Wikipedia:Peer review/January 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, 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 (~~~~).

Ford Taurus

I submitted this article to become a featured article, and it failed. I fixed many of the problems that were brought up from there, and I am hoping for this article to get reviewed so I and my fellow wikipedians can edge it closer to becoming a featured article! --Karrmann

Two things jumped out at me during a quick skim (I'll go more in-depth when I have a moment); one is major and the other minor. If you're going to use POV phrases like "Not surprisingly, it actually turned out to be the exact opposite," you must explain to whom it's "not surprising" and include a citation therefor. Also, since the possessive is pronounced with an extra syllable (like the plural "Tauruses"), you add an "s" after the apostrophe: "Taurus's". (A lot of people miss this one; it depends how the word sounds without a plural or possessive. Example: "I went to Mr. Jones' house to see if the Taurus's starter was fixed.") Also, I fixed the spelling of "Continental" in the infobox. I'll do a more thorough read later. RadioKirk talk to me 03:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've made a couple of quick edits to start with: Encyclopedias don't say things like "note that"—they present facts. I've also given a new name to the first category (again, "beliefs" of whom isn't cited, and "beliefs" was misspelled, anyway [grin]). The article's structure is very good and easily readable, save for the occasional minor formatting problem and the need for spell-checking. The most important work to do will be either removing or citing statements that are POV. Good job otherwise; you're close! RadioKirk talk to me 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The image 1989 Ford Taurus is not very useful. Forever young 05:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Introduction" section: Spends too much time talking about Chrysler and not enough talking about the pre-release development of the Taurus, which is what the section should be about. The last paragraph is the only one that matters, but it needs to be re-written, to avoid phrases like "this was rejected for obvious reasons". Pc13 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "1986-1991" section: This phrase is incorrect: "The Taurus ultimately led to a design revolution that saw the end of the 'boxy' cars of the 1970s and 1980s". Ford had already started that "revolution" in 1982, in Europe, with the Ford Sierra, and less boxy cars were already becoming commonplace in Europe when the Taurus debuted. The comments can be kept, but needs to be more geographically localized. The engine paragraph needs to be trimmed down (too many "to"), by removing the SHO, which already has its own description two parapraphs below. Pc13 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "1992-1995" section: Needs an expansion. More about the chassis, maybe. But since this only appears to be a restyling and not a completely new model (was there any change in wheelbase dimensions?), it could become a subsection named "1992 redesign". Pc13 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "1996-1999" section: Not much to be done here. The phrase "was very impressive", about the SHO, needs to be re-written, to highlights differences between the V8 and the previous V6. And the controversial "Separation of the camshaft from its sprocket has been implicated in a growing number of catastrophic failures of this engine around the 50,000 mile mark" needs a proper source". Pc13 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "2000-2006" section: Too many repeated words at the beginning ("Also, also, also"). Uh, the Taurus doesn't have four wheel disc brakes? A car that size, with rear drum brakes? Needs more information about the cost-cutting, more likely in the standard/optional features (which should not talk about the brakes, these aren't features, they're tech spec info). Pc13 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "End" section: This phrase is irrelevant: "New 2006 models can still be found on eBay." And the "mixed sales success" section needs to be renamed "export models". The "awards" section can be removed and the information presented therein moved to the appropriate model sections. Pc13 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Henry James

Partial self-nom. This article has been building for a while. It managed to get through the good article process without many problems. I'd really appreciate feedback for further improvement. The main problem I see is the rather general nature of the article. Despite some references to individual works by James, the entry remains mostly an overview. The forty-some referenced articles do the heavy lifting in the analysis of each work. This may be unavoidable with James. He wrote so much discussable stuff in so many genres that the entry would get impossibly long if reasonable discussions of individual works were included. And if you get too brief with each work, you end up with something like Edel's oversimplified article in the Britannica. Oh well, have a look and please make suggestions. Thanks! Casey Abell 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I've taken a look through it. The prose is excellent, and I feel that it gives a good sense of who he was and what he did. I made a couple of minor wording changes, which are yours to keep or revert as you choose. Here are the suggestions I'd make for the rest, based in part on my developing experience on FAC:
    1. The lead needs to be a little longer. Something like two paragraphs might be in order.
    2. There are a few points where the language is a little too informal, such as the "(and very ineptly)" aside early on. Try to make it strictly encyclopedic--this would probably also include changing things like the "almost comically large" in the last paragraph.
    3. The section on his life seems sort of disjointed. It does a good job getting the facts across, but I don't know how well the order they're given in works. I've put together a possible reordering at User:Robth/sandbox; its not perfect, but I think something like that would probably be a little better.
    4. There are a few awkward or overly passive phrases, such as
      • "passages that defer the verb for a longer space than is usual"
      • "While not really one of them, James had grown up in a wealthy family and was able to observe them at close range and to sympathize with their problems."
      • "He was a man whose sexuality was indefinite..."
    5. A few of the technical terms are a little confusing. A short note on what it means that he was considered a realist probably wouldn't hurt. I was also confused by the "amanuensis" bit for a while, although I eventually understood it.
    6. And last but certainly not least, footnotes, sources, and value terms. This is the one big thing I wish I'd been better prepared with before taking my article to FAC. The references section is excellent and extensive, but there need to be more footnote citations. And although it took me a while to figure out what "weasel words" meant, I eventually got it. It refers to saying things like "it has been suggested" or "some scholars have said" without naming a source. Definitely have a footnote for those things, and avoid saying them if possible, since they're likely to draw criticism on FAC. In general, I'd try to cite wherever you're stating an analysis or opinion of his work, to make it clear that it isn't original research. Don't take it to the point that it interferes with the flow of the article, but some won't hurt.

All in all, excellent article. There's a little bit of work left to do, but its more mechanistic than stylistic, and the article should be ready before too long. Good work. --RobthTalk 07:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks for all the suggestions. I was starting to wonder if anybody was going to comment on the article. On each of your points:

  1. I added a second paragraph to the lead that expands on the variety and content of James' writings.
  2. Aw shucks, I chipped in both of those phrases to make things a little less dry. But I agree, they gotta go. Both are factual statements--James heartily agreed with the first in his autobiography--but I toned them down.
  3. I made the changes to the "Life" section you suggested: moving the sentence about his study of various literatures, combining the last two paragraphs, and a few other tweaks. It's still a pretty dry and functional section, but that's probably unavoidable. As James himself admitted, the facts of his life aren't very thrilling.
  4. I can plead not guilty to these passages. The third was the result of a long discussion, which is still on the article's Talk page. It's compromise wording on a controversial subject, so I'm a little afraid to tinker with it. I reworked the first two passages to try to make them more intelligible. Don't know if I succeeded.
  5. I put in a quick explanation of realism and noted the shift in James' fiction to more symbolic and metaphorical narrative in his later years. I also got rid of "amanuensis" (a clunker, no doubt) in favor of the much simpler "secretary."
  6. Yep, I know about the footnotes. I hate 'em myself--I think they're distracting, nitpicking, and almost always unnecessary. Web links are the way to go because they're so much easier and less intrusive for the reader, and the article already has plenty of them. To tell the truth, I didn't like adding the four footnotes that are already in there. I've rarely if ever seen footnotes in the print Britannica or other print encyclopedias. But I agree, some more footnotes will be demanded, so I'll add them over the next few days.

Again, thanks for the detailed and helpful suggestions. Casey Abell 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The footnote count is now up to twelve, and some of them are more than simple cites. If reviewers note a particular passage that might deserve another footnote, I'll consider it. But I think we've already got too many of the little critters (wink). Casey Abell 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fear of FAC has pushed the footnote count to twenty sometimes extensive notes. In fact, the "Notes" section has become one of the major parts of the article, much to my dismay. Oh well, if I gotta do it... Casey Abell 00:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked through it, and I think you've done a good job with them. As far as readability, I don't think they're hurting you--when I read an article for pleasure I usually just read the text and ignore the footnotes, and I suspect most other readers do the same. --RobthTalk 01:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Counties of Lithuania

Please let me know if you see a way to improve it. Should it be renamed List of counties of Lithuania? Is the lead confusing? Are pronunciation samples helpful? I would appreciate any comments as I hope to make it a featured list. Renata3 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would rename as "List...." to match conventions for this sort of article. —James S. 04:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics

This is my first attempt at creating a featured article, so I'd appreciate general feedback. Andjam 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the sections are way too short and need expanding -- Astrokey44|talk 14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've expanded some of the sections. Thanks, Andjam 22:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tooth development

I would like to improve this article to the quality of a featured article. This was first a stub linked from the now featured article tooth enamel but remained very much a stub for a while. Wikipedia has very few articles on dental topics generally (and very very few of high quality). Thus, the more high-quality dental articles on wikipedia, the merrier! -Dozenist talk 04:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The article is really well done, but like the tooth enamel article initially, it doesn't mention tooth development in other species. There are some really interesting variations on tooth develpment in the animal kingdom. So I'd add some detail or move the article to Human tooth development.
On the technical side, if you want to shorten the notes list, you can link multiple instances of the same note using a template, you can see it in use on Canberra.--nixie 05:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the note list, would it be a problem that I have listed the page numbers to many of the references and many of them are different? If so, then I would think it may be a good idea to keep the notes listed separately so that the pages are listed (the books are pretty big books). If not, then that sounds like a great idea.
You can see how the first citation, with multiple page references, was done in Gettysburg_Address#Notes. (SEWilco 06:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
Concerning tooth development in different animals, that information is going to be a little more difficult for me to find, as opposed to the broader topic of enamel in animals, but let me see what I can find before giving up and moving the article. -Dozenist talk 13:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Since human and animal tooth development is generally very similar, this article will really describe tooth development for both (with the focus obviously on humans). Nonetheless, I put a little section in the article and a link to an article focusing on variations/differences in animal tooth development. For now, I think I'm going to keep the notes the way they are because the footnotes in the article are labeled by the subject matter and page number. That way, if I ever need to look up a reference in the book, or if someone wants to verify it, we will all be able to see the exact idea I was referring to and the page number used in the book. -Dozenist talk 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
A search for odontogenesis should bring this article up.
maybe tooth development in humans and certain animals is similar (not that I say certain), but more is known about tooth development in animals than in humans. Tummers 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Panama Canal

This article has been substantially expanded and mostly re-written since its previous attempt at FA status. I believe that all the issues raised in the previous FAC have been dealt with. I think it's now pretty much ready for FAC, and I'd like to have some input as to what remains to be done to get it there. Thanks in advance... — Johantheghost 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Issues still remain such as the presence of list material and ugly subsections. Manual of style for units ( ) not followed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking at it, but can you clarify what you mean please? What do you mean by "presence of list material"? Obviously there are lists, but the MoS allows that. And what do you mean by "ugly subsections" specifically? I'll bring the units in line with MoS as per your comment. — Johantheghost 13:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        1. You've used a lot of bulleted text. It will need to be rewritten into prose.
        2. Each section needs to have about two paragraphs. Some sections such as the lake is a bit short of material. =The future= needs to be merged with History.
        3. Linking to the Panama Canal Authority (ACP). site inline is considered bad style. Wikify it instead and create a new article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. I'm sorry, where does it say I can't use lists? There are 3 lists in the article, which is not what I would consider "a lot", and in each case the lists are genuinely describing list-type information. The layout of the canal could be made into prose, but I think is far clearer as a list of stages; the list of crossings and the list of improvements are obviously lists, and making them into prose would be a mess.
  2. "Each section needs to have about two paragraphs" — can you show me that rule in the MoS? In fact, the MoS itself has lots of one-paragraph sections. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, depending on context; eg. Alajuela Lake is clearly one of a series of sections, which in general clearly deserve to be sections. Yes, the bit on Alajuela Lake could be longer, but I don't really know what else there is to say. As for merging The Future with History, I really have trouble seeing your logic here. The sequence "History" - "Current Issues" - "Future" makes a lot of sense to me, and they clearly deserve to be separate sections.
  3. "Wikify it"? What new article? You mean an article about the ACP? Actually, the manual of style specifically says "A link going straight to the target is preferred over a link relying on a redirect.", and shows an example equivalent to what I've done (see WP:MOS-L). Since this is not a reference about the entity under discussion, but a link to the entity under discussion, I believe this is the appropriate style for this situation. — Johantheghost 14:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the spaces before units. — Johantheghost 14:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You needn't get so defensive over the comments. :) It is generally accepted that the article should be mostly prose, and if it is possible to convert lists to prose then it should be done. Other than the last list, I think the first two can easily be converted to prose. The MoS in question actually talks about the =External links= section. As I've said, having the link inline is considered bad style, it disrupts the print and aural rendering of the text. You've given valid reasons for the rest, so I won't press on, though ideally the =Future= section is really an extension of the history. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I sound defensive, but I'm struggling to understand your points here. The article is mostly prose, and I just can't see how I can rewrite the Layout as prose -- keeping all the distances, heights, etc. -- without it being an unreadable mess. Want to have a try? But as it stands, I think it's a lot more useful to anyone who wants to extract information from that list -- eg. how many miles of man-made channel are there, how many miles in fresh water, etc.
  • "The MoS in question actually talks about the =External links= section" -- no, I was quoting the "Internal Links" section -- look down towards the end of that section. But I didn't know about external links disrupting the aural rendering -- what is the problem with that? How is it different from Wikilinks? Does WP:MOS-L need changing?
  • It's true that Future is really an extension of History, but so is Current Issues, so they could all be merged into one huge section. But it's better to break things up, isn't it? Actually, the Future section as it stands is much more an extension of Current Issues than it is of the History section. — Johantheghost 12:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Why dont you give prosifying a shot? I can do it, but I don't have much time on my hands these days. As for the aural rendering, its to do with inline text linking, not at the =external links= section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I did; it looked like a horrible mass of figures, so I didn't even bother committing it. Re "=external links= section", what I actually said was "I was quoting the Internal Links section" of WP:MOS-L -- please refer to my earlier comment. If you can let me know what the actual problem is, I'll see about fixing it. — Johantheghost 14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the inline links recommended in WP:MOS-L is that in the printer-friendly and aural versions of the page, the URL is rendered inline, which — particularly for aural rendering — disrupts the flow of the text to an unacceptable degree. I've therefore created the Panama Canal Authority article and linked to it, as recommended by Nichalp. — Johantheghost 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

BBC World

I was hoping that following the amount of time and effort put in since the last peer review of the BBC World article, that new ideas and suggestions could be put forward. THank you to all participants. Wikiwoohoo 19:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous review from December 2005

This article seems to be coming along nicely, but it would be great for other users to help out and point out what is missing and/or needs improving. Thanks.Wikiwoohoo 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments:

  1. Where is the History section? Expand the History section into good long paragraphs.
  2. Sectioning is confusing and illogical - no need for 'Censorships' subsection - It should follow a convention such as History -> Programmes -> Criticism -> Influence -> See also -> References -> External links , or something along those lines. - This still needs work.
  3. Needs a references section, what sources were used to write the info in the article?The references are disappointing.
  4. How is it different to the BBC News, BBC One, BBC Two and BBC Three channels? - This still needs to be mentioned.
  5. Missing pictures of a broadcast (the studio, a presenter, etc)
  6. Is it worth mentioning any notable presenters, news readers, etc who have been on BBC World?
  7. Does BBC World work both in Television and in Radio and the Internet? Accessibility should be mentioned, with methods of viewing it
  8. Explaining how it is available would be useful with lots of detail
  9. The language in the 'Newsworthiness, bias and propaganda' section is terrible.
  10. I suggest you rename the section 'Newsworthiness, bias and propaganda' to 'Criticism' or 'Concerns'
  11. An infobox like the one at BBC Radio Five Live could be a nice addition
  12. 'Programming' section could be expanded, its currently lacking info
  13. The lead needs improving to two concise and summarized paragraphs rather than choppy short sentences - Still needs to be done.
  14. I found quite a bit of info on [1] that isn't in the wikipedia article
  15. You need to turn the inline html references into footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnote.
  16. The images are all fair use, so they need fair use rationales to along with them.

Has lots of potential. — Wackymacs 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Has it got any digital television options accessible with the famous red button? - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Reputation and Criticisms" section is a little rocky. The second sentence wanders, and in the third sentence, it would make things clearer to mention that the hoaxer was from The Yes Men and pretending to be from Dow Chemical. Finally, the end of the "censorships" section is unsatisfying. How are the details unclear? Why are they unclear? If you can't find any more information than what's stated, it might be preferable to end the sentence after the word Pakistan. Katsam

Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy

Lloyd Bentsen's famous retort and one of my favorite moments in political history. Read my lips: this will never become an FA, but I wanna make it as good as I possibly can. ;)

Am I missing anything of any importance? As much as I love it, I don't really know everything about that political climate (I was 10 when this happened). I'm No Parking and I approved this message 03:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think some context would be nice. Poll figures before and after, for example. An explnation of the effect of the quote on the campaigns (obviously it didn't help too much, because he lost). References (where did the trascript come from?) would be nice. Broken S 04:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The External link is right there above the Transcript next to the link to Commission on Presidential Debates I'm No Parking and I approved this message 04:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant make it footnote style (but in retrospect that's not necessary). Also, I meant more references, not just the one. What day was the quote said on?, that should be included. Broken S 05:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I take it that a picture of Quayle with the caption "No Jack Kennedy" would be POV or inappropriate, right? I'm No Parking and I approved this message
    a picture of him would be fine. That quote is a bit too much. Somthing mentionign the quote in the caption would be alright though. Optimally a picture from the debate should be used. Broken S 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In the Popular Culture section, you probably want to change "George W. Bush" to "George H. W. Bush", because your citation is about the 1992 Presidential election. Jlove1982 05:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As someone who remembers the event I find the article delightful. I'm not certain this provides enough context for people who didn't observe its effect. Vice presidential nominations seldom make more than a couple of percentage points of difference in the polls. This exchange was the most memorable moment from a vice presidential debate in two or three decades. Although it incensed some conservatives, I seem to remember widespread public agreement that Bentsen had won the debate. Durova 10:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Any polling data available before and after the debate to back this up? It could be very useful. Or an old opinion piece in a major newspaper? This is probably a stretch, but worth a look. Harro5 07:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, why don't you think this can become a FA? Broken S 20:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, I'm dense. I Wasn't think about the quote. Broken S 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • More context on the campaign and the aftermath would be helpful. . .especially the reasons for Quayle's selection as VP. I think the idea for the Bush campaign was to have a younger candidate balancing with the older Bush. But it backfired and Quayle was perceived as a political lightweight. This quote cemented that image in the public mind. There was pressure for Bush to find a new running mate in the 1992 campaign, and Qualye has never been able to re-emerge as a serious national candidate. TMS63112 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians

If this is the wrong place to do this, please help me out by removing my text to the righ place. I have just noticed that a user called User:Parav has made massive changes to dozens of wiki pages relating to Saint Thomas Christians. Now as far as i know Saint Thomas Christians were stranded pockets of Christians in and around India thought to have been established by Saint Thomas. They belonged to the Assyrian Church of the east and abroad until some adopted miaphysite beliefs in response ot Romanisation during the Goa inquisitions. Parav seems to be trying to change appelations to suit his/her own Church of the East & Abroad agenda. Anyway it seems Parav is a sockpuppet and that there are numerous other people working on the same area, not being an admin I cannot see if they are all sharing the same IP or not, but I suspect many of them are. If anyone can help keep an eye on it all that would be great.Budo 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Try "pages needing attention", as mentioned at the top of this page. Otherwise, all I can suggest is that if you believe your text was correct and you have the solid references to back it up, be persistent. Add the page to your watch list. Mention the dispute on the talk page. Try to cover the topic with multiple, neutral points of view, so as to be inclusive. Thanks. — RJH 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Streetlight Manifesto

previous PR

Basketball

This article has come a long way since its beginning - a fair resemblance of the path to a featured article (though not exact) - and I reckon it could be looking at FA candidacy some time. There are some minor touch-ups that I can't do (namely, sourcing of the history section, and an image with player positions indicated) but I think it could have a go, and I wanted to see what everyone else thought. Neonumbers 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Needs a much longer lead (one or two paragraphs long that summarize the entire article concisely, see WP:Lead). Needs more references and possibly footnotes for some inline citations (see Wikipedia:Footnote). A color photo for the top would be good instead of a black and white one. Looking good so far, has potential as a featured article candidate. — Wackymacs 13:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool, I'll see what I can do (some time later tonight); of course anyone's invited to help. Neonumbers 22:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've expanded the lead section; come take a look at it. (The article is in danger of oversize again... as long as it doesn't grow more it should be fine.) Neonumbers 08:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I would put the rules first after the introduction and try to make them super-simple for people (say, Pakistanis) who are new to the sport. See the American football article for an attempt to do this. -- Mwalcoff 00:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I could try, but this will be a very difficult task. Basketball's nature is not simple, and the current rules section is already very simplified. (In fact, I have on many occasions simplified and in some cases even reverted changes to that section, which added more detail than I considered necessary, and also put comments at the top of each rules sub-section to discourage people from adding over-detailed information.) Without defending the article, I would put the history section first; I think that is more appropriate. However, this gives me an idea: to put basic ideas (of rules) into the lead paragraph. Thanks for your comment, very much appreciated. Neonumbers 07:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Scotch College, Perth

  • Scotch College, Perth recently was a FA candidate and failed. I would like to see this article be FAed, so I have come here to fix the final problems. This article has been Peer reviewed before ((earlier review)). I have addressed these issues. Here is the FA page - FA candidate.
  • Any Suggestions on anything would be most helpful. Thanks --HamedogTalk|@ 08:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    I would recommend the following:
    1. Throughout the "history" section, you mention loads of statistics (mostly money), these all need sourcing. done --HamedogTalk|@ 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    2. "The project consists of researching the topic, producing the article and doing a maximum 5000 word write up on the project. The project is marked from 1 - 7 with 2 being a pass mark." - is this really necessary?--HamedogTalk|@ 08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      I think it is, as there is very little information on it here --HamedogTalk|@ 04:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      It seems not really of interest to the readers of the page. I would strongly recommend it's removal. --Celestianpower háblame 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      Removed --HamedogTalk|@ 12:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    3. The "middle school structure" section could do with many more wikilinks.
      I have put some more in, is that enough?--HamedogTalk|@ 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      Yes. --Celestianpower háblame 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    4. One paragraph sections are bad: merge or expand them ("Novell computer system" and "Moray")DONE
    5. Just list the sports like: "The students can play basketball, football, rugby..." rather than in a formatted list.DONE
    6. Ditto the music section.DONE--HamedogTalk|@ 06:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Having said this, overall, it's a pretty good article. --Celestianpower háblame 14:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Any other suggestions? --HamedogTalk|@ 06:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also say that the subheading "ties" is unnecessary. My general rule is that if there is only one subsection in a section, it should be merged. --Celestianpower háblame 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Done

Any other suggestions? --HamedogTalk|@ 11:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

      • Any other suggestions at all, any one?--HamedogTalk|@ 13:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne

One of the world's greatest cities (twice voted World's Most Liveable City), and a very comprehensive article. Covers most areas I can think of, and I'm hoping to hear some thoughts on what others think. Thanks. Harro5 23:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • First, it needs references. Secondly, the smaller sections need expand. Other than that, the groundwork is basically set. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From a quick glance I agree with Mailer above. Here are some comments on hurdles you might hit if going up for FAC:
    • It needs to be properly referenced with extensive footnotes (this seems to have become a requirement at FAC).
    • Some of the sections are too short. Culprits include Geography, Education, Transport, Landmarks and tourist information and Media. Some of these seem to have taken the summary style to the extreme, and are now way too short. For example, why do Melbourne's Trams only deserve half a sentence while subjects like popular music get three paragraphs. The Education section seems to be a list of universities.
    • The layout of the Melbourne population by year data is confusing. Could this be made into a graph or formatted in a table or something to make it more clear?
    • Third level headings in Sport should be avoided if possible.
    • The Second level headings in People are probably redundant.
    • External links in the article should be moved to External links or Notes.
    • Several one sentence paragraphs in Melbourne in culture
I will read through the prose and see if I pick up anything else. --Martyman-(talk) 03:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there should be something about the bay and it's uses: Sailing, Fishing, Swimming, Sunbaking, Jogging around, Skating around, Surfing? I also recall bayside festivals, markets, performers and a massive kitesurfing community --Metta Bubble 07:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps something on the native birdlife too. Or is that just in the gardens? --Metta Bubble 07:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As well as some paragraphs being short as mentioned above, I really don't like the new infobox. The whole article is clearly talking about the whole metropolitan area, so it is inappropriate to include the City of Melbourne local government area info in the infobox. JPD (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Try and model the structure, i.e. the section headings and section length, of the article on Ann Arbor, Michigan, Canberra or any of the recently featured cities. Ideally this article would borrow a lot from Canberra where appropriate, mirroring the level of detail in the deographics, education and culture, since they are both Australian cities. I also agree with JPD, the infobox is not appropriate for the article since it mixes non-applicable city council information with metropolitan details, that is why we made the Aus-city box which appears on Canberra. There is no excuse for lists in this kind of article- tunr them to prose, or ask someone to make a graph of data. References are very important for any statistcs quoted, use a reputable source like the ABS.--nixie 10:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the infobox. Uniformity amoung Australian city infoboxes would be a good thing. Also the City council info is not relavent to the majority of Melbourne. --Martyman-(talk) 06:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
A mayor field, however, wouldn't go astray; it would apply to most cities apart from Canberra. Ambi 08:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Is the mayor of most cities the mayor of the greater city area or just the central "city" area? This could probably be implemented as an optional fiel din the standard template. --Martyman-(talk) 09:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Either way, they're usually important across the whole area. Optional field sounds good to me. Ambi 09:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have figured out how to implement optional parameters in {{Infobox Australian City}} maybe we could generate some discussion an develop it into a template that will suit everyone? --Martyman-(talk) 11:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Make sure we keep it to talk until we're ready to make the chnges, or terrible things will happen. --bainer (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, no. That is the whole point, optional field make no differnce to existing implementaitons of a template. The Mayor field is already active and the daylight savings field is now optional as well. --Martyman-(talk) 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Vincentshia added a huge amount of photos, each with varying states of copyright, to the article, and I have since removed most of them. I'd like to hear thoughts about whether others agree that the image has enough or too few images. Harro5 20:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Harro, I completely agree with your culling of the majority of Vincentshia's photos as they were not all particularly relevent to Melbourne itself, and I do agree that there were perhaps too many photos, but I think you've overculled them and some good photos were lost, while lower quality photos were retained. We don't have a single good 'representative' photo of 'Melbourne' left on the article. We have a panorama (mine, actually) which is demonstrative of the Yarra in relation to Southbank and the CBD, and we have a view from the Rialto Towers, but no 'typical' view as of your last edit[2]. Also, I don't think the image of Parliament is worthy as it relates more so to the state of Victoria than Melbourne, and is a poorly framed photo. I'm going to re-add a few as I think there is still room for some well-placed, well-selected images. Regardless, it is good to see a bit of a shake-up there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The Parliament photo could probably go, and I agree with what you are saying. There was one night-time view of the city from the Rialto (here), but in my view it's pretty blurry and could be any city around the world. I love the photo looking up the Yarra, and the CBD from the Rialto, but prehaps this could be re-added. My only problem with this is that all the images seem to be different views of the same buildings. I'd be interested to hear more thoughts. Harro5 22:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I agree with some of what you said about the night-time shot from the Rialto - it is a little blurry when viewed at 100% res, but I can recognise certain features in it. I guess the thing is that it might be so useful for someone who is looking at Melbourne for the first time. :) In any case, I've linked that image to the Melbourne Docklands article, since it is somewhat more relevent and interesting in there. As for all the images being different views of the same buildings, well, you're correct to an extent.. It is the CBD, so of course you're going to see the same buildings - however, due to the slopes of the land and due to the fact that most of the skyscrapers are centred around the north and south ends of Bourke and Collins streets, with a shopping district in the middle, certain buildings are completely hidden in some views and not in others. We used to have a lot more varied photos of Melbourne transport (taxis, trams, and trams) and landmarks... Where have they all gone? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I think the article could do with more images, especially if some of the overly short sections are expanded. For example the sport section could do with an illustration, maybe the MCG or some other venue. Education could support an image too, maybe a nice one of Melbourne Uni. --Martyman-(talk) 23:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I went back to a version of the page from September, which had some different images. What about the city Coat of Arms somewhere? This is standard in US city articles. PD image of trains here (Image:Hitxtrapfss.jpg), and GNU pic of transport here (Image:Melbourne transport.jpg). Great GNU Shrine pic here (Image:Melbourne war memorial.jpg). What about using those in the article, or a few of them? Harro5 23:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
            • The problem with the Melbourne Coat of Arms is that it relates to the City of Melbourne, which covers only the CBD and parts of neighbouring suburbs, as opposed to Greater Melbourne, which is what the main article is. I really like the shrine pic and I'm surprised Fir002 never included it for the shrine article (which I have edited recently and likewise removed a large number of redundant photos, including some of his), as it is probably his best image. I'd include that shrine image. I don't particularly like the photo of the taxis and trams although it is a nice idea to try to include both. Its just the photo itself that sucks, basically. :) Sorry, I'm picky with photos. The image of the trains at flinders st isn't bad though, until someone can provide a better one, anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it confusing that "Melbourne In Culture" appears in the "Culture" section. Let's try something like:
    • Arts -- change to --> Performing Arts
    • Melbourne In Culture -- change to --> Visual Arts
Or something along those lines. Maybe even add a Film & Television section. If you read the content in those sections you'll see what I mean. Peace. Metta Bubble 03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Vaslui

I nominated Battle of Vaslui for FA (self-nom) in October, but back then, the article lacked many things: no battle map, no image of the battle, few references, and the info was not well expanded. I've now fixed all of those things, with the help of others, and I think the article looks good. I have many references, but only one is in English; but it's still good, I think. I would like to receive some feedback on what else could be added to the article, and, if it stands a chance for being chosen as FA. Thanks. --Anittas 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The references are there, but needs to be organised in accordance to MoS. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. Avoid presenting the images in the form of a gallery (it make one think that this is Commons), try and display in the 'regular' format as any other encyclopedic articles. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cancer

This is a subject that every Wikipedia reader has been in touch with in some way or another. It is a frightening condition, and there is a lot of disinformation about it. This article has been edited into shape over the last few months and has now reached a stage where all the major points have been covered. There is a lot to say about cancers, but most of this should be on individual subpages, because cancer is not actually one disease but a group of diseases with pathogenetic similarities. I've got some specific points for this peer review request:

  • Do we need more sources than the present ones? If so, what source could possibly cover this apart from whole textbooks? What textbooks would be suitable to quote?
  • Are there any points that should be addressed in more (or less) detail?
  • What will be needed to make this a featured article? JFW | T@lk 21:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments:

  1. I think there are too many subsections, try merging some of these subsections into the larger main sections if possible.
  2. Turn any lists into prose.
  3. More inline citations needed.
  4. Cancer research section poorly summarizes the separate cancer research article.

— Wackymacs 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There's little one can do about the subsections, which are needed IMHO. Same goes for the lists - I can think of only one that would benefit from prosaification. What do you mean by "inline citations"? JFW | T@lk 03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Inline citations = footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. If you want to get this article featured, people will highlight on the FAC that there are lists and too many sections. (which is why I mentioned them)— Wackymacs 09:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The number of citations will definitely be an issue on FAC. The references section should, among other things, help point readers to authoritative references. What are the "standard textbooks" about cancer? What would you expect to see used in a medical school class? What books would you expect every oncologist to be familiar with?
Specific footnotes will probably be requested for most/all of the research-supported facts in the article; for example, the "Coping with cancer" section mentions that "studies show that having someone to talk to reduces stress...". In a case like this, where you're summarizing multiple studies, the most useful reference would be to a secondary source (a textbook that makes the same statement with a lot of individual references, or a summary paper), rather than to a single study showing this result.
To repeat one of my earlier Talk page comments, I still don't feel that this article does a good job of clarifying why cancer is fatal. This is one of the biggest aspects of the disease.
One of my most common FAC complaints is that an article does not provide enough background material or context. I think that this article would be somewhat difficult for a non-medically-educated reader to read from beginning to end without detouring to another article. It often uses medical jargon in contexts that don't illuminate the terms, relying on wikilinks to provide meaning. However, this article is very comprehensive and informative, and is a very good reference. And frankly, I expect that many of the people who find this article most useful will, unfortunately, already know much of the basic information. So I wouldn't object to the article on these grounds. -- Creidieki 20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Textbook to quote A standard reference is Holland Frei CANCER MEDICINE 6. Most of it is also available online through the NLM books program, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=cmed6.TOC

More comments to come. Jpbrody 19:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a very comprehensive article. Disclaimer: I contributed to it substantially about a year ago. Kudos to those have kept the crackpot cancer stuff out of here. Rereading it now, I see one gap. This covers human cancers comprehensively. There is one comment about cancers in birds and how it is very different. It raises the question: what about cancers in other animals/organisms? Jpbrody 20:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
There should be a seperate article about cancer in animals. While there are numerous animal models, little is known about the ideal diagnostic and therapeutic management in animals. Do you give chemo to birds? JFW | T@lk 10:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, good detailed article. It just needs some fine-tuning and it will be ready for FAC. Here are some comments...
    • "Adult cancers" may benefit with two parallel tables with the type of cancer and incidence/proportion in pop (one table for men, one for women). Try experimenting to see what it might look like. This could possibly eliminate the subsections "Adult cancers" and "Childhood cancers". This section on "Types of cancer" may benefit from an explanation of what the difference is between brain, prostate, etc, cancers (are they the same but just named after where the tumor was found?)
    • Wikilink "p53" in "Causes and pathophysiology" sooner.
    • The sub-section "Origins of cancer" probably isn't required and can just serve as the introduction to the "Causes and pathophysiology" super-section. Same with the first paragraph of "Molecular biology" sub-seciton.
    • Probably shouldn't mention "Quackwatch" directly in the article. Just say there are different viewpoints about alternative treatments and keep Quackwatch in the footnotes.
    • Please reference:
      • "such testing has been followed by a dramatic reduction of cervical cancer..."
      • "...self-examination is recommended ..."
      • "...recently been criticisms that breast screening programs in some countries ..."
      • "While some people are reluctant to seek counseling, studies show that "
      • "Once referred to as "the C-word,""
    • For the statement "...cancer is presently responsible for about 25% of all deaths..." the references says 22.8% (second to heart disease) and was the "0.5% of the population " calculated from there, too?
    • "In some Western countries, such as the USA[1] and the UK[4], cancer is overtaking cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of death." This seems a little misleading. Please explain this a little further...for example, cancer is the #2 cause of death...rates are growing while heart disease rates are shrinking...because of better medicines, healthier foods, etc...
    • I heard almonds cure cancer.

Finally, a general comment: while it is not a FA requirement, this article could benefit greatly from the overuse of footnotes. There are certainly many sources to draw from. I think it would be great to see a footnote in each section to a study or resource that details the subject in more depth. This could be especially useful in such sections as "Chemotherapy", "Immunotherapy", "Cancer vaccines", "Types of cancer", etc. It might be able to beat Hugo Chavez#Notes's 80 footnotes. Also, for the section "Environment and diet", and especially "Cancer research", there really should be many more references to studies related to Environment and diet, and the development of Cancer research (or historic/groundbreaking studies). --maclean25 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Very good, but it appears that this is suffering from systemic bias. The section on Adult cancers only deals with U.S. statistics. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Further, the classification section is good, but it is very technical. Can we summarise what each of those terms mean? It's quite confusing to me... I think we need to keep an audience that doesn't have a medical background in mind here, sort of like what was done with Pneumonia. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
wikification

There was a complaint about wikification. That has been fixed. Earlier, an anon contributor, nevertheless knowledgeable about oncology but less so for Wikipedia overwrote wikified text with non-wikified text. The issue has now been resolved. -- Natalinasmpf 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of textbooks with reasonably detailed molecular biology sections on cancer are "Molecular Cell Biology - Lodish, Berk, Matsudaira, Kaiser, Krieger, Scott, Zipursky, Darnell" and "Genes VIII - Lewin" --Sinkingpie 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

History of saffron

Saffron was 90 kb when it became featured several days ago. To yield a more manageable size, I split up that article and created History of saffron last week. It'd be nice to get this featured as well. Any comments will be appreciated and answered. Saravask 22:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl

I'm not trying to stack Peer Review with Gwen's voice, but I think that this article near featured states. It has also been through peer review before. I'd like suggestions on how to inprove it. Any comments? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A few points raised during FAC, rounds one and two, include the following:
  • no significant analysis of the actual music—at present, a reader can't even tell if the song has an instrumental bridge;
New music section, but brief as of now. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
  • speculation not supported by sources, or at least writing that sounds like original research, e.g., the lyrics "that could seem to be directed at [Courtney] Love" and the Highlander reference;
Commented out pending further research. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
The Highlander reference is probably speculation, and probably incorrect; if Gwen meant it as a nod she'd probably get the quote right, which is consistently "There can be only one," in the movie, not "There can only be one." If the material about Courtney Love (both her statement about Gwen and Gwen's more vague statement) can be properly referenced I think it would add to the article, though. - Dharmabum420 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • claims that the song is known for its use of a particular expletive, but doesn't provide a source;
Replaced with neutral statements giving the number of times the word is used. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
  • generally clunky and non-compelling prose (passive voice where such is not necessary, etc.).
Some changes currently. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
The first paragraph is clunky because every sentence except the first starts with "The". -- Mpt 13:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The models to follow for the first point seem to be "Layla" and "A Hard Day's Night". It may be difficult to find source material of that caliber for this particular song; in fact, good sources might not exist on the Web. My own opinion (one I think others share) is that this is not an excuse to slack off and stop researching. The best articles incorporate material which the rest of the Internet could not provide. Anville 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The article does not require another peer review! It is one of the best on Wikipedia! --Winnermario 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Realmz

I created this article a few days ago (I'm the only editor so far) and I've been adding quite a few things to it since. I want to get it featured soon, has anyone got any suggestions? — Wackymacs 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. A Microsoft Windows-compatible version was also developed. A sequel titled New Centurions was released. The two sentences tie together very poorly. I merged them.
  2. A screenshot of the Game cover would be nice.
  3. The media, system requirements, and input sections of the gamebox should all be easy to fill in.
  4. A specific release date perhaps. GameFaqs say the game was released in 1993. I tend to trust GameFaqs more, so are you sure aboutt he 1994 release?
  5. Gamespy say the game has a rating of Rating Pending. Perhaps that could be added?
  6. In the Story section, it says In the game the player is a group of adventurers...shouldn't it be The player takes control of a group of adventurers? The former sounds very confusing.
  7. I believe the Image license tages should {{Game-screenshot}}, as the game was also released for Windows, not Just Mac.

That's what comes to mind right now....«LordViD» 18:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A game cover does not exist, this game was distributed through the Internet, magazine disks and CD-ROMs and you ordered the game directly from Fantasoft, LLC back when they sold it. I am inclined to keep the release date as 1994 as the Realmz manual is copyrighted from 1994 (and was written by the developer, Tim Philips), the game itself is also copyrighted from 1994 throughout. I've added extra info to the infobox at your request. I don't see any point in entering the Rating when it hasn't got one (maybe put 'n/a' instead?). I have retagged the images and added fair use rationales to them as well, just to be sure. I've slightly changed the wording in the 'Story' section. Thanks for your comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ha, I remember playing this game years ago. Um, let's see...

  1. Clarify that the "Story" section only deals with one of the official scenarios. Since there are actually several available scenarios in the registered version, maybe they should all be given concise descriptions.
  2. There needs to be mention of the different aspects of character creation, especially race and class, that are available in Realmz. As it stands these are only briefly mentioned in the Character editor section.

I personally think the article is far too short to be featured. Perhaps the Gameplay section should be split up into sections; for example, exploration, quests, and battle, which itself would have subsections on things like combat movement and spells.

Like I said, it's been a long, long time since I've played Realmz, but hopefully that all makes sense. Rampart 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

With a complete "has no idea what realmz is" view, the article needs serious beefing up. It is way too short. Other than that, pretty good. Spawn Man 03:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments, I'm going to add more details to the gameplay section and add separate 'Races' and 'Character' sections, a 'Spells' section might be due as well. — Wackymacs 07:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I remember this game, and even played a couple of scenarios. It seemed to be a response to the low number of ports of the old gold box games. It was entertaining for a little while. :) — RJH 23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hammer Film Productions

The article has grown quite a lot recently. We'd appreciate any wider feedback on how to improve it further. I know the article is quite weak on Hammer's non-horror related films, and I'd particularly like some advice on the notes. When I expanded the article I made sure to note the source of each fact. I figured that too much info was better than too little when citing sources. - Motor (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not bad, but there are a lot of red links. Another concern is the number of orphan words, too many words are left in their own sentence at the end of paragraphs — I suggest a copy-edit. More pictures would be nice. Looking good so far. — Wackymacs 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Rapping

This article covers the topic completely. It is well written, accurate, sourced, and readable. I would like to recieve more feedback before I nominate it as an FA candidate.

  1. Old peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapping/archive2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubdub (talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I started off the last peer review, and I'll start off this one also.
  • See also First FAC
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • I think "History" can still be made more comprehensive
It seems as though all of your concerns have been addressed, except perhaps adding to the history section. What would you want added there?--Urthogie 10:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The external links section describes the BBC page as a wiki. Is this accurate? Tim Ivorson 2006-05-28

The flow section has a link labelled "prosody", which points to a disambiguation page. I don't know which of the, presumably related, meanings of prosody is intended, but one of them is meter (poetry), which is linked from the next paragraph. If they both mean the same thing, only one of them needs to be a link, according to WP:MOS-L#Internal links.

In the same section, it would be nice to expand the discussion of metre. The article mentions Run-DMC as employing trochaic pentameter, but I found a web disussion, [3] which quotes Dana Gioia as using Run-DMC as an example of accentual metre (rather than accentual-syllabic metre, of which trochaic pentameter is an example):

Rap consciously exploits stress-meter's ability to stretch and contract in syllable count. In fact, playing the syllable count against the beat is the basic metrical technique of rap. Like jazz, rap extravagantly syncopates a flexible rhythm against a fixed metrical beat thereby turning a traditional English folk meter into something distinctly African-American. By hitting the metrical beat strongly while exploiting other elements of word music, rappers play interesting and elaborate games with the total rhythm of their lines. Here is a syncopated couplet from Run DMC:
He's the better of the best, best believe he's the baddest
Perfect timing when I'm climbing I'm the rhyming acrobatist
(14 and 16 syllables respectively)
. . . .
If rap were a written form of poetry, its complex syncopation would frequently push the meter to a breaking point. A reader would not always know exactly where the strong stresses fell. See how difficult it is to discern the four strong stresses in the first Run DMC couplet quoted, simply from the printed text . . . . Anglo-Saxon poets understood the problem inherent in strong-stress verse. That is at least one reason why they added alliteration to reinforce the meter. In rap the meter is also enforced by what its performers call "the beat," usually a pre-recorded digitally sampled rhythm-track. Traditional prosody describes the rhythm of poetry as the meaningful counterpoint of speech pattern against a fixed abstract meter. That same principle of expressive counterpoint is quite literally what rap does and its audience hears and enjoys.

I'd go ahead and edit, but I don't know how to tackle this. Tim Ivorson 2006-05-28

word. i'll try and add something that explains how much it varies-- but i'm not music theorist!!--Urthogie 18:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I can explain it in layman's terms...PCP MC 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

James Stewart

I've been gathering sources and working on this article for about a month, and would greatly appreciate criticism, comments, and contributions. Thank you. Volatile 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah, what a great actor he really was. The article is also great, as it should be. Good work! But i think footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes) would be a nice addition to cite several parts of the article, and also more References or further reading. Is there any reason for the coloring in the 'Awards' table? Looking pretty good, has potential as a featured article candidate. — Wackymacs 21:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent job on James Stewart. As mentioned above, footnotes adds a lot to a page. It's one of my favorites as far as actor pages go. Have you ever read the Henry Fonda page? Keep up the great work!Steve-O 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Wackymacs and Steve. I'll see what I can do about footnotes and references. The coloring of the Awards table is more for aesthetic reasons. I also used it for the Henry Fonda page. I don't think there is an accepted three-toned (for three-tiers: Award, won/nominated, and film/award title) table. Volatile 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan

I have made a lot of contributions to this page, and it looks pretty good. It went from a fawning fan fluff piece to a bit more of an encyclopedic entry.

There is small additional work that needs to be done (character names for the filmography will need to be imported from imdb), but we need input on what else might need to be done. --Yoasif 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. You would need a free image of Amitabh
  2. Lead should be ~250-300 words
  3. Remove bold text
  4. A paragraph should have 8-10 sentences
  5. The filmography table looks tacky
  6. Model the article in chronological order of his life
  7. Heavy Copyedit needed
  8. Early life stuff
  9. Estrangement with his brother Ajitabh
  10. Days in Calcutta seem to be absent
  11. Global recognition is absent
  12. Earnings?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sea level rise

A prior review got rather caught up in a minor issue. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Sea level rise-old/archive1 for that. I've copied the rest to here. William M. Connolley 14:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

  • A Notes section should be used to store all inline citations in, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, the lead need expanding greatly based on the length of the article, the lead should summarize concisely the entire article into one or two paragraphs, see WP:Lead. I'm not too keen on the amount of tables in the article either. Looking good so far, though. — Wackymacs 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the tables take up a lot of space but so far are the best way to organize the numerous factors. Maybe I should try reducing the table text size to 90% or 80%. (SEWilco 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
  • While it is a somewhat lengthy article, the section on "past changes in sea level" seems unfortunately short and could stand some expansion. I'd like to see coverage of prior geological epochs. I also see too many bulleted lists in the text: those should either be converted to tables or to prose. Also doesn't the article need to cover deluge events, such as the Black Sea deluge theory and possibly the Mediterranean. Otherwise it's looking good. Thanks. — RJH 22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Events on geological time scales is a good idea. I'll see what can be done with the lists. The Mediterranean event should be in a recent geological period. (SEWilco 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Just a note, it has long been suggested that this should be broken up into two articles, one at sea level rise covering modern changes and probably the last interglacial transition, and one at sea level change (presently a redirect to "sea level rise") dealing with processes on geologic time scales. In talk, such a division has generally been seen as agood idea, though no one (myself included) has been eager to work on breaking it up. Dragons flight 05:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Were you aware the articles were merged a year ago? (diff) (SEWilco 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC))
      • Yeah, but I wasn't watching either page at the time and I complained when I finally noticed (not the first complaint, I might add). Subsequent discussions favored breaking them up again. Dragons flight 07:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hero of the Russian Federation

It has been a while since I wrote for WP, so I wanted to make sure I tie up all loose ends before I start on anything new. I tried to make this a combination of the other hero title articles I wrote: Hero of Belarus and Hero of Ukraine. I noticed the article had some cleaning up while I was gone, and I just want to be sure this is ready for WP:FAC. Zach (Sound Off) 06:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Overall, I'd say it looks very good indeed. Some comments:

  • The sentence "Decree No. 2553-I contained two key components that made up the whole title: ..." is unclear. I don't know how to rephrase it, but perhaps it should say "Decree No. 2553-I is composed of two sections: ..." or something
  • "boot-tree device" could use some clarification
  • Re. "It is not known if the medals of the Soviet titles ...". You shouldn't say "it is not known", as presumably someone knows. Better to omit this until we find out what the rule is, although you could mention that they are sometimes worn together.
  • "... and a 1 mm serial number is placed in the top ray" — the picture shows it below the text
  • "... there is a fastening device that consists of a pin and hook" — again, the picture doesn't look like this
  • "... the Chechnya recipients usually receive their titles for performing heroic acts or leading the pro-Moscow government" — the end of that sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps rephrase, eg. "acts of heroism or outstanding political service to the Russian Federation"?
  • The section "Some Chechnya recipients, such as Akhmad Kadyrov, have been killed in various incidents. ..." needs to be cleaned up — I'm not sure how to approach this. Given the number of people who died in Chechnya, I think you need to say why he is singled out for mention.
  • "See also" comes before "References" — see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)
  • Overall, I think the language needs some tweaking just to make it read better, and to be more like an encyclopedia.

I've done a little copy-editing to fix some of the above. — Johantheghost 21:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. What I did about the items not matching the photo to the side, I decided to take the easy route and deleted the photo. The photo was not correctly displaying the reverse of the medal, so I decided it should go. The reason why I named Akhmad Kadyrov in the section about deceased heroes from Chechnya since he has an article already, plus, days after the attack that took his life, he was awarded the title by Putin. Kadyrov was the Kremlin-appointed governor to the region, but was killed in May of 2004 during a Victory Day parade in Grozny. Zach (Sound Off) 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Asalouyeh

It has been suggested to me that this article be peer reviewed. It is the first and only article I have written, and so I am a little unsure how it stands up. Comments welcome. Commking 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest that some of the sections should either be expanded or merged, to make for easier reading (lot of section headings are frustrating to read through.) Good article, well done. --YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Apple Hill Center for Chamber Music

My first sizable article, so figured I'd submit it for review to see if my style or anything needs work. Thanks. --YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 03:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks quite good, but you'll need to cite your sources. Also, I feel that a picture of the Center itself (instead of the view you get when you're in it) would be helpful. I've remedied some minor style issues, such as the Unneeded Capitalization In Section Headings (you might want to consult the Manual of Style). — mark ✎ 11:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Is the link to the Center's page at the bottom, from which I derived all the information, not enough of a citation? All the little numbers would link to it, so it seems that citations would simply make the article harder to read. Also, I don't have a picture of the Center itself, though I agree it would be more helpful.--YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 14:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, all the section headings are proper nouns (Playing for Peace is the name of the program, Apple Hill Chamber Players is the name of the group, and Summer Festival is referred to as a proper noun, as can be seen from the website, so I reverted your changes to the section headings. --YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Cynna Neele

While I write a lot of articles, it's been quite a while since I've had one featured, and I thought I might try again. I've had this looked over by a few people, and I've fixed the problems brought to me so far, but I'd really appreciate any feedback or copyediting anyone can give me. Ambi 02:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty good... everything I needed fixed has been done! Good work :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you pretty much squeezed everything about this girl, but it just doesn't seem like a FA. Like the article just describes her career's ups and downs. How about something more, going beyond netballing? Renata3 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what else you'd expect it to say. I've put in there just about everything I could find about her beyond her netball, and I'm really not sure there's anything else which is notable, let alone verifiable. Ambi 00:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That's pretty much my point. There is nothing much too add (you have squeezed everything possible; and that alone is pretty tremendous). But at the current state I don't think it will succeed in FAC. Just the person is not mature/old/notable enough (IMHO). Renata3 00:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not an actionable objection, so wouldn't really come into it at FAC. I'm looking for things I can actually fix. Ambi 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

SS Morro Castle

Since I uploaded my initial major revision of this article in late-March of 2005, I have been polishing its wording and contents. Now, I would appreciate comments, suggestions, and improvements to this article in hopes of eventually nominating it to Featured Article status.
Bart 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a very nice looking article but it needs some work before it should go up on FAC.
  • The first major problem that needs to be worked on is the lack of references. Your notes only come from the Hal Burton book though you mention the book by Thomas and Morgan in the text. Perhaps see what information you can glean from that book as well as the external links and whatever else you may find at your local library. I have a book that includes the Morro Castle and I'll see what I can find and add. Another source might be period newspaper coverage of the incident. If you have access to a public library they would likely have back editions of major nearby newspaper (perhaps major Chicago papers since you are near there) and many libaries also have the NY Times on microfilm. Are the papers of any of the inquiries published? If they are available you might request them through Interlibrary Loan.
  • The article seems to be too heavy on the disaster with too little information on the ship. Next to nothing is said on the subject of the ship's interiors as well as amenities. The first link in the external links section has postcards of interiors. I'm not sure what their copyright status is, but you might consider emailing the article's author and asking permission to use a few images.
  • I cannot find the total number of crew onboard at the time of the disaster.
  • There is also a discrepency in the total casualties. 137 in the intro and 135 in the last paragraph of the disaster section. In addition, one of the links states 133. Which is correct?
  • There is a mention of inquiries into the disaster. By whom?
  • The Contributing Factors to the Fire section should be in prose.
  • Neither of the images you have used have copyright tags.
  • A few more images would certainly be nice, especially one of the shots of the Morro Castle after it beached itself in Asbury Park. The library of Congress has two available images of the ship. Go to LOC Prints and Photograph Division search page and type in Morro Castle and a number of images come up. Most of the ship are restricted, but there are two that might be helpful.
  • Be very wary of POV statements especially in the disaster section. Certainly the line about "gallant heroes and shameless cowards among both the passengers and crew" is just a bit POV.
  • Did the disaster have any impact on the Ward Line or other lines of this period?
Truly a very good start to this article. I look forward to seeing this fully worked up to FA status! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 08:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Vailankanni

The entries have been verified through external links and personal visit to vailankanni. Rmaria2005 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm missing a lot of information about the history of the place along with the effects the tsunami had on the area. Mentioning the Shrine Vailankanni Basilica as an important location is all right, but I really think it should be fully described in a separate article about the church. This article should be about the place. If you want to know what a featured article about an Indian city/village looks like, try Mumbai or any of the other articles listed at "Geography and places" of WP:FA. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with MGM. 1. Kalimpong and Gangtok are featured articles, why don't you go through them and model Vailankanni on them. See also wikipedia:wikiproject Indian cities 2. That image is a copyvio. Incidently I have uploaded an image of the bascilica to commons:, but I'll have to locate it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unlike other places Vailankanni is famous only for the church which influences the economy.

Kyoto Protocol

This article is a very important climate related article. This is just one of the many reasons for it to be a featured article. Please feel free to leave a suggestion to help improve it. Tarret 22:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not really that happy that Kyoto treaty didn't redirect to it. It's normally called this in the UK. I belive the map may need updating becuase, didn't George Bush (even although he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol) agree to at least help combat carbon emissons? --Kilo-Lima 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Kyoto treaty would be technically inaccurate, but a redirect would not do any harm. The map shows the status of the Kyoto protocol in different countries. This has not changed in the US. I'm also somewhat sceptical about non-concrete, non-binding statements of politicians, but that's another topic. --Stephan Schulz 13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, totally. --Kilo-Lima 22:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In the introduction, what does IPCC stand for. I think that consideration may need to be taken to avoid confusing acronyms throughout the article. Perhatps just using one or two words form the names of the organisations to refer to them would be a good idea. MyNameIsNotBob 03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I wikied IPCC William M. Connolley 13:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC).
  • Please change the in text links to external site to footnotes.--nixie 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Sorry. Read the discussion if you like. William M. Connolley 09:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC).
    • Without full citations a refernce section for each html link in text, this article won't pass FAC. The information for each website needs to be correctly cited for future tracability and so the reader knows where they are actually being sent when they click on something.--nixie 06:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Use proper inline citations or perish in FAC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I myself have no objection to people using the inline Harvard system (though I dislike the non-inline footnote system). But I can't (yet) be bothered to do it myself, since I don't find it very interesting. I think its a shame that FAC should depend on this; but if it does, so much the worse for FAC. William M. Connolley 09:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC).

Military history of Mexico

So here's the deal: I had this requested for a peer review before, the article looks pretty good - aside from the need for citations. This really is a request, but please consider this a recruitment as well! Are you good with military history? Please help edit - I have had some external factors inhibiting me from editing that article like I should have! Please see the first archive here. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Good article. A couple of things. You should try to avoid wikilinking words in section headers (like 20th century) and don't overlink too much. I found 19th century and United States linked over 5 times. It's unnecessary. It's a good article overall, though. :) Gflores Talk 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You need to format references better. Reference style is not external link style. Renata 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs a historiography section. Fifelfoo 09:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Leprechaun

I've tried to improve this article from this to its current state, but I've run out of things to say. I've added references, illustrations and some more info, I could just do with some further pointers to what the article is missing, what people think needs to be added etc.

The preceeding comment was by FrancisTyers, 21:38, 21 December 2005 — please sign!

Looks like a nice article. Some points:

  • Remove the NOTOC
  • In the lead, the third sentence "... having many treasure crocks buried during war-time" is very unclear. Why during war-time?
    • I should quote this, its from Yeats. - FrancisTyers 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead section should briefly summarise the whole article, so add a few words about mischief and shoe-making; that would fill out the third para. of the lead
  • Seems like there ought to be more tales of leprechauns that you could put in the Mythology section
    • Yup, looking for some more. - FrancisTyers 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Filled that out some more. - FrancisTyers 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In Appearance, some words about pre-Yeats ideas of leprechaun appearance; the picture caption mentions that there was less of a stereotyped idea, this could be mentioned/expanded in the text, which is currently a little terse
    • Yeah, I'm looking at the moment, its difficult to find good info on the internet though, I might try adding some stuff from the irish emigrant site or finding the McAnally book which both that and Yeats reference. - FrancisTyers 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Pop Culture might be better organised, maybe as a list
  • Re "an episode of The Simpsons" — it would be really cool to say which episode
  • For a dash separating clauses in a sentence, use the "em dash" instead of a single or double normal dash. The em dash looks like this — a bit longer than a normal dash, so it looks a bit less dwarfed by the spaces either side. Get an em dash by clicking on it in the list under the edit window, by typing "—", or (on Linux) by typing the shortcut "Compose dash dash dash". Compose is often the right alt key. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes).)
    • Thanks, will attend to that... - FrancisTyers 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's a little terse overall, and I actually think that some of the material from the older version could be restored. Eg. in pop culture, entries like this would be appropriate:
"In an episode of The Simpsons, Bartender Moe Syzlak suggests to Homer Simpson that he use a leprechaun to get rid of a curse, claiming that they arrive in the U.S. in the wheel-wells of the aircraft of Irish airline Aer Lingus."
    • Hmm, maybe, I was trying to get away from a list of pop-culture references that the original was, although maybe if the article had more in terms of the other sections it wouldn't look so skewed. - FrancisTyers 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a copy editing pass to address some of the above, plus a few grammar issues. Overall, I think it's pretty good. — Johantheghost 21:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Camouflage

Would like comments as to what external views are about the balance of the article (natural vs. military, theory, external links) and stylish concerns (level of detail right?). Is this article close to FA level ? novacatz 03:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Close but still lots of stuff to be done:
  1. Lead size is inadequate: Please expand to 250-300 words
  2. Images are poorly placed. Please test them on 800x600 resolution.
  3. Mil vs Natural is unbalanced. Consider summarising the mil topics, and moving detail to a separate page.
  4. Topic outlines mostly western countries. What about other countries?
  5. Camouflage in snow?
  6. William MacKay... Naval Consulting Board of which country?
  7. Bill Jordan??
  8. I think invisibility should be under a separate heading.
  9. Predator is a Hollywood movie. Mention that
  10. See alsos should be pruned
  11. Sections 2.1 and 4.1 are unnecessary. Min 2 subsections are needed to merit the use of a subheading.
  12. =People who served as camouflage experts= is a subjective list. Please remove.
  13. Something can be mentioned on the LTTE's striped camouflage?
  14. What's the origin to the word camouflage?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Lipid

"This article was externally reviewed on 14 December 2005 by Nature. No significant errors or major omissions were found." So content is pretty good. What about style? Do you think it's good enough for FAC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The whole article is just one section. There is no distinct lead section and no references are present. Not good enough for FAC in its present state. «LordViD» 02:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Cholesterol is always considered a lipid in a medical & human physiology context, and this would be a common reason for a reader to look at this article. We need a section on cholesterol and other sterols explaining how they differ from triglycerides and in what contexts they are or are not considered lipids. alteripse 14:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

previous PR

San Pellegrino

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

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

Flag of Mexico

The article was edited a lot by me, and with great thanks to User:Titoxd, we have been able to get this accomplished so far: [4]. Most of the images on the article are in the public domain since either I created them, the Mexican Government created them or they were donated to us by my friend, Juan Manuel Gabino Villascan of FOTW. I know there could be small details I am missing but any help from y'all will be very greatful. Zach (Smack Back) 04:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Needs some copy editing. Was the shield charge adopted for the express purpose to distinguish it from Italy or did it just happen to come out that way. "An eagle sitting on top of a cactus, which is sitting on top of a rock" - this is weird in English. --Pyroclastic 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • From what I read so far, the coincidence between the Mexican flag and the Italian flag are just that, coincidences. For many years, the Italian flag was charged with the Arms of Savory and the Mexican flag had it's arms in the center. When Italy ditched the arms from it's flag in 1946 or 1947, the Mexican flag still had it's arms on the flag. However, the last time the flag changed took place when Mexico was hosting the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. Zach (Smack Back) 04:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How's this: "However, the coat of arms still had the same feature: an eagle, that is holding a serpent in his talon, is perched on top of a cactus; the cactus is situated on a rock that rises above a lake." Zach (Smack Back) 05:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For me it is just too short. History section could be much longer (you had 4 versions of the flag, right? so you could spend quite some time describing everyone of them in great detail). Renata3 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The 4th version of the flag is the current one, but I added the story about it being created for the Olympics. I added more about the other flags. Zach (Smack Back) 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Images coming from the Mexican government are terminantly not in the public domain by default. I can show you the relevant piece of legistlation if you want. Be careful on how you tag your images. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed the photo from the Chamber of Deputies, but the other photo with the lady doing the civil salute, that was placed in the public domain by the Press Office of the Mexican President and there is an email, in Spanish, stating that. Thank you. Zach (Smack Back) 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that (I have uploaded images from there myself) I was refering to the Chamber of Deputies image only. You're welcome :-D -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Now that I read the article I can offer the following input:
      1. The reason why the Arms are located in the white band has little to do (if at all) with the Italian flag. The flag without Arms was an ocean ensign and rarely used in the mainland. The second sentence of the lead should be rephrased to something like "it is different from the Italian flag by having..." or similar. The Arms have always been in the Mexican flag since it adopted the vertical stripes, so there was little possibility for confusion with the Italian flag during the '68 Olympics even if the redesign hadn't taken place.
      2. Bear in mind that the official color definitions of the Italian flag may be different (e.g. they could be using a slightly different tone of green).
      3. It needs some general copyediting to remove idioms and some ackward phrasing.
      4. I'd research this Francisco Eppens Helguera guy and at least get a stub on him. His redesign is notable enough to make him deserve an article.
      5. You should use footnotes when quoting large chunks of text directly (e.g. when quoting the text of the law, you should cite the date of the latest revision).
      6. Sometime in the 90s there was a controversy about political parties using the colors of the flag in their logos (neutrality and all that). As a consequence the PRD switched to its "aztec sun" logo, but PRI stayed the same. That should be in the article.
      7. There is another bandera monumental in the Campo Militar Marte (behind Los Pinos). That's where all visiting Heads of State get their official welcome.
      8. While we are at it would be nice if you could find the "actual" locations of all banderas monumentales, this would make the article look more complete.
      9. Are you sure that's all the info you can find on the history of each flag?
      10. It would be nice if you could provide a description of the flag according to heraldry.
      11. I think you should list the days the flag is flown at full and half mast.
      12. I'm not certain about "During the playing of the national anthem on television, graphics or video of the flag must be shown." For instance, on 1st division soccer matches they don't tend to show the flag while the anthem is played.
      13. Historians tend consider Hidalgo's standard and other standards used during the war of independence precedents to the current national flag. A mention of those in the article wouldn't be out of place.
      14. If you can read Spanish, I'd suggest you to get hold of "La bandera mexicana: breve historia de su formacion y simbolismo" by Enrique Florescano (1998). México, D.F. : Fondo de Cultura Económica. ISBN 9681653300
      15. In addition you could read [5].
    • Hope this helps. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it does, a lot. One comment so far: at Article 41 of the National Symbols law, that the national anthem is played at the opening and closing of radio programming and "in the case of television programing, the national flag will be displayed at the same time." Zach (Smack Back) 20:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I also put the information about the Italian flag in, as you suggested, but it was taken out by others and I was told not to place it back in. Zach (Smack Back) 21:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the correction, I wasn't sure of that one myself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Your welcome. There is still some information I need to add and I did create the stub article you wanted me to make. The guy who designed the arms is pretty famous for his artwork and it still can be seen at schools like UNAM . I still need to add some citations, but I think I met roughly 1/3rd of what you wished for me to do, which is pretty good in one day. I will try to get the book, though I am es-0 (I am a vexillologist by hobby and trade). Zach (Smack Back) 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
                • For the heraldic term, this looked silly to me: "Party per pale Vert and Gules on a pale Argent a "Escudo Nacional Mexicano."" I removed it since this is not official and well...looked silly. Zach (Smack Back) 02:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • About the flag flying days, what I have done is created a separate article to list all of the days there. I mainly did that since I do not want to make the article list heavy. I also pointed to the law that people can find the dates at too. I am willing to do the same thing for the giant flags, since I do not want the article to appear list heavy again. Zach (Smack Back) 11:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Karen Dotrice

<guilt button>So, what? Does everybody read through this list saying, "Don't care. Don't care. Who? Don't care. Eh. Don't care..."? With what incentive does that leave me to read and comment when I have the time and experience? You do remember the little girl from Mary Poppins, right? A few weeks ago, she didn't even exist at Wikipedia. Now, this article has undergone extensive revision for a second try at Featured Article status. This isn't about the subjects for which we care; rather, it's about Wikipedia that we're supposed to care. Your comments are welcome.</guilt button> RadioKirk talk to me 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. "Critics were enchanted by her performance". Weasel terms. Either atribute this to someone notable (in the form "John Doe said critics were enchanted by her performance") or say which critics declared themselves "enchanted" by her performance.
  2. "Mary Poppins was a huge hit with audiences" It's better not to make such a judgement. Simply mention the box office numbers.
  3. "The Gnome-Mobile was not as successful[4] as Poppins". Ditto.
  4. I recommend adding more info about her life, specially the early years, and also on film critic's reactions to her work. JoaoRicardotalk 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Response: Thank you for your help! In order: 1) Attribution footnoted, but I guess I can throw Maltin's name in there; 2) and 3) Will do; 4) No such animal: I've searched high and low for anything beyond what is included and, at least on the Internet, it doesn't exist (of course, if you see something I missed, please, pass it on, with my thanks). RadioKirk talk to me 21:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I searched on Google for her and came up with the same sources you had found. I reformatted the "Personal" section into a "Life" section, to gather all her biographical information in one place. Problem is that the lead may be a little too short now. As for the British vs. English question, I really don't know what should be used. JoaoRicardotalk 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thank you so much. I may try to reformat some things to incorporate the changes with the conventions I've seen in other articles, and I'll let you know. Meantime, barring a definitive answer, I've settled on "English" since that appears to be her preference. :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Update: I hope I now have incorporated the best of both our ideas. Feel free to comment :) RadioKirk talk to me 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Corey Haim

I nominated this article for peer review because I know that whilst it is somewhat comprehensive and informative, it could be greatly imporoved with some help. It was created in 2003 I think and since then alot of individuals have contributed to it. I started on it about a month or two ago. Any comments, edits or suggestions would be very appreciated! (Smerk 03:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Hey, I majorly tweaked the article, I hope you like it. We don't really need a huge full fimography if we're linking to the IMDB (since full filmographies are the only thing the IMDB is good for anyway) and since we mention most of his credits in the entry. So I tightened the filmography to include only his big theatrical releases, I think it's best reflective of his career and his period of popularity. Not sure if we should have a section for grosses there too, maybe. 24.226.10.98 07:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep, I just saw all the work you did. It looks great. I noticed you removed the quotes about films, not Haim himself. I know that it is not directly about Haim, but I think it kind of represents what height his career was at during that period, with comments like those. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to check it out. Anything more we can do to improve it? (Smerk 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
Well, we could have stuff like "the film was well-reviewed" and link to some positive review, instead of having a full sentence or two about the film. In fact, I think this is already done a couple of times, i.e. the Lost Boys (I think I used "well received") to describe it. As for the article as a whole, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I suppose like most articles it could use a little tightening up, but certainly pretty good overall. Vulturell 08:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and I bet you didn't know Prayer of the Rollerboys played in theatres. The gross doesn't show up on the IMDB, but if you subscribe to the free trial over at www.variety.com you can look the box office info for it up. It was a pretty short run in August of 1991, made something like $78,000 dollars and it, not 1989's Dream, was his last theatrical film. Vulturell 08:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep I guess its not totally needed. There is still one by Ebert at the top, but its more about Haim and his potential, so maybe that is more appropriate? And thank-you for the info regarding Rollerboys I searched eeverywhere for comfirmation regarding its release.
Oh yeah, the Ebert one is good, it's about Haim. BTW, if you have a lot of quotes by Haim himself, you may wanna take a look at Wiqiquote (i.e. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charlize_Theron), which is a good place to store them. Check out Charlize Theron's Wiki entry (at the bottom) for where the Wiqiquote sign is usually placed. Vulturell 08:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Great! There could be a good addition to the CH page. I'l get on to that later tonight. (Smerk 08:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
Wikiquote link is done. :) Smerk 17:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are too many short - or sentence long paragraphs. All the fair use images need fair use rationales, most of the images will need to be removed as there are far too many to actually be considered fair use.--nixie 10:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merged majority of the short paragraphs so it's less scrappy. Removed three images and added two fair use rationales. Cheers for the advice Smerk 14:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

tactical level

First attempt to create a wikipedia entry needs feedback. Daniel.wengelin 14:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Needs sources and more information. As of now it's basically just the definition. Perhaps think about expanding the article a little bit, I don't know exactly how much can be covered her. But definitely provide sources. --MateoP 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
In addition to the above, I suggest giving more background on "tactical units or task forces" (probably examples), giving examples of what actions (deployment, maybe?) would be decided at the tactical level, and what kinds of officers (generals? colonels?) are responsible for tactical level decisions. Also, it would be good to have a few examples of conflicts in which tactical level decisions made a significant difference. Deltabeignet 03:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't see the merit of a separate entry. Military tactic is tiny and this could be elaborated there or perhaps in just tactics. The official military status of a term doesn't automatically qualify it as an encyclopedic concept. Not even if it's American. :-p
Peter Isotalo 12:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

  • How could this article be improved? --Revolución (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a few sections where lists would be better converted to prose, like Terminology and varieties of vegetarianism and Vegetarian societies (the article doesn't even explain why these organisation are significant - and should probably just be merged into the history). Country specific information read like it was copied from a travel guide for vegetarians, and probably isn't worth keeping in the article as suitable sources would be difficult, and I don't see a great deal of use in applying blanket warnings to were food is and isn't safe for vegetarians - so I think it'd be best to cut it from the article. Why are religious and spiritial motivations in separate sections, are Aesthetic motivations really a separate concept to Physiological motivations. Referencing needs work, beyond the missing information, html links in text are not suitable for FAs, all the details of the source need to be fully cited for future tracability - look at using the ref/not footnote system throughout the article. Were possible cite reputable sources rather than something like this. The TIME cover needs a fair use rationale for use in this article.--nixie 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I would say Spiritual and Religious motivations are very different. Spiritual is based on personal choice, experience and experimentation (i.e. "want to", see Spirituality) and Religious is based on doctrine (i.e. "have to"). Would suggest that motivations are listed alphabatically in the interests of neutrality (i.e. one cannot list motivations in order of importance without a POV dispute). --nirvana2013 13:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this statement. It is a Christo-centric (or possibly New Age) false dichotomy that does not apply to many non-Western or tribal cultures. In fact, it doesn't even apply to Judaism -- there is no separate word for "religion" in either Hebrew or Yiddish, and I have long argued that being Jewish is closer to belonging to a tribal culture than to a "religion" in the Western European sense. Jewish spirituality is integrated into the rituals and practices of Judaism which, in turn, are integrated into daily life. The same could be said for many Native American tribes (which also do not make such a distinction.) As a Jewish vegetarian I am BOTH "religious" and "spiritual" at the same time. Rooster613 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Rooster613
  • There is much that is good about this article, but the sections dealing with motivations are extremely patchy. The section on ethical motivations is particularly poor, almost non-existent. I'd recommend that you take a look at articles and books by the philosopher Peter Singer, who is a fine guide the growing body of moral arguments for vegetarianism. In particular, I'd include what seems to me a quite basic underlying moral principle that motivates much ethical vegetarianism, namely, that it is wrong to cause suffering to any being capable of experiencing suffering except for exceptionally good reasons (and liking the taste of that being is not such a reason).--Irishtimes 04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Page size is huge. Please summarise the content and move details to dedicated daughter articles. Reduce the subheadings.
  2. =Terminology= can be converted to a table
  3. Hunzas live in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
  4. In the U.S., as of 2000, 2.5 to 3% said they never eat meat.. not needed
  5. =Recent trends= should be merged with History
  6. Please do not embed external links inside the text. Use footnotes and invisible footnotes {{inote}}.
  7. 116°F (46.7°C). Metric units should come first as this is a universal topic.
  8. Needs a heavy copyedit. Most of the text seems to be personal accounts.
  9. =Country specific information= needs to be shifted to another page
  10. Nothing mentioned about the Jain diet. It is stricter than normal vegetarian food. Garlic, onion etc is not consumed.
  11. =Vegetarian cuisine= should be expanded
  12. Prune the =External links=

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Quark

"This article was externally reviewed on 14 December 2005 by Nature. No significant errors or major omissions were found." So content is pretty good. What about style? Do you think it's good enough for FAC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • 1> It needs to be dumbed down by explaining what those linked terms mean: Quarks are one of the two basic constituents of matter in the Standard Model of particle physics. Greek and Latin to non-science students. 2. Photographs/diagrams if possible 3. Problems with uneven sections. Reduce unnecessary heading or balance sections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is dying for some inline citations. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Rock cycle

The Rock Cycle is an important fundamental concept to geology. This article with help from a peer review has potential to make FA status. So I'd like to request the help of editors here to bring the Rock Cycle up to FA standards. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! A few suggestions below. Best of luck with the future FAC - FA is definitely in this article's future. Happy holidays!

  • Wikification. Remember: save for the first word in a title or heading, nothing should be capitalized unless it's a proper noun. - taken care of ZeWrestler Talk 05:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • NPOV/Referencing. You say that the rock cycle is "usually attributed" to someone. Can you explicity reference this somewhere? Can you give us some alternatives? I hate to start up a big NPOV issue about rocks, but this historical debate could show us some more sides to it, since the writing itself seems so wishy-washy.
  • Historical development. Flesh this section out a bit. What was the "plate tectonics revolution?" What is "uniformitarianism?" I'm assuming some of it may be covered in one of the forked articles, but you need to give us a better context to read it here. Each article should be able to stand on its own, and not depend on forks. -Rebelguys2 00:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


the rock cycle likes cakes :) happy birthday!

Mosque

This article documents a seemingly simple topic and thus seems like it could be on its way to Featured Article status. I recently made major changes to the article and so I would like to know how it can be improved. joturner 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't be so optimistic about its prospects of becoming an FA in the short term. But, here's what I notice on first glance.
  • Firstly compare to <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9053913>.
  • Referencing - this article has no footnote system or referencing system. It also appears that most sources aren't exactly the most reliable. Not that there is too much scholarly work on mosques in themselves... but, it could be better.
  • Britannica references types of mosques: masjid jami (large collective mosques) and normal mosques. An interesting and important thing.
  • Mentioning of the "maqsurah"
  • diacritics. Imam -> Imām to make this more professional.
  • Mosque schools <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9050246> and the roles mosques have in education.
  • Pictures, we need the most notable and the best examples. During the salah section a picture of prayer... maybe pictures of wudu rooms.
I do think it's almost as good as the Britannica article (with some prose cleanup) but to be an FA it should be better. So that should maybe include.
  • Types of mosques. We have the grand mosques of Cairo, etc. and then the rowshouses of Eastham... I think something on that would be nice but not necessary.
  • "Men and women in the mosque" needs to be expanded a lot with reliable sources.
Preliminary comments. Do they sound along the right lines? gren グレン 23:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There may be quite a bit of redundancy here, as gren hit submit before I could. ;) A few comments. I think what you have is well-written. However, your main problem is that this article isn't very complete and comprehensive. Below are a few suggestions on how to flesh out your article. Best of luck when you bring this article to its featured article candidacy!

  • References. When scanning through the article, this is likely the very first thing FAC reviewers will look at. This is not to say that you need to reference every fact in the article - that is, of course, ludicrous. However, you need to, for example, cite where you found out which mosque was the "first mosque in the world." It's easiest to do this mostly through inline citations; check other featured articles for an example. If you need any help, don't hesitate to drop me a note on my talk page.
  • "Men and women in the mosque". This is such a small section. Is there anything you can do to expand on it? If not, perhaps it would be best to merge it within another section.
  • "Types of mosque". You give an excellent introduction outlining the various types of mosques around the world. It would be nice if you could expand on this, however. What is a "T-type mosque?" What is a "central dome" mosque? Again, we need more content and context for things like this. -Rebelguys2 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Both of your reviews are very helpful. I didn't actually expect the article from a terrible article to featured article status in one day. I must point out gren, however, that those Britannica articles require a username and password, which I assume cost money. joturner 00:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I have access through my university. Not sure how to get you access. I only linked for those with acccess. I am not sure how to get you access. gren グレン 01:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bong

I would like to see this become a featured article. Even considering the subject matter I believe the article meets all of the Wikipedia standards and has some really good prose. Triddle 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I did some spelling cleanup. Also there is a word in the article that is sometimes spelled "spotty" and sometimes "spottie." From what I saw, there's no explanation for the duplicate spellings, and since I know nothing about bongs, I'm just letting you know.--Esprit15d 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the help on the copy edit and I'll fix the multiple spellings of the same word. Triddle 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • More references, and get in-line citations if you can. Also try not to mix external links and references together. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: What would you like to see cited? I've had a hard time figuring out exactly what should be cited. As it stands now the definition of a bong is cited, and the claim that bong water filters out more THC than anything else (which is counter intuitive and contrary to popular belief) is cited too. Other than that the article does not claim anything extraordinary. Can you elaborate a little please? I'm willing to dig up the citations I just don't know what should be cited. Triddle 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • A generally successful method is to run through the article as if from someone that doesn't believe the material. What could they object to? Overall, prioritize the facts in the article from the standpoint of what are the most important, central, and/or contentious claims. Cite those, and then cite any specific facts in any tables and quotes or whatever. Aim for 20 or so citations to high quality sources. The subject in question may be hard to get good sources for, but see what you can do. - Taxman Talk 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much. I'll do some digging. Triddle 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article could use a history section. I already did a little digging on this and did not have very positive results. Perhaps someone else can suggest where I might find some bong history resources? Triddle 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not bad, I'd change the cleaning section to make it sound less like an instruction manual, though. And perhaps something to relate bongs to other types of pipes and water pipes. --BadSeed 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed - thanks for the comments. I'll try to integrate a history section and your comparison ideas together into a short first section of the article. Triddle 17:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

United States of Greater Austria

Gryffindor and I would like to improve this article, but right now, we don't really know what else to add (besides a map, but we'd need to have someone else do that). Any ideas are appreciated! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • One thing that strikes me is that Hungarians and others might have considered this a divide and rule-type strategy to maintain the power of the ethnic German aristocracy– I would like more on their reaction. Also, weren't there some other alternative proposals at the same time to reorganize Austria-Hungary? Another question is what was the historical development of the idea in the eight years between Popovici's initial proposal and the Archduke's assassination? Another aspect: Was the idea directly inspired by the federalism of the United States of America– this should be detailed. We should also have more details on the proposed language and cultural status of each province. One other thing alludes me- who are the "other nine" ethnic groups besides the Germans and the Hungarians?--Pharos 20:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'll try to get all that done after the holidays, when I should be able to get one or two reference books from either the Universitätsbibliothek or the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. For now, I've added the nine other ethnic groups, and I'm trying to get someone to make a map. Further comments are, of course, appreciated! And thanks to you, Pharos. Nightstallion ✉ 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting. You can surely add more references, especiallay academic one - this surely looks like a topic that would be mentioned in academic sources (use inline citations, please). On a related note, we need a new category - perhaps something along the lines of Category:Proposed countries, as Category:Fictional countries is not really for states that were at least considered in real life (see also Międzymorze, Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth, Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A good start, I like the flag. You'll need to elaborate a bit though to get it to featured status. The first thing when I saw this was the United States of Whatever. karmafist 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • please confirm the flag. the real one afaik was the black/yellow. and: are you sure bukowina was supposed to be part of transsylvania? i'm sure it was supposed to be a federal state of it's own, maybe in later editions. will there be a German translation? 7 October 2006

Concurrent estate and Leasehold estate

Several months ago, I consolidated two groups of articles into comprehensive articles on these relative concepts, then tweaked and expanded from there. It has occurred to me that these might be on the path to being featured articles, and could benefit from peer review. I present them together because the style and organization is prety much the same for both, so I assume they share the same faults. BD2412 T 23:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup. They share the same faults.
  1. Insufficient lead text in one,
  2. sections are lopsided. Balance the content in sections and avoid the usage of subheadings as far as possible.
  3. Are these specifically US laws?
  4. No references
  5. No images
  6. External links are formatted incorrectly.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dell, Inc.

I'd like to get this featured - it was tagged with cleanup not so long ago and I worked on it a bit to its current state. What should be done to get it featured? — Wackymacs 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Needs a copyedit.
  • MoS units: 8 MHz --> 8&nbsp;MHz
  • Lead needs to be a little longer
  • Round Rock, Texas, United States --> Round Rock, Texas in the United States
  • one of the the world's largest computer hardware companies, --> can you get a specific ranking
  • =Histroy= lacks Dell's expansions. Mention about the company's expansion into major world markets.
  • Some people believe that --> Weasel phrase used. Should be removed
  • Dell's international operations seems to be muted.
  • Avoid fragmenting =Corporate affairs=
  • =Criticism= should be converted to prose
  • www.ihatedell.net --> Forum links are not useful; Yellowikis too
  • Images seem to be lacking. Is it possible to get a free image of Michael Dell? Some non copyrighted images of the headquarters? Take a look at Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport. The =Organisation= anf =Finances= have some great accompanying charts.
  • Pic of a Dell Machine should be obtained.
  • The DELL logo should be converted to an SVG image
  • Images should not be placed at the bottom of a section
  • Some corporate information such as the company's vision, mission statement and goals would be helpful.
  • Try and fill up the red links in the article. It looks much neater that way.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Lanka Sama Samaja Party

During the past months this article, dealing with a political party that played a major role in Sri Lankan politics for decades, has expanded considerably. --Soman 16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the electoral results of the party should be present in a table or something like that. Pictures of propaganda would also be welcome. The youth wing has disappeared, but what is and was the relation between the Party and the youth movements? Afonso Silva 13:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Electoral results (at least from post-independence era) are coming shortly. The youth wing definately needs a separate article. --Soman 14:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers

I've been trying to improve the Cheers article as much as I can. Other than a screenshot of the Simpsons crossover (I have a request out), however, I'm not sure what to do next. Despite the recent FA'ing of Arrested Development and The West Wing (which I helped with), there is no truly consistent style to follow, so any help would be great! Thanks! Staxringold 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry this took so long but I've completed a full review and posted it here. Here are my main concerns from the top of the article:
  • Consistent usage of "character (actor)" format
  • Consistent usage of literary present tense, when applicable
  • Grammar needs a complete read through when content issues are resolved
  • I cannot cannot canot say it enough: REF/NOTE! Almost everything needs a reference... this is the downfall of many a decent article. Find those references!
We've got potential here! Feel free to ask about any of my comments or completely ignore some of them. Thanks! -Scm83x 11:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed the article to your large Review. Please give me a follow up, or somebody else post! :) Staxringold 17:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice work, it's much better than it was. So a few observations. 1) If international syndication was important, the lead should mention it too. Not if not of course. 2) The trivia section has got to go. You'll get killed for that at FAC. Points in there are either better off merged in somewhere else, or not important enough to be in the article at all. 3) Eliminate the one or two sentence paragraphs. They show areas that should either be merged with related material, expanded, or removed. 4) The themes section should either be renamed to something like 'Other recurring thems' or similar or merged in with the rest of the Plot section which could easily be seen as themes. The feminism bit is probably given waay too much space for it's relative importance on the show. A FA should be organized in relation to the importance of each subtopic. I think the cast table really breaks up the article, but I can't think of a better way. - Taxman Talk 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Editing up the sections to remove trivia, combine short paragraphs, and altered some sections/subsections. No mention of international syndication in the lead other than the "long and successful syndication run" mention, but a syndication section. Let me know what you think! Staxringold 03:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup, improvements overall, the biggest problem left is #3 above. I can see why you've done it in some cases, but it still isn't great writing. A FA should be able to be structured in a way that it doesn't need any. The romance section could use another couple sentences for ex, and the one sentence paragraphs leading off some of the sections could probably just be merged with the next paragraph. The other's just need creative expansion or merging. With that done, there's nothing I can think of that it is missing to be ready for FAC. - Taxman Talk 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tried to further touch-up per your request. Also revamped images (replaced a couple dull images with clearer, more colorful, better images) and added the kiss image for romance. Staxringold 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Lilith, when first mentioned, was both unlinked and unexplained (ppl who have not seen Frasier will not know who she is). I have corrected it and done some minor tweaks. Nice use of inline citations to explain and document important facts. Issue to expand upon: write more upon the 'classic' Cheers opening theme.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's looking very good compared to the first time I saw it. All in all, though, it seems very fragmented. There seems to be little meat regarding the show itself with the exception of a fragmented Plot section that isn't consistent in its discussion topics at all. Here's a few comments for now:
    • Critical reactions. This is a really skimpy section. With a show as big and as important in our cultural zeitgeist as this one is, I'd expect much more meat to this section. Try a local library; for The West Wing (television), Scm83x were able to head to ours and find a few books filled with essays and such regarding the show. Cheers might take a bit more work, as it's not, let's say, academically useful as TWW, but, regardless, this section needs some fleshing out.
  • Absolutely, I just added the stubby section so it's at least there (over the holidays I don't have as much time to edit). Staxringold 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Plot. I'm one to prefer how you did the plot section. However, in FAC, you're going to get eaten alive for not having a summary of the entire show's plot in your article. There's no section simply dealing with what happened in each season. Is it necessary? I'm not so sure. But it's definitely not going to fly with the people at FAC. In addition, the way you've done all the subsections seems very fragmented. Some sections are really, really small; regardless, "Social class in Cheers" is not under the same type of discussion as "The Finale."
  • Maybe mix some of the subsections for just "Social Issues in Cheers"? Dunno, again, after the holidays I'll make some major additions. Staxringold 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Post-Cheers. I'm having some problems distinguishing between this section and "Spinoffs and Crossovers." In addition, how important is the careers of all of the actors after the show? This is an article about the show, not the actor's lives. -Rebelguys2 21:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I tried to keep it as connected to Cheers as I could. And I thought it was interesting how Cheers (despite it's success) is somewhat like Seinfeld and the Seinfeld curse in basically no one having a truly successful project after Cheers (save Grammer, like Seinfeld, as the one success). Staxringold 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok folks, I've melded the sections into Social Issues and added addiction, and I'm working on the critical reaction section right now. Any other big ideas that need adding or mistakes that need polishing? Staxringold 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Warez

Article has come a long way, but still needs work. It's been cited by several media organizations and therefore should be brought up to a Featured Article status, as such it needs Peer Review first. Please, rather than getting into a debate about how X is mentioned but Y isnt, lets start by identifying what is outright WRONG first:

  1. Are there grammar, punctuation, or spelling issues?
  2. Are there any significant formatting issues per WP:MoS?
  3. Are there any specific content issues?

Last time (I believe it was in 2003) this was discussed people (Larry Sanger for one) ignored it saying it wasnt encyclopedic and gave very few specifics, merely rants about bias.  ALKIVAR™ 22:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the biggest, and most obvious, obstacle from this article reaching FA status is the use of unnecessary markup, nonstandard headings, and numerous numbered and bulleted lists. The Wikipedia Manual of Style asks that you use == for headings, instead of ''' markup. There are a number of reasons you did what you did, however, and I understand them - most likely to reducde clutter in the contents and to set paragraphs aside. However, all your various spacing doesn't look good on every browser, and, more importantly, those headings are often unnecessary. They can be removed to make for more flowing sections, and will make sense regardless if you write well enough. With the removal of sub-sub-sub-...-heading clutter to make for better writing, you might also want to consider converting several, though admittedly not all, of the lists into prose. -Rebelguys2 06:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Your assumption of my effort to reduce the size of the TOC is correct, that is why many sub sections use ''' instead of ===. You should have seen the List to Prose ratio BEFORE I got to it... as it stands now, I think the list to prose ratio is quite good. The problem is most of the currently remaining lists are lists with each entry being a small paragraph, by changing it into several large paragraphs I actually find the readability rate drops. I made a clone of the article on my home wikiserver and experimented with that, I found it much harder to follow. Do you see anything else more specific that would assist down these lines, your responses seem very general/broad.  ALKIVAR™ 09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • minor question, what is the difference between the Evil workprint rip off and the other workprint copy screenshots of American Pie. Also, the link to the see another screenshot from A night to Roxbury goes to a deleted image. Garion96 (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The EViL version was a bootleg notorious for release before the movie hit theaters, however it did not have a counter in the frame of the shot. As the commentary regarding workprints mentions the counter, I looked for a version of the film that had the counter, that second workprint shot came from a DVD extra to American Pie. I could have used another movie, but I happened to have a DVD copy of American Pie handy. The other image should not have been deleted as it was not an orphan...  ALKIVAR™ 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • GMaxwell's bot is misbehaving, its been blocked, and a post left. Either way, image is now gone and I dont have a backup copy... So i've been forced to remove the link.  ALKIVAR™ 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to agree with Rebelguys2 (talk · contribs) that you absolutely must standardize the headings. Making an article featured is supposed to be hard, we do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard (cribbing JFK). Odd use of headings and grammatical errors have to be addressed before the sorts of things that peer reviews are supposed to be about are addressed. If the headings are a no-go, then this article will never make it past its current state. For grammar, I find it best to set aside an hour or two and have a friend (who has never read the article) read it aloud to you, stopping everytime something doesn't sound right. This can fix huge problems in continuity and grammar. -Scm83x 09:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well i've gone and made the heading changes requested... TOC is now 2.5x as long, and at 800x600 is now more than a page long, which is what I had been trying to avoid to begin with as this is something i'm going to be told to fix during FAC. Is there anything else you see that needs formatting changes? Can we now get on to the specific content i.e. the whole reason I asked for peer review?  ALKIVAR™ 10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're concerned about length of the TOC, you should really consider whether all of the second and third level sub heading you're using are necessary or whether you can just fold some sections together. Also, take a look at some of the TOCs for other FAs. They generally aren't as brief as you want this one to be; if you're going to be thorough, you need a lot of organized content. The content is organized by the headers. And hey, if you write a gripping lead, the user will be sure to scroll down past the TOC, even at 640x480 ;-) -Scm83x 11:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You many want to try {{TOCleft}} for the TOC, as used in the recent today's FA, Java programming language. Just something to toy with. -Scm83x 09:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Section suggests using NOTOC and creating the ToC manually when the automated one doesn't give the results you want: see Wikipedia:Section#Non-automatic TOC. You'll probably get an objection anyway, but it should be withdrawn if you point them to this link. FWIW, it looks alright to me as it is. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a good article, but still quite cluttered. A few issues:
  1. Take a look at the three sub-sub-headings starting with "Popularity of computers." Are they even necessary? Probably not. They're part of the "rise of software piracy," and the section seems a lot more tight without the clutter of the headings and "These are some causes which have accelerated its growth." It's redundant to have a heading for every topic; dividing your prose into paragraphs is enough for the reader to know you're moving on.
    Ok, I'll take a look into doing that.  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. If you're worried about the article getting too long - you're probably right. An article should flow well, look compact yet informative, and ideally stay under 32 KB. If you think "History of Warez" is getting too long, create a page named History of Warez and add a link to the main article instead. One example is the abortion article; they moved a large section dealing with controversy to abortion debate.
    Then people at FAC usually complain that the article is too short due to spinoffs (can you say Catch-22?)  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'm not a huge fan of the table right now; it feels too cluttered. Perhaps you could create a cell that horizontally spans over Type, Label, and Rarity, and have the image vertically span over the two rows of Type/Label/Rarity and the description. Since we're looking for "brilliant prose" here, I'd fix the sentence fragments in there, i.e. "A copy made in a cinema using a camcorder, possibly mounted on a tripod."
    I'm not a real fan of the table either, but I think its better than a list for displaying this data, I will keep working on its layout til I get something I'm satisfied with. Ok i'll get to the text content of the descriptions as well.  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. I saw the debate on the pronunciation of "warez." ;) Juárez isn't exactly pronounced "where-eS," as there's more of an "h" sound followed by an "ah" sound with an emphasis on the first syllable in Juárez. I don't think either of our descriptions are entirely accurate, though I don't know how easy it's going to be to find a definitive reference regarding word etymology and pronunciation.
    Biggest problem, is its pronounced so many different ways depending on region and dialect that its quite a difficult issue to solve. To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to, and so forth, there are many acceptable variations.  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not agree with the pronunciation presented on this page, as I took many years of Spanish through my education. However, if the pronunciation of the term is contentious, perhaps a section ==Pronunciation== is necessary. Just a thought. -Scm83x 10:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Finally, I finally scrolled down to the "Legality" section today. As such an important and touchy legal issue these days, I think this section could really use some fleshing out. I'm not asking to see the entirely of legal proceedings for and against, but we might look at, for example, the legal precedents set by the RIAA. We could analyze the response and statements of artists working for ASCAP/SESAC/BMI and those organizations themselves. There's no analysis of the very important DMCA and other similar laws. If you feel that you've covered these topics sufficiently in other sections (which I don't), then what is the need for such a small, skimpy section? -Rebelguys2 22:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    I've asked WikiProject Law to get on the Legality section, part of the reason I posted this PEER REVIEW was to get people knowledgeable in such fields to CONTRIBUTE, Lately it seems the only active editors to the article are vandals and myself.  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the legal section needs to be updated. Its too short and too much emphasis on the USA. It's not my main legal expertise but I will try to expand it, (if I have time). Otherwise I hope the wikiproject law can indeed help. Btw, I really like the new layout for cam, telesync etc. Garion96 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The legality section should just be replaced with links to Copyright infringement and Copyright infringement of software. Those are suitable articles for discussing the legality of warez, instead cluttering the main article with different views of every single nation in the world. S33k3r 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree those should be linked... but I disagree that they should be the entire contents of the legality section. If anything i think there should be a Legality of copyright infringement article to which all 3 link to. Its too important an issue for small sections in several articles.  ALKIVAR™ 05:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

T-34

This article provides good coverage of a historically significant tank. It deserves to be polished up as a potential Featured Article. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 06:24 Z

  • Get in-line citations. It appears to be now a requirement for FAC. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'll go through the article, and see where they are needed to support particular statements or figures (the table is already sourced this way). Are there any particular places in the article which you think need a citation? —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 20:23 Z
    It is not a requirement unless you've included fact statements that are obviously difficult to trace or verify. / Peter Isotalo 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have gone through the article, adding some inline citations requests in several places. Those should be enough. The article is close to FAC, after those inline citations are added, I would be glad to support it during FAC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      Thanks—I've adjusted some footnotes, and added a note to talk:T-34#Footnotes. I'll replace some of the requests with citations in few days. —Michael Z. 2005-12-24 16:39 Z
  • Subsections in Production History and Combat History (i.e. During WWII, After WWII) may be helpful to digest the text. Also, there are quite many photos in Combat History. Are all of them needed to illustrate the main idea(s)? I would also suggest a more thrilling title instead of "Importance" subsection. Something like "Legacy" - to underscore that T-34 became a cultural phenomenon rather than just a weapon. Sashazlv 01:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    Subsections are a good idea; I've been worried that at least "Production history" was too long, although I'd be reticent to drop anything. I suppose, we may eventually break off some articles from this one.
    The first two photos in "Combat history" illustrate some tank modifications, better than a description alone would—the first is integral, the second a good lead-in to the topic of shaped-charge HEAT munitions. The last two just help to put the tank's history into perspective visually, but are not critical to the article. If they're too much, perhaps some could be put into a gallery.
    "Legacy" sounds good too. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 06:17 Z
  • It's looking really good, consider cleaning up some of the red-links. I've made stub articles for a couple, but it would be nice if there were none :) Consider breaking the combat history out into a separate article Combat history of the T-34. The photos are excellent! Hard factors, Soft factor? (You only list one). Cite sources (I see you have citation neededs outstanding). Perhaps split variants out into a separate article? List of variants of the T-34 maybe? - FrancisTyers 01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Francis, the red links need to be filled or removed. But, overall, this is a pretty good article and I would love to see this become an FA. Zach (Smack Back) 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for all the input so far. I've eliminated a couple more red links by link disambiguation and adding new stubs, and the rest include articles on tank gun models and Soviet tank factories (see Soviet armored fighting vehicle production during World War II, for now).
Francis, can you be a little more specific on what needs to be added regarding hard & soft factors? —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 07:33 Z
No problem, I'm referring to Combat effectiveness of early war T-34s can best be evaluated in terms of 'hard' factors—armour, firepower, and mobility—and 'soft' factors—ergonomics. The T-34 was outstanding in hard factors and poor in soft ones.. Ergonomics might be more than one factor, but it just reads strangely (to have 'factors' then a list and then 'factors' and only one item). - FrancisTyers 14:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I have added training and tactics, which belong in this list also (although the ergonomic problems in early T-34s could be considered a whole list of factors). —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 19:55 Z
I am not sure about this recent edit. The original comment is valid and I may have written that poorly-worded sentence. "Ergonomics" sounds plural but isn't really. My bad.
However, if we are writing about hardware, adding things such as training and tactics into the evaluation of the design is tough territory to get into. Was the Pzkw-II a good tank because German crews were well-trained? No. Likewise, although doctrine certainly informs design, I don't think we can cite tactics or trainign as weaknesses of the T-34. They were weaknesses of the Red Army, and even the excellence of the T-34 design could not fully overcome those weaknesses in 1941-42.
Maybe it would be better to slightly edit the original sentence and then discuss the individual ergonomic weaknesses of the tank? I am thinking of very poor vision, poor crew layout, terrible floor layout, cramped size, etc.
Just my thought. DMorpheus 20:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Quite right—the theoretical effectiveness of the design is only part of the factors affecting the tank's historical combat performance. I think this section should cover the latter, larger subject, but it's important that it's written with the differences clearly defined. Needs some copy-editing, or a minor rewrite. —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 21:18 Z
  1. Please wikify the dates
  2. Those quotes should not be in the article. Please move it to wikiquote
  3. Explain terms such as medium tank in the lead. A user should not click to find out what is a medium tank.
    That could be difficult. It is hard to briefly explain different tank classifications and there is a very good separate article on the subject. DMorpheus 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    See suggestion below =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. MoS for units not followed 76.2mm --> 76.2&nbsp;mm
  5. Text needs a light copyedit. eg. Phrases such as all over the globe
  6. The list in the =variants= sections would look neater in a table. Make sure that the table width is set to 100% or <600px
  7. =Soviet medium tank models of World War Two= : would look better if the table contents were left aligned. The heading is a bit too long. try =WWII models=
  8. =After the Second World War= : heading not needed
  9. What was "revolutionary" about the design. Suggest you rename the title.
  10. Establishing and maintaining production --> Production
  11. Avoid left-aligning images that push a heading to the right. The hungarians.jpg image pushes the =after= heading to the right
  12. How many countries bought the tank? What about countries like India and China which bought most of their military hardware from the USSR?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Dates: done; only found one full date
  • Quotes: each quote directly supports the text—these short quotes are more effective inline than they would be in footnotes, where they would disrupt the flow of reading.
  • Medium tank is self-explanatory; the history and implications of the medium tank class belong in another article (although the T-34's history sheds some light). But what other terms need explication?
  • Units format: 76.2mm is only used in adjectival phrases, which the MOS doesn't cover sufficiently; this is an acceptable format (eg, the Economist's style guide [6]) used in many AFV books and WP AFV articles, and reduces visual clutter when calibres are referred to often.
  • Long heading: reduced to "Soviet medium tank models of WWII"
  • "Revolutionary design" is contrasted with a following heading "Evolutionary development", and the two together sum up the history of Soviet tank design since 1939. The T-34 was revolutionary in being the very first tank that was envisioned by its designers to be a "universal tank", fulfilling the roles of reconnaissance, breakthrough, and infantry tanks, and in achieving the balance of firepower, mobility, and protection to successfully do so. I'll see if I can brush up the copy to better convey this. "The revolutionary combination of thick, angled armour, heavy firepower and superb mobility placed it in a class above its closest German contemporaries, the Pz Kpfw III and Pz Kpfw IV." (Zaloga 1984:129)
  • "Production" sounds slightly redundant as a section in "Production history". But perhaps "Establishing and maintaining production" could be improved? Is "Battle of the factories" too cliché?
  • "Hungarians" image: should all the images in that section be moved up by one paragraph, or switch some to the right?
  • Employment: good question; it doesn't look like all countries are covered.

Thanks for the comments. I'll try to resolve all of these issues within a week or two, but please feel free to do some copy-editing. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 18:08 Z

  • Regarding the quotes, an article should have quotes only when its absolutely relavent to the context of the paragraph. The quotes are out of place here and should be moved to wikiquote. This is a valid objection and in the past quotes have been moved to wikiquote.
    The "hungarian" image problem has been rectified by removing the solitary subheading.
    Use the footnote style of referencing or the inote style instead of placing the reference directly inside the paragraph. This is recommended for for aural and print renditions.
    I think =maintaining production= would be better.
    yeah, the MoS for adjective based units could be updated, but the units in the infoboxes need to adhere to the MoS
    Regarding the "medium tank" bit: How about this rewrite: The T-34 was a Soviet tank often credited as the best and most influential tank of the Second World War. The tank, classified by weight as a medium tank....

=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes: which of the quotes are not relevant in the context of their section?
Citation style: WP:CITE lists Harvard style as the most common style. Footnote style is not appropriate, since these are all not footnotes but citations. What is inote? Who recommends "footnote" and "inote" for aural and print renditions? Since this is primarily a Web encyclopedia, and not an aural or print encyclopedia, why do you suggest changing the style of the citations?
Unit notation: MOS:NUM offers the adjectival example "155-millimetre projectile", but does not offer an abbreviated version, or even mention adjectival usage at all. The current version is a good example of writing style, and doesn't contradict the MOS.
'Medium' tank: the suggested wording sounds awkward. What is so puzzling about medium tank? It's not too big, not too small: just right. The precise definition of the term could be expanded a bit later in the article, but the introduction needn't be cluttered with an explanation of a technical term whose essential meaning is self-evident. —Michael Z. 2005-12-29 08:36 Z
Inote or invisible notes are essentially inline citiations that are visible only in edit mode. See template:inote and the discussion on its talk page. Inotes offer a neater interface and are more suited for less controversial or less sensational information. Inotes are extensively used in this article: Economy of India. Use {{explain-inote}} in the =references= to allow a person interested in crosschecking the them use the edit mode to hunt for them. Unit notation: I was referring to the infoboxes in the second post. As far as the quotes are concerned, they need to be moved to wikiquote. Objections for the same have been raised in the past in FAC (I can't remember which ones). Can't the wording of medium tank be improved upon instead of linking? The word medium itself is a relative term. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Since the citations have been added recently and a few are yet to come, I'd like to leave them all visible for now, but I can see the utility of inotes.
I'm not convinced about the quotes yet; I still think they all support the text. I agree that they should be added to wikiquote (there are more, and longer versions in talk:T-34).
Since the T-34 was instrumental in changing tank classification during and after the war, it may be justified to add a very short section on the subject. I'll think about writing something. —Michael Z. 2005-12-29 21:09 Z

Old Peer review for Hurdy gurdy

I am nominating this article because I was very impressed upon first reading. I found the article very informative and think that it has potential to be a featured article. Please leave any comments about how the article may be improved. Thank you. --malber 15:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Definitely not at FA status. The article needs to be sourced. There are absolutely no citations to be found in the article. I found the first sentence awfully difficult to read and more so to understand. A good article should be able to stand on its own without me having to research elsewhere and, for example, have a knowledge of musical terminology. The section about types of hurdy-gurdies needs to be expanded. MyNameIsNotBob 08:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mirko Norac

This article seems rather good to me, but it's possible that's because I wrote the whole article. I'd like this article to be reviewed for 2 reasons:

  1. So I can learn how to write better articles because this one seems very good to me
  2. If it really is really good, to find out what it needs to became FAC

Please, feel free to comment on even the most irrelevant aspects of how this article can be improved. --Dijxtra 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it... comments to follow. :-) -- ChrisO 20:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok here are my comments:
  • The article reads like a list dumped into a paragraph. It does not flow nicely at all.
  • Huh. Could you, pleeease, supply an article you think flows very nicely? Thing is, I agree with you my prose is somewhat list-like, and would like to improve it...
  • Well, every fact in the article is taken from pages listed in References section. That's not good enough? If not, for which sentences should I quote sources directly, in the text? I mean, it's silly to cite source after every sentence... or is it not?
  • Surely there is more information somewhere about his childhood, family and training.
  • I googled real hard, but couldn't find anything. Thing is, although he is rather important person in Croatia as he sparked some of the largest protests in Croatia ever, nobody seems to be iterested in his childhood. :-(

Good job thus far. MyNameIsNotBob 08:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for sparing time to read the article. --Dijxtra 09:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mirko Norac

Thanks for your interest in your role played with the Mirko Norac article. I was in the process of reading the Afd about it and was in the middle of leaving a reply that I thought it should be kept but edited, made neutral or etc in the case that it wasn't neutral. Right as I tried to leave my reply I saw that Adam Bishop had deleted it I think on the grounds for being bad faith. I hope you don't mind but I undeleted the article and did my best to edit it and make it neutral

Personally, I'd had no knowledge of Mirko Norac and am neutral as far as to whatever his or his followers or dejectors have to say about him. But in all due respect I hate seeing one's ideas censored. I think we should encourage others to make Wikipedia the best we can. If what I've submitted is neutral, I hope that not anyone else reverts it to an unneutral article.

Thanks again and feel free to check out my work on the public access television article where I make numerous contributions. DavidWJohnson 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nightwish

Since the day I signed up to Wikipedia, I have been working on this article. I have expanded it, rephrased several parts, added templates and images and tried to make it as complete as possible. After my major revamp of today ([7]), I feel that I have completed my labours on this article. I would like to get feedback on what I believe to be one of the articles which I poured the most dedicated work into. I really do feel that this article has enough potential to become featured. -- SoothingR(pour) 09:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What I can suggest is have a small, approximately, 20-30 second clip of a Nightwish song. I have some recordings from the CD "Once," so let me know if you want them. Zach (Smack Back) 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
That is a good idea. However, wouldn't it be better if we grabbed some short clips from their official site? Then we can tag those soundclips Fair Use, without controversy. -- SoothingR(pour) 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Certainly, but remember, they must be in the OGG format. If you cannot do that, then I am able to do that. Zach (Smack Back) 10:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I'm very well capable of doing that myself ;). I picked two samples from two different albums (Sacrament of Wilderness from Oceanborn and Nemo from Once), since I feel that it's bad to have two clips from Once. It is their latest album, but that doesn't mean that we should neglect their older work. -- SoothingR(pour) 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
That's cool. Other than that, I suggest just running the article through a spellchecker and it should be good to go. Though, if possible, try to get rid of some of the redlinks that are in the article by probably writing on stuff. Zach (Smack Back) 21:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, it won't fly because of the many lists and galleries at the end of the article. I would also like to see something more than just descriptions of albums (critisims? involvement in politics? greepeace? smth smth?) Renata3 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

A very well known man, the co-founder of Apple Computer. I'd like to see this article featured some time soon, the article is very close - Has anyone got any suggestions? Thanks! — Wackymacs 02:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • See alsos at the end of sections seem redundant with the section contents. There is no clear identification of reference materials.--nixie 10:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Review of Steve Jobs by User:Fermion

Opening paragraph

  • rework sentence to take Steve Wozniak out of brackets e.g. Jobs cofound Apple with Steve Wozniak in ....
  • I think that the revival of apple started before the iPod, back with the iMac

The copyright status of the first image (Steve_Jobs2.png) needs to be resolved

Early years, opening sentence, change to Steve Jobs. This paragraph is a little awkward, but I can't pin point it.

Jobs said he remained at Reed attending classes, including one in calligraphy. "If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts," he said. The two sentences could be combined into one, and a reference needs to be given. Certainly don't have he said at the end of the quote, break the quote and put it in the middle.

Change IPO to initial public offering.

First paragraph under departure from Apple, final sentence needs to be linked and explained more fully.

While Jobs' stint at NeXT is often glossed over in history books, the contributions of NeXT's engineers incidentally led to two unrelated events: "incidentally", in my view, is not formal enough for an article

Under return to apple it may be interesting and useful to mention the relationship of OS X to Linux and that Linus Torvalds was approached to be involved (reference: Just for fun, Torvalds autobiography)

The first three paragraphs under personal life can be combined and made a lot clearer. The entire personal life section can be improved. I fear that it reads too much like a dirt file on Steve Jobs, however, I would hate to see this information being lost to the public.

The controversey section is merely a collection of quotes and needs some editorial work if it is to be included.

In general, this is a good article. Referencing is weak and needs to be improved. I enjoyed reading this article, thank you. -Fermion 06:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Apple Computer

This article is the current focus of WikiProject Macintosh, so while everyone's working how about giving us something to do, eh? --HereToHelp (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


My only quibble is that the last picture of Steve Jobs looks out of place. It either needs to be larger or higher up on the page so it doesn't get cut off by the section below's line. Spawn Man 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Done --HereToHelp (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're looking to get this to FA, it's got a ways to go. 1) The list of products would need to be moved off to its own list article and replaced with a well written summary of the most important products. 2) The slogans just need to be moved out entirely with perhaps the most important one or two discussed in a good summary paragraph. 3) The litigation section is way too long and should be moved out to it's own article and summarized here. 4) Needs more and better references. Some of the books listed in the further reading section would be good places to start and cite important material to them. Using only online references and not formatting them properly as references (see Wikipedia:Cite sources) is not a good FA level practice. - Taxman Talk 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, here's my take: there is nothing on Scully, who Apple brought in. He was a soft-drink executive for goodness sake! Info needs to be incorporated in about the various CEOs. One source (which I own) is Sculley's Pepsi to Apple. Might be worthwhile incorporating into the article.
We need more info about the past products and software. We only have current products - and I notice that in the infobox there is a link to Apple Computer#Products, which does not exist! What about information about the different corporate divisions that make up the company? Marketing strategies? There is much more to Apple Computer than just the technology, after all. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wave-particle duality

Request review for all aspects of this article, with the eventual goal of getting to "featured article" status. linas 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks good, linas. Would add more comments later. deeptrivia (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a pretty good article and the explanations seem clear to me, but that may be due to prior exposure. I'm not so sure how clear this would be to a newcomer. The text could probably be usefully supplemented by several good-quality illustrations. Also the applications section is rather brief, with only one example. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the Duality of light section. It's short and unclear in its purpose or relationship to other sections. Also, the applications section needs expanding. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To be a FA it's going to need a longer lead section, and generally longer and more cohesive sections. Merge related material or expand short paragraphs until they are full complete ideas and flow well. It's also going to need more references (shoot for 10) and inline citations of important points. There should be plenty of good references out there. Feynman's lectures would probably be good ones, but any good QM textbooks would be a start. - Taxman Talk 23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't like the emphasis on differential equations; classical fields obey differential equations, while quantum fields might not (or at least, the equations they obey can be quite different from the classical analogue). There is no mention of localisation (and issues regarding masslessness), or Fourier transforms, or complementarity. The excuse that there isn't enough room to give a modern treatment in this article holds no water. Are you only interested in a historical synopsis? The theoretical review should be 3/4 of the article, in my opinion. -lethe talk 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought about this for a while, and couldn't figure out what the "theoretical review" is. There is no "modern treatment" or "Theory of wave-particle duality" that I know of, and this is one reason why I focused on the history. One could say, "study wave equations, study Fourier transforms, study the hydrogen atom, study the simple harmonic oscillator, study Hilbert spaces, and study second quantization and how the uncertainty principle is just Pontryagin duality then you will "get it"". I suppose one might try to describe a phonon as an example of a particle that's a wave, but a review of phonons is tricky, would require hand-waving to get to photons anyway. It could be wiser to just spend more time explaining the photoelectric effect in greater detail, or explaining the Schrodinger atom vs. Bohr atom. Ideas? linas 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Quantum mechanics is also governed by differential equations (all of physics is really). Therefore for a full treatment of this subject there should be at least some discussion on differential equations. I also wonder if it would be appropriate to mention Max Planck in the history section as he was the one who came up with the idea of photons (even if he didn't view them as real). In addition to be more technical, the Schrodinger equation is a non-relativistic equation, and the key equation that is used to provide realistic models is the Dirac Equation, which essentially is a relativistic Schrodinger Equation. Also, Linas is correct, there is no "theory of wave-particle duality". This is a phenomena imposed on us by the basic principles of quantum mechanics itself, mainly the uncertainty principle. As such it makes no sense to refer to the "modern treatment" of wave-particle duality as such phenomena was not even around until quantum mechanics was developed. Indeed there should be focus on some of the interpretations of what this duality represents and how it is dealt with in the various interpretations, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation or Feynman sum over histories. I will do what I can, but I am new to the Wikipedia interface and so will be inefficient. SciBrad 04:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Walt Disney World International Program

It has been suggested that this article could be cleaned up and/or restructured. Personally, I think it looks ok if a bit bland. The information seems to be all accurate... I'm working towards submitting this page as a FA candidate. KC. 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix this, but the article is nearly all lists. Unless you're going to put it up for WP:FLC, it doesn't have enough prose to be considered a FA. Surely the qualifications section, and the small list about eligibility under Current programs could be turned into prose. That's the most glaring problem with this being a FAC. Harro5 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yup! That's just about exactly what I was looking for! I've begun a major rewrite and edit-with 3 sections so far done (everything up to International COllege Program) with more to come in the next 2 days. Any further input you have will be much apprectiated. Thanks for your input so far, Harro5! KC. 04:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, just looking now, don't you think the headings need a re-work? Particularly the subheadings - these are very long by Wikipedia standards - and most headings aren't capitalised properly per the WP:MOS (only caps for first word and proper nouns). I'd try to make them shorter, or just merge these sub-sections to leave just Level2 headings if possible. Again, the more prose, the easier that fluidity becomes. Good luck with the major edit promised on the page. Harro5 09:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Even after the re-write, both my comments are yet to be addressed. Also, you need to use the old {{ref}} and {{note}} system for inline citations. Harro5 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Erm, Firstly, I took out the level 3 subheadings and merged it to level 2 subheadings only. I shortened the subheadings names and capitalised them properly... Cultural Representative Program and International College Program were left in all capitals as they are proper nouns. I'll see what I can do with regards to note and ref tagging. KC. 17:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just finished the rewrite (I think...). Let me know what you think! KC. 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it still seems listy to me, this could have potential as a featured list candidate. — Wackymacs 19:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
If you take a look at the history of the article, it was originally just titles with little prose. It's since had a huge amount of prose added to it. Still, any comments on how it could be improved upon with regards to making it less listy? KC. 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed some spelling errors.--Esprit15d 14:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Added some images. Thoughts? KC. 03:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Took a look, its amazing what a little time and work will do. Both this and the WDWCP are very complex programs, ergo there is going to be alot of information and lists are unavoidable. I really think it has FA potential. When you are done on the IP, come over to the CP page and work some magic.Shifter55 06:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Pheasant Lane Mall

It's a bit past the stub phase, but i'm wondering what to add now. More statistics? List of stores? Events going on in the mall? More about the mall's impact on the city as a whole? Where does this article go from here? karmafist 10:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Did I miss what makes it any different from a thousand other American malls? alteripse 13:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently you did. That's why I'm here. karmafist 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We all need a raison d'etre. But what is the difference? alteripse 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There we go. That's what i'm trying to brainstorm with you. What would make this article more interesting? I mean, there are a few facts in there making it fairly notable (largest mall in NH, would be one of the largest cities in NH if it was a city and you counted people in the mall during the holiday season, its a mecca for sales tax dodgers from Mass., it transformed Nashua as a whole, etc.)
I do have a few ideas for things I could add..
  • History: Originally, the land which the mall was built upon almost became a dog track. However, in the 16 years since its opening, the almost empty landscape from Exit 1 to the Mass border now has zero open space.
  • Rivalries: It creates one of the focal points for one of the three anchors of the Golden Triangle, and the other two also have malls that drastically transformed the commercial development zones surrounding it.
  • More Indepth on the Mall itself: It's hard not to go into cruft here, but one of the mall's plaza pimps the local New England motif with a Ralph Waldo Emerson poem surrounding a 40x40 ft.(or so) byzantine mosaic of New England scenes on the floor.
  • Stats: Parking spaces, stores, square footage, rental costs per sq. ft, gross sales, etc.
  • Maps: Both of the mall and surrounding it.

Other than that, the only real difference is that this mall has been a major part of my life. I've had three jobs there, and spent countless hours there while growing up. It's unique to me, but I guess sometimes on Wikipedia, that just isn't enough. karmafist 06:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

American football

Long-term editors have tried to maintain a balance between keeping the article simple for those unfamiliar with the sport and accomodating people who add more detail here and there. I'm especially interested in hearing from non-Americans who don't know anything about the game, as they can say whether the article makes sense to them. -- Mwalcoff 02:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I'm a member of WikiProject Football, and edit articles about a very different type of football). I'm non-American and have never been able to fathom why gridiron stops all the time. Maybe now I can work it out.
Overall the article seems to do a decent job. A look at Cricket (which is featured IIRC) may help with ideas on how to explain a seemingly complex game to newcomers.
Some issues, none of them overwhelming, with two main points:
  • The article lacks a description or link to a description of what a tackle is and what forms of contact are permitted.
  • A description of the equipment necessary for teams to play a game is not included
Minor things:
  • The Objective sentence could do with rewording, though I'm not sure how. Rugby and Aussie rules score points for reaching the other end of the field, but association football and gaelic football do not.
  • Why does an NFL team have 53 players? It seems an odd number to someone like me who is unfamiliar with the game.
  • Is a snap always thrown between the legs? (my confusion is more due to lack of readability in the article Snap (American football) than the American football article)
  • Is punting the ball to a member of your own team allowed?
  • Does conceding a penalty result in any disciplinary action against the player who broke the rules? Oldelpaso 17:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. This is sort of like when missionaries landed on remote Pacific islands and had to translate Bible verses about shepherds to people who had never seen animals other than fish and birds. How do you explain a tackle? This is something I'll have to think about.
Regarding some of your other questions:
  • The 53-man roster is a result of negotiations between NFL owners and the players' union. Obviously, the players want big rosters.
  • Yes, the snap must always go through the center's legs, although whether the center hands it directly to the quarterback or throws it behind him to the quarterback (or another player) depends on the offensive formation being used. I agree that snap (American football) is poorly written and needs improvement.
  • No, you cannot kick the ball to a teammate. As mentioned in punt (football), you can't recover a punt kicked by your own team unless the other team has touched it first. If a member of the kicking team grabbes a punted ball, the other team gets the ball at that spot. The goal is to do this really close to the other team's end zone so they have to start with really bad field position.
  • Very flagrant personal fouls, such as shoving the referee, can result in the player's ejection from the game in addition to the standard 15 yards. In other cases, only the team is penalized... although the coach might make sure the offending player gets a good chewing-out. -- Mwalcoff 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've added a section called "A violent game" that may answer some of your concerns. -- Mwalcoff 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that makes things clearer. Oldelpaso 10:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the Popularity section doesn't mention that the vast majority of American football is played in the US compared to that played elsewhere. The list of leagues mentions a Womens League, so maybe the statement in the Popularity section which says "Organized football is played almost exclusively by men and boys" needs changing. Also, if you intend to go through FAC, more references/footnotes may be needed.

I changed the word "abroad" to "elsewhere" in the list of leagues. Oldelpaso 11:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your input -- Mwalcoff 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

OK, I've actually had a peer review AND a FAC before on this article (see Wikipedia:Peer review/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive2. I have expanded considerably, and I'm a now documenting commentary of the Title (I am currently documenting what the EFF have to say about it - I gotta say, I'm not that impressed and actually wonder if they've read the darn thing... but I digress). I'm asking for a status check. Please note that at the time of writing it is about 63KB and growing, so I'm well aware that I'm going to have to start splitting sections soon (I really don't know how I'm going to do this...). What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

there are sub-sections that are stubs. I don't really think that analyzing every single section is needed... It just gets unencyclopedic (and gets closer to original research). In my view, encyclopedic is an overview (summary) highlighting most important/controversial parts, discussing impact/reactions and showing different views (supporters and opposers). So I suggest switching focus a bit from analyzing sections to social impact. Renata3 20:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem, however, is that if I don't describe some of the sections then important information will be missing. Which sections shouldn't be included? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you really want me to read the whole thing??? :) But in any case, I did not suggest deleting anything, just maybe trimming down to the point. Just shift focus to discussing the impact from making a summary of the law. Right now if feels more like a technical summary for lawyers (this paragraph was included there and there, and this one was removed) or as if you tried to re-write the whole act in simple English (brave undertaking, I should say :D). And do that for every single one of them.... Aghr... I know it's easy, but is it really needed? Better discuss what impact it had. I bet most of the sections are really formal things no one cares about. There are of course a couple that created the whole fuss. And I believe those should stand out and get lost among other stuff. Does it help? Renata3 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:P Actually, that's precisely what I tried to do. What I'm trying to do is explain the Act in plain English. The structure is as follows: lead section with what Act is and main points, then broad summary of most important parts, then commentary on the Act, then explanation of each section for those who want to know more. Some of the section summaries might be a little technical, in this case we may in fact need to make them simpler! IANAL, incidently.
For Title II, however, there is almost no sections that are formal things that noone cares about. Almost every single one of them have been commented on, and even those with little commentary are still quite important. However, I understand what you mean by sections getting lost: I think that this is dealt with a two-fold approach: 1) the broad summary at the top explains these important sections, and 2) the commentary section also highlights the sections everyone comments on.
What I'm trying to do is get comprehensive articles together about each of the titles. Once this is done, I aim to sort out the main article, which IMO is not terribly good. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, then I ask if CliffsNotes are encyclopedic? My answer would be: not really. I don't know about yours. But whatever you do, try to organize it better. Somehow I get lost once I open the article. Renata3 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Respectfully, I believe that you are talking about two seperate genres. Cliffs Notes deals with fictional literature, this article deals with a legal document. Out of interest, what is the problem with the structure? You can get a broad grasp of the Act by just reading the lead section and section 1's summary. You don't have to read further if you don't want, however to explain what the Act actually says, IMO you need to have summaries of each section. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It just occured to me that I misread you. Are you referring to the overall structure of the article, or the structure of the section that deals with the individual sections? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, cliffsnotes might be dealing with literature, but the principle is the same: re-tell the plot in simple language. Anyway, I was talking about the whole article structure. For some reason (I can't pintpoint anything specific, so weird) it is confusing. Maybe there should be more second level headings... Actually, I just saw your goal on USA PATRIOT Act that you want to summarize it... Ah, well, I can't stop you now, can I? So just remember (1) don't get too technical (you don't want to put every single rule and exception mentioned in the act, do you?) and (2) remember to include what it really means in the real world (its impact, why it is seen as good/bad by supporters/opposers). And just a disclaimer: I HATE politics ;) Renata3 01:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I hate politics too! I'm not having a go at what you're saying, and I don't suspect you're saying it because of any political alleigances. I agree that we need to add the impact in the real world, I didn't really think of adding such a section but I can see a way of adding this. I am adding material on the various important commentators of the Act, though. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Battle of the Netherlands

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

Comment: Previous Peer review request available at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Netherlands/archive1 and the failed FAC attempt at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Netherlands. --Allen3 talk 11:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is in desperate need of references, and until they are provided this article does not even qualify as a good article. The information contained in the article had to come from somewhere, please cite the sources you used to compile the article. If you have no such sources, then a trip to your local library to check out a couple history books dealing with World War II should help. --Allen3 talk 12:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a cursory look at the article shows that there are a lot of dead links...Masterdebater 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "dead links"? I see no external links that go to error messages. Redlinks that indicate we don't have an article on a topic yet are generally acceptable in quality articles, or at least I thought they were. jengod 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sandertje, this looks very comprehensive and it's well illustrated. I think with some further refinements in language and the addition of inline sources and references (see Saffron for an excellent example of a sourced article), this extensive, informative and well-written article could definitely be featured. However, I think there are some spots where a more "encyclopedic" and/or neutral tone is warranted. jengod 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • For example, in the prelude section, "The governments just didn't see it as 'such a big deal'." is a fairly vague statement, unless of course, someone stood on a podium and used those words.
    • Also, "But they hoped the restrained policy of the Entente and Central Powers during World War I might be repeated and tried to keep a low profile and to stay out of a war at all cost. A point of view that, with the figure of human life lost during the earlier conflict, may well be understood." It's not necessary for Wikipedia to rationalize or defend the choices of the govt., although it would be reasonable to point out that the government had humanitarian intentions.
    • In the "the Dutch forces" section the article states "one could say that it was David and Goliath." This should point removed in an effort to minimize editorializing or rephrased as an adjectival point of fact "However, these had not been exploited: while the German army at the time still had many shortcomings in equipment and training, the Dutch army still faced a David and Goliath situation." The remainder of the section then goes on quite strongly, dealing with specific facts and scenarios; it's in the broad generalizations that the article falls down. They may well be true, but they should be backed up with primary and secondary sources that make the same assertion and explain why with supporting evidence.
    • Also, it can be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the topic if you explain uncommon terms, for example "Fall Gelb " is introduced without a definition. From context it seems like it means "the plan for the german invasion of holland" or "the plan for what to do with the low countries while we work on taking over the world for a thousand-year reich" ;) but I'm not sure.
    • Another broad unsourced statement is "The German population generally disliked the idea of attacking their Dutch neighbours." Again, it's probably true, but it needs to be credited to a reputable historian or proven by reference to primary sources.
    • If possible, please wikilink dates. "On May the 14th the Dutch" would become "On May 14, the Dutch" and so on...
    • The article ends with "The Dutch occupation officially began on May the 17th 1940. It would take five years in which over 250,000 Dutchmen died, before the Dutch got their freedom back." The last sentence sort rings of "the beginning of the end" and leaves me curious to know how the 250,000 Dutchmen died and how the Dutch finally rid themselves of their German occupiers." Are there other articles on wikipedia that "continue the story"? If so, a link to them, perhaps in the form of a series box, would be excellent.

Memory Alpha

This is a wonderful site I use regularly for information related to Star Trek, and I want to return the favor by giving it a great page on Wikipedia. I have put a good deal of effort into summarizing its history, structure and canon policy, but I am particularly interested in hearing opinions on the completeness of the article. For example, should there be more detail in any given section, should I add a section on something else, etc. Thanks! Narco 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done. I can't think of anything major in terms of sections to be added, but maybe the issue of fan fiction, fan films, etc and MA's expanding mandate (e.g. it's covering stuff now it wouldn't have before, like the parodies page) would be good. You could also use a citation or two about the debate over featured articles; Solbor's nomination and that of "Crossover" are good examples of this. "Crossover", in particular, could be used as a segue to the question of whether or not unanimity is a viable policy; I know Wikipedia wouldn't survive a day with that policy. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk 01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a nice surprise seeing an article for this website, which I, as a trekker wannabe, find a very interesting project. However, it shows that it was written by a fan. I removed some POV statements, like saying that the site "grew exponentially". I would like some reference for the claim that there is competition between Wikipedia and Memory Alpha. Also, the article should deal with any "bad" aspect of the website. For instance, was there any significant fight that threatened to disrupt the project or caused a fork? Or is there significant criticism towards the wiki's administrators? JoaoRicardotalk 06:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

previous peer review

African American military history

Created about an hour ago, MORE INFORMATION needed, and I hope I can recruit efforts by listing it here. I will do more tomorrow with it, and I hope others are willing to join in the effort. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Danny Deever

I'm quite pleased with this one - it's a decent solid article on a reasonably famous work - but I'm rather aware that I'm the only real author, and my writing style is never the best. The main problem I have is that it deals with a poem, and a relatively short one; the ballad form means you want to follow the text reasonably closely to explain it, and thus it's tempting to just quote everything. I've tried to avoid quoting unless necessary, to keep the length down, but I'd appreciate comments on whether or not this could be done better.

The critical reaction seems a bit short; does this section need to be expanded? (I haven't dug up anything bad about this work specifically, as opposed to "Kipling sux", or I'd quote it; section's overwhelmingly positive as a result) No image, but I don't think one would add much. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The article looks good; perhaps a bit short for a FA, but it covers the topic in sufficient detail. About the only thing I wondered about was R. Kipling's motivation in writing the poem. Did he have a specific concern he was trying to address, or was it just intended as art? Thanks. — RJH 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Lycett didn't mention anything specific, as I recall. Checking Carrington, it seems the Observer was very much a literary magazine - it was only about six months old at the time - and Kipling was one of the first discoveries, alongside men like Yeats and Barrie. No specific motive for the poems is given - at the time, his big political thing was the Parnell Commission. They seem to have been solely done for art, or for pleasure - he had a fondness for "the men who work", the engineers and soldiers and administrators, but hadn't (AIUI) started writing verse to glorify them at this point. Shimgray | talk | 19:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Petachiah of Ratisbon

Basic bio of this medieval traveler. Would like some comments to help improve it. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Tunnel and Reservoir Plan

This one-day article needs looking at just because it's an obscure civil engineering topic (civil engineering topics shouldn't be obscure, but they are). Some concerns off the top of my head...

  1. Additional categories?
  2. What pictures should I use, when most of the system is underground? I suppose I could do the reservoirs...
  3. There's no one that can really take credit for such a large, complicated, long project. How should attribution go?

Thanks! --Rob 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seinfeld

  • I would like to see this article reach featured article status in the future, and am willing to work for it to get there. Hopefully, this article will be critiqued so changes can be made so it can be a Featured Article. FireSpike 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps

I to request the peer review of this article. Or: Geez, we have so many American users here, lets push this for "featured". ;-) The topic surely deserves it. Please help since I am already fully convinced of the article - but that's surely only POV. :-) --Predator capitalism 11:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If you want to get this featured I'd suggest sorting out the awfully messy 'Organization' section which is just a bunch of lists which should be converted into prose. There are more lists in other sections, the same thing should be done with those too. The main thing this article needs is References and in-line citations in the form of footnotes. — Wackymacs 12:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Did it where I saw it possible. --Predator capitalism 05:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • There, I did some for you and cleaned up some sections. Now you need to work on getting references and putting footnotes in the article. — Wackymacs 08:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

All up the article is informative and well structured. Writing as an Australian, I'm happy to report that the article is free of the US-centalism which blights many articles on US institutions written by Americans. I do, however, feel that the article covers a bit too much ground and should perhaps be split into seperate articles (for instance, the history of the USMC is a rich and interesting topic which deserves its own section). Some more specific sugestions are:

  • The 'creation and history' section would benefit from some sub-headings.
  • should mention the USMC's involvement in Afghanistan in the Corps recent history
  • The section on the 'Reputation of the Marine Corps' is rather lightweight at present. More substantive criticisms of the marines, such as whether their role is necessary, whether they take too many casualties and so on are more significant than incidents which earned some bad PR.

Should the Warrior's creed and the Marines' Hymn be added as examples of Marine culture? Possibly I could also add the cadence lines which explain the Marine Corps colours since they aren't yet. Cadences are a good point too, by the way, but are they really relevant? --Predator capitalism 16:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Already articles for those: Rifle Creed, Marines Hymn. Also, I concur with Nick Dowling's feedback above. —Kenyon (t·c) 00:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The pages orginzation needs help, and the Marines deployed in Wars area has some sections that really ought to be expanded. Another thing I would do is line up the wartime pictures with the corresponding wartime history. And I did not see any references to Marine security for the president or embassies or anything of that nature. TomStar81 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, TomStar. I still have a little question: why should there be a reference for somethind that is quite extensively being discussed in lanked WP article? BTW, this is not "my" article....somebody with a bit more time could work these suggestions in, although I'd be glad to help. --Predator capitalism 05:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I guess I missed that link. 21:25 UTC translates to something like 4:30 AM here; under those circumstances it would be easy to miss alot :-).

Starship Troopers

I have to start this request for a Peer Review with an apology. I made the last request back in December when this page was obviously nowhere near FA status, and consequently received minimal feedback. However this article has improved a lot over the last two months and was recently nominated to be a Featured Article. Unfortunately, it failed to get enough votes and so I'm coming back to you, hat in my hand, asking for your advice and criticism. For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, Starship Troopers is a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein about futuristic warfare from an infantryman's perspective. It helped created a sub genre of literature known as military science fiction and is the only science fiction novel on the reading list at all four United States military academies. However, the novel is extremely controversial, and has been called militaristic, fascist, and even racist by many of its detractors. Palm_Dogg 09:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As has been already pointed out in the FA nomination, there seem to be quite a lot of images of covers of the book in the article and I'm not sure their use qualifies as fair use. It seems to me as if they're used more for decorational purposes than to illustrate the points of the article. The fair use rationale on all images states they are "illustrating how different individuals have visualized Starship Troopers", but they are spread rather random throughout the article and there is no mentioning of any cover in the article. They certainly are not used to illustrate anything in the sections they are placed in. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but the Wikipedia Template:bookcover does say we're allowed to use book covers "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". I should add that I originally used images from the films, anime, and comics, but other users objected to using pictures from non-literary sources. *sigh*. I just can't win this one, can I? Palm_Dogg 13:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, in general I agree, but the many covers in the article seem excessive and unnecessary. Most of them just jam the article and don't add anything informative to it. And as you brought that up, there's no mentioning of any of the US comic books in the article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're definitely right about them cluttering up the article so I've tried spacing them out a bit. I do think they add to the article, because in addition to being visual aids, they give multiple different perceptions of the powered armor (My personal favorite is the Polish version). I still have to rewrite the "Themes" section, so when I finish with that I think I'll redo the footnotes so that they're 'concentrated.' Palm_Dogg 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Several short sections (reception, some of the adaptations).
  • Usually these articles have a list of references in culture.
    • OMG! NO WAY! You should have seen this page when I took over. At least 1/3 was taken up by Warhammer 40K and Halo fans. I had to create a seperate page for it all called Books, films, and games influenced by Starship Troopers. Palm_Dogg 14:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There should at least be a quick section using {{main}} or {{details}}. I don't think the list is so long that it can't be boiled down to a section within the page. Circeus 15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your input. Palm_Dogg 15:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Palm_Dogg 02:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It'd be nice if identical notes could be concatenated (see meta:Cite/Cite.php for how to do this).

Haven't read the article in details yet, but these would be nice to correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs)

  • Done. Will try and tighten up/merge the shorter sections. Palm_Dogg 14:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As Fritz said further above - there are 12 (!) book covers. There should be one book cover. Book covers must have a fair use rationale, and more than one is really pushing that. I quite like the article itself, although some of the sections could be merged. Do not small-font your notes, it is poor style (font should be a minimum size, particularly for those with vision problems). Proto||type 15:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Notes have been smalled in several FA already without problems. Since the technique always involve scalable fonts, the reader is able to jack up the text size (and if he has vision problems, he probably does it by default). Circeus 15:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with so many book covers and no other images. SilkTork 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I have just swapped two book covers for two other images. The same could be done through the rest of the article. SilkTork 17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The non-English book covers could be reduced and merged into a single image for the purpose of demonstrating the various languages into which the novel has been translated. Apart from stills from the movie or possibly a pic of Heinlein, however, I'm not sure what other images you're going to find. — RJH 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. I'm loathe to use anything from the film for two reasons: one, this article is about the novel, not the Starship Troopers "universe"; second a lot of Heinlein fans hated the Starship Troopers film and might take it personally. ;) Palm_Dogg 17:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not like there really need to be that many pictures in the article, anyway. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The main reason this article failed in its FA nomination was a lack of copyediting. Would anyone here be able to help with that? Palm_Dogg 15:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Policy Debate

I and others have been working on this article for a while. It's come a long way and could go further. Masterdebater 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The Sample Card section could be removed. Article, if expanded has chance to be very good.Eagle (talk) (desk)

Neuro-linguistic programming

We have made adjustments to the page based on feedback from peer review and cleanup taskforce. We would like some suggestions on how to take this closer to GA or FA standard. Otherwise, how we could encourage experienced wikipedians to assist us in the process. --Comaze 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A medical (or quasi) article must have the highest-quality sources, which are usually indicated by the presence of a PMID, indicating peer-reviewed research. I don't see any. If this article came to FAC, I'd be checking every source for credibility, self-publication, etcetera, and objecting on grounds of lack of peer-reviewed, journal-published sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started a list of articles related to NLP that have been indexed in pubmed: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. I've also added AAT for dissertation and DOI for those indexed by psychinfo, etc. --Comaze 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are still quite a few improvement tags requesting clean up, expansion, checking imbalance. These should be actioned. The Criticism part is pretty mild. (my POV would be this NLP is a pseudoscience) and could be strengthened somewhat. The article size is about right, anybigger and you would think about splitting into more topics. GB 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Of the peer-reviewed articles indexed in psychinfo, only a very small percentage hold the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. On the contrary most authors argue strongly for further research. Would you characterise your POV as positivist? Are you referring to a specific applications of NLP, for example, to the mental health profession? --Comaze 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia for the timely 'hint'! So far our biggest job has been checking that the sources were remotely accurate or even existed at all. Now we need to attend to weight.Fainites 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Arguing that NLP is not "scientific" nor is accepted by the "establishment" are not necessarily arguments that objectively invalidate the study and practice of NLP. The simple fact is that some, indeed I argue too much, of what is referred to as "scientific study" is either biased, flawed or for whatever reason fails in it's pursuit of absolute fact and unbiased truth. There's a lot at stake, people, powerful people, have created a reputation and an industry that they want to protect at all costs, even if it is less effective than an alternative like NLP, indeed especially in this case. I will not delve into the supporting evidence for NLP here, merely to note that there are vested interests at play that seek to discredit any modality that threatens their income and status. Absence of so called 'evidence' is not and never will be evidence of absence. NLP continues to grow not because it is a fad but because it works and often does so more quickly, effectively and cheaply than conventional psychotherapy. The proof as they say is in the pudding. There are always going to be nay sayers and skeptics, most of whom have their own hidden agendas. For the record I profess no allegiance to NLP, only to truth, and that my friends is ever changing as our understanding and perception of reality expands and becomes more refined. "Is the world flat or round? Go have a look" --STS

Karen Dotrice

<guilt button>So, what? Does everybody read through this list saying, "Don't care. Don't care. Who? Don't care. Eh. Don't care..."? With what incentive does that leave me to read and comment when I have the time and experience? You do remember the little girl from Mary Poppins, right? A few weeks ago, she didn't even exist at Wikipedia. Now, this article has undergone extensive revision for a second try at Featured Article status. This isn't about the subjects for which we care; rather, it's about Wikipedia that we're supposed to care. Your comments are welcome.</guilt button> RadioKirk talk to me 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. "Critics were enchanted by her performance". Weasel terms. Either atribute this to someone notable (in the form "John Doe said critics were enchanted by her performance") or say which critics declared themselves "enchanted" by her performance.
  2. "Mary Poppins was a huge hit with audiences" It's better not to make such a judgement. Simply mention the box office numbers.
  3. "The Gnome-Mobile was not as successful[4] as Poppins". Ditto.
  4. I recommend adding more info about her life, specially the early years, and also on film critic's reactions to her work. JoaoRicardotalk 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Response: Thank you for your help! In order: 1) Attribution footnoted, but I guess I can throw Maltin's name in there; 2) and 3) Will do; 4) No such animal: I've searched high and low for anything beyond what is included and, at least on the Internet, it doesn't exist (of course, if you see something I missed, please, pass it on, with my thanks). RadioKirk talk to me 21:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I searched on Google for her and came up with the same sources you had found. I reformatted the "Personal" section into a "Life" section, to gather all her biographical information in one place. Problem is that the lead may be a little too short now. As for the British vs. English question, I really don't know what should be used. JoaoRicardotalk 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thank you so much. I may try to reformat some things to incorporate the changes with the conventions I've seen in other articles, and I'll let you know. Meantime, barring a definitive answer, I've settled on "English" since that appears to be her preference. :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Update: I hope I now have incorporated the best of both our ideas. Feel free to comment :) RadioKirk talk to me 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Søren Kierkegaard

I've been working on this article for several months now and I think it can use a fresh pair of eyes. I'm looking for some feedback and/or fellow editors to critique, edit, and help improve this article. Thanks! Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Step one: get rid of the giant ugly redundant infobox. All the information in that box should already be mentioned in the article text, much of it in the lead paragraphs, and repeating it all in a stylized box created for aesthetic reasons is unencyclopedic, as well as being useless to the people articles are actually written for: people who know little to nothing about the subject matter, not the kind of person who would understand the significance of a long list of random buzzwords and dates presented in an out-of-context box. -Silence 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The infobox can be easily be removed; it's usefulness can be debated on the ibox talk (which it seems you have already), is there anything specific to the article itself? Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The Infobox is neither particularly big (compare {{Music of Canada}}), nor particularly ugly, considering the lenght of the article. Circeus 08:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reduce those headings!!!!! =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • the artcile is TOO LONG!! It is 79 KB. My artcile on Jeryry Fodor is 50 KB and I am being lambasted by undergrad students to keep it below 32!! cut out the fat. What do you think this is? The Stanford Encycopedia of Philophy where artciles can often be printed out on 35 pages hard copy?? Jeeesh!!--Lacatosias 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a VERY minor point, but I noticed you double spaced after each period. It seems to be the convention on wikipedia to single space. It will likely become very difficult to maintain this style for the article as it is edited overtime. Might as well nip the problem in the butt before the formatting begins to look funny. Shaggorama 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Grand Forks, North Dakota

I would like to see what other users think of the effort I have made in improving this article over the past year. When I started, the article was very short and didn't contain very much useful information. I tried to add sections for every important aspect of the city and I have included extensive footnotes/references to verify the information that I have provided. It would be nice to see this become a Featured Article some day, so I would appreciate any feedback you can give me on how I might further improve the article. Thanks! --MatthewUND(talk) 02:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • After looking through the article, I have several immediate concerns:
  1. There needs to be references that give an overview of the city, not just isolated facts. The citations formatting should be more than just external links (year, organization, authors, etc. should also be noted).
  2. There are too many lists (notably in sites of interest, media, and transportation). Try to use prose throughout.
  3. Several of the paragraphs are too short (e.g. one-sentence paragraphs). These paragraphs should be expanded or merged.
  4. The introduction should give an overview of the entire article. Right now, it is too short.
  5. The article's organization is a mess compared to the organization of other featured U.S. city articles (e.g. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Boston, Massachusetts).
Overall, this article needs a lot of work before it reaches featured article status. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Pentawing 16:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. The references are a work in progress as is the introductory paragraph. As far as the lists go, I have always felt that sometimes lists are much easier to read and navigate for some groups of items (radio stations, attractions, etc.) than simple prose. Could you elaborate on your reference to the organization of the article being a "mess?" --MatthewUND(talk) 05:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just spent some time working on the article. I have combined some of the short paragraphs. I have also expanded the introduction...any opinions on how it reads now? Also, I have moved many of the sections around and merged some of the subsections. As for working with the references...hopefully tomorrow. --MatthewUND(talk) 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The article has improved a lot since the last time I looked at it. Nevertheless, from my experience featured city articles cannot contain lists unless it can't be helped (I've seen several city articles fail FAC due to their containing a number of lists). There are some problems with sub-headings. Generally, one does not use H3 headings unless they have more than one section.
As for the article's organization's being a mess, I don't see it now, but what I meant was that several sections could be grouped together in a more logical fashion (e.g. sites of interest and media with culture). Please check the featured city articles I mentioned for examples of what I had in mind when I first read this article. One more thing I forgot to add is that the article is missing some mention of climate. Can that be added in somehow? Pentawing 21:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice job with the article. It is certainly coming along. The only problems are the lists of "sites of interests" and "notable people," and the missing section concerning the city's climate. Though I did not thoroughly read through the article at the moment, I would suggest you pay attention to wording to make sure that the article doesn't read like a travel brochure (but from looking at the editing history, it seems that you are aware of NPOV issues). Also, make sure that the article does not go beyond 40kB. There are some FAC reviewers who object to articles that go beyond that size mark. If you have any further questions, I suggest you talk to Nichalp, who happens to be an expert in making city articles featured. Pentawing 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Another look through the article. The postcard image of historic Grand Forks has no copyright tag on it (this will pose a problem). The image arrangement should also be more spread out (there are images at the top of the article, but none towards the end. This is a minor point, but it is safer to resolve this issue). This is optional, but could you or anyone include a current image of Grand Forks's streetscape or skyline? This could be of interest for those wondering how much the city has progressed since the 1997 flood. Pentawing 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Matt, I think it's about time to put North Dakota on the map as far as featured articles go, but there is quite a way to go on this one. I'm going to work on the article as it is, but there's a lot of content that needs to be added.

  • Overall - There need to be clearer boundaries as to what should be in the Grand Forks city article, and how much related information can be in this article rather than in their own. There is also a hint of ... well, I can't think of what to call it...
Although Grand Forks is in a relatively remote area of the country, the community does boast an impressive array of cultural offerings
This type of line is NPOV, it loads judgements about the city, even though on the surface it may be meant positively, remoteness has its negative connotations. There are several points in the article that seem to take a swipe at Grand Forks' surroundings to try to add to the article; this is improper.
  • History - Needs further development and to be broken into sections; may need its own article with a summary paragraph in this article. Extemporaneous issues like smoking bans and curling matches need to be elsewhere.
  • Geography - a few POV problems in the descriptive sections. Neighbourhood listings are a bit longwinded, and more neighbourhoods need to be added.
  • Law and Government - decidedly in need of expansion. Municipal court, police and fire services, public works, etc.
  • Economy - also in need of expansion. More quantitative data (industrial output, gross income, etc), and less qualitative descriptions of business activities which invite POV.
  • Education - More info on the private schools in the city are needed. The Higher Education section does not need to go on and on about UND, there should be just enough to indicate its significant impact on the city.
  • Culture - Needs more specific information instead of just being a venue listing. Notable artists would be nice.
  • Recreation - Maybe add a bit about sporting venues?
  • Media - Decent enough, station articles should be filled in eventually. KXJC mention needs to be reworked.
  • Transportation - Bit of a mess. A mention of local elderly/disabled transit services, and a gloss of how many taxi companies operate in the city may be in order.

-AlexWCovington (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all of your comments, Alex. I will continue to work on the article. --MatthewUND(talk) 22:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been working on the article right now. I tried to remove some of the non-NPOV statements. In other sections, I have removed some unimportant details and included some new details that might be more valuable. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate all of the advice that Alex and Pentawing have supplied. Currently, I don't think I would desire to nominate this article for Featured status. From what I have seen, this can be a hard process and the end result could likely be people picking apart each and every sentence of the article. I would rather just continue to work on the article and refine its contents. Like I said in my request for a peer review, it would be nice to see this article become featured some day, but I wouldn't plan on attempting that in the near future. By requesting a review, I just wanted to see what others thought of what had been done with the article. I have gotten a lot of good feedback and I think the article is much better than it was even a few days ago. That was my intention...to improve the article. --MatthewUND(talk) 05:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Celtic F.C.

I want to have this article peer reviewed. So all comments are appreciated. --Chazz88 14:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the Recent Achievements section should be moved into the History section. A lot of people don't like having lots of short sub-sections, so it might be an idea to see if some of them could be merged. I think Celtic's European Cup finals could do with a bit more detail as well. It seems strange that there's more on John Barnes' incompetence than both of them put together. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The article suffers from a severe lack of references. i.e the second paragraph ...one of the most famous football stadia in Europe. According to whom?
  • The article could do with an image or two.
  • Consider jettisoning the Famous Celtic Fans section. Anyone whose support for the club is particularly notable should have it mentioned in their article, not Celtic's.
  • The section An anti-Celtic agenda? looks POV.
  • I agree with CTOAGN that the European Cup finals deserve more attention. Oldelpaso 10:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


  • IFK Göteborg and Arsenal F.C. are both featured articles about football clubs, and might be useful for comparison.
  • The phrase "one of the most famous/greatest/biggest..." is used a lot - if an instance can be backed up with references then fine, add them. Else it's just weasel words.
  • The History section is enormous, far too big. Ideally it should be moved to a separate article, e.g. History of Celtic F.C.. Recent Achievements should also be removed, and become a subsection of that page (and ideally slimmed down as well - does John Barnes' five-minute reign really warrant four paragraphs?) In their place, have a briefer History section written in summary style, and a link to the main article at the top.
  • An anti-Celtic agenda? looks quite POV - the fact there is a question mark in the header says it all. Either get rid of it, or back it up with facts and references.
  • Although Old Firm has its very own article, I am surprised there isn't more than a cursory mention of Celtic's Catholic heritage and the club's rivalry with Rangers in this article - a brief and neutrally-worded discussion of it (with references) would add much-needed additional context.
  • Top scorers should be tabulated (and the two tables should probably be combined). The number of games each player played would be useful and informative.
  • Separate club records from national records that the club has set; perhaps style them a little better too - e.g. in the manner of Arsenal F.C. statistics.
  • Get rid of famous fans section - it's an unmaintainable and possibly huge list.
  • Tabulate the managers list.
  • Un-bold the players in the Famous Celts section. Roy Keane should not be in there - he hasn't even played a match for the club yet.
  • External links should be organised better - separate it into official/news/fan sites.
  • Could do with some more photos, but I know it can be tricky finding sports pictures with free licences.
  • I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the article needs references from authoritative sources, especially for any specific historical claims (e.g. did Jock Stein really instigate the "Tracksuit manager" trend? Says who?).

That's the ones off the top of my head, might add a few more later. Qwghlm 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Virtual band

Okay, drawing off the previous two peer reviews (found here and here) plus the FAC nomination (found here), along with the article itself, I have been able to deduce the following problems:

  1. The article is too short for feature article
  2. More in-article information may be needed on:
    • The Archies
    • Gorillaz -- especially along the lines of how they came to be
    • Crazy Frog
  3. The extent of the 'animated' qualifier for a virtual band -- should it include puppetry?
  4. A breakdown of the dynamics behind a virtual band is extremely necessary
  5. Language issues must be attended to
  6. Required images -- I've done a little along this line, but should there be more?
  7. The Net-based virtual band (final paragraph of the intro before History now in a separate section) -- this seems, to me, to distract from the point of the actual article (the animated virtual band); should it be moved into a separate article?
  8. Some issues concerning article content, these two being the standout ones:
    • Did the Archies 'open the door' for other virtual bands?
    • The opening statement needs to be reworked as well
  9. Plus some extra sources required -- The Gorilaz's Takedown DVD is a great place to start, if anyone has it

Granted, this is more a request for contribution, but if anyone has any more problems with the article, then please say so here. --JB Adder | Talk 20:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi; response to your request on my talk page.
    • I'm not enamoured of the idea of footnotes other than for sources; if it's important put it inline or in a separate article. If it isn't get rid of it. In this case, the person's name should be inline and the place where it was said as a source, I think.
    • I reformatted the references to use templates. This is much easier to type and cope with. If you don't like the particular system I chose, there are others.
    • Please cover economic aspects; who profits; how do costs differ from normal bands? I've heard that most bands make their money in concert. How does this affect virtual bands?
    • something about the (presumably session?) musicians behind the bands?

Western Front (World War I)

I've tried to expand this article into a relatively high level overview of this WWI front, and I think it now covers all the important battles and related aspects in sufficient detail. Apart from better maps, what else needs to be done to make this FA-quality? Any syntax lapses or stylistic improvements needed? Thank you. :) — RJH 19:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A few suggestions below. It's, overall, a very well done and informative article. Best of luck on your FAC, and Happy Holidays! (or whatever's politically correct these days)

  • Fixing prose. Scanning through, I caught a few typos and ambiguous sentences. "eastern europe" isn't capitalized - go through a fix typos like this. "the British air crews lost 316 aircrews to the German 114" is ambiguous - did the German lose 114 aircrews, or did the British lose to some German 114th Squadron? - clarify figures like this.
Okay, I fixed that instance. RJH
  • Dramatizations. There's undoubtedly been more dramatizations of WWI than just that novel; regardless, there's been several movies based off of that book in any case. What makes this one so special to be listed by itself? If you're going to list anything at all, be a little more complete and add some more content.
I added a bunch more. Probably not a complete list, but the ones that are there are among the more notable. RJH
  • Consequences. I know that this section is simply going to be a summary of the overall consequences article. If you're going to reference to the number of deaths from Spanish flu, isn't it notable enough to summarize in numbers the deaths and costs of fighting on the western front all in one place at the end? I understand this section is a summary, but it seems to pull a lot of random details, ignoring others, and not conclusively ending this article as a whole. -Rebelguys2 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I did a rewrite. Hopefully that's sufficient now. I didn't want to do a comprehensive consequences of the war as that should be covered on the main WWI page. (Besides it could be an entire article onto itself.) Thanks for the feedback! — RJH 16:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Chewing gum ban in Singapore

I think the article is good enough to be on FAC without too much major changes, but just like to ssek a bit of ideas on improving this article in addition to some feedback of biasness in the article. Some copyediting will be good, too. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the use of the two fair use images is not appropriate. Image:Wrigley doublemint.jpg and Image:Wrigley orbit.jpg would be fair use in an article talking about those products. You'll have a tenuous fair use claim in the Singapore article. Also, there is no reason that a free photo of chewing gum products could not be made as a replacement. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The last para of lead section is POV: "Since the ban, Singapore's sidewalks have continued to stay gum-free. A new generation has grown up devoid of chewing gum, with few significant repercussions. Tourists visiting Singapore enthuse about how they no longer need to pick gum off their shoes when walking on the streets. Today, it is generally agreed amongst citizens that the advantages of the ban far outweigh the side-effects." And in general language is very strong and biased (like "One of the champions of the project"). How about citing some numbers? (eg how many cases of vandalism in MRT trains before the ban or how much revenues were lost by small shopkeepers). Also, could you produce chewing gum in Singapore? Renata3 20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I was just going to point that out. That sentence seems POV and unsourced. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"After all, this is an example of governmental control, in the name of good public policy, to restrict the distribution and sales of a commodity and the private lifestyle habits of its ordinary citizens." This doesn't really make sense, it needs to be cleaned up. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article needs more hard numbers and different background information. How many times did chewing gum stop the subway door sensors? How long were the delays and what was the related economic cost? Public housing is far more prevalent in Singapore than in most countries. How much have the taxpayers saved in maintenance costs to public housing and sidewalks?

There's a lack of focus. Chewing gum seems to be a springboard for other discussions of quirky Singapore laws. Try to corral the side issues into a section of their own. I'd appreciate reading this in the context of social norms. That is, Singapore strikes its own balance between personal freedoms and public good.

I agree the Wrigley's images are difficult to claim under fair use. It would be better to show a wad of gum on the sidewalk. Durova 22:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop

I think this can become a featured list, I and a few others have put into alot of work into this and it's an in-depth and eye pleasing article. However, all of that will go for naught if those with copyright paranoia get their way, because quick frankly, I don't think this ever could become featured without screenshots of the subjects of the list: The Bountyheads of Cowboy Bebop themselves.

I'm also going to include one more from the full length movie as well as perhaps a subpage regarding a series of 30 minor ones in addition to these 19. Let me know what you think. karmafist 09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The images are too large. They overpower the text and don't align very well in the browser I'm using. --TantalumTelluride 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How about now? karmafist 00:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it's better. But it still doesn't look very good. Maybe its just my personal settings. --TantalumTelluride 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It looks great now! The page displays wonderfully in my browser. --TantalumTelluride 23:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is featured list material but isn't peer review is for possible featured articles to get reviewed, not lists? --Jaranda wat's sup 04:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware that there was a limit to anything in article space being peer reviewed, but thank you for the feedback, Aranda. I have just one or two more sections to add and then i'm going to nominate it for WP:FL, but it's good to know that it could make it. karmafist 12:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You need sources!!! Very nice list, but you might have huge problems with fair use images... Also, for the sake of consistency, can you make all tables of the same width? Renata3 20:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There's only one source: The Cowboy Bebop series and full length movie itself. I figured it was pretty evident, but i'm sure we can think of something. I know the copyright gestapo is going to have issues with this, but there was absolutely no way to make this list as good as it was without them. Also, I fudged with the tables due to the picture sizes changing, if they're all uniform, it'll be hard not to have a whole lot of white space at the bottom of each section or wildly inconsistent pictures in the infoboxes. karmafist 06:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I get what you mean. Fan websites and such. Ok, i'll try to find some decent ones. Also, anything close to WP:NOR on there was more or less just comparison to other things on the page. karmafist 09:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Is there an official site? Some good fan sites could also work. DVD release could also work. I could deal with white space as long as tables are of the same width (that would look reaally neat). Also, pics need fair use rationale (don't even ask me what is that) and you should check with someboody who understands fair use how to do that. Renata3 20:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good, but some form of references would be nice - even if it would just be a list of episodes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

I think the Taj deserves one of the best articles in the Wikipedia. I've taken a shot at developing a good basis for this, I hope, and I respectfully ask for comments, suggestions, edits and improvements. --Nemonoman 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This was on my wishlist. I had hoped to get it to Featured status someday. Ok, Here goes:

  • The page has simply too many images. Select only the best and the most apt images
  • Image sizes of 455px is too large. Keep it at around 250px
  • The lead needs to be a bit longer. Merge the overview.
  • An infobox would be a good additions: Fields include: image, location, built by, descr, area. years, material etc.
  • The structure is lopsided. The structure should be like this:
    1. History : History is currently very short. It needs a lot more matter.
    2. Then comes =Site= which should be renamed as location. The exact location in Agra can be mentioned including the coordinates of the site.
    3. Combine ==Asthetics= with =Origin and inspiriation= and =Construction and design= and rename it as =Construction=
    4. Rename =Outlying buildings= to =Complex= and include gardens
    5. The tomb --> Structure
    6. merge external and internal decoration
    7. =Legends and theories=
  • Avoid the use of sub headings.
  • References needs to be formatted correctly. Also do a google search and try and get some more information on topics which may have not been covered in standard texts on the Taj.
  • let me know once the above has been completed.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • My comment re the images is consider using the <gallery> tag to make the image sections "denser" and more effective. jengod 22:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been a minor contributor to the article, so I think it must be said that Nemonoman has done an absolutely amazing job of extending it and improving it while maintaining an NPOV approach to some of the more contentious aspects of the building's history. I don't think there are too many images. In fact the variety of images gives a genuine sense of the complexity and magic of the building - bettter perhaps that any other current website on the Taj. We shouldn't sacrifice that richness for the sake of parsimony. There are some awkwardnesses - large white spaces etc - but with a bit of effort these might be dealt with without dropping the more informative and striking images. Perhaps some of the non-Taj pics can go: Humayun's tomb etc. These can be seen on the relevant pages. Paul B 22:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for these...still digesting.
This page shows image density comparisons and subhead options.--Nemonoman 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Re to images: Wikipedia:What is a featured article #4 mentions: It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Excess images in an article will be objected upon when the article is nominated for FAC. The gallery tag should not be used. Galleries are meant to be in commons: =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
My response was to the suggestion that the article use of gallery tags, which by the way, are suggested in the editing guidelines,
As to your comment, "excess" images are going to be a subjective assessment. When considering a single work of art that covers multiple media and several acres, etc. "excess" is a term I have considered. You really need a quick study of some basic theory to understand why the Taj is such an aesthetic triumph. Pictures make this easy.
Frankly I'd rather have the article explain the Taj in relative fullness than achieve feature article status by, in effect, lowering its quality to meet that (entirely reasonable) requirement.
Also, other editors have replaced pictures that I have removed as redundant. Every body who's been to the Taj wants to share their view. -- what's the response? Eternal vigilance? I ask this question sincerely. What's the response?--Nemonoman 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, we do have to remember that a lot of our readers do not have the bandwith to load so many images. Excessive use of images have always been frowned upon in FAC, and this article will be no exception. I reiterate, this page should have the only best and most apt images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Nichalp, is the issue bandwidth? At present the page is about = in kilobytes to Sicilian Baroque, which seems to me a comparable article. I have just tried a test page where with minimum compression and detail loss the page is about 1/2 the size of Sicilian Baroque. So if bandwidth is the issue, that's one approach; if the issue is simply "excess" images, then I suppose someone will need to define which are essential and which are "excess".--Nemonoman 19:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Bandwidth is secondary. Its the visual clutter that must be cut down upon. With so many images, the article has a poor chance of getting through FAC. I can't recall the exact names, but many articles have failed FAC because of excess images. This is an old one, I can't recall the names of the ones that have failed recently. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has way too many POV statements. "a masterpiece of Mughal architecture that brilliantly combines elements of Persian and Hindu architecture.", "the Taj is actually a complex of elements, each making a powerful aesthetic statement, and combining to create a unique work of art", "Every element has been thoughtfully designed and carefully executed", "To achieve its astonishing beauty", "The exterior decorations of the Taj are among the finest to be found in Mughal architecture of any period" etc. Editors should not give their personal opinions in the articles, even when they believe this personal opinion is shared by lots of people. See Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view.

I have reread the the NPOV section you cited, and do not find that it specifically supports your changes. NPOV suggests a balanced presentation of differing viewpoints. I am not familiar with anyone asserting that the Taj is NOT a complex of elements, or that it is NOT a unique work of art. Perhaps I am ill-informed?
Your edits and comments do not address POV -- but rather descriptions of quality. There is certainly a school of thought that tries to remove such writing: this approach, for example, is typical of journalism writing and technical writing. It is not by any means required or even typical of encyclopedic type articles, which often rely on authors to act as docents in their articles.
You have broken out mainly sentences dealing with beauty, and appear to suggest that the appreciation of beauty is relative. I respectfully suggest that there is a reasonable argument that certain forms and elements are practically universally pleasing, and that the human brain is wired to appreciate, much as it is wired to enjoy sweets, or certain temperatures, etc. Suggesting otherwise, while more politically correct these days, is just another POV.
That is an interesting point you make. I don't know if there is a policy or guideline for dealing with this aspect of aesthetics. I will try to research into this. JoaoRicardotalk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't know, other than by a general consensus, one gets to identify a "masterpiece". Yet the term is applied nearly universally in books and articles about the Taj. Perhaps every adjective requires an attribution to some source other than the authors of the article? That's not a problem, as individuals far more respectable and authoritative than me have heaped on the accolades, but it is going to change the readability of the article.
For my own part, I have visited and studied at length the architecture of all the mausoleums built by and for Mughal emperors and their queens in India (not the ones in Pakistan), as well as most if not all the major Mughal-built buildings in India, and in addition, most of the minor ones in Maharashtra. I hoped in my edits to illuminate the elements that distinguish the Taj from any of its predecessors or followers. The distinguishing elements are not, for example, that it has pietra-dura inlay, but the way that inlay work is more careful in workmanship, its materials more carefully chosen and matched, the design more complicated and demanding, and the overall result more breathtaking, than any that came before. How to describe this other than by saying it? During one of my visits to the Taj, a man stood near the cenotaphs gazing that the Jali, inch by inch, for more than three hours. How to put the impact of the Taj into the article except to say so?
I don't think you should write about your own experience with the subject. For instance, you should not describe the impact the Taj had on you or on those who were near you when you visited it. You should rather present the view of other, notable sources on it. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. JoaoRicardotalk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
One could not explain the appeal of champagne by describing its chemical composition. It is entirely reasonable to provide some description of the quality and value of a subject. No one, I think, believes that the Wikipedia is objective; what they expect, I hope, is that the content is not colored by politics or bigotry.

Also lots of weasel terms. "The Taj (as it is often called) is among the most recoginizable and celebrated buildings in the world" Who said that? Was there a poll?

Well, let's see. It's sort of so obvious that it seems bizarre to require a source. How should this be referenced? A quick google search produces 4,400,000 taj entries with 200,000 images. Google "famous buildings" and 8 of the first 10 websites specifically mention the Taj. In a 5-year poll run by the New 7 wonders Foundation the Taj was the number 3 entry Seven wonders of the world. A brand of tea has been named for it, and a brand of beer, and a blues musician, and a porn star -- that suggests an unusual amount of noteriety.
I am sorry if I hadn't made myself clear. The problem here is that the information presented in Wikipedia should be verifiable. How does one verify the claim that the Taj Mahal is "among the most recognizable and celebrated buildings in the world"? What is the criteria for considering a specific building "one of the most recognizable and celebrated buildings in the world"? On the other hand, the poll you cited would be a verifiable information asserting the view that most people have of this subject, and therefore should be included in the article. JoaoRicardotalk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I do take some exception to your saying the "recoginizable and celebrated" are weasel words.. If the article does not state that the building is famous, the article is disingenous and does the reader a disservice.
Additionally, if the article does not describe WHY the building is famous, that also is a disservice.
It is famous because of its beauty. Is that not worth reporting? Or do you regard that clear statement as intherently POV?

A research into a survey of texts? "[Shah Jahan] is thought to have created the gardens and palaces of Shalimar in honor of Mumtaz" Who thinks that? It also has no inline citations. JoaoRicardotalk 13:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Is thought to have" is a holdover from earlier versions, I will remove it, and cite a source.
I am grateful for the suggestions, JoaoRicardo, and for those of user:Nichalp. I hope to begin to process and incorporate them.
Joao, the article *has* to be copyedited. We are lucky to have a professional copyeditor among ourselves. For one, you'd need to act on my recommendations and also convert lists to prose. Do you have the source file to the .gif image of yours? PS, that Taj parts image needs to be touched up too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I have been a professional copyeditor, and am now a professional author (actually the book doesn't come out until August[8].
I can assure you that authors can not copyedit their own work successfully.
I don't know specifically which ".gif image" you refer to.--Nemonoman 15:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Nichalp, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Yes, I agree that the article should be copyedited. Did I sound like I thought otherwise? JoaoRicardotalk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I am disturbed, however, by the large-scale edits made by JoaoRicardo without discussion or consultation, which seem to me to have been made without sufficient consideration. If peer review means not only critiquing but to invite wholesale edits made in such an offhand way, then I regret that I brought this article to the attention of this group.--Nemonoman 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand the reason of your being disturbed. Wikipedia policies and guidelines recomend that we do not discuss edits before making them, because it slows the wiki process. Please see Wikipedia:Be bold in updating articles, which mentions copyediting. Wikipedia:Editing policy also says: "Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make little progress." If you believe my edits are harmful or inappropriate, let's discuss it at Talk:Taj Mahal. JoaoRicardotalk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Want to combine forces and get this article featured? I can get you more diagrams. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what "join forces" means. My understanding of Wikipedia is that is by its nature collaborative. I don't really care whether the article is "featured" or not. I want the article to be of high quality, and am ready to put some muscle behind making it better, and am happy to work with others similarly inclined.
Collaborative yes but there are a lot of things that needs to be addressed before it gets featured. You have some knowledge of the Taj and I have experience in getting articles featured and reviewing other articles. I happen to be a perfectionist, and if we can arrive at the same point, the article can be featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I would very much like more insight into what you mean when you say "I can get you more diagrams". I'm a big fan of diagrams.--Nemonoman 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Map of Agra, the layout of the Taj complex. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Work in progress

I have begun changes to the article in response to comments.--Nemonoman 02:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

John Seigenthaler Sr.

This article caused major controversy in its initial version. Since then, the article has been substantially improved. The article is currently in a stable state and seems to be of fairly high quality. I would like to know if anyone has suggestions for improving the article further. Can the article be better organized? Is the writing style consistent? Are there any holes in the content that need to be filled? Does it need more pictures? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Kaldari 23:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Isn't this up for vote in the AID drive? --ZeWrestler Talk 05:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's been up there for a while. I've been gradually improving the article myself while it's been up at AID. Kaldari 07:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Victor Hugo

I haven't worked on this article much personally, but I coached a couple of new users as they expanded the article during the first two weeks of November. Victoria Ridout, a hard-working and possessive newcomer, contributed most of the article's content, transforming it from a mangled request for copy-edit to a beautifully written full-fledged encyclopedia article. Newcomer JerseyBob also helped considerably with discussion and copy-editing. Unfortunately, both of them are currently inactive, but I think they left us a good candidate for featured status. The article incorporates a number of public-domain images and cites its sources. I will warn you that there is a somewhat large number of red links, especially to many of Hugo's works. (I'm not sure whether that should affect this article's status.) The article is also considerably shorter than some featured biographies, but it is very concise and well-written. Please feel free to contribute to the Hugo article, the pages to which it links, and this peer review. --TantalumTelluride 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Red links don't affect the article's status unless the article is simply all red links. It cites its sources, but there needs to be inline citations, most often which occur in the form of footnotes. AndyZ 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'll encourage Victoria to include some inline citations if she returns. I know inline citations are always beneficial, but I don't think they're as important in this article as they are in more controversial issues. The list of references in the Hugo article is very comprehensive, regardless of whether they're inline with the text. --TantalumTelluride 18:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Krazy Kat

I have done a large amount of work expanding this article and adding references in the past few days. Let me know anything that you think might prevent it from being a Featured Article. Andrew Levine 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This article looks great. Not being familiar with Krazy Kat myself, I don't feel qualified to comment on the contents of the article. However, it appears to be thorough, readable, well referenced, and well organized. In my opinion it only needs a bit of polish before it will be ready to submit as a Featured Article (for example changing "--"s to actual em-dashes). Excellent work! Kaldari 02:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Fun article, well-written. A couple of minor quibbles: 1) I believe [Image:1922 0121 krazykat det 650.jpg] should be listed under "Public Domain - first published in the United States before 1923" (which this strip qualifies for) rather than the "GNU Free Documentation License" you've got it under. Haven't checked the other images, but you can count on this sort of thing to be looked at in detail if you try to make it as a Featured Article. 2) Final paragraph of "Animated adaptations" says that the cartoon series started in 1969 and concluded in 1964 — dates that Krazy Kat would be proud of, but which cannot be correct. ;-) Cheers! Captmondo 12:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sino-German cooperation

I'd like to have some input, especially about the details presented in the article and its organization. There aren't that many books on the subject but I have based the majority of my edits on the first book from the references section. Thanks. BlueShirts 08:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, and a subject I hadn't previously known much about. But it is definitely in need of {{ref}} tags, particularly for statements such as those asserting the origin of the expression "Huns". Some of the article sentences tend to run on a bit more than they should. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the input. I was wondering on what kind of things need ref tags? Most of my stuff like I said I got from the first book, so do I reference the page number or something (that's gonna be a lot of work), or do i just have to reference more specific things like quotes and numbers, thanks. BlueShirts 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You might take a look at the Wikipedia:Citing sources page. It describes the use of inline citations pretty well. Thanks. — RJH 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty impressive. Have you looked for references via Google Scholar?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Smurf Communism

Article has matured as much as it can, need suggestions on how to improve it. I think it would make a great FA. --Larsinio 22:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • First off it has to be categorized, perhaps [[Category:Communism]] or [[Category:Political theories]]? AndyZ 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There are some verifiability problems: the essays mentioned in the first paragraph need to be explicitly referenced in the article where they support the claims being made, not just tied together in the Referenes section. Also, the "Other circumstantial (or coincidental) points" section sticks out like a sore thumb. Those three bullet points need to be worked into the other sections. Finally, I wonder about the notability of somthing like this -- it probably deserves to be an article, but I just can't see how it could make good featured article. After all, it's a theoretical analogy between a dead cartoon show and a dead ideology. —James S. 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

George Washington Dixon

George Washington Dixon was an early blackface performer and newspaper editor in the United States. He was the 19th-century equivalent to performers like Celine Dion or the Backstreet Boys — hated by the press and critics but loved by the common people. He's less well known than his contemporary Thomas D. Rice, so it was quite interesting to research and write about him. The piece draws heavily from Cockrell, as he is the only modern writer to have written much of anything on Dixon.

I plan to nominate this for Featured Article status after the holidays. In the meantime, I'd appreciate any suggestions on what should be changed and tweaked to help my chances over there and to make this an overall better article. More images would of course be good, but they may have to be tertiary to the topic at hand. For example, I can add a picture of the Bowery Theatre, but I don't have any images of Dixon at the Bowery Theatre. — BrianSmithson 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a good article about a very colorful character. Thanks. It's also an interesting insight into the press practices of the day. Did he ever have a wife or kids? It doesn't sound like it. I can't think of much else that needs adding; it appears fine as it is, at least to me. — RJH 23:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I'm filling in a few more red links and waiting on one more source to arrive (one about Madame Restell, and one of only three sources that talk about Dixon in depth). The article mentions some rumors that he was to get married, but Cockrell (the source of that part) couldn't find any records to back it up. — BrianSmithson 02:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Acheulean

This article was one of the more egregious ones Nature used in its Britannica/Wikipedia comparison with 7 errors. See also Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature. I have addressed the errors and have also overhauled the original, added a picture, sections, biblio etc and would like to get it to featured quality. Any corrections, suggestions for expansion or clarification gratefully received. adamsan 21:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Very nice. I don't know anything about archaeology, but in the interests of further redeeming/defending our honor I did some light copy editing--preserving all the British English spellings even ;)--and tidied up the bibliography. Congrats on a fine job. jengod 05:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice article. First up to have the lead as a complete summary of the article you should proably mention why archeologists are- and why the reader should be interested in acheulean. Merge single sentence paragraphs into longer paragraphs. There are no inline citations in the article - anything that is the result of primary scientific research should probably be further cited, and an article with no inline cites might not get wide support on FAC; some examples
    • In the four divisions of prehistoric flint-working developed by Nick Barton, Acheulean artefacts are classified as Mode 2, meaning they are more advanced that the (usually earlier) Mode 1 tools of the Oldowan, Clactonian or Abbevillian industries but lacking the sophistication of the (usually later) Mode 3 Middle Palaeolithic flint-working, exemplified by the Mousterian industry. Citation for specific papers would be useful for follow up reading
    • Loren Eiseley has calculated that Acheulean tools have an average useful cutting edge of 20cm making them much more efficient that the 5cm average of Oldowan tools, as for the first one
    • The symmetry of the hand-axes has been used to suggest that Acheulean tool users possessed the ability to use language; the parts of the brain connected with fine control and movement are located in the same region that controls speech. Who made this claim, where was it published, who supported it?
    • Finds such as the Venus of Berekhat Ram have been used to argue for artistic expression amongst Acheulean tool users and the incised elephant tibia from Bilzingsleben in Germany and ochre finds from Kapthurin in Kenya and Duinefontein in South Africa are sometimes cited as being some of the earliest examples of an aesthetic sensibility in human history. There are numerous other explanations put forward for the creation of these artefacts however and there is no unequivocal evidence of human art until around 50,000 years ago following the emergence of modern Homo sapiens. Once again who makes these claims/observations, unless they are cited they soulnd weasley.
    • Acheulean tools were not made by modern humans that is, Homo sapiens, but by their ancestors, notably Homo erectus, whose assemblages are almost exclusively Acheuelan. The related subspecies of Homo ergaster and Homo heidelbergensis also used the technique. Around one million years ago it was Acheulean tool users who left Africa to colonise Europe and Asia. Really should mention on what evidence these observations were made and who made them.

--nixie 16:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks folks, I'm giving this one references out of its wazoo. adamsan

Trade bloc

Alinor and I have been doing a lot of work on this article, and we're still updating minor bits and pieces. We'd greatly appreciate input from other editors on what could be changed and improved upon. Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that most of the article is just a list of which countries belong to what trade blocs, rather than dealing with the economics, diplomacy, politics, legality and cultural aspects of the blocs themselves. While it's a good start, I somehow find it unsatisfying. Even the NAFTA article seems better developed. Sorry. So I think this page could use some more work. — RJH 15:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, we never said it wasn't a list; you may be right, however, in that it should be moved to list of trade blocs. FYI, it's currently up for WP:FLC. —Nightstallion (?) 07:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't really suggesting a move so much as an expansion of the text content, in order to give the article more "meat". :) — RJH 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Shielded metal arc welding

Another welding article for review. Any comments/concerns/problems before I submit it to FAC? --Spangineer 03:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I looked it over..looks fine, corrected a few typos, but appears well written, informative and well referenced.--MONGO 11:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Terry Bradshaw

I have been working on this article lately and I know it's not, or even close to featured article status yet but I would really like to know what I need to work at before moving it up to the next level. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 05:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Inline citiations would be nice. It would also be good to turn the stats into a table. Generally, though, expansion is the key -- the article is a bit short. Getting ahold of some print resources (e.g., Bradshaw has written at least two partly auto-biographical books) would help you a lot in providing some more detail. If you can't access any of these, let me know and I'll see what I can find myself at the library. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm done with turning the stats into a table, and I'm going to check tommorrow if I could find any of those autobiography books in my local library or in Barnes and Noble. After that I will do the inline citiations. Thanks! --Jaranda wat's sup 19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a good start. I think the first step to making this a featured article would be a good copy edit. There are some awkward sentences (Bradshaw is best known for his winning skills.) and some run-ons (Bradshaw attended Woodlawn High School in Shreveport, Louisiana and was a student at Louisiana Tech where in 1969 he was considered by most pro scouts to be the most outstanding college football player.). I would also add info about his college career and some more year-by-year detail about his pro career. -- Mwalcoff 02:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Some ideas: "Bradshaw is best known for his ability to win" in the lead is POV. According to who? Better to just describe his biggest wins and then quote someone saying he was the greatest quarterback of all time or something. The sentence containing "considered by most pro scouts" in the college section definitely needs a reference. In NFL career, where you're talking about "his fourth-quarter touchdown pass to Lynn Swann", why is that important, and how does it coincide with a 24-7 score? They won by three scores, so how is one of them a "winning score"? I also agree with the comments about needing inline citations and a copyedit. --Spangineeres (háblame) 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Halifax, West Yorkshire

I've spent quite some time cleaning up this article into a well polished one. I want to see what people think of the article Sceptre (Talk) 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one there are no references (how can I be sure that the current content isn't exaggerated or, at worst, fabricated?). Also, several major sections are missing (geography, population makeup, history). If your intention is to get this article to featured status, it has a long ways to go. Please see the article on Bath, England, as an example of a good article on a British city. Pentawing 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
There are a few dotted links, and I am trying to get references, but your input is useful, and as a town citizen, it's not fabricated. Sceptre (Talk) 11:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Though someone from the city might vouch for the article, the same can't be said for someone who is unfamiliar with the town. Hence, the need for references. Pentawing 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I've added references where I can. Sceptre (Talk) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I went in and rearranged the article as well as cleaned up some wording (please see some of my comments throughout the article). The article is still rather sparse. For instance, there is no information on geography, government, climate, economy, and transporation. Also, please link esoteric terms (for instance A-level) so that a person from outside the UK can find out what these mean. Pentawing 22:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
mucho appreciato, I'll work on some more sections tommorow. Sceptre (Talk) 23:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Buffer overflow

This page has been stable for a long time now. As far as I can see it fulfills all the FA Criteria and is technically accurate. Any comments? Cheers, Tompsci 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It could use a short blurb about how buffer overflows have been dealt with throughout the history of computing, perhaps with an example of the very first recorded buffer overflow, and the names of computer pioneers who first began designing systems that dealt with stack errors, etc. Just a thought. The article is EXTREMELY well written, btw. Matt Brennen 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Somewhat subjective perhaps, but I think the technical description is too sparse and technical. It could do with twice as much prose and no C at all (certainly not two blocks of it). IMO the diagrams would be better as larger, clearer, annotated images rather than tables. Also seems like there are too many short sections and one- or two-sentence paragraphs. NicM 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Perhaps merge the exploitation and history of exploitation sections into one section of 3-4 hefty paragraphs, trying to link the two together if possible. Is the first buffer overflow a good example that could be covered to explain stack or heap exploit? NicM 12:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
      • I agree on the diagrams, these could be improved. I think the article is concise and accurate as best as I can tell, can you give an example? Is it that you don't think the prose flows well? I disagree about the C, C and its variants are the languages most affected by the problem, so I think it makes practical sense to use it in the article. Cheers Tompsci 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I know that C and variants are most affected, and they should be mentioned, but I think two blocks of C code don't add anything to the article—they are confusing for the unfamiliar and there is plenty of commentary out there on C string problems, I'm not sure we need to concentrate on technical details here or give code examples, how about covering C in relation to what others say about it? I know the OpenBSD guys, Ulrich Drepper and various other people have all given their opinions on safe string handling in C. Even if a technical discussion must stay, I certainly think the corrected example could go (it isn't our job to teach people how to write correct code, just to explain what a buffer overflow is) and the first example doesn't need to be a complete program and could be radically trimmed. Using argv is not very useful for non-C programmers either. It could just be something like:
char buffer[8];
strcpy(buffer, "excessive");
        • Which has the advantages of being concise, and of tying into the example in the first section. Maybe this is too simple and a strncpy example would be more suitable, but in any case a code excerpt would be much better than a complete program.
        • The prose itself is okay, but IMO it is broken up into too many small sentences and small sections. The problem is more that it seems as if the entry level in this article is very steep, the language is technical, the flow of concepts seems to move very quickly. The first two sections at least read much more like a textbook than an encylopedia article. I'm not really sure if this is fixable, buffer overflows are a technical concept that rely on a lot of other technical terms to be explained :-(. NicM 08:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Minor things: there are three external links (the "Arri Buffer" one seems to be broken from here) that would be better as notes, the notes could be formatted better, preferably in a standard format (cite web?) and including better titles and access dates. The section would be better titles "Notes and references" IMO. Why three safe library examples that seem to be focused on *nix and none that even mention Windows? Are these really the three most commonly used, what about glib? NicM 08:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
    • I'll try to get round to making the minor fixes at some point and I'll also try and make the prose flow a little more, make it less dense. But I think the technical nature may be unavoidable. -- Tompsci 00:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Katyń massacre

I spend several past days on veryifying facts and adding inline citations. The last section may neeed some expantion, but overall I think this is a FAC level article on a quite controversial subject. Your comments, as always, appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite the lengthy and interesting article. I enjoyed it and most of your facts seem accurate as far as I know personally. Things that could use some work:

  • Sentence structure is a little choppy and places and just needs a little work to make it flow easier.
  • Your facts come on very fast and in a huge group. Perhaps a little more explanation and a little less numbers would make the article sound better? --Andrew4010 02:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As I am not a native English speaker, my prose usually needs some polishing (pun not intended) - but this is not something I can do. Which sections would benefit from more prose? I don't want to remove numbers, unless they are duplicated elsewhere, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Haven't read it through but what about the "The Killings" heading. Is the K there supposed to be capitalized, as some sort of proper noun? Mrtea (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point, I have renamed it to "Execution" - it fits with other section titles (Preparations, Discovery) plus I think it sounds better and has two meanings, both correct int his section context.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Using primary sources when writing historical encylopedic articles as an amateur is not advisable. They are often difficult to interpret, can easily lead to POV-conflicts and Wikipedia's objective is not to nurture investigative journalism, produce bleeding edge history writing or to uncover The Truth. Try to rely on what the current consensus is among scholars rather than attempting to write history. Leave that to professional historians.
The footnote system is also very hard to penetrate and, as is the rage right now, very bloated. Please remove the ref-links that don't lead to a source of their own. If a previous footnote has established the use of a source, there's no need to refer to it again. Don't double-reference a sentence (42/43, 57/58, 59/70/71, etc) and try to cut down on the amount of references as well. I don't believe for a second that the article can be covered with just a handful of comprehensive books on the subject.
Peter Isotalo 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should not provide links for primary souces, if they are mentioned in other referenced materials. Most of the primary sources are reproduced on sites with secondary level of analysis and such anyway.
While footnoes are extensive, I think they at least provide easy way to reference all controversial facts. If you know how to improve them, go ahead - but I spent hours simply on turning inline hyperlinks into inline footnotes, and I think I had enough of footnote conversions this for a few month.
I am not sure how to understand your last sentence. Do you suggest 'less references is better?' I'd think the contrary is true. I think that this article has one of the best footnote/reference section in Wikipedia (ATM, our standards are constantly improving).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bible and homosexuality

I've cleaned this article up a great deal and would like to think that it's now fairly comprehensive and neutral. I'd welcome other people's comments and suggestions on what is a fairly controversial area! G Rutter 20:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be a well-researched article and the parts I read seemed suitably neutral. I believe that the use of inline external links is usually discouraged, as the link can become broken. The article has all the requisite citations; but I believe the preference is to use the inline citation method, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks. — RJH 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments! Did you mean the reference to the newspaper article? If you did, I've now changed it so it's like the other references. If it was something else you meant, or if you've got any other comments I'd be very grateful for them. Thank you. --G Rutter 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well an example of an external link would be the "(Luke 7, note 7)". The other is regarding the {{ref}} / {{notes}} format used in FA's such as the White's Tree Frog page, rather than, say, "(Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.24)." Thanks. — RJH 15:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about using the TNIV as the bible version of choice here—alot of conservatives hate it, so I'd say that the NIV or NASB would be a better alternative. I've scanned through the 3 chapters you mention at the beginning of the David and Jonathon section and don't see anything about David "stripping completely naked" in front of Jonathon. If you're referring to Jonathon giving David his clothes, is there evidence that the robe and tunic were all that he was wearing? Something on the normality of kissing in the time might be appropriate too—at least in the NT, it's pretty common (not sure about David's time). Also, I think you need to have separate sections talking about how the interpretation of the Bible has changed over the years. You mention a little bit about early church/rabbinical teachings, but there should probably be a level 2 section with a few subsections giving an overview of how the views have changed. Obviously there's got to be a separate article covering Christianity and homosexuality, but a little bit of context here would be helpful. As for NPOV, looks pretty good to me; nothing glaring. I'm personally not a huge fan of unlinked harvard references, but that's not a big deal; they're well done. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm glad that you thought most of it was OK. I've altered the David and Jonathan section- I hadn't properly altered that bit, so thank you for spotting it. I know that some people have problems with the TNIV, but then some people have problems with any translation. I've chosen the TNIV as I believe that it's both scholarly and readable- and where there's particular problems with the translation I hope they're mentioned (eg Leviticus 18 & 20). I'm still thinking about your idea of having a separate section discussing the changes in interpretation. I'm not quite sure how to go about doing that, so if you've got any specific thoughts please let me know! Thank you. --G Rutter 20:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
My problem with the TNIV is that in certain areas, meaning gets distorted because of the insistence on using gender neutral language. It may be more readable to modern society, but I don't think it any more "scholarly" (actually much less) than the plain old NIV. But I digress; bible translation ultimately doesn't make that much of a difference, so long as a standard one is used (NWT, for example, doesn't cut it). The change you made to David and Jonathon look good. As for changes in interpretation, I'm thinking that it'd be good to take a look at how early Christians and Jews looked at homosexuality, and then see how that changed in the middle ages and on into modern day. I don't want "Augustine thought homosexuality is wrong", but instead "Augustine interpreted this bible passage this way and another passage this way to mean that homosexuality is wrong". Most people are intellectually honest, so as homosexuality is accepted more and more among Christians, there probably are new biblical arguments that were created to defend their position. The evolution of those arguments is what I'm interested in seeing in this article. Of course, that's all easier said than done, but I hope I make sense. Also, another interesting side of the debate would be to bring up the different arguments used for and against innate homosexuality—I've heard some Christians say that homosexuality may be innate but that those who are innately homosexual must be celibate. I've heard other Christians say that homosexuality cannot be innate, regardless of what anyone else says. I'd be interested in seeing if biblical arguments are used to support either of those positions. --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you your comments. I'm glad that my rewrite was OK. Personally, I think quite a lot of what you're suggesting should be found (although I know that it isn't at the moment) in Homosexuality and Christianity/Judaism. I hope to help rewrite H&C and so I'll keep in mind your comments when deciding where to put particular things. Thank you again. --G Rutter 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Salsa music

I gave this article a little work some time ago, and I think it looks quite nice. I know the lead is a bit short and it could use an overall copyedit (any takers?), are there any other suggestions? Tuf-Kat 07:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention to really important artists like Gilberto Santa Rosa, Victor Manuelle or Rey Ruiz, among others. Although much of their work could be specifically classified as Salsa Romantica, they've been part of the overall resurgence of Salsa in the 1990s in most Latin American countries, and have kept Salsa playing in radio stations and dance clubs for more than a decade, and encouraged many musicians to get in touch with the genre, and eventually study more of its roots. They don't make the salsa pesada of the 70s, but at the same time are not exponents of "erotic salsa" or tasteless "romantic salsa". Their quality (not revolutionary, but certainly evolutionary in its conception and feel, and "time to market", to put it that way) and importance for the whole Salsa movement in the 1990s must be at least mentioned and explored in the article. Best regards from Colombia. --Cbohorquezm 17:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice, but there's no inline citations for the last three subsections of the History section. There ought to be a mention of salsa dancing in there too somewhere, but I'm not sure where. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Overall, it gives the uninitiated a fairly good idea of what Salsa music is. A possible remedy for the Salsa dancing issue: An italicized warning at the beginning, saying something like "This article is about the style of music. For the dance, please see Salsa dancing." Another suggestion: move the "Meaning of the word 'salsa'" section elsewhere, possibly right after the intro. It disrupts the chronological flow of history in the history section. And I think Celia Cruz's quote will carry more weight with those unfamiliar with her work if she is identified by her title "la reina de la salsa" (queen of salsa) in the article, like she is in hers. I apologize for the lack of thoroughness in this critique.--Rockero420 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There are to many contradictions in this article and bias oriented cites of old school musicians that cause an overall contradiction of actual salsa history and evolution. What can be done about this unreliable article ?

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

More and more this article is starting to look as though it may be eligable for featured status; however, before I create a Featured Article Canidate for this page I would like to have some feedback on what could be improved. Bear in mind that this article is largly historical, and that details on things like this ships engines and main armorement are discussed at length in the article Iowa class battleship. TomStar81 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've got a great article here; lots of info, great pics, nice infobox. Well done! I do have a few points to make, but really, I think you have a great potential FA there. So:

  • Needs a real lead section. The lead section currently seems to be simply the first part of the article — ie. her early history. It's supposed to be a short summary of the entire article (see WP:LS). The early history should be moved to a named section.
  • Maybe info on why she was built, but I guess that's just WW2. Maybe something like "... as part of the Iowa battleship program to build X battleships for Y...".
  • "... named in honor of the 30th state" — I think the lead section should aim to be as clear as possible, so I would just say "the state of Wisconsin". The fact that it's "30th" (which to a Brit like me means very little) really belongs in the Wisconsin article.
  • You could note that she was one of the widest ships ever to transit the Panama Canal — max. beam today is 107 ft. On one hand it's not much of a deal, on the other Panama Canal is my baby I mean it was a really tight fit. ;-)
  • The table breaks her armament down by her three major versions — you could do the same for radar etc., or at least note which version they relate to.
  • Wikilink SRBOC, barbette, ...
  • I like the detailed wartime history, but I think it's a bit too general — I think it should be cut down to focus more on Wisconsin, and read less like a general history of the Pacific war. For example: "As a result, they shot down 322 enemy planes ..., all this damage to the enemy had cost the American Navy only 49 planes." This is more about the carriers than Wisconsin. Ditto the two following paragraphs. That other material is great, but belongs in the appropriate article.
  • The post-Korea history seems a bit too detailed. "Took part in 2 springboard exercises in 1955" might be a more appropriate level of detail for what seems to me to be pretty routine peacetime operations.
  • "just had she had done in Korea some forty years ago" — should be "40 years previously".
  • Some paragraphs could be broken up, eg. "Both Wisconsin and Missouri passed the million-pound mark of ordnance delivered on Iraqi targets" needs to start a new paragraph.
  • I think the sections are a bit big, and could be broken up; eg. the recomissioning, Gulf War, and decomissioning could be separate sections.
  • According to the box, she was refitted in 1968. Is this an error, or is there a chunk of history (between 1958 and 1986) missing? Or what triggered that refit?
  • Right now, the article basically consists of one section, History. Maybe you could break "History" into three sections for each of her three major incarnations, and then break each of those into subsections.
  • "Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ..." HUH??? Dates are wacky!
  • Do the decorations belong in a separate section? More detail for each decoration?
  • I feel uneasy about the level of referencing; seems like a lot of facts with very few inline source citations. But I guess you got it all from those books...
  • The inline source citations which are present use an inconsistent style. The preferred style for FAs seems to be to use {{ref|name}} for the reference, linking to a {{note|name}} in the References section; the entry in the References section then links to the off-site source, if any. See eg. U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program.

OK, I'm done! — Johantheghost 20:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Alrighty then, lets take a look here:
  • Needs a real lead section
    • I rewrote the lead to reflect on the ships entire history. Hows this?
  • Maybe info on why she was built...
    • To be frank I don't know why she was built; however, an educated guess would be that Wisconsin was built as a symbol of power. At the time she was laid down we (meaning the US) were not at war, and this was before the rise of the aircraft carrier. I will do some digging to see if I can tighten that up some.
  • "... named in honor of the 30th state"
    • Reworded to reflect on which state.
  • You could note that she was one of the widest ships ever to transit the Panama Canal
    • Actually, this is noted on the page Iowa class battleship, and the USS Missouri (BB-63) article also happens to include a nice picture of Missouri in the canal as an illistration (Mr. Panama Canal Man ;).
  • The table breaks her armament down by her three major versions — you could do the same for radar etc., or at least note which version they relate to.
    • Those were originally taken from the USS Missouri article; they were added by User:Durin while Missouri was a featured article canidate. I will drop a note on his talk page and see if he knows what year(s) the equipment is from.
  • Wikilink SRBOC, barbette
    • Done.
  • I think it should be cut down to focus more on Wisconsin, and read less like a general history of the Pacific war.
    • I can do that, but it can get tricky. Ships of the South Dakota-class and Iowa-class could steam on or around 32 knots, meaning they could keep up with the aircraft carriers of the day, so these battleships spent a lot of thier time as floating anti-aircraft platforms for the carriers. No promises, but I will see what I can do.
  • The post-Korea history seems a bit too detailed.
    • Ohh, but you can never have to many details, especially in an encyclopedia! Seriously though, thats a six year span of history, so the length seems aproriet for the time spent in commission, although I suppose I could see about trimming out some excess information.
  • "just had she had done in Korea some forty years ago" — should be "40 years previously".
    • Duly noted
  • Some paragraphs could be broken up, eg. "Both Wisconsin and Missouri passed the million-pound mark of ordnance delivered on Iraqi targets" needs to start a new paragraph.
    • Broken up per your suggestion.
  • I think the sections are a bit big, and could be broken up; eg. the recomissioning, Gulf War, and decomissioning could be separate sections
    • This orginization is patterned after the layout on the page USS Missouri (BB-63), which has already achived featured status. My philosophy on such matters is not to mess with a winning hand unless I absolutly have to, but I will take you suggestion under advisement.
  • According to the box, she was refitted in 1968. Is this an error, or is there a chunk of history (between 1958 and 1986) missing? Or what triggered that refit?
    • Ooops, I forgot to change that. There was no 1968 refit, that would have been for USS New Jersey for her Vietnam war action. M'bad.
  • Right now, the article basically consists of one section, History. Maybe you could break "History" into three sections for each of her three major incarnations, and then break each of those into subsections.
    • Again, Wisconsins orginization is patterned after the layout on the USS Missouri (BB-63) page, which has already achived featured status. My philosophy on such matters, as noted above, is not to mess with a winning hand unless I absolutly have to, but as before I will take you suggestion under advisement.
  • "Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ..."
    • I can’t find this typo (probably because this darn cold is messing with my eyes)(and nose)(and throat)(and...well, you get the idea).
  • Do the decorations belong in a separate section? More detail for each decoration?
    • A)No, decorations are usually listed just above the line advising people to see USS Whatever-the-name-of-the-ship-is for a complete list of ships by that name. B)The decorations are wikilinked to pages where the award is explained in more detail. In short, battlestars are for action against an enemy and the Naval Unit Citation is for outstanding performance not suffecient to justify the Presidential Unit Citation. I'm not sure what Wisconsin recieved her NUC for exactly, but I will look into it.
  • I feel uneasy about the level of referencing; seems like a lot of facts with very few inline source citations. But I guess you got it all from those books...
    • Actually, this was largly a copy/paste from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The other books include detailed information on Wisconsins war particiaption in the gulf. Some of that information also comes from the websites included in the external links section. In short, don't worry to much about it.
  • The inline source citations which are present use an inconsistent style...
    • I know. I actually wrote the page Wikipedia: Inline Citation, so I am very familar with the refernce and note templetes. I just have not found time to get around to it yet. TomStar81 04:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, to answer your questions:

  • Needs a real lead section
    • I rewrote the lead to reflect on the ships entire history. Hows this?
      • Excellent!
  • Maybe info on why she was built...
    • To be frank I don't know why she was built; ...
      • What I mean is, if I look at USS Missouri (BB-63), I see "She was one of the Iowa-class "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair." Ie. a little about what department ordered her, or the act of congress that authorised it, etc. Not a big deal though.
  • You could note that she was one of the widest ships ever to transit the Panama Canal
  • The post-Korea history seems a bit too detailed.
    • Ohh, but you can never have to many details, especially in an encyclopedia! Seriously though, thats a six year span of history, so the length seems aproriet for the time spent in commission, although I suppose I could see about trimming out some excess information.
      • I agree that it's nice to have the info preserved; but I just think it could be a bit more compact. It reads rather dry right now.
  • I think the sections are a bit big, and could be broken up; eg. the recomissioning, Gulf War, and decomissioning could be separate sections
    • This orginization is patterned after the layout on the page USS Missouri (BB-63), which has already achived featured status. My philosophy on such matters is not to mess with a winning hand unless I absolutly have to, but I will take you suggestion under advisement.
      • I would make the same comment about Missouri, actually; I do think that, for example, the "Gulf War" bit contains three pretty separate topics -- refit, Gulf War, and mothballing.
  • "Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ..."
    • I can’t find this typo (probably because this darn cold is messing with my eyes)(and nose)(and throat)(and...well, you get the idea).
      • Towards the end of "Post Korean War".

Looking better, anyway. — Johantheghost 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


I think that the article is pretty good, and is one of the better written Wikipedia articles I've read. My suggestions for how it could be improved are:

  • The lead paragraphs should be more neutral in tone. For instance, given the limited role the BBs played during the 1991 Gulf War I think that 'served with distinction' is over-stating things somewhat.
  • The WW2 section needs sub-headings. At the moment it's too big a lump of text to be easily readable.
  • Much of the WW2 section seems to cover the forces the ship operated with, and not the Wisconsin herself. While it is, of course, difficult to separate the two, I think that this section could be pruned back a little.

--Nick Dowling 07:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I am currently playing around with some of the sections in my sandbox to try and condense the text some; the problem here is that one has to take out just the right amount, you know? I hope to have the condensing done this year, but it may not be finished until next year. I will see what I can do with the intro paragraph as well. TomStar81 20:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Good News, Everyone! I have condensed both the World War II section and the Post Korean War section. Let me know what you think! TomStar81 01:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking a lot better. A few comments:
  • Just as the lead needs to summarise the entire article, the article itself needs to be complete. I've had a go at adding a Construction section to cover the first part of her history, using some detail moved from the lead. Feel free to hack on it.
  • I've copy-edited a little bit (a few minor typos).
  • Towards the end of "Post-Korean war", it still says
"Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ...".
Maybe the dates are back to front?
  • Moved her decorations out from "Museum Ship (1992-present)" to a new section.
Keep up the good work! — Johantheghost 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Headers, and a date question

I took the liberty of inserting three subeaders into Wisconsin's WWII history. However, major issue: "The battleship continued naval gunfire support duties on the "bombline," shelling enemy bunkers, command posts, artillery positions, and trench systems through 14 December. She departed the "bombline" on that day to render special gunfire support duties in the Kojo area blasting coastal targets in support of United Nations (UN) troops ashore. That same day, she returned to the Kasong-Kosong area. On 15 December, she disembarked Admiral Thurber by helicopter. The next day, Wisconsin departed Korean waters, heading for Sasebo to rearm.

Returning to the combat zone on 17 December, Wisconsin embarked United States Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan on 18 December. That day, the battleship supported the 11th ROK invasion with night illumination fire that enabled the ROK troops to repulse a communist assault with heavy enemy casualties. Departing the "bombline" on 19 December, the battleship later that day transferred her distinguished passenger, Senator Ferguson, by helicopter to the carrier Valley Forge (CV-45)."

The Wisconsin rearmed in 24 hours? Well done! Or am I misunderstanding the dates? Guapovia 08:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The dates are correct. The vast majority of the text up until Wisconsin’s 1986 reactivation is essentially a text dump from the public domain, specifically from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Every website reporting on the history of the battleship has it written the same way. Two things that should be noted when reading this: 1) "returning to the combat zone" does not mean the ship is instantly engaged in combat. Rather, it merely denotes that the ship was ready for combat should the need arise. 2) Most of the WWII logistical support lessons were being applied in Korea; these logistical support lines could supply any ship with fuel, food, ammo, mail, VIPs, and so on. Sesbo is not that far from Korea; at 33 knots the ship could probably make it no time.

History of New Jersey

Self-nomination. Having undergone rigorous efforts by Wikiproject New Jersey and through US Collaboration of the Week, the article has been improved, referenced, and made more thorough. Hopefully, this article can be brought to make FA status. All comments, feedback, and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, AndyZ 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the Manual of Style for references? On the second paragraph of the introduction, it says "United States of America [1]" (with a space then the link to the end-note). But on the last sentence of the first paragraph on Prehistory, it says "as well as many rivers, swamps, and gorges[2]." With no space. Of course, it's just something very minor, so no need for a big deal. Everything else seems A-OK. KILO-LIMA 13:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input; I have changed it all so that they all have spaces. AndyZ 15:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Normally I don't put a space between them; just put it right after the word or punctuation mark. That way they'll never be separated—it'd look bad if the line wrapped after the word but before the citation, knocking the citation to the beginning of the next line. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, once or twice the citation did get knocked to the beginning of the next line. I have removed all of the spaces. AndyZ 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Can the Anthrax attacks section be expanded a little bit more. --ZeWrestler Talk 20:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I expanded it a slight bit, since the {{details}} is provided. Is there anything particular that should be added into the section? I was even considering merging it into the 9/11 attacks section and renaming the section as Terrorist attacks or something like that. AndyZ 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the merging idea and went ahead with it. I renamed the section. If you feel like it needs to be changed further, then go ahead. --ZeWrestler Talk 23:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright tags need to be updated for the following images.

  1. Image:MollyPitcher.jpg
  2. Image:Riots.jpg (removed off page)
  3. Image:SenatorJonCorzine.jpg --21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Image:HollandTunnelNYNJboarder.JPG - (i will take care of this one, because i'm the uploader)-01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to contact the uploaders of the image and ask them to fix the tags, but if someone else wants to go ahead and fix them up, be my guest.--ZeWrestler Talk 00:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the holland tunnel image tag. I changed the section title to simply 9/11 and other terrorist attacks just to shorten the heading. AndyZ 01:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Now it is just Terrorist attacks. AndyZ 00:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The MollyPitcher image had its copyright tag updated, but i'm uncertain if the uploader changed it to the correct tag, may someone double check it for me. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the senator Corzine image is credited to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, would {{PD-USGov}} be sufficient? AndyZ 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Made the change. --ZeWrestler Talk 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the MollyPitcher image has the correct copyright tag, provided that PD-US includes images published pre-1923, and the sheet music it was taken from supposedly is from 1905 sheet music. AndyZ 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the last image's, the riot one, copyright tag should be, seeing that it comes from PBS 13 website. Considering that the user who has uploaded it has uploaded several other unsourced unverified images without being able to give the proper copyright tags, I'm removing the image from the History of New Jersey and New Jersey in the Twentieth Century articles unless the copyright tag can be cleaned up. AndyZ 22:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone double check that Image:Camden Shipyard.jpg has a proper copyright tag? I just uploaded it any I want to make sure that it is okay for incorporation into the article. AndyZ 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is a usable image. The permissions [9] state "You are free to download images and movies for personal or noncommercial use. If you post, please include a credit line, e.g., Credit Line: Courtesy Michael J. Ruiz, UNC-Asheville." Per this message from Jimbo Wales, "All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_." I think this image falls into these categories and should be removed from Wikipedia. Cmadler 11:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Do you think it would fall under fair use for the History of New Jersey article, since (1) it is for educational purposes and clearly shows the industrilization of New Jersey and the developments of shipyards in New Jersey, (2) it is of a much smaller size than of the actual 4.4 MB downloadable version, (3) (not too sure whether this is: amount and substantiality of the portion) Smaller version of one of several images downloadable from the entire website, and (4) It is marked as free use, so that there is no potential market for the image or the rest or the other images on the website. The smaller-sized image doesn't therefore harm the value of the image. AndyZ 13:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried to add the rationale on Image:Camden Shipyard.jpg, can somebody please look at it again? AndyZ 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me--ZeWrestler Talk 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

California

Looking through this article would indicate to me that it is a candidate for peer review en route to featured article status. Therefore, I would appreciate any views on this article and also how to improve it. It seems like, with improvement, this article could be a candidate for featured article status and with over 22 Million Californians there shouldn't be shortage of ideas. --Chazz88 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I live far away from California in the UK, but I can give you some ideas anyway:
  1. I don't like the image galleries, images should always go beside text on the left or right.
  2. The Sports section needs more context: those lists need converting into prose and expanding.
  3. 'Important cities and towns' section is a jumble of stuff - Can't that image gallery be taken away and some context be made? An image gallery, table and then a list looks very messy.
  4. 'Religion' subsection in 'Demographics' section is just a list, convert it to prose and expand.
  5. The article is seriously lacking references and footnotes - All statements and figures, (population, racial makeup, tables, etc) should all have references linking to a note in a 'Notes' section - See Wikipedia:Footnotes. Some more general book references would be good as well, and what about newspaper references and websites? All these can go in as footnotes or just in the 'References' section.
  6. Please make sure all images have an acceptable copyright status and a source, and make sure that all fair use images (not sure if there are any on this page) have fair use rationales.
  7. Before submitting to FAC, please make sure to check the spelling and grammar of the article.
That's all from me. — Wackymacs 20:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overall, it looks good, but I echo Wackymacs suggestions above, particularly with regards to the lists present in the article -- they should be prose; hive off lists if necessary. The Transport section has too many short or one-sentence paragraphs. Also, make sure that the article refers directly to the United States and not ambiguously to "the nation" - we are writing for an international readership. --cj | talk 15:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually like the image galleries as presented. A few small suggestions:
I'm not sure the phrase "Important" cities is appropriate. Why are they important? Aren't they just the largest?
I'd spell out the names of collleges.
I'll leave additional comments and make some minor edits on the article page itself. It's easier than going back and forth to here. Crunch 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


I don't know where to put this perhaps someone can help put this in the right place. This list has been compiled from the California Association of Counties, see http://www.csac.counties.org/default.asp?id=437


County - Population

Orange County 2,939,500 San Diego County 2,918,300 San Bernardino County 1,783,700 Santa Clara County 1,719,600 Riverside County 1,644,300 Sacramento County 1,279,900 Contra Costa County 981,600 Fresno County 826,600 San Francisco County 793,600 Ventura County 781,100 San Mateo County 717,000 Kern County 687,600 San Joaquin County 596,000 Sonoma County 471,000 Stanislaus County 469,500 Monterey County 409,600 Santa Barbara County 407,900 Solano County 405,800 Tulare County 379,200 Placer County 264,900

Santa Cruz County 260,200

San Luis Obispo County 253,600 Marin County 249,900 Merced County 218,900 Butte County 207,000 Yolo County 176,300 Shasta County 169,200 El Dorado County 163,600 Imperial County 150,800 Kings County 133,100 Napa County 128,000 Madera County 129,700 Humboldt County 127,700 Nevada County 95,300 Mendocino County 87,700 Sutter County 81,900 Yuba County 61,000 Lake County 60,300 Tehama County 56,900 San Benito County 55,900 Tuolumne County 55,800 Siskiyou County 44,450 Calaveras County 41,700 Amador County 36,100 Lassen County 34,200 Del Norte County 27,850 Glenn County 26,800 Plumas County 21,000 Colusa County 19,450 Inyo County 18,250 Mariposa County 17,250 Mono County 13,250 Trinity County 13,100 Modoc County 9,350 Sierra County 3,500 Alpine County 1,210

The United States Military Code of Conduct

This is my first attempt at a large-scale revision of a page, and I'd like some peer input to see how well I did. It will help me when I try to tackle future articles. Thanks! Joe McCullough | (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Not bad for a first attempt. There are several problems. First off, the article needs to be wikified; the first sentence always has the title of the page boldened (I did that). Links have to be added to the article. The bulleted lists have to be converted into prose, in other words in paragraph form rather than bullets. The first section can be renamed simply ‘Articles’. AndyZ 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: It is not clear to me what part is "article" and what is commentary. Specifically, are the bullet items straight quotes, or commentary on that article? There should be some way of indicating what is commentary, and there should probably be more space devoted to explaining an article than to the article itself. The lead section should summarize the article. In the vein, I would be interested in seeing more information on the history and changes hinted at in the lead. Examples of code violations would be useful illustrations. Finally, currenty style guidlines suggest not linking individual years like 1977 and 1988; full dates are OK to wikify. JonHarder 04:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, perhaps italicizing the actual text of the USMCC and then leaving the analysis in roman would do the trick? I like Jon's suggestion about code violations. You might also want to consider uploading the text of the USMCC to Wikisource (assuming it's public domain) and including an outlink to so people can read it as one cohesive document, as well. Good luck! jengod 05:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

...I thought this article was rather thorough, and covered most of the questions that a military member might have. I have only two comments. The first is about "voluntarily surrendering". While not expressly said, it is widely accepted that surrender becomes an option when no significant damage to the enemy's cause can come from further resisting, or when resisting would bring about consequences disproportionate to the gains made by resisting. Thus, if a commander is quite certain that the enemy will take no prisoners (in other words, will kill every soldier) then surrender is not an option. But, if a commander is facing a severe shortage of supplies, and expects no reinforcements or help to arrive, and the enemy commander is allowing a general surrender... then, surrender becomes a viable option. ...The second comment I have is about "escaping". It is the duty of each and every POW to attempt an escape should an escape become feasible. It is also the duty of each and every POW to obey the lawful orders of their commanders. Should these two duties come into conflict, a murky area emerges. It is commonly taught that a commander CANNOT forbid a POW to attempt an escape, should the opportunity become available. But there are times when a successful escape would most likely lead to the torture or deaths of those left behind. This decision must be left to the individual POW. The individual must weigh the likelihood of the escape attempt becoming successful against the probability of consequences to those left behind. ...But with that said, this was a well-made article. --Woodimt (This article happens to be the very first one I've ever tried to peer-review. If I make a mistake, please let me know.)


All, thanks for the reviews. I'll try to see if I can make the changes and ask that you look it over one more time. Joe McCullough | (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Royal Grammar School Worcester

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Grammar School Worcester/archive1

Current GA, and recently failed FAC. Have made a number of improvements since FAC failure, and would welcome comments relating to its success at FAC level. --Wisden17 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &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.
  • 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.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • 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).
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
All of the relevant above points have been taken care of now. --Wisden17 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

Note: This is my third time on peer review, probably the last: see also Wikipedia:Peer review/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive2.

OK folks, so this is nearly done. I have literally got about 1/3rd of a section to go, and a small section on the ALA's response to Title II, which is important as they made such a big stink about it. I am totally aware that this is rapidly approaching about 160KB (!) I've never, ever done such an ambitious project as documenting all the titles of the Patriot Act, so forgive me that the article is so darn gigantic!

Once I've done the sections, I'm going to need some serious help in splitting the article. I will most likely firstly summarise the the sections on the Patriot Debates into a Patriot Debates article. Then I will need to start to split other topics. I don't want to split the summary, and I want to keep the individual sections. I know this makes things tricky, they are each very important. Can someone give me ideas on how to deal with the massive, monster of an article?

Please note that I'd like to request that I get those two sections out of the way and then have people help me split the article. I think this is fair, no?

Anyway, comment would be great :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is just about the biggest article I've ever seen! Too big, almost. I think you could split the commentary section in two, putting a summary of the commentary in with the summary, and the rest (probably the more technical commentary) in with the discussion of the actual text of the legislation. It might be a good idea to consolidate some of the smaller, less controversial sections into one larger unit, which is not ideal because you're going for comprehensive coverage, but it's just too long with all that detail on relatively insignificant provisions.
On the other hand, it doesn't look like you've missed anything ;) --bainer (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope I haven't! I know it's kinda too big. I gotta start splitting :( sad, but true. And to think, all I was trying to do was to summarise each title. Sigh. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

MMORPG

Article has been cited in a source by the BBC three times. It was previously nominated as a featured article but failed. The problems noted have been rectified and a peer review would be helpful to work out any problems before it is submitted again. Kevin 20:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There are no inline citations. {{inote}}s can be used, or see Wikipedia:Footnotes. AndyZ 23:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Overall, it is well-written. I found the history section to be a bit long, though. It might help to break this up into sub-headings; perhaps 'early history', 'commercial development', and maybe 'recent developments', or something like that. The part about the Chinese bans and regulations could almost be expanded and spun off into a separate main section.

The images with the article appear a little small. Perhaps enlarge them a little bit. The Daimonin image never even loaded in my browser (Firefox).

There seems to be a bit too many external links and none of them seem to stand out for me. Most of them look like just regular links to popular gaming sites that people put there - possibly linkspam? The MMO Markets link would be interesting if the site would come up - perhaps this site went dead? The Daedelus Project and MMOGCharts links are interesting. The 'Open Directory Project' is nothing but a linkfarm. Dr. Cash 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few areas where I think things could be stronger:

  • The references need to have inline citations, as mentioned. Given the size of the article, more references might be needed. (It's a little hard to tell without the inline notes.)
  • The history section might be better broken by important shifts rather than arbitrary dates. For example, the start of the "big three" seems to be a major turning point that could start a section.
  • (Moria should not be confused with the later VAX VMS based game, Moria.)
    Don't confuse Moria with Moria? That's confusing.
I made this less ambiguous: (Moria for PLATO should not be confused with the later VAX VMS based game, Moria.) --Naha|(talk) 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In Pardus, the player controls a character who owns a spaceship and gains XPs through trading or fighting, in a way similar to the classic game Elite.
    Terms like XPs can't be introduced like this without explanation.
I corrected this, including a definition in the introduction for Experience or XP. Please let us know if you see other ill-defined terms like this. As a gamer I see these terms all the time and they are so ingrained in my brain that sometimes I fail to notice if they are used without explanation of what they mean. --Naha|(talk) 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed XP to experience points, since it is so far from the section where XP is explained. I also am a gamer and knew what this meant, but I fully understand your problem. --Pagrashtak 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help :) --Naha|(talk) 02:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In one instance, a private server had more than 50 000 players registered. Some even have 1000 accounts in 1 day (the opening day). Among such cases are Mu Online which is one of the most popular private server games in the world, with a total of over 10,000 private servers.
    This needs a rewrite. Without more specifics (in one instance?), this is a weak example. Also, there is no context to give this example weight - I'm assuming 50,000 is a lot, but I have no idea how much more than the average server this is. Same for 1,000 in the opening day. How many servers for Mu Online are not private?
  • In the academic attention section, there are mentions of several studies, but no indications of what sort of findings resulted. Did these findings impact public attitude towards MMORPGs? Did MMORPGs have any reactions?
  • Virtual economy and virtual crime are fascinating new concepts with unknown implications, I think they deserve more mention in the article than see also links and the minor reference in the academic attention section.
  • There is mention in the history section of a shift from an hourly fee to a monthly fee. Perhaps there should there be a mention of "microtransactions", as this appears to be another profit source shift.
  • Following Neverwinter Nights was The Shadow of Yserbius, a MMORPG within The Sierra Network (TSN)which ran from 1992 through 1996. The game was produced by Joe Ybarra. The Shadow of Yserbius was an hourly service, although it also offered unlimited service for $119.99 per month, until AT&T acquired TSN and rendered it strictly an hourly service.
    There are a few games mentioned in a manner similar to the above example. I really didn't learn much about Shadow of Yserbius; what makes it notable, how similar/different is it to/from Neverwinter Nights? --Pagrashtak 00:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article covers commercial MMORPGs fairly well. Unfortunately it neglects the parallel grass roots (open source, nonprofit) movement. Fails to define MUD, MUCK, MUSH etc. Durova 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lastovo

Great article for such a small island. Luka Jačov 13:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Could use an image on the right side of the lead. I would also suggest placing the history section 1st. AndyZ 00:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

History of the Internet

With NPOV dispute issues setled, a re-write of this article was made to bring it up to a good standard of readability and content. Hopefully I would like to bring this up to a level acceptable for a Featured status article.

The article currently deals with an Infrastructure and Use view of the Internet's history. And I have attempted to research information on the spread of internet use outside the US and Europe. --Barberio 16:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous Peer Review

My comments:

  1. Expand the lead to two paragraphs (see WP:Lead for tips).
Will be added. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Add an external links section
Very few external links that have not been more suitable as Citeations. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. See also section?
Will be added. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. The main header titles should include timeline dates in them
See below comment. This history explicitly can not be represented as a linear timeline due to a branching context issue. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. The red links should be addressed by creating those articles as stubs.
  2. I think there are too many subsections - maybe merge some together?
Disagree substantialy here. A major flaw of the previous version of the article was an unclear structure. Since the history here has a branching and multitrack nature, there is going to be sunstantial 'jumping back and forth' in a time line. Meaning that there needs to be clear subsectioning to make sure the reader does not become confused. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. More pictures would be good.
  2. The article is generally pretty brief - more detail would be nice, how about a mention of Amazon and eBay and how they've affected the WWW/Internet.
Since the article is already pushing 32K, I've chosen to keep to breif summary style. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Maybe this article should mention the hardware side of the internet too? Servers, etc

— Wackymacs 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Key concepts should be briefly explained even if they have an article of their own. What is ARPA? What is packet switching? The reader will have to know these in order to understand the article. For instance, it is written later on the article: "Eventually, in July 1975, the network had been turned over to the Defense Communications Agency, also part of the Department of Defense". But it was never stated that ARPA was part of the Dept. of Defense to begin with.
  • Nowhere is it stated that ARPA and ARPANET were USA-based projects. It may seem obvious to the authors, but it may not be to the readers.
Correct, as with the DOD/ARPA link, this was a sloppy assumption. Both will be fixed. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The technical aspects seem to be well covered, but the historical bits are lacking. What was the influence, if any, of the Cold War? How did the USA military participated in it? Is the Internet an American invention?
There is no indication from any of my research that the Cold War played much part in the push for internet research, other than in the general way computing as a whole was pushed. Making any claim as to who invented 'The Internet' would be so hazy a dispute as to be inherently POV since there is no single point at which 'The Internet' had been invented. It was, as mentioned in the summary, a melting pot development. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I confess I don't really remember what I was thinking when I wrote that "Is the Internet an American invention?" thing, which sounds like a dumb question right now. :) As for the Cold War, I think this is related to the nuclear attack thing. I remember having read in magazines that the Internet was created because of the Cold War. I will try to come up with some reference for this, and if I find it I'll post it to the article's talk page. JoaoRicardotalk 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The idea that the Internet was created to withstand nuclear attack is a strong one in pop culture, mentioned in magazines and TV shows. It is fine to show that this is a myth, but you should have a very good source for this claim. It should also be expanded, maybe getting its own subsection.
I'll look for a suitable cite. However, there really isnt much more to this than 'Rand did some battle damage testing'. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "This caused controversy amongst university users, who were outraged at the idea of noneducational use of their networks." It would be nice having a source for this.
Comercial use controversy is mentioned in the previously made Tanenbaum cite. --Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

JoaoRicardotalk 06:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Overall, the article is good. I made a few minor spelling/grammatical changes here and there, nothing major. The article is lacking a few important things: First, there is no mention of Internet2. A brief mention and a link to the Internet2 article would probably be a good idea. Secondly, it could help to add some of the more recent ICANN developments regarding the additional domain names (.biz, .museum, .aero, etc), and possibly even a mention of the debate to try and get a .xxx domain approved. Perhaps have a link in a 'See also' section to a List of Internet top-level domains and a Country code top-level domain. The article should also probably mention some of the more recent concerns by several other countries regarding US ownership of the root DNS servers. Dr. Cash 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
While Internet2 is a large network consortium, it's not had as significant impact on global internet history as NSFNet, or CERN did. ICANN's own history and debates should probably go in ICANN's own article, not this one. Recent concerns over US control are probably too recent to put on a history page. --Barberio 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dubious over a see also section. As we already have a 'History of Computing' infor box, and many main article links. See also may be over kill? --Barberio 16:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Will be added/changed

See also section

--Barberio 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Done

Explicitly state ARPA and ARPANET were USA-based Department of Defence projects

Expand the lead to two paragraphs (see WP:Lead for tips).

--Barberio 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Suitable 'Nuclear Atack' Cite. Reworded statement to clarify.

--Barberio 16:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Military career of Hugo Chávez

This article's contents were part of an article with a withdrawn FAC from late November. I stated in my final comment there that I would not renominate it, but of late I've been reading comments such as this. Thus, given how much effort I put into this in the past, I'd like to finally learn how to tidy this back up, resolve problems with my writing style, and get this submitted for FAC again. Thanks. Saravask 21:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cello

An article that is very close to being featured status. I would just like to know if we have everything relevant and I can submit it for featured article. --kralahome 02:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Altough it doesn't seem to be mentioned on WP:NOT, WikiP' is not a how-to guide. There's only so much I want to know about exactly how a cello is played. The Cellists section could be elaborated, a note on who the most famous/influencial cellists are would be great. The only picture looks like a technical diagram, why no picture of someone playing a cello? The sound section really needs to be bigger: what is the lowest and highest notes obtainable on a conventionally tuned cello? Paul Carpenter 13:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Also the picture gives no indication of the instrument's size; a person would help with that too. The multiple subheadings under "Construction" are ugly- perhaps a list with bulletpoints instead? The "bow" section doesn't seem to say anything about cello bows specifically; if there is nothing to say, then I'd rather see the user referred to [[bow (music) rather than duplicating content which belongs there instead. The lead section is sorely lacking- it should probably have to paragraphs, and should summarise the whole article. Is it usual to call the viola da gamba a cello rather than just a precursor of the cello? I've always regarded them as separate instruments. Minor point: section headings should be in lower case except for the first letter and words normally capitalised. The "playing technique" and "current use" sections again have too many subheadings: a good rule of thumb is only to use section headings to group multiple paragraphs; if you have only one paragraph, then you can probably do without the subheading. The "sound" section is far too short, and includes the classic weasel words "regarded by some"- by whom? A review of the most significant cello concertos and sonatas would be nice- the repertoire is small enough for that to be a reasonable exercise. Similarly, it looks rather odd to mention a Northern Irish pop group but not Casals- perhaps some discussion on how particular cellists have promoted the instrument? The hugely important problem, however, is that there are no references. Featured articles are required to have references, including inline references to support specific points. Mark1 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is okay, but I think a section of notable pieces for the cello should be added. Also, the sound section is rather short, and if it is that short, should be incorporated in another section. Bibliomaniac15 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Support. This article has improved SO MUCH!! Even though it lacks the detail of the violin article, it's still good. Bibliomaniac15 18:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(This is Peer Review, not WP:FAC. You can't actually support or oppose, as such.) Markyour words 19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Boy

This article was a stub and a bit confused beforehand, I've since tidied it up, added more information based on research, some screenshots etc. I'm aiming eventually to get this and the articles for the sequels to featured article status, although there's still a fair bit missing that's not readily available over the Internet. Would appreciate any comments or suggestions on how to improve the article. Thanks in advance! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made some formatting and copyediting on the article, concerning wikilinks and removing some statements that I thought were not necessary. I'm still worried about the "Fan base" section, which has no source and may be thought of as original research. It should be reworded to claim only what sources say. JoaoRicardotalk 16:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I know that there is a considerable fan base, but I need to find sources short of listing the numerous fan sites around the web, as shown in the to-do list. If I can't, I'll just take it out as per policy - no problem. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Love & Basketball

I am nominating this article because it is very well written, and it set a good example of many of the standards set by Wikipedia. Please provide feedback on this article's talk page. Thank you very much. | QzDaddy 12:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The article could do with some information on how successful it was, the type of reviews it received and references. -- Longhair 13:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I'll add box office data and movie/DVD reviews. | QzDaddy 15:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body for some suggestions what the article should include. Apart from a section about its reception, some information about the background and/or production of the movie might be of interest. Also, a very general summary—just a sentence or two—wihtout spoilers at the to of the Plot summary section would be nice. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
These are great recommendations. Thanks! | QzDaddy 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Back Orifice

I think the article is already quite working. Trying to find ways to improve it further. --Easyas12c 19:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A section on the controversy it caused and the PITA it became at the time (mysterious moving mouse pointers etc.) would be nice. -- Longhair 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how such can be written in an encyclopedic way. Could we find reports on problems caused by attackers using Back Orifice and use quotes taken from them? --Easyas12c 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd think that linking to/quoting sources (news, etc.) that mention it in both positive and negative lights would be a good way to do this. --Myles Long/cDc 19:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

If no one minds too much, I've archived the old peer review and am resubmitting. Massive work has been done to this article, and I'd like more input before I go to FAC. RadioKirk talk to me 01:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I still find the split between Bio and In the media spotlight strange. Most of her career (which is covered in the Bio section) happend "In the media spotlight" and things like how her name is pronounced and her heritage don't really relate to the media attetion. I'd merge these sections into a large Biography section and then split it into subsections, similar to how it is handled in similar articles such as Kelly Clarkson and Britney Spears. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. RadioKirk talk to me 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Shoshone National Forest

I believe I have covered most of the areas that an article of this type needs to cover. The article has been fact checked and has undergone some revisions, espcially to the section on glaciers, over the past month. The hope is I can get the article to Featured article status so mostly I am concerned that it reads a bit like a travelogue. I am mostly looking for input on sentence structure, syntax and readability, but any suggestions will be warmly appreciated. I thank all for their assistance.--MONGO 20:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A couple of things:
Generally history section appears 1st.
Through a quick glance-over, almost none of the statistics have been references, especially in sections like Fire Ecology that uses many percentages and numbers.

AndyZ 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I put the discussion comparing forests to parks first only so folks may know the differences, but I agree that history should go before that. I will get on the links for the fire ecology and other areas that need better referencing later tonight. Thanks for the feedback.--MONGO 21:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some comments:
  1. To me, the "forest uses" section reads like it's based only on Forest Service materials; I don't know any specifics for Shoshone NF, but I know that there is serious debate in much of the West over whether public lands grazing really occurs only on "suitable" lands, and whether the Forest Service really does protect against over-exploitation. I'd look hard for some outside views by environmental (and maybe Wise Use) groups about the activities and management techniques of the NF.
  2. The Fauna section, while well-written, is a little long. I'd trim back some of the general discussion of animal behavior that's not specific to this forest. For example, mention the existence and numbers of the bear species and a few specifics about management of "problem bears" and their locations in the forest; don't go into detail about their breeding or general behavior.
  3. I'd make "fire ecology" a subsection of the Biology section, or at least put them next to each other. Like the Fauna section, look for text that is too general and not about fire ecology/fire management in this specific NF.
  4. The Tourism section reads like a tourist guide, not an encyclopedia article. It has several unsourced POV statements; "it may be best to fly" and "it is strongly recommended". If these statements can be attributed to a specific credible source of tourist recommendations, then do that; if not, remove them entirely.
  5. I'd combine the Recreation and Tourism sections; isn't Tourism a form of recreation? So have a "Recreational uses" section, and subdivide it by type of use - something like "Developed visitor facilities", "Hiking and climbing", "Hunting and fishing", "Scenic roads", etc.
CDC (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with all those points. The article is a fair bit over the preferred size anyway and the discussion does need to be more specific to the forest itself. I'll start triming those areas. I also appreciate the mention on the tourism section, as I also felt it read kind of like a promotional tourism phamplet. I appreciate the feedback!--MONGO 20:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Suharto

I personally adopted this page as a pet project back in May 2005, because at the time Suharto was taken to a hospital seemingly on the verge of dying. Since leaving the hospital, his profile has lowered considerably. I believe the time is good for a thorough and more deliberate series of edits, as it's advisible to have it polished up before he gets ill or dies and interest and traffic spikes up again. --Daniel 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Great job on this article! It looks well-referenced, and it seems admirably NPOV. It needs a lead image though. If you wanted to make it featured, I'd put in in-line references, but if that's not your goal, I wouldn't worry about it. Quadell 17:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The lead image has been a problem, since the old image was ruled not fair use and deleted. I can't seem to find any portrait of him from the Library of Congress. Definite help needed on finding a decent fair use or public domain image. --Daniel 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm a now-and-then editor of this article, so I can't provide a fresh perspective, but... in reverse order (ha!):
  1. Seems there should be more aside from prosecution efforts and health problems to say about his post-presidency years.. I haven't followed his activities closely, though - has he spoken much about Indonesian politics or anything since he stepped down? Does he endorse presidential candidates?
  2. Last para of the "politics and dissent" section: Explaining increased scrutiny of his human rights record as a result of lessening Cold War tension reads like original research to me. It's a reasonable link, and one I find persuasive. but might benefit from a citation if possible.
  3. The comment about Hamenkubuwono's role, perhaps instead of Suharto, in the 1949 seizure of Yogya needs a cite, since it says "many sources believe". I think this was added recently - how legit is it?
Daniel: your work on this article has made it a lot better lately... thanks! CDC (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

So, Now?

So like, what else is needed to make Suharto a featured article? If there's nothing else I would like to nominate it. --Lemi4 05:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheryl Gallant

This article is a constant source of vandalism, as Gallant is relatively outspoken, with many taboos to her name. The Ottawa Citizen mentioned this article in a piece they did on how Wikipedia is helping fuel rumours, and the Runge newspaper chain of the Ottawa Valley has asked me to comment on the situation. Go ahead and fire away at this semi-protected article, let's see if we can continue existing efforts to whip it into shape. -- user:zanimum

So no comments on this article's style? Does it look okay? -- user:zanimum

There is quite a bit of non-working wiki-coding, including the image which doesn't exist on the top and the notes section on the bottom. The lead section could use some work and some brief expansion. Personal life should be shifted upwards to the beginning, considering that it contains her early life. Some more details certainly can be added about her early life. AndyZ 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh geez, didn't see that that code had gone wrong. Don't know where the pic went, it was properly licensed. So the early life should be first, it shouldn't be in order of what's most important to most readers? -- Zanimum
  • The "Personal life" section could be used to give details on her influences and motivations. The "Political career" section does a excellent job at mentioning her controversies but does not give much in terms of context. For example, why the heated exchange with Bill Graham (what was the setting that made her blurt out the anti-gay remarks)? Also, the article needs to be more balanced. The article says that she thinks Christians are being persecuted in Canada and she equates abortion with beheading of war hostages. This needs to be balanced out with the context of why she said that - no excuses, but explanation/analysis. Was she trying to provoke or rally somebody? Biographies are typically done in chronological order. So an early life section usually comes first - but has much less detail so the article emphasizes the political aspects. --maclean25 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some suggestions; generally, this seems a long way from neutral right now. I'd never heard of her, so maybe some ideas are off, but here we go:
  1. One way to partially address maclean25's comments would be to include more about other positions, both elected or not, in and out of government, that she has held before becoming an MP. What did she formerly do for a living?
  2. A neutral discussion of her political beliefs, outside of specific times she's said outrageous stuff, would be good too. The article needs to cover times she's not in the "spotlight", as well.
  3. I'd trim the big quote in the last paragraph; the first sentence gives the idea, and is sufficient.
CDC (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Maritime history of Florida

This article is a brand new article that popped up about a week ago. Several users from WikiProject Florida and I have decided it'd be a good candidate for Featured Status and thus are putting it through peer review for that purpose. All suggestions are welcome, including formatting, spelling, grammar, copyright violations, images, and missing information. Thanks. -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 16:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Some good stuff here. Suggestions:
  1. The signal flags are minimally relevant, and add nothing; same for the pirate flag and the flag of Florida; There are plenty of images already, such that it's pretty cluttered. All of the flags should go.
  2. The References section needs work; use a proper bibliographic citation format, with title, publication, author, etc... I also like having footnotes or Harvard style citations within the text, so I know what sources were used for what parts; others may disagree on this. See WP:CITE and related.
  3. I strongly prefer writing out most round numbers using words; so "six hundred soldiers" not "600 soldiers". As I recall the Manual of Style agrees.
  4. More details on the growth of recreational boating in Florida would be good; I don't know specifics, but it's certainly a huge industry there. All we have now is "Florida may well hold the record for the number of pleasure boats..." - that's not an encyclopedic way to say it, and it's not very informative. When did this start? Any notable government initiatives to help it grow? How much is spent on pleasure boating?
CDC (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the flag of florida and the pirate flag, and also did part three with the round numbers. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Education in the United States

Self-nomination. See previous RfC at Archive 1. I am resubmitting this after many months of further fine tuning. Frankly, the only large difference I can see now from the last time is the addition of more cites, free images (with the exception of the Harvard comencement one, but that image is particularly good and appropriate), and a history section about segregation. I'd like any feedback possible because I would really like to make this a featured article. Previous peer review at the Archive--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Overall I think it's an excellent article that does a thorough and reasonably neutral job of covering the subject.
  • The first thing I noticed is that this page is 56Kb in size, which is much larger than the preferred maximum. So some of the sections are going to need new pages.
  • In a few cases specific institutions and states are mentioned as examples of eliteness; I'm not sure how much heartburn that's going to cause some problem, but I thought they were reasonable choices.
  • In the introduction you list average salaries for college graduates, but don't give the year when that was relevant.
  • Some of your bulleted lists could be readily converted to tables to give them a little more polish. (For example the electives list could have the main category in the first column and the examples in the second.)
  • The section on contemporary education issues doesn't appear to cover concerns about perceived shortages of science and engineering majors among U.S.-born students, but perhaps I missed that?
  • Finally, don't community colleges have minimum GPA standards for accepting students from High School? Maybe that law has been changed since I heard about it.
Thanks for your work on this. :) — RJH 16:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I'll work on your suggestions; however, I feel that I can't shorten the article very much because any articles which I created would be too short. It's possible, but not easily done. As for the community colleges question, I believe you usually simply have to have graduated from high school, but that is probably set on a college by college basis anyway.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't get too concerned with shortening the article, there are plenty of long Wikipedia FAs. If the information fits better into a long article, keep it there. Just remember that many people stop reading after 10, 20, and 30 minutes. Scott Ritchie 06:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

New England Patriots

As this article develops for (hopefully) FA status, I was wondering if we could have a general review of what should be added, what needs to be changed, and so on. Some of the prose needs a large polish, which I plan on getting to. I look forward to some feedback! Deckiller 03:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems a little unbalanced. There are 6 paragraphs dedicated to 2000-present and only 3 for 1985-1999. An image of them playing or in uniform would be a good addition. Also, I don't think the helmet design paragraph belongs in the introductory section. Just some comments. :) Gflores Talk 06:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Helmet design has been merged with the logo/uniform section. I'll get to work on balancing the history prose today. Deckiller 12:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I brought the history to two major sections: 1959-1993, and 1993-2006. The paragraphs seem to be fairly balanced. Deckiller 20:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
After talking with Gflores, some changes have been made: pics have been added, typos have been corrected, second lead paragraph taken out due to redundancy, and so on. Deckiller 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If there are no more comments in 20 hours, I will go ahead and work toward the FA nomination. Deckiller 01:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I went through and checked out the recommendations from the old FA nomination, which was basically a peer review by itself. I think we're ready. Deckiller 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Miami, Florida

I created that article after breaking off from the Miami, Florida article and expanded it, added images, etc. I want to find out what else do it need to try to make it into a featured article. I know it need work with footnotes, something I don't really know what to do. What else should I expand this on before I try to nominate it for FA status. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 21:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I would suggest breaking it up more chronologically; I tried to add nineteenth century and edited some of the section headings. Before, they weren't in a proper hierarchal structure. Perhaps information can be found about the early history of Miami, perhaps even before the colonization by Native Americans (geological history)? I would also suggest delinking all years that don't have a date/ month attached with them per Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_not_be_linked. The Image:N030791.jpg and Image:Miami PanAm Terminal 1944.jpg don't have the correct copyright tag, and Image:ZangaraMugshot.jpg would probably be best to use the tag {{mugshot}}. A couple of the other images have tags that should be updated but can be used. Many of the sections could benefit from being more thorough, especially towards more recent events that only have a cursory description. I would finally suggest correcting the lead, which should more be a summary of the history of Miami, not how the name came about (see History of New Jersey, History of Arizona, or History of Alaska). AndyZ 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Done with all except with some help except for Image:N030791.jpg which I can't find the proper tag. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be best removed from this article, especially since the image is misplaced into the 1800s instead of the 1930. AndyZ 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Can a caption be placed for the image of the button; otherwise readers (like me) won't understand the reason for the inclusion of the button. AndyZ 20:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In some places, the article also has to be made more thorough. Perhaps something about the geological history of Miami be added. The late 1900s and the Twenty-first century sections are lacking; what about the drug wars and Hurricane Andrew that are briefly mentioned and then nothing else is said? A couple of the numbers in the article should probably be cited; for example like: 600,000 men trained in South Florida, which in itself isn't very pertinent to the subject anyway. AndyZ 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Optical fiber

This article is one of many of the Wikipedia's "good articles". I hope that with the help of many other wikpedians we could help each other get this article up to featured article status. Tarret 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's a pretty good article. It could use some discussion of standardized connectors and what happens at the interface. Also my experience has been that fiber cables, unlike copper wires, are vulnerable to sharp bending, which can break the fiber. So some comments on physical handling would be beneficial. Thanks. — RJH 16:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't generally the History section come first? AndyZ 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a technical issue so the history isn't as important. Images should be added to the manufacture process to see how it is done. Extra headlines (especially in Optical description) would help break up the long text. Matthew kokai 08:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings

Second Peer Review: Since the last PR four months ago this article has gone through numerous changes. All suggestions from that PR have been made myself and other articles. In addition I have made many other other changes to the article to make it closer to a FA article. I have added more references as well as removing unessasary fair-use images and adding fair-use rationale for those that remain. I have also made changes to the order of the sections for better flow and copyeditted the parts of the article than need it. More suggestions on how to improve this article in order to work it up to FA suggest are appricated. SorryGuy 00:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I see a lot of problems with the article, but I'm going to make just my more broad critical comments right now.
    • {{Infobox Book}} should be used for a summary of information at the beginning of the article.
      • I would disagree with this. That infobox would make sense for use with each of the books themshelves however the job of this article is to cover the whole topic, not just the books. That includes the movies, plays, video games, and CCGS. This is for articles only about books from my point of view. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The lead is insufficient and covers the wrong information; it briefly covers the book itself, then discusses the movie adaptations in greater detail than the book. Much of the lead is seems to be a "See Also" section, directing the reader to numerous other related articles rather than summarising the book.
      • I would reference you to the above. The lead maybe needs one more book sentence but this is not an article just for the books but the whole topic. When working on the synopis I found an easy way to expand the opening. It still needs a few changes and adjustments but it now covers the books much better. Comments would be nice.SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The One Ring is an important plot point, but it does not illustrate the book itself very well. A scanned image of a book would fit much better at the top of the article.
      • Personally I sort of like it as the lead image. If we do move it where would you suggest moving it to? SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Much of the "Synopsis" covers events from The Silmarillion, The Akallabeth and other works; very little actually summarises the book itself. Previous events can be mentioned, but a summary of the plot of The Lord of the Rings, the book at hand, should be far longer. Also, don't be afraid to "give away the ending" by summarising; that's what the spoiler tags are for.
      • Agreed. It seems that the earlier editors of the article agreed to divide it up but it is indeed time to combine them once more. I found what I think is a much better division method. Let me know what you think. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Books and volumes" covers in great detail the writing of the books; this is interesting from a Tolkienite perspective, but would be extremely boring to someone unfamiliar with the subject. It should be included, but reduced in size and moved much farther down the article.
      • Some of it can also be added to the Tolkien article. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Publication history" can probably be merged with the section above it.
      • Agreed. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The opening section of "The Books" deals broadly with many subjects but covers some in too much detail (such as the books not being allegory) while relegating important aspects such as the influence of Saxon mythology to single sentences. (Christian themes are also heavily overplayed in this section, at least when compared to other influences on Tolkien.)
      • I would defer this to an expert tag or something similiar. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "The storyline" - too short, and should be included with "Synopsis". (They mean the same thing.)
      • Agreed above. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "The Verse of the One Ring" probably shouldn't be in this article but in a sub-article. It also may be a copyright violation to reproduce the poem in its entirety.
      • I would also agree here and will get to work on it. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Praise" is far shorter than "Criticism" despite the book being widely acclaimed and rarely criticised. The section lengths give the impression that the book is unpopular.
      • I think this is because of the short paragraphs and the like in Criticism. Seems to be an easy fix. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Adaptations" is far too long, particularly in its summaries of the films, and, moreso, games (which could be made into a list without losing much).
      • Why do you feel they are too long? Do you feel that they are less important than the books? SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The section on "early efforts" is just fine. However, there's far too much on the trilogy. It makes it seem like the live-action film trilogy was the most important adaptation of the book. (Ibaranoff24 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC))
    • "Lord of the Rings Derivates" is a bit POV, and would be better titled as "Influence on the Fantasy Genre". It should also be longer, as The Lord of the Rings is the defining moment in all of fantasy literature.
      • Changed. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Some significant pop culture references should actually appear on the page.
      • I will see what I can do. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Referencing is extremely incomplete with entire sections unreferenced.
      • Some of the sections have nothing to reference though. Summaries and the like can only reference the books themshelves. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, done with my quick critique. I'll try to work on some of this when I get a chance (which won't be until Tuesday), but I don't think more in-depth critiquing can occur until the article imprroves significantly. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 23 April 2006 @ 01:18 UTC


Some minor things from a quick glance: Years are overlinked (see date formatting) and capitalisations in headings should be removed. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Agreed with Fritz Saalfeld; being a member of WikiProject Middle-earth, I did go ahead and fixed the capitalisations in headings. Just from quick skimming: with the subheadings in the Adaptations section, I suggest removing 'The Lord of the Rings on...' as stated by MoS here: "Avoid repeating the article title in headings; use 'Voyage' instead of 'Voyage of the Mayflower' in an article titled 'Mayflower'.". Just simply put 'Film', 'Music', etc. As for the books section, perhaps you should rename 'The Books' section simply 'Books' or 'Series'. Also by MoS, I feel like there is an overuse of subheadings. Subheadings are used when there is an overflow of information that splits into different subtopics, but perhaps to limit the number of subheadings, you should cut down on some of the information. On the other hand, it looks great despite its problems. :) (I'll look more closer at the article later, so expect a more indepth constructive critcism to follow up). —Mirlen 17:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have fixed the Adaptations to reflect the MoS. I have also found the following ways to reduce the number of sub-headings:
      • Removed the One Ring verse due to copyright issues and the fact that it already has its own article. I added the link to that article in See Also
      • Changed Art so that it did not have an empty heading with a sentence more of prose.
      • With a little work Publication and Publication history can also be merged.
      • Once more with a little work Praise and Criticism can be merged together under a new heading Critical response. If I were to make these changes do you feel that I would not need to remove information from the article?
    • I am also working on finding someone to improve the Sysnopis part as it has been a while since I have read the books. SorryGuy 20:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose removing Image:Tolkien ring.jpg. Article would look much cleaner without it. Its also not directly related to the article but is only part of the plot in the books. This article is about the books. If you guys want to keep it then I would suggest moving it atleast to "Synopsis". &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 23:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I also did a couple of other tweaks in the first two sections (including the intro). But there is overload of wikilinking in the rest of the sections, especially the book titles. Also, regular words like 'fairy tales' do not need to be wikilinked. Also, I feel like the adaptations section is rather long, since the focus of the article is on the books, not the adaptations. —Mirlen 13:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Okay, the article looks much better than it did when I first looked at it. I still have a few major gripes and some minor ones.

  • Much of the beginning of the "The Books" section consist of randomly assorted trivia, most about influences on the writing (which should be summarised and put in their own section), but in a rather rambling and uncohesive pattern. It is currently by far the worst section of the article.
  • I still have an objection to "Criticism" being longer than "Praise" as the Lord of the Rings is widely praised and rarely criticised, yet the relative section lengths make it seem the other way around. Praise should be made longer and/or Criticism better summarised. (Most of the criticisms are quite similar and could be merged together.)
  • Some sections, notably "Games", remain largely unsourced. If this article is to become featured, sources must be found and assertions about fans' opinions verified.
  • Art is hopelessly stubby. I've tagged it with {{expandsection}}
  • Influences on the fantasy genre is also very short and lacking in citations. As The Lord of the Rings was the defining moment in the fantasy genre, certainly more can be said about its influence.
  • Inline links should be converted to footnotes.

That's it, I think. Probably also needs a thorough copyedit, but that can come after the article is otherwise high quality. A few images (maybe a screenshot from the movies, one from one of the games, etc.) wouldn't go amiss, either. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 13 May 2006 @ 01:38 UTC

Sailor Moon

Previous peer review

We're looking to nominate this for Good Article sometime soon. Are there any problems we should clear up beforehand? In particular, does the reception section look okay? Are the other various sections well-explained? Is it generally clear what we're doing here? :) Thanks for your time. --Masamage 02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Image:Sailor Senshi2.png is high resolution and does not have a detailed fair use rationale. Shrink it to no more than 400px high. Image:Smlogo.png and Image:Sailor Moon English logo.jpg have no fair use rationales at all, and they are also unsourced. ShadowHalo 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, thank you! I totally forgot about the image-work. I'll get that done this afternoon when I'm on my own computer. --Masamage 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, I shrunk the Senshi image, added the Fair Use stuff for everything, and now we're working on hunting down sources for the logos. --Masamage 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at cult television, Sailor Moon is listed as an example of cult TV - if we could reference that and add it into reception, then maybe it might cut down on some of the confusion of the bit where Sailor Moon is popular, yet unpopular. Do we need to expand on the whys and wherefores of Sailor Moon being compared with Barbie and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers? Anne Allison's chapter in particular discusses MMPR as a success localisation story compared to PSSM. From hanging around GA/R for a while, I can say that sections without any inline citations are looked upon badly.-Malkinann 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's some suggestions:

  • In the lead, in the last paragraph, video games is linked as [[video games]], when it should be linked as [[video game]]s. The word tokusatsu is linked, but not explained; you did well explaining where the term "Sailor" originates.
  • This article needs to go through copyediting to remove weasel words, such as the word "many" in the last paragraph in the lead; just how many are there?
  • In the "Story" section, you introduce Usagi Tsukino without presenting her as the main protagonist. I know she is, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Try to start the section from an out of universe perspective, such as "Sailor Moon's story begins with the main heroine..."
  • In the beginning of the Characters section, knowing that they are in order of appearance may be considered trivia that does not necessariy need to be known. The next thing said is to check the individual character articles, but all the names are linked and bolded, so this is obvious without this notice; the western-order of names notice has been phased out of most articles and it's become common (especially with the WP:MOS-JP) to name Japanese names in western ordering, so this too I think can be taken out. Also, bullets make it look too listy, and lists tend to be looked down upon in potential GA articles. There are two alternatives: 1) Write in a paragraph or two where you go through all the main characters by name and what they do, or 2) Write it in ;[[Character Name Here]]: format and expand some to make it more readable and less listy.
  • In the manga section, the phrase "nearly a dozen" is used; try to be as specific as you can get; again, avoid weasel words. Next, you link Nakayoshi; point out that it's a shōjo manga magazine. While I realize there is a main article for the manga, the manga was still the source material and thus should be a worthwhile section on this page. First, it's best not to leave lone sentences, as is with the end of this section (which is also missing a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi"). Possibly try to expand this section a bit more. I say this since the Anime section below it is much larger, yet the manga came first and thus should be of more focus.
  • In the Anime section, the phrase, "Sailor Moon has since become one of the most famous anime properties in the world." is unsourced; either tag with {{fact}} or find a source; otherwise remove it. In the third paragraph, the word "numerous" is used; be specific. You're missing a comma in this paragraph in the final sentence between "North America" and "only"; copyedit the article for grammar as well as with spelling. The next sentence, "All of Sailor Moon was animated traditionally" seems odd to me; possibly reword it. There are 5 links in this section that do not have pages, all of them people. I'm sure with a series this popular there is at least a minor amount of info somewhere on them, possibly at Anime News Network or the Japanese wiki I find is always a good resource. GA and FA articles should have very little red linked pages, or none at all. Consider making stubs for all the red linked pages in this article.
  • In the English adaptations section, there are two unsourced lines; GA articles should have none of these.
  • In External links, the {{ja icon}} should be placed at the end of the link.
  • This article is specifically deficiant in categories. I know of at least 5-10 that would work well. Try to look at other articles that have similar genres and try to include as manga categories as possible. This makes the scope of an article look greater and more important.
  • Lastly, the number of inline citations is centered in the Reception section, with only 9 of the 24 being used in the article; there are sections without citations that need them, though I believe this has already been adressed.

Take care of all these things, put it through some rigorous copyediting, and the article should improve greatly.--十八 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wowee... Thanks for the hints! We'll get right on them. Good luck with Strawberry Panic!. -Malkinann 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've been pluggin' away at this. Let's see what we've got.
  • Fixed everything you mentioned in the lead, story, and character sections. The character bits look weird in this format; one long, skinny line each. No more info can be removed, and I hesitate to add much more; what would you suggest?
  • Expanded the manga section and removed its weasel words. Does it need anything more? I also disagree about adding that comma. :P Some comma uses are required, some are forbidden, and some are a matter of taste.
  • Fixed almost everything in the anime article. I ended up just relegating most of the redlinked people to the anime page itself and leaving them out here. I also really don't want to replace the word 'numerous' with something more specific, because just about every song was written by two or three people, and hunting down all the overlap would be an absolute nightmare. Not sure what to do about that.
  • I believe I have some sources for the English adaptations section and will plug them in.
  • Fixed the external links thing.
  • Category:Sailor Moon is in a ton of categories, so we just put this one into it. Is that not the way to do things?
Thanks very much for your input! --Masamage 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply; for some reason I didn't see the update.
  • Re: Characters; I agree, which is why I suggested you add more to the characters section than just one liners. I've done this before in the Kanon and Air (visual novel) articles, so I don't think it's too much to ask for a little bit of expansion. It would also be more useful for the readers who don't want to leave this article to learn more, but having read enough feel satisfied with what is supplied.
  • My suggestion for a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi" had nothing to do with taste; a comma should be there because due to the way the sentence is worded, it's more natural to pause at "completed".
  • Re: Anime; all right, it's fine then to keep "numerous" if nothing else will fit. I'm just saying, it might come up again in the future with a different reviewer.
Final note: A lot of good work has been done, but it still needs work. I think I have exhausted my reviewing abilities for this article as I beleive I've adressed all the salient points for a GA promotion. Perhaps try to get another neutral editior who is involved with WP:Anime to add suggestions.--十八 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. :) I'll take a whack at expanding the character descriptions. --Masamage 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • 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.
    • 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).[?] <-- This may be where we talk about how, with the anime, they are correctly termed series(es) as opposed to seasons, as this has come up on Talk:Sailor Moon once or twice, maybe we should find something to cite this.
  • 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 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The series/season reference is actually the Wikilink itself, somewhere in there, to an article explaining the difference and the tendancy to misuse the terms. --Masamage 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You sure? clicking on metaseries gives me "The series Tenchi Muyo! and Sailor Moon have been comics, multiple TV series, and movies, but they do not have a rigid single continuity. Though the latter does have Continuity within the same form of media.", which doesn't explain it to me, and clicking on seasons gives me an idea that each 'cours' of Sailor Moon should be only 13 episodes long, which clearly isn't the case! -Malkinann 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Rar, it's the second one, but it's been modified since I last looked at it. The relevance is not as clear now. :/ --Masamage 07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put a {{clarifyme}} on that part because it's come up on the talk page a couple of times. If we can find a reference, then we could put it on the TV program article. -Malkinann 07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Polhem

I've been working on this article for the past few days, salvaging a so-so article with fuzzy information to a rather coherent article, pulling info mainly from Nordisk familjebok (Swedish encyclopedia now in the public domain). As there aren't many non-Swedish sources of this, I'm requesting a peer review for this one so that there's at least one good English source on Christopher Polhem to refer to. Feel free to add any English sources stating the same information as the Swedish ones to the references section. Obli (Talk) 17:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a decent enough article, although I think it could probably stand further expansion. The text gets a little comma-happy in a couple of places and needs some fine polishing by an editor. The one place where I thought there might be an issue is in the "Other accomplishments" section. The bulleted list there should be replaced by normal prose. Thank you for your work on this. :) — RJH 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No specific comments. But there is a lot written on Polhem (including a major work by Sten Lindroth and critical editions of Polhem's letters and other writings in several volumes), and before it could be featured it should utilize recent research. You should probably begin with the article in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, which is more up-to-date than NF and gives you more references to continue with. u p p l a n d 08:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Will do, thanks, my school probably has access to all of that stuff. Obli (Talk) 17:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Aqua (band)

Ok, I completely rewrote this article yesterday. It's my second pretty much sololy written FA attempt (the other, Vanilla Ninja, succeeded about six months ago). I think it's complete and ready to take to the FAC page, but something's telling me it's missing something. I'd like some feedback on it, so any changes can be made. Thanks.. Hedley 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Years and months are overlinked throughout the article. See date formatting for when to link these and when not.
  • I think the first couple of sections (up until Following the split) should be subsections of a History section.
  • Trivia sections should usually be avoided. Try to put the things into other sections (most seem like they would easily fit into History)
  • Some other things might need some explaination. For example, in the lead it says the band was "often criticised by the media", but it doesn't say for what they were criticised. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing that can be done to improve this article is to better represent criticisms of the group. The Hollaback Girl article offers a great example of how to represent criticism of a musical act. Cedars 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First I must say that the version now is great work, but of course it could be better.
I agree with what has been said already.
I also think we should dump the trivia section. Two of them belong to the articles about Rene and Lene and should be moved to these articles. One could be moved to the history section. For the rest I suggest that we make a new section which should be about Aqua's impact on popular music. Aqua's Aquarium album spawned a wave of copycats, which for some reason almost all were from Denmark. Some new bands are descibed as making Aquaesque music. Even though "Barbie Girl" is now considered to be one of the worst songs ever written (by some polls) many covers and different versions of the song has been made. "Barbie Girl" is one of those songs that will never really die.
I don't believe that the license for Image:Aquaeuro011.PNG is correct. It is not a "music video or promotional video". It's basically a screenshot from a TV program.
--Maitch 13:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, merge the "Trivia" section with the body of the article. If something is important but does not fit anywhere then re-consider how the article is organized. Currently the article seems to be a narrative of the band's existence. Perhaps try to develop a section that analyses aspects of the band (for example, "Music videos" -which I note is already present-, or "Influences" or "Style"). Could the Barbie lawsuit be expanded beyond the three sentences in the body? All quotations need direct references. For example, "advised the parties involved "to chill"." and "it was the "best thing to do". " Do not be afraid to show where you used your references. Things that probably should be referenced for easy fact-checking include chart positions and critics' opinion. Do not use contractions, like "the Aquarius album didn't just follow one formula". Is that Sliding Doors image really the best image for that section? Have they always sung in English? Even in Europe? Watch your adjective language (for example, "and achieved huge success across the globe" is huge necessary? --maclean25 20:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Per the criteria I've been working at here, this article may fail:
Lead - 2, 4
Comprehensiveness - 3, 4 (critical reception?)
Sales - Appears to meet them all, some chart data in discography section might be nice
Pictures - 1, 2
Audio - 1, 2, 3, 4
References - 1, 3, 4
Discography - Appears to meet them all (chart data here would be good)
Format/Style - 1, 2, 3, 4 (cites for "musical style", why the fansite in external links?, trivia section needs to go, songs in quotes, albums in italics)
  • Tuf-Kat 21:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that I'm not working on this anymore. It seems another user has took over, and I've for the best part left Wikipedia. I will comment that some of Miatch's additions look like guesswork, though - Aqua weren't influenced by Eurodance, and weren't created as a Eurodance act. A lot of the musical influence stuff is very inaccurate. Hedley 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

King Kong (2005 film)

  • I have worked very hard on this article, and I am overwhelmed. It desperately needs to be significently chopped up and made more useable, and I am not quite sure what is needed and what isn't. HELP! :) What keeps this from FA status? Please look especially for trimming and such. Judgesurreal777 03:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Deleted Scenes".
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • From "Origin of remake": there is a typo with the extra ]
    • And after the success no and required
    • being crushed by Kong, as the gorilla no comma is necessary
    • Fay Wray, the original Ann Darrow, was planned to appear and say the: 2 errors; was planning to, and says/said that
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 13:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Uma Thurman

After finding a very short and barren article about Thurman, being a very popular actor, I did a massive rewrite on the article and would like a peer review and any ways to improve/expand it.--Fallout boy 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that to be a featured article, this needs to be more than just a listing of the films in which she acted. It needs a more critical analysis of her roles, skills and techniques. I.e. what she brought to the films. Also something about how she selects roles would be good. Apart from a few run-on sentences, though, it looks like a pretty decent article. Thanks for your work on this. :) — RJH 23:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Images in Major Roles could be placed better. Filmography is quite long. Maybe make it select, or form a double table.But yeah, its quite good!Forever young 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sea level rise

A prior review got rather caught up in a minor issue. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Sea level rise-old/archive1 for that. I've copied the rest to here. William M. Connolley 14:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

  • A Notes section should be used to store all inline citations in, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, the lead need expanding greatly based on the length of the article, the lead should summarize concisely the entire article into one or two paragraphs, see WP:Lead. I'm not too keen on the amount of tables in the article either. Looking good so far, though. — Wackymacs 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the tables take up a lot of space but so far are the best way to organize the numerous factors. Maybe I should try reducing the table text size to 90% or 80%. (SEWilco 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
  • While it is a somewhat lengthy article, the section on "past changes in sea level" seems unfortunately short and could stand some expansion. I'd like to see coverage of prior geological epochs. I also see too many bulleted lists in the text: those should either be converted to tables or to prose. Also doesn't the article need to cover deluge events, such as the Black Sea deluge theory and possibly the Mediterranean. Otherwise it's looking good. Thanks. — RJH 22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Events on geological time scales is a good idea. I'll see what can be done with the lists. The Mediterranean event should be in a recent geological period. (SEWilco 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Just a note, it has long been suggested that this should be broken up into two articles, one at sea level rise covering modern changes and probably the last interglacial transition, and one at sea level change (presently a redirect to "sea level rise") dealing with processes on geologic time scales. In talk, such a division has generally been seen as agood idea, though no one (myself included) has been eager to work on breaking it up. Dragons flight 05:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Were you aware the articles were merged a year ago? (diff) (SEWilco 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC))
      • Yeah, but I wasn't watching either page at the time and I complained when I finally noticed (not the first complaint, I might add). Subsequent discussions favored breaking them up again. Dragons flight 07:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Médecins Sans Frontières

I believe I've done the first three steps for making a featured article, so now it's time for peer review.

My comments:

  • I'd like to keep the history section in the main article, even though it's somewhat large, because I don't people to have to leave the page Well, I've noticed that a lot of articles have their history in a separate article, but I think MSF needs the history in the main article
  • I've had comments about the number of references that are available online...I don't like it either, especially since the MSF.org site construction seems to be very...unstable. Unfortunately, there aren't that many books about MSF (in English), and emails to MSF about obtaining more sources went unanswered.

Other than that, what do others think of it? --CDN99 19:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Some images would be nice --WS 03:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, this is a great article. Very well sourced, good prose, very few grammar or spelling issues, etc. For minor rewordings that I thought would be appropriate, I went ahead and just made the changes. If you think any of my changes were mistakes, just let me know.

Now there are some ways I think the article could be improved, to help it get to featured status.

  1. First off, WS is right: more pictures would help enourmously. They may be difficult to find, but they could really bring the article to life. Some possibilies from other article include Image:Skulls from the killing fields.jpg, Image:Vietnamkrieg Bootsflüchtling 1980.jpg, Image:7042 lores-Ebola-Zaire-CDC Photo.jpg, Image:Carlo urbani.gif, Image:Identified Victims.jpg, and Image:Srebfootage.PNG, although not all of them may be appropriate.
  2. About moving the history to another page, I agree that it would probably be better to keep the article together. If you wanted to move it out, you could still include a history section (about half as long) with a {{mainarticle}} header thing. But I don't think it's really necessary.
  3. The history section could be organized better. I would recommend a header paragraph, briefly summarizing the entire history, at the top of the section, much like the paragraph at the top of the "Field mission structure" section. Then the part at the top about the Red Cross should be a subsection, perhaps called "Predecessors". (Although then it should include more than just the ICRC. Are there any other historical organizations with similar goals?)
  4. About the Red Cross, it says "one could view. . .". That's accurate, but it's a so-called "weasel word". It would be better to say "However, some have criticized this consistent neutrality. . .", and include a footnote that says "For example, see X-reference and Y-reference".
  5. I personally agree that the Nigerian policy toward Biafra was an unconscienceable, genocidal policy consisting of frequent massacres and atrocities. However, we have to be careful about NPOV. Most of the section is admirably NPOV, but a few sections strike me as borderline: "deliberate starvation and slaughter", and "Kouchner witnessed these atrocities". I'm not sure what to do about the above. Do they need to be reworded, and if so, how? But it's worth looking at.
  6. Now the term "genocide" is a special case. On the one hand, it's emotionally charged and can be seen as taking sides. On the other hand, it's a word with a specific meaning, and no other term can easily be substituted. The Biafra incident is referred to as a genocide, and I don't know whether that's appropriate or not (although I personally think that's an accurate term for the situation). The killing fields of the Khmer Rouge are referred to as "genocide"; I agree, but neither the Khmer Rouge article nor The Killing Fields article uses the term, I don't believe. The Bosnian Genocide may be different, since that's the name of the article, the UN did call what happened a genocide, and that's the most common term for the event. And the Rwandan Genocide article uses the term constantly. Again, I'm not sure I know the answer, but I'm raising the question.
  7. You translate most French terms in the article, but "Groupe d’Intervention Médicale et Chirurgicale d’Urgence" and "Sécours Médical Français" are mentioned without translation. What do they mean?
  8. Should "Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief Programmes" be italicized? Quoted? Linked? It's quite a mouthful. Should it have its own article?
  9. The "ongoing missions" section is strikingly short compared to the history section. Is more information available about where MSF is right now and what they're doing?

I've analyzed only through "Ongoing missions". I'll post more later. Again, this is a terrific article, and I'm saving up my lunch money for when it gets featured. :) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (numbered issues--CDN99 16:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

1. I've added two pictures (one in Biafra, other in Darfur). The Ebola, "ID'd victims" and "sreb footage" images may be appropriate, I'll add them and look for more this weekend. I'm going to try not to put in too many pictures of starving children, or else it may turn out sappy.
3. That does sound good...I'll try to do something to that effect this weekend.
4. added "...some, like Kouchner...", and this is expanded on in the next section.
5. changed a couple words "deliberate starvation/slaughter" --> "conditions" and "atrocities" --> "events" make them more neutral I think
6. changed reference of genocide by Khmer Rouge to "executions" instead (that's the term given in The killing Fields)
  • Good. . . but the phrase "survivors of the executions" sounds a little contradictory. Quadell 16:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
7. translated; GIMCU was described as "awkwardly named" in French so I translated it as "Group for Urgent Medical and Surgical Intervention," which seems sufficiently awkward for English.
8. The Code...for...Programmes was italicised, and it's linked to in the references. Should it link to the IFRC website directly from the text?
  • No, that would be bad form. The way it is now is great. Quadell 16:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Ongoing missions; well, there's almost too much information for this section, I'm just trying to determine which missions are the most significant and should be put in. I'll try to add more this weekend (I'm at work now); --CDN99 16:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

An additional comment: It seems to me that Therapeutic Feeding Centre should be its own article, with that content moved out and just summarized. Does this sound like a good idea? We may also want separate articles on Oral Rehydration Solution, F-75, F-100, and Plumpy'Nut (I love that name!). Do you have any more info on those? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Therapeutic Feeding Centre may be a good idea, although it probably won't be very long. I just added "ongoing" information to the article, which is somewhat large now.. Is it absolutely necessary to move the History section to its own article?
For some reason I can't open those photos on the computer I'm using now, but I found some aerial photos of refugee camps here. Would those aerial photos be appropriate? --CDN99 17:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't think that moving out the history section is necessary. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • First, I have to agree with a previous comment from another reviewer - this is already a great article. Now for some comments and thoughts. First, I think the first sentence of the history section "Organisations for the protection of human rights..." is partly misleading. Strictly speaking, human rights are of only secondary concern for most of the organizations which are listed there. Most of them "only" provide basic humanitarian aid, which means they try to protect human life and health, alleviate human suffering and protect a minimum level of human dignity. There are other organizations like AI which care primarily about human rights. So I think the sentence should be reworded accordingly. Next point, I don't like the term "gag order" regarding the rules of engagement of the Red Cross. Maybe a rewording to "...seen by some as being similar to a gag order..." might be more appropriate. Then it should perhaps be mentioned that France openly supported Biafra, and so the ICRC was already at odds with the French Red Cross (and the Swedish Red Cross as well, for that matter) over disputes regarding neutrality. Another interesting fact is that Biafra was like a modern Solferino for Kouchner. Next point: the sentence In 1982, Malhuret and Rony Brauman (who would become the organisation's president in 1982), brought financial independence to MSF and introduced fundraising-by-mail to better collect donations. leaves the question open how they did it. Did they have good connections to wealthy donors? Did they provide financial support from their own pockets? Maybe it should be more clear. What I miss somehow are some more general information about the organization. What are the approximate numbers of both volunteer and permanently employed staff? How is the organization organized, from a legal and structural point of view? How is the leadership organized, apart from the position of the president? What's their annual budget, and how do they raise their money? I will provide some of the information on your talk page but I'll leave it up to you to add it to the article, to preserve its structure and consistency. All in all, a great article already as said before. Best Regards, --Uwe 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added to the article with respect to all of Uwe's comments and information. I changed the phrase "survivors of the executions" to "survivors of the mass killings," but I can't think of a better way to reword that. I added a few more photos, though there's still some candidates to possibly add. --CDN99 15:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's featured quality at this point. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I submitted it for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#M.C3.A9decins_Sans_Fronti.C3.A8res. --CDN99 18:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

12 Angry Men

The article may or may not be complete; it has languished for some time and very few edits have been made. A peer review would be appreciated. --RogerK 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Plot usually goes first. AndyZ 20:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article was written before Wikiproject Films came into existence, and as such it was written with an introduction. If, however, you feel that it should be rearranged, please do so. RogerK 05:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a good article, though it would be considered too short to be considered for Feature Article status in its current state. Providing additional information as to how and in what context (social/political) the movie was made in would give it some of the extra depth it needs. Also, placing this in the director's overall output, and how it is typical (or not) would be helpful. Would also be good to add any references you can find to contemporary critical reaction, as opposed to the more current references you link to. Another suggestion: since the Tony Hancock reference is not directly related to the film, I suggest you put it in a "Trivia" or "Parodies" heading instead (am pretty sure there was a Goon Show episode that parodied it as well). Cheers! Captmondo 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, will try to follow up on your suggestions. RogerK 01:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New Orleans Mint

Request for Peer Review August 2006

OK, so I think this article (self-created and largely self-written) is fairly comprehensive; I think that it's basically been properly configured and referenced by inline citations, and I would really like to get any other feedback on it that anyone thinks might improve the article. Eventually, I'd like to nominate it for featured status. Also, is there anything else I could/should possibly put in the intro? It currently seems a little short to me. Thanks. Absecon 59 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The above suggestions have now been largely attended to. Could anyone provide further feedback concerning what could or should be improved for this article before it might be nominated for featured status? Absecon 59 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Request for Peer Review

Hi. This page has been largely self-created, and I'm wondering what anyone else can suggest to improve this article, besides the somewhat-obvious suggestion of "find more print sources of information." This is difficult, as the U.S. Mint in New Orleans has not been directly discussed much in writing. Much thanks for all feedback. Absecon 59 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the mention of Hurricane Katrina in the lead of the article is rather irrelevant; the lead generally sums up the entire article rather than presenting new ideas. Also, though it is rather difficult to correct, the article is simply just a history of the mint and then a long list of statistics of coinage (which should be properly referenced by using inline citations). AndyZ 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Two questions: (1) What exactly do you mean by the "inline citations"? (2) What else would you have in the article besides a history of the mint and the statistics of coinage? If I'm leaving out something you'd like to see, please let me know what you've got in mind. Absecon 59 10:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CITE for more on inline citations. (The main types of citations used seem to be {{inote}} and footnotes.) Scott5114 03:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Scotland in the High Middle Ages

I am the main author of this article, and I'm wishing to receive instructive guidelines on how to further improve this article. It is very comprehensive and already fulfills many criteria, but is slightly long. What exactly to cut, I'm not entirely sure. Critical review is needed. - Calgacus 05:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead is too short, should be expanded. preferably by merging the material from Overview section into it (lead is supposed to be summary/overview after all). You may want to create at least stubs for red links at {{History of Scotland}} so it looks better. ToC is somewhat long, but as you have templates and pictures to fill the empty space, I presonally don't mind. At 104kb lenght, this is indeed long; again, I wouldn't mind but my experience shows other do, so consider creating subarticles and moving some content there. Pictures would be nice especially for the first half. Inline citation use is impressive. I can see this becoming a FAC after this PR. Good job.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Piotrus. Table of Contents is rather messy, you're right. Some of the red links cover some pretty obscure topics. I've been creating new stubs for these already (yes, there were more red links). I'll take your advice on this one, create new stubs, and remove red links when there is no possibility of doing this. What size do you think could be acceptable, baring in mind it's best to keep it as I can? :) - Calgacus 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read it yet, but I plan on doing it. In the meantime, two things. First, it is not slightly long, it is very long. :-) It is recommended that articles be broken when they reach 32kb. This one has three times that value. Also, why isn't the title Scotland in the high middle ages, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions? JoaoRicardotalk 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for helping. High Middle Ages is a proper noun. I never checked the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions for this when I named it, but I have now, and can't see anything that tells me the current title is not in convergence; but I did name the article after the fashion of related articles, such as Spain in the Middle Ages, Britain in the Middle Ages, High Middle Ages (to which High middle ages is a redirect), etc. I think reducing it to 32kbs would be counter productive; the reference section alone takes up a huge proportion of that. I've seen featured articles that are double the 32kbs length. What do you think would be an acceptable reduction? Is it possible to create a daughter article for the bibliography (I'm serious)? - Calgacus 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Calgacus, I wasn't aware that "High Middle Ages" is usually treated as a proper noun. Sorry. In that case, I think nothing's wrong with the title. There have been suggestions to place long sources as subpages, to free up space in the article itself, but these have not gained consensus yet. Check the WikiProject Fact and Reference Check for discussions on this, and see this section in particular. JoaoRicardotalk 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I was forced to split Polish-Soviet War a year ago for it to pass the FAC voting. I don't think the criteria changed since then, and people will probably object due to lenght. Regreatable IMHO but that's the standard here (one of the few I disagree with).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. I did a lot more work on the article based on the suggestions made. I nominated it for the featured article status, here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scotland in the High Middle Ages. Thank you JoaoRicardo and Piotrus. All the people who I know here that know something about the topic have said the article is great. So, if it ain't gonna get featured status unless it gets down to the 30-40 regions, then I don't wanna waste my time. I cut about 35kbs off it already. If I really had to, I could probably get rid of another 15 or so, but it would really hurt the article's quality, so it probably wouldn't get featured anyway. - Calgacus 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/January_2006&oldid=194740357"