • In popular Culture

I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. Its bad style to make section for everything and to give too much information. - Tutmosis 21:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil Liberties Union

[edit]

First Section

[edit]

The second 'sourced' claim on the page deals with a local state chapter. There could be more clarification on the relationship between state and national ACLU, and I think the term 'political activism' is somewhat loaded without clarification. Also, on an unrelated note, which I put on A. Romero's talk page, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the conflict over Romero's memo suggesting less dissention from within the organization.

Yes, I agree about the sourced claim and the political activism suggestions you have left. I am just startingt to get around to things like that. As for the Romero note, this page isnt half enough organized to have a place to put that yet. Once the organization part of the article gets fleshed out it certainly deserves a spot. Feel free to put it in at your discretion. Thanks. Jasper23 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and Controversial Stances Sections

[edit]

This is also posted at the bottom of the talk page...please respond there. Thanks

Hey everyone, I would like to makes some structural changes to the page and want some feedback from the community. I would like to pretty much merge most of the critic section into the newly expanded section on controversial stances. I think this would make the page much more encyclopedic and a much more informative read. This would also tie the whole article together (history, position sections) and give the article more of a narrative feel. How do people feel about this? Jasper23 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End Section

[edit]

The whole 'critics of the ACLU' section needs attention. The article is on the ACLU, not every half baked and farfetched objection to the ACLU. These can be condensed into summaries, and some will need to be deleted.

Many of the criticisms are factually incorrect and not supported by documentation, and anti ACLU editors keep adding them back in.

Examples:

One estimate of the ACLU's total collection of court awarded damages, made by the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, is approximately $9.5 million. [14]. The article makes no claim of 9.5 Million dollars, and 6 Million of it is not documented but is the hazy claim $6,000,000 = American taxpayers.The ACLU, along with other pro-abortion organizations, have shared in court awards estimated to be worth roughly six million dollars following the Supreme Court’s decision in which they declared the Nebraska partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Reportedly, these lawsuits affected thirty states.

No documentation to support this claim.

The 1980 Polovchak v. Meese case is also sometimes considered evidence of liberal sympathies on the part of the ACLU. Walter Polovchak was a 12-year-old from Ukraine (at that time part of the Soviet Union) visiting the United States with his parents. When his parents were returning to Ukraine, he tried to stay in the U.S. and claim political asylum against the wishes of his parents. The ACLU attempted to block him from doing so. In 1999 the Florida chapter of the ACLU referred to the ACLU's role in the Polovchak case in their brief for the Elián González case.

The is urban legend. I asked for documentation, and none was provided. What some anti ACLU zealots consider to be 'evidence of liberal sympathies' deserves no place in the article if it can't be documented and sourced. NBGPWS 20:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added into the body of the article (after 'separation of church and state'):

  • Religious Liberty: Defends the individual right of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public and in the workplace. [15][16] [17] [18]

with 4 sources documenting it. Anti ACLU editors - specifically Scribner - keep deleting it.

NBGPWS 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All changes with the exception of the Polovchak v. Meese have been discussed at length and will be reverted, as always see the talk page(s).--Scribner 20:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Document the bogus 9.5 Million dollar claim - HERE. NBGPWS 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MODEL FOR THE CRITICISM SECTION

As another editor on an archived talk page concluded:

"I'm concerned that an article that is supposed to be about the aclu it is more or less dominated by what its criticis think. this in itself does not seem fair to me. I want there to be a solid criticism section, but i don't understand why over half of the article is about things people how disagree with the aclu say."

The NRA and ACLU are both polarizing NGO's with almost the exact same approval / disapproval ratings:

"The main findings of (this) survey include:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) - 48% trust the NRA while 52 percent do not trust them.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - 49 percent trust the ACLU compared to 51 percent who do not trust them.

The Harris Poll #91, December 16, 2005'"'

The following is the extent of criticism from 'the Left' in the Wiki NRA article:

-Criticism-

From the Gun-prohibition Camp.

The NRA is criticized by gun control groups such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, and Americans for Gun Safety. A variety of newspaper editorial boards, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, frequently disagree with the NRA's policies, such as in September of 2004, when they called for the extension of the assault weapons ban; in general, criticism of the NRA is higher in urban areas than rural areas. These groups tend to point to instances of gun violence, claiming that they could have been prevented through legislation.

One could find dozens of anti-NRA quotes and claims from prominent Liberals, politicians, and groups opposed to the NRA. Michael Moore's quotes, claims and opinions could form an entire section of several paragraphs - but the article is about the NRA, not those opposed to the NRA. The next section on criticism from the Right should be pared down.

The section of criticism of the NRA from 'the Left' should be the model for the ACLU article. What Michael Medved, Bill O'Reilly or any other windbag thinks about the NRA is not germaine to the article. What Samuel Alito thinks might be. NBGPWS 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charizard

[edit]

Archive of previous Peer Review

Why do you continue to misrepresent the situation? This has failed four FAC's. How do you think you are going to get different answers here? People have already pointed out the article's problems, why should they do so again? WP:V is non negotiable policy. What value is a peer review where you don't want people to mention the article's biggest problem, and one of the major reasons it failed the last FAC? Why not work on articles that do have reliable sources instead of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? - Taxman Talk 14:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to help the improve on the other issues with the prose, which is what Raul failed the article on. Are you going to be constructive, or keep Charizard-bashing? Highway Daytrippers 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the exact reason for why Raul failed the latest nomination? Has he made any comments about it?
Peter Isotalo 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nifboy 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For those who haven't clicked the link, Raul said "So, to put it bluntly - I'm not sure." and called it a corner case. I would be more careful about using such an open-ended statement as an argument...
And I agree completely with Taxman's description of the dispute. The objections are being misrepresented and the nominator is doing his best to make this more personal than it is. The objectors have been trying to voice serious concerns about important interpretations of WP:V and most of the replies have been generally just been "You just hate Pokémon!" instead of any honest attempts to take the objections seriously. Not even attempts to compromise... I can't stress enough that getting so emotionally involved is unlikely to be beneficial to anyone.
Peter Isotalo 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I asked, are there anyways to improve the text of the article, which is what I'm addressing. Highway Daytrippers 09:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried suggesting two minor and rather reasonable improvements[19], but as with referencing, you don't seem to be to eager on receiving advice that differs with your personal opinion. Good luck loving this thing to death... / Peter Isotalo 10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would happily accept adivce. The references just don't exist. Highway Daytrippers 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Compensating the lack of academic citations with irrelevant trivia references will not solve the problem.[20] The dictionary definitions have nothing to do with the statement. It's pure footnote padding. It's like saying we have to have a citation for the statement that Charizard is a fictional character or, in fact, a Pokémon. And does he really look like a European dragon...? Why, that's just your opinion. Citation! (See what I'm getting at?)
        • The insistance of keeping a "fictional stance" is also inexplicable and seems more protective than rational. Comparing one piece of fiction with another is not a problem. You don't need to weasel out of anything by adding an awkward "style" after a cultural reference. / Peter Isotalo 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-os

[edit]

Just rewritten the article, and looking for some criticm and suggestions to hopefully get this to my first FA. Thank you in advance and I will try to respond to your comments as swiftly as possible. - Tutmosis 18:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the automated peer review. I believe all suggestions have been met. - Tutmosis 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debut single Crabbuckit was shortly followed by B-Boy Stance, Man I Used To Be and Love Song followed with music videos and the radio exclusive Crucial and Dirty Water featuring Sam Roberts. This sentence needs to be reformulated completely. It is not clear what you mean by the second "followed", and the featuring isn't clear either.--SidiLemine 17:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I copyedited here and there to make the text flow more smoothly. Are you sure he is backstage in the second pic? He sure looks on stage to me. --SidiLemine 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit. That sentence is just listing all the singles from the album. The "followed" is meant to say that all the 4 singles just mentioned had music videos. Any ideas how to reformat this sentence? Regarding the pic, the site says his backstage + the junos aren't a white normally lit room with a tiny stage. - Tutmosis 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could try "The debut single Crabbuckit was shortly followed by B-Boy Stance, Man I Used To Be, and Love Song, each accompanied by its music video. The radio exclusive titles Crucial and Dirty Water (featuring Sam Roberts) were released a little later."--SidiLemine 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I changed it. How does it sound now? Also If you dont mind me asking, what do you think I should do about names of singles and albums, should I leave it as italics or leave it as normal text, or put quotation marks around them? - Tutmosis 15:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I feel like it reads much better now. For the titles, you've got the answer here. Albums should be in italics, songs in double quotes: "Crabbuckit". Another thing you could do for the prose is to avoid the word "went", that is present four times through the article.--SidiLemine 10:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks its been taken care of. - Tutmosis 19:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 United States Grand Prix

[edit]

Any comments greatly appreciated on improvements that could be made to the above 'good article'. Kingjamie 17:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great article. What I would like to see is a shot of the 6 cars waiting in grid position before the start of the race. Is it possible? CG 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of points - consistency is required. Is it pitstops or pit stops? (pit stops is what's been recommended) Some of the prose needs working on "At the banked Turn 13, the entrance to the pit lane (and the turn that is the centre of the controversy), all teams that ran Michelin tyres returned to their pits, leaving just six cars to take the grid for the start of the race, from Ferrari, Jordan, and Minardi." isn't clear for example. In the lead: "The race proved to be a highly controversial monumental disaster because only six cars competed;" needs to be worked on as well. Suggest one adjective is used and if controversial be backed up with a source (should be plenty available). I'm not sure this is clear either: "Out of all of the main stations who broadcasted the grand prix, only ITV decided to screen the race and at the end of broadcast, the channel's anchorman Jim Rosenthal apologised for what viewers saw." Firstly what is a main station and also the grand prix is the race in many people's minds so the sentence doesn't make sense. All terms such as pit lane need to be wikilinked at their first occurance and some wikilinks need to be removed (there are two for Charlie Whiting, only the first occurance should be wikilinked). Finally a point to bear in mind - for an article to meet FA standards, it will need to be understood by people who don't follow F1. All technical terms must be wikilinked or explained properly. Finally a copyedit once all changes have been made to catch all those little mistakes will be needed. Hope that'll help you improve the article. Alexj2002 08:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extratropical cyclone

[edit]

Article has just been upgraded from stub class to B class with comment that more work needs to be done (Not bad for a days work on the part of mainly user:Thegreatdr, and also myself to a lesser extent). It seems silly now to not try to make it that much better, and so essentially, a general review of what needs to be done in the article to get it further upgraded is all that's being requested here. --Crimsone 12:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article assumes a lot from the reader. It assumes the reader has all the background and just looking to get some random facts. The first sentence doesn't even explain what this is, it just says its the same thing as "baroclinic systems" (what ever that is...), what its usually nicknamed by the scientific community and that the public calls it "depressions". But I still have no clue what the hell this article except its about cyclones. If I recently learned english and didnt know what "cyclone" is commonly referred to, Ill be completely lost (well not lost but loose interest because the lead is suppose to draw me in). So in conclusion what is "Extratropical"? Moving on, any way "Characteristics" can be converted into paragraph form versus bullets? The first paragraph of "Formation" section reads like a novel. Instead of "In the begginning this happens..." approach I would take the "Common conditions for the formation of Extratropical cyclone are..." approach. "Cyclone models" seems a bit short with stubby paragraphs, any possibility of expansion? "developed around 1990" was that written in a published source or were you just going off memory there? Any region of the world they tend to form at most? notable storms? Anyway, Good luck with the article and hope to see it at fac soon. - Tutmosis 23:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind comments! Many of your suggestions were taken on board For instance, the opening summary paragraph has now been heavily edited. The Formation section has been split into two subsections, however, as extratropical cyclones are everyday phenomena making up part of the ebb and flow of the planets weather, the "in the beginning" element of the (now) sub-section seems most appropriate for the subject.
The Charateristics section was converted from paragraph form to a bulletpoint list purely because it lists a number of different characteristics in quite some depth (for the reasonable space available to each point). A "Structure" section was added to better explain what these cyclones are in atmospheric terms.
The Cyclone Models section has been renamed (and subsectioned) to "Cyclone structure and evolution" The paragraphs on each subsection are still a little stubby, but without getting overly technical for the unknowing reader, I doubt much more can be said - Ideally each model should have its own article (or maybe one Cyclone models article). There is still some sourcing to be done on these subsections though.
Being as they are part and parcel of everyday weather and nothing particularly special or spectacular in their own right/as a whole, they pretty much form anywhere in the central lattitudes of the northern and southern hemispheres of the planet (which is now mentioned in the article), and so I'm not sure that a "Notable storms" section would be entirely appropriate, as storms can form as part of an extratropical cyclone, but such depressions are seldom ever called "Extratropical storms" (which might be an entirely different subject anyway). The article is still being worked on though, and so I'm wondering what you think of it now, and if anybody else has any further suggestions? --Crimsone 10:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking much better. I have a couple request for the lead; can the lead mention average speed, which parts of the world they occur in, How long they usually last (is that even in the article?), usual effects on surrounding area. Thanks. - Tutmosis 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article already mentions the location (within 30 to 60 degrees lattitude of the equator), and I'm afraid it really can't get any more specific, being a run of the mill global phenomenon tha occurs pretty much everywhere within the given area. How long they last is not yet in the article - though it would be hard to define as they can last anywhere between a day or two and months (at either extremes of the spectrum). It really depends on the environmental conditions they are steered into. In theory, they could last almost forever in the right conditions (which obviously aren't lightly to occur). The life of an extratropical cyclone depends on what happens both within and around it.
The usual effects of a cyclone likely to be seen by your average person are pretty much precipitation, cloudiness, and sometimes notable wind (ie, a breeze or more). Basically, any weather other than sunshine is most usually down to an extratropical cyclone.
Adding any of the above will take some thinking about (from me at least!). Some of it is already said (as above) as best as it really can be without the article starting to sound pedantic. Some of your other sugestions may be able to be fitted in though. --Crimsone 15:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. Well I guess my suggestions have reach the end of the line. Too bad there doesn't seem to be people familiar with the subject to comment since I can only point out things from a view point of a ignorant reader. - Tutmosis 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lot's and lots of further work has been done, and there's still some to do :) Thanks to Tutmosis, for the suggestions, most of which have been followed up, and any more comments would be welcome from anybody :) --Crimsone 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Ruhrfisch :) And thanks to all here, who have helped to improve this article significantly :) Crimsone 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura

[edit]

My main concerns at the moment:

  • Should the Races+Locations info be removed to separate article(s) or not?
  • Are there major structural changes/reorderings you think would improve it?
  • Are there enough pictures, or can you think of a better arrangement of the existing pictures?
  • Are the references sufficient (or even correctly done)?

I know the Development section is dead skinny. There's barely any data on the game in that respect. I can't find any remotely clear account of the bugs it released with.

Anything else you could offer would be excellent, thanks. Hide&Reason 02:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just very briefly:
  • The article is already very long, and a lot of the material suffers from WP:WAF problems, in particular sections 4 to 8, in that it describes the gameworld from an in-universe perspective, which is to be avoided. Also, the sheer length and detail of the gameworld descriptions threatens to violate the policy that WP:NOT a game guide. For these reasons, I'd favor cutting down on gameworld descriptions radically, instead of spinning them off to other articles. Section 8 ("Half-ogre Island conspiracy") in particular is one egregious WP:NOT problem. I've added cleanup tags to that effect.
  • Trivia sections tend to be frowned upon (see WP:TRIVIA).
  • We should try to use only as much non-free (ie fair use) images as is absolutely necessary, so I'd not add any more screenshots, concept art etc.
Best regards, Sandstein 21:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sections 6 and 7 have been taken care of for now. But I don't see how section 4 is in-universe. I mean, this is the core of the entire game; it's the nucleus of whatever will eventually satisfy the 'compelling prose' clause of WP:FAC.
As for section 5, I suppose I could write a more generalised summary of the mechanics, and CP the existing stuff to another 'adjunct' article.
As for images, I don't yet think we have enough, actually. I don't just want screenshots, but at the moment the article could use perhaps two or three more. Hide&Reason 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs expansion, so it may better summarize the topic. See computer and video game featured articles for ideas on how this may be done. Gameplay is necessary, so the entire section shouldn't be moved to a gaming wiki. Try moving the "Steamworks" and "Magickal obscura" sections, and make brief mention of them in the rest of the gameplay section. "Half-ogre Island conspiracy" should be moved or cut, your call. General practice with computer and video game article layout involves placement of the gameplay and story sections first, and then following with the more real-world details. That's all for now. I may give it another look later. JimmyBlackwing 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright:

  • Races/Locations/Conspiracy removed
  • Lead expanded to three paras
  • More references
  • Gamplay section rewritten (I'm fairly sure) as out-of-universe
  • Development section marginally expanded + transferred after the game stuff

So is it just a case of it needing a few more refs and pics, and section expansions now? Hide&Reason 04:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something along those lines. I think the lead spends a little too much time talking about critical reaction and sales, when it should also give a brief, spoiler-free idea of what the game is about. The article was a mess before, but things are a little better now. It still needs huge amounts of work before it's even GA-class, though. It's an interesting subject, so it would be great to see this article improve to GA or FA status. Good job on your work so far. JimmyBlackwing 11:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Big Brother (UK series 7)/archive1

Headlamp

[edit]
  • I made a small contribution to this page a year or so ago and I have recently checked the article. Because the subject matter is familiar to many people, and yet there is a lot of interesting information that is not generally known, I think it would make a good Wikipedia:Featured Article. I have never nominated an article for FA status before, and so I am unsure whether this article is worthy. I think it is, but I am interested in input from others. The only deficiencies I noticed is some inconsistency regarding headlamp styling versus aerodynamics in the different desings. --Lenehey 15:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's incredible. Two gripes, regarding pictures: one, it seems a bit Saab-heavy; and two, the flip-up headlamp pictures should be swapped, to give a better sense of motion. Other than that, I'm shocked that something so (seemingly) trivial can have so much work and research done on it. Bravo! Seegoon 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My gripe: the intro talks a tiny bit about personal headlamps used in mining and caving. The rest of the article doesn't really tlak about them. It's a bit too car-heavy. A picture of a mining headlamp would do wonders. --198.185.18.207 21:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's not ready for FA yet—I have on my desk the immense stack of sources which for various not-very good reasons did not get cited when I was posting swaths of this article. I will add citations as rapidly as I am able. Good comment on the Saab-heaviness of the photos. I think non-automotive headlamp information would be a distraction in this already-large article; they should have their own article. --Scheinwerfermann 03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell nucleus

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cell_nucleus

Please comment. Nb. there are 2 more images coming (one of the nuclear pore, and one (hopefully) of a stained cell). Also re. the to do list on the talk page, these are nitty gritty things, and in truth not vital to the article, even (dare I say) a FA.ShaiM 13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to be expanded into a comprehensive summary of the entire article, per WP:LEAD. -Fsotrain09 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a look at this in more detail later, but a first impression is that the organisation of the article is not as clear as it could be. I suggest dividing the existing sections into major categories (bolded). And then into sub-categories i.e.
Structure
Structural sub-categories. Good as it is. But include organisation of chromosomes hetero/euchromatin into this section.
Function
Role in cell compartmentation
Transcription
Dynamics and regulation
Nuclear transport
Assembly and disassembly
Anucleated and polynucleated cells
Evolution of the nucleus

TimVickers 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restructured per recommendation. I'll try and start working on the lead in a day or so.ShaiM 04:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (Australia)

[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Big Brother (Australian TV series)/archive1

I've been thinking about doing this for a while, and I know it's hell unlikely that the article is able to pass an FA nomination. I'm not aiming for that, but the Big Brother Australia articles don't get as much attention as the other articles and it would be great if more editors could comment on this one, so that it can be improved. jd || talk || 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a note on the prior peer review for potential reviewers. Since the last review, this article has undergone a split into separate articles for each series. The previous review covered all series rolled into one article. -- Longhair\talk 10:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking good. First problem is the first heading looks a bit odd in between the TOC and the infobox - I suggest get rid off it, and cut down the leading section a little. There are quite a lot of small sections which could probably be merged, and also more pictures culd help separate the large chunks of text. There are quite a few lists, which create whitespace, so perhaps they could be organised differently. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 14:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land Command

[edit]

Please give us your comments here... Buckshot06 06:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the list guideline. -Fsotrain09 22:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh War

[edit]

During the nomination for FA status, reviewers noted the following:

  • that the article needed copyediting to improve in quality
  • that the article's prose was in low quality or in otherwise written inaccurately
  • that more citations were needed

I'm unsure of how to broach the article on the first two points however I would only need reference in regards to the third point as to what sentences specifically are in the need of citations. Thanks. --MarshallBagramyan 05:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good so far, though I'm not sure if we could re-nominate it for FA status just yet, we'll have to see what others think first. -- Clevelander 02:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COBE

[edit]

I think this article is a great example of a spacecraft article and I'd like to get it upto standards of a FA. It is also become mor relevant with the award of the nobel prize in physics to 2 of its principle investigators. I look forward to hearing any suggestions. - Ryjaz 15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I thought that the historical information and the general information on the spacecraft was OK. However, the article's scientific information needs significant improvement, and the article lacks a crucial discussion of the instrumentation. Comments that I had as I read through this article:
  1. No discussion is provided to explain the motivation for the COBE research in the first place. Some background information (on the detection of the CMBR, the effort to characterize its spectrum, and the search for anisotropies) is needed.
  2. No discussion is provided about the instrumentation (DIRBE, FIRAS, and DMR). This is crucial to any description of a space telescope, especially COBE. These things are the most important part of the spacecraft, since they make the actual scientific measurements. This should be a large section of the article.
  3. The "right ascension of ascending node" is in units of degrees. Is this standard for spacecraft? Most astronomers write right ascension in hours, minutes, and seconds. Later references to the ascending node are also confusing. What is an ascending node of 6 p.m.?
  4. I do not think that the role of DIRBE was protrayed accurately. Was DIRBE designed for detecting infrared emission from galaxies? I know it did this, but I seem to recall that the results were more useful for mapping and studying dust emission within the Milky Way. (By the way, Sodroski et al. 1995 is about the Milky Way.) This should be researched further.
  5. The article makes repeated references to "early galaxies". What is this supposed to mean? This is not a term used in extragalactic astronomy. (Maybe someone meant to say "early-type galaxies", which can refer to elliptical and S0 galaxies. However, this would not make sense; these galaxies are dust poor, and COBE would struggle as much as IRAS to detect such galaxies.)
  6. I placed the blackbody section ahead of the anisotropy section. I believe the blackbody nature of the CMBR was discovered and published first, but I could be wrong. Logically, it makes more sense to talk about the general nature of the specrtum before describing the anisotropies.
  7. The "Intrinsic anisotropy of CMB" is poorly written. Moreover, it fails to communicate the scientific significance of the results (unlike the blackbody section). This should be greatly expanded.
  8. The "Early galaxies" section (which is misnamed) needs references. I would fix some of this information, but I don't even know where it came from (and I still don't know what it's talking about).
  9. The references to scientific articles need to give the journal names. The Sodroski et al. reference is missing this. It may also be nicer to link references to the ADS abstract server.
  10. "Extragalactic background light" is not a common astronomy term. The reference in the Wikipedia article uses "cosmic infrared background", which is a common term. I suggest using that instead.
  11. An "Epilogue" section describing WMAP and Planck (in terms of CMBR science) and ISO, Spitzer, and Herschel (in terms of infrared astronomy) would be useful.
George J. Bendo 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insightful comments. I agree with you on the instruments and I'll try to update that section. I've debated how in depth to get into the science findings. Looking at something like the Hubble Telescope science section, this puts forth an argument for a brief talk only about the scientific findings. As for the right ascension, I come from an orbital mechanics background and that is what we use. Ryjaz 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Different approaches should be taken for describing the scientific results of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and COBE. COBE was specialized and therefore produced mainly a few key observations of the CMBR and galactic/extragalactic dust emission. Hence, it is possible to discuss the results from COBE (especially the measurements of the CMBR spectrum and anisotropies) in detail. HST is a general purpose telescope that has been used in many different applications. It is impossible to sumamrize all results from Hubble in a single article; only a few specific results may be highlighted. George J. Bendo 03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney

[edit]

It's about time this article had another peer review - it's almost up to FA status, and it would be good to determine what is needed so it can become a Featured Article. (JROBBO 09:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Every {{fact}}tag needs to be replaced with an inline citation of a reliable source. This is a make-or-break issue for FACs. --Fsotrain09 00:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • I fixed most of your ref tags, but I may have missed some.
  • I've added fact tags for text that should be cited: some of them are to specific facts; others are at the end of paragraphs where one cite might cover the entire paragraph.
  • The very first text the reader encounters contains weasle words: "It has been speculated that the Sydney region ..." Eliminate weasle words: who speculates this?
  • Ibid isn't effective in Wikipedia, because if you stop monitoring the article and someone else inserts text in between your original note and the ibid, the ibid could become invalid. You can handle ibids thusly:
    • Kohen, J. L. 2000. First and last people: Aboriginal Sydney. In J. Connell (Ed.). Sydney the emergence of a global city. pp 76-95. Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-550748-7, pp 76-78
    • Kohen, J. L. 2000, pp 81-82
  • I don't know if this is common, but for someone who speaks Spanish, it's very awkward to see "the" followed by "the". Is it common to say the followed by el when describing the weather phenomenon? "the El Niño Southern Oscillation plays an important role in determining Sydney's weather patterns:"
  • Some of the references are URL links: please expand all refs to a consistent bibliographic style.
  • Please eliminate the external jump to an external website at Current Sydney Weather in the section Climate: external jumps should be external links.
  • Economy has choppy, short, one-sentence paragraphs, and needs to be expanded and smoothed out.
  • Be sure to check your text for redundancy before coming to FAC: you can find several good sets of tips at the bottom of the page, WP:WIAFA. "The extensive area covered by urban Sydney ... "
  • Weasle words: The City of Sydney itself covers a fairly small area comprising the central business district and its neighbouring inner-city suburbs.
  • In an encyclopedia, it's not good to tell readers what they should note: "In addition, there are a number of regional descriptions which are used informally to conveniently describe large sections of the urban area, although However it should be noted that there are many suburbs which are not conveniently covered by any of the following informal regional categories. The regions are:
  • How are "early days" defined? "Although the CBD dominated the city's business and cultural life in the early days, ..."
  • The first sentence here left me dumbstruck, until I encountered the second sentence. Combining the sentences might help. "Today there is no overall governing body for the Sydney metropolitan area. Local affairs for the metropolitan area are run by bodies known as local government areas (LGAs)." Today there is no overall governing body for the Sydney metropolitan area; instead, local affairs for the metropolitan area are run by bodies known as local government areas (LGAs).
  • Redundancy: "These areas all have elected councils and are responsible for a range of functions delegated to them by the New South Wales State Government."
  • Vague, better to provide a number and an inline citation to validate the number: "Because a large proportion of New South Wales' population lives in Sydney,"

I stopped after Economy: you're well on the way here, but this should give you an idea of the work needed to prepare for FAC. Sandy 23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next two sections are probably the ones that need the most work. Demographics is a mess, and Education could do with expanding. JPD (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want me to keep going? Sandy 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't complain if you do, but it probably isn't necessary. Education is simply a bit short, and the problem in Demographics is fairly obvious: the mainly unsourced list of "associations" between ethnic groups and suburbs, which could do with being replaced with sourced info on regional demographic variations in general. JPD (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your images are becoming a bit over-crowded in places. And the three large panoramic ones at the bottom are practically of the same thing from three different angles.--Konst.able 12:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry (MGM)

[edit]

This article seems pretty comprehensive to me and failed its fac nomination primarily due to the fact that it had not undergone a peer review. I've never nominated an article before, so I'm not exactly sure what to ask for, other than for comments on how any part of the article might be improved. -Orayzio 22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are the reasons why Tom chases Jerry OR? I mean, it seems fairly straightforward, but why is this list there? --198.185.18.207 14:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has two major problems: There are no inline citations, and there are far too many copyrighted fair-use images in the article. An article such as this should use no more than 3 or 4 copyrighted images. Each fair use rational must be unique, otherwise the fair use claim is significantly weakened. Both of these problems would prevent this article from achieving FA status. Kaldari 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No inline citations, problems with Fair Use images, section headings don't conform to WP:MOS. Review all of the criteria, and in particular the tips from other users at the bottom of WP:WIAFA, cite the article, and possibly reapproach peer review after you've done that work, before approaching FAC. Sandy 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper High School (Plano, Texas)

[edit]

Any suggestions for improvements would be great. --Longhornsg 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite good, in fact ... taking into consideration that this is about, basically, a run-of-the mill school. I'd just generally cut down on material that is not likely to be of interest to people not involved with the school, such as the "Notable Staff Events" section. Sandstein 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you've already seen the featured articles, Hopkins School and Plano Senior High School. Your article is nice; here are some ideas:

  • The prose in places is very choppy, with paragraphs that are only a sentence or two. You could try to expand choppy paragraphs, or merge the paragraphs into other content. There are quite a few areas that could be expanded to be more comprehensive. Sections about two particular teachers, who aren't really notable, aren't encyclopedic. (Remember what Wiki is not: WP:NOT).
  • "Interesting facts" is not encyclopedic: everything in Wiki should be an interesting fact.
  • Expand all of your refs to full bibliographic style so we can see where the info comes from without having to click on the links. Newspaper reports should include author (when there is one), title, paper, pub date, etc. If a lot of your references are to the school website, that raises a red flag: you should strive for independent sources to the extent possible. Don't show a lot of blue links: say what the source is with the most complete bibliographic info possible.
  • You have a section called "Other" with one sentence, and another, Gold Performance Acknowledgements, with one sentence. A better organization of your material will result in a cleaner Table of Contents and better flow in the prose.
  • Problems is another unencyclopedic section heading: aim for encyclopedic content, rather than a website feel. Problems and Additions can probably be eliminated as section sub-headings. All of the section sub-headings in Faculty can be eliminated.
  • History is brief.
  • Sections headings don't conform to WP:MOS.

In general, you have a very good start, but you can work on the organization which has resulted in short, stubby sections; expand some of the content; and remove content that isn't encyclopedic. Sandy 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - you might consider adding some images. Sandy 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Sandstein and Sandy said, a lot of the issues with the article relate to the "who cares?" factor. X computers and Y phone lines: who cares? I went to Jasper, so I know there is nothing so important about it to warrant an article this long. As the author of Plano Senior High School, I see major flaws with the importance of almost everything presented in this article on a global or even city scale. It is time for large sections of this article to face the chopping block in order to improve it. — Scm83x hook 'em 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 208

[edit]

One of the best articles that the New York State Routes WikiProject has to offer. Any and all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thanks in advance. --TMF T - C 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is two sentences long. Can that be expanded any? -Fsotrain09 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With a little research and work, I'm sure that it can be expanded (with things like the date that the route was commissioned, some notable reconstruction projects along the road, etc). Thanks for the comment. --TMF T - C 23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax protester constitutional arguments

[edit]

Would like to get this article ready for GA and then FA - please offer any suggestions that may help in this effort. Thanks Morphh (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Clay Shaw

[edit]

Any formatting, citation, NPOV help with this topic will be greatly appreciated. Ramsquire 19:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7:00AM-8:00AM (24 Season 5)

[edit]

This may be a strange article to peer review, since this is a episode article, but I want it to be GA-quality. Any thing I need to do(Which is probably alot)? --Jasonflare 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the lead is quite short but thats definetely is understandable. Things that would be good to include are: Why is it so good? (I'm sure if it won emmies notable tv critics made their opinion known), can you dig up any production information? (location of the set, who wrote it.. etc), Who received/took home the emmies? Does this episode hint at any historical occurance or a parody of something?
The above is intresting information to include but myself knowing the hardships of researching on google (unless you looking for a badly spelled information by a fan on geocities) I wish you good luck! - Tutmosis 23:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought of adding a 'critical reception' section before, but never got around doing it. Production infomation is a good tip too. --Twlighter 02:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hambly

[edit]

Rather than allow more edit warring, AND as I'm still learning, I'm asking for feedback and help in the recent edits. I understand I may be in error on my efforts, but I think I've made factual and proper good faith edits. I seem to have a problem with this user (WLU) owning every page she edits. Which may well be fine, but in asking several people on the IRC channel as well as a few Admin’s I was referred to this format to best deal with a "page owner". I'm seeking input that will help me be a better editor and to better understand the proper protocols and policies. Thanx --Mystar 04:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mystar has made incorrect edits, which I have corrected and provided justification for in the talk pages. I have pointed out where Mystar was incorrect and provided references and quotations to back up my edits. Mystar does not seem to read the actual links, which is why I have moved from just the link, to the actual quotations I am using to support my changes. I do not own the pages I edit, many people have edited pages I have altered as well. WLU 13:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the instructions (above): "Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment." Sandy 00:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncaria tomentosa

[edit]

I'm trying to follow proper protocols and procedure. I would like some additional outside input. I feel the edits were of good quality and well made, as well as factually and accurately stated. I eliminated information of no relevance "Iliana", and added content that speak to the encyclopedic nature of the plant as well as that of Wikipedia policy. I know a great deal abou tthis plant as I haev taken it for a long time and done a grate deal of reasearch on it and other simalar plants with healing powers.

Understand I'm still very new at this and have been in an edit war with this user. I wish to separate any conflict and improve my editing skills and knowledge. A user did weigh in with his thoughts, but as WLU seems to own each and every pages she edits it made no difference at all.

I seek input to the content to help me be a better editor.--Mystar 04:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat's Claw is classified as a liana, a woody vine. Mystar added plagiarised information which I removed and replaced with a more generalized geographic category, which I justified in the talk page. He does not seem to have done any research. He reverted edits in which I had added a scientific, peer-reviewed article, specifically a review article. WLU 13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the instructions above, "Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment." Sandy 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Series 2006-2007

[edit]

I need some advice on how to expand this article. Feel free to expand the article yourself. RockerballAustralia 03:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait until the event gets going or even finished for expansion. A current event will definetely bring on alot of constant edits and also I'm sure nothing is yet available except possibly notable predictions about the final outcome. Once the event is finished you would want the reader to know: scores obviously and who, when and where, media coverage, public reception, anything special that happened during this event, any controversies. All I can think of right now, good luck. - Tutmosis 13:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing is, what is it about? The article name doesn't tell you, and the first paragraph mentions "Rockerball" but it isn't linked - is this a sport, a game, the sponsor? The first thing to do would be to explain what the event is (ie. what game/sport, what league, what division). Is it a major event that even necessitates an article for each season? In it's present state it may be nominated for deletion. -- Chuq 04:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instructional design coordinator

[edit]

New article, still draft status. Please review grammar and spelling, as well as style and make any necessary corrections. If possible, organize text into sections properly, as the article is still somewhat unorganized. Also, please add any information as well as references you have. (Patrick 00:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Dick Cheney

[edit]

Give us feedback about what kind of expanding/adding and improving this article needs to become a featured article. If anyone can expand Dick Cheney#Plans for the future that would also be great too. Thanks. Aquafish talk 21:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you've finished everything else, expand the lead to a "brilliant and compelling" three-paragraph summary of the article. Currently, it's too short, and not enticing. See WP:LEAD.
  • Heading "Cheney and the draft": refer to WP:MOS about section headings. Could be just "Selective service". Again on MOS, 3. Early political career and 3.1 Early White House appointments - repetitious. Could be just White House appointments. Same problem at 7. and 7.2. Health section seems out of place. Plans for the future could be Future plans.
  • There are several short stubby one or two-sentence paragraphs, suggesting that the content has been added piecemeal. The prose may need to be organized into paragraphs with better flow.
  • Caption on launch of a destroyer could specify *which* destroyer, since that info is available for the image. Meeting in Saudi Arabia about Kuwait might have a month, year.
  • Mixed citations styles: convert all citations to cite:php. (Please remember that refs follow punctuation, per WP:FN.) All refs need to be converted to full bibliographic entries, rather than blue link URLs. Example:
  • Reliable sources: Is doctorzebra.com a reliable source? The Smoking Gun website? The article is massively undercited: make sure all facts are referenced. A lot of your references are to dead links: try to use more enduring sources. I added cite tags to one section only, as an example of the work needed throughout.
  • External links are not balanced, containing a preponderance of negative *editorial opinions* about Cheney. Is Source Watch a reliable source? External links overall seem to have anit-Cheney POV, need to attain balance, and needs to use only reliable sources. WP:EL and WP:RS.
  • Prose - picking a random sentence: Both supporters and opponents of Cheney point to his reputation as a very (say he is s) shrewd and knowledgeable politician who knows the functions and intricacies of the federal government. Opponents however accuse him of following (say he follows) policies that indirectly subsidize the oil industry and major campaign contributors, and hold (say) that Cheney strongly influenced the decision to use military force in Iraq. He is the leading proponent within the Bush administration of the right of the United States to use torture as part of the War on Terrorism and has been lobbying Congress to exempt the CIA from Senator John McCain's proposed anti-torture bill.[13][failed verification]
    • The cite is dead.
    • What supporters, what opponents, according to what sources? Many redundancies in the text. Statements should be clearly attributed.
  • I didn't look closely at any more of the text, as there are referencing problems throughout, and attribution for statements should be given.
  • Before approaching FAC, have a look at the tips given by different users at the bottom of WP:WIAFA. I suggest citing the article thoroughly, polishing the prose, and then reapproaching peer review. Sandy 00:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images kreep me out, it makes me feel like I'm looking at a campaign brochure. Are there no images of him that don't feature him kreepily grinning into the camera with the American flag in the background? Image:Richard Cheney 2005 official portrait.jpg, Image:Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney, official portrait.jpg, Image:Dick Cheney at the 2003 State of the Union.jpg, Image:Dick Cheney.jpg, brrr... I have not read through the whole thing in detail, but it seems to me that a lot of criticism is absent. For instance "human rights" is not mentioned once in the whole article, but with just a brief google search I see him proclaiming some nonsense like this here. There is barely any mention of his role in the second invasion of Iraq, and the mention of the Halliburton-related corruption incident is rather brief.--Konst.able 08:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b See footnote
  2. ^ a b c See footnote
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h See footnote
  4. ^ a b c d See footnote
  5. ^ See footnote
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m See footnote
  7. ^ a b c See footnote
  8. ^ a b c See footnote
  9. ^ a b c d e See footnote
  10. ^ a b c See footnote
  11. ^ a b c See footnote
  12. ^ See footnote
  13. ^ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Tortured_Policy.html

James Robert Baker

[edit]

I have spent about 3 weeks writing and editing this article, both offline and on, and can't think of anything else I can do to improve it.

Please let me know if it is sourced enough, and whether you think it needs to be expanded or clarified. I had considered discussing each of his novels (their plots, themes and critical reaction), but though perhaps that was overkill. I have the information, though, if you think the article needs to be expanded.Jeffpw 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that list of automated suggestions, Andy. I have implemented the ones that are relevent. It did tell me that the article was too short (I think it's 7kb of text), and asked if I could expand it. As I said earlier, I can also discuss his books one by one, but wondered if that was overkill (my feeling is that it probably is). It just seems rather pedantic to do that for an author who is not widely known, no matter how great his reputation is to those who have read him.

  • It also mentioned that I have no table of contents. Is that mandatory? To put in a table of contents, I would have to subdivide the text, and that would necessitate a substantial rewrite. I don't mind doing that, if necessary. I just don't want to go to that bother if the article in its present form is considered satisfactoryJeffpw 08:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it has now achieved GA status! Yippee! Can somebody have a look and suggest ways I can further improve it? I would really like to work on it and try for FA status. Thanks in advance. Jeffpw 20:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Scouts of the USA

[edit]

Take a look and see what would need to be done to make this an FA class article. Darthgriz98 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Peerreviewer script is an easy and clear indicator of some things that still need attention:

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
  • 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.[1]
  • 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.
  • 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.”
  • 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 2a. [2]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok wikilinks have been added, still a few more that can be taken care of. Copyedits, they can always be done, I've done most of the article a few times over. Darthgriz98 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/October_2006&oldid=192780541"