Wikipedia:Peer review/July 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Hull City A.F.C.

I've been working on this article for a while. Its currently at GA status and I want to get it a little bronze star in the corner. The history section suffers from recentism, but that seems to be the only obstacle really. Mattythewhite 18:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Karrinyup Shopping Centre

Opening Peer Review to get additional feedback on the article in order to progress it to possible FA status. Thewinchester (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Issues:

  1. History of centre from 1973 onwards needs to be completed, including addition of coverage of 1982 and 1987 extensions. Thewinchester (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years

Although i have bugger all knowledge of shopping centres, ill give this a go, just for Le' Win.

  • in "1996 Redevelopment" there are 4 citations next to each other, i think it looks a tad ugly, and that they should be merged, per the referencing style used in Hamersley, Western Australia.
  • In facilities, just before the [cite needed] tag, there needs to be a fullstop.
  • Ownership section seems a tad confusing to me. I cant see how they came to their current arrangement (in relation to percentages of ownership) given the information contained in infobox and ownership section. Maybe its just me, not sure.

Thats about all i can see, otherwise its probably close to GA. Another quality piece of work from The Winchester, a true WA champ. Keep it up.Twenty Years 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 101

This is currently a B-class article, and I'd like to get it to GA-class, A-class and then a Featured Article. I think it needs some work, but I'm looking for some outside opinions. --Son 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

JohnnyAlbert10

Most citations need to be converted to {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc. Also, please provide more references especially in the route description. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

NE2

The route description needs some references for the facts that are not obvious from maps, like the direction changes in Washington. More importantly, there's very little early history. US 101 south of San Francisco was part of the Pacific Highway; the Redwood Highway was an auto trail that used US 101 from San Francisco to Crescent City. It looks like parts in Oregon and Washington were some of the later U.S. Highways to be paved, and were probably not originally main roads; were these built as scenic roads or just to serve the coastal communities? Detailed history should go in the "US 101 in state" articles, but some more general history should be added. --NE2 20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Pringle of Scotland

I have just done a fairly big edit on the Pringle of Scotland Article, I am not sure how this all works but I would like other editors to review to confirm what I believe is that I have improved the article, by adding a more complete view, with more reliable references/sources, and to say it is a fair article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FashionStudent (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 July 2007

Javascript-assisted review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue Jay Way

I feel that this Beatles article has yet to make any progress. This peer review is meant to point out anything that needs to be expanded and anything that needs reworking. 01kkk 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Could do with expansion. Words in headings shouldn't be linked: depending on settings, some users don't see them. DrKiernan 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fedor Emelianenko

The article's been greatly improved recently and has been stable for a while, I would just like some input on what remaining improvements need to be made. east.718 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • My biggest concern is the overall structure. It really needs to be re-worked chronologically. Right now the sections are internally consistent but the article jumps around in time.--BirgitteSB 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How would you suggest about going about such a task? I'm assuming you're talking about the last two paragraphs of the "martial arts background" section, but they really don't fit well in the remaining sections about his career. east.718 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You just integrate it. I would combine all the background as "Early life and amateur career" (if you can call it a career technically); then integrate everything from the RINGS period and then integrate everything from PRIDE years and the final bit is fine as it is. Integrate all the changes in training and club affiliation as they happen chronologically. Once that is done we will have a better idea what we are looking at and how it balances and flows together. On a side note, it would be nice if the big table what sortable. BTW my roomate swears he saw Cro Cop knock him out in a clip, do you think there was a point in that fight where Cro Cop knocked down but he somehow survived it?--BirgitteSB 02:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestions. I made the table sortable (admittedly quite hackishly), and will work on integrating later. As for your other question, the only time I recall Cro Cop knocking him down was when Emelianenko caught a high kick and rushed in for a trip takedown, but missed and went out of the ring. east.718 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916

I recently revised and expanded this article. I am looking for comments that might improve this article in preparation for FAC. Thanks in advance. Dmoon1 05:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I read the first half of the article, and I think it's ready for FAC. I made a few minor changes, but overall it is fully referenced, including with images from newspapers almost 100 years old (where do you find such things?). The prose is compelling, and it tells a story that was gripping in its time, and has had a lasting cultural impact. Shalom Hello 05:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your input! Dmoon1 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Baltimore City College

This article was recently listed as a Good Article, but I would like input on how the article can further be improved so that it might possibly qualify for FA status. Golem88991 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have completed making some of the changes to the article to make it conform with WP:MOS and I am working on the rest. Besides these stylistic issues, though what are the problems with the article? Thanks, Golem88991 04:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism

Previous peer review, featured article candidate and featured article review.

Autism needs peer review now that it has been revamped following its demotion from featured article status in December 2006. The rewrite attempted to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). I am asking for a review only of the main article Autism, not of its many subarticles like Controversies in autism; of course you're also welcome to review the subarticles too but that would be a lot of work! Eubulides 07:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by RN

Wow... TWO THUMBS WAY UP!!! The recent editors on this article have done an amazing job, especially considering the state of it when it was demoted; I'm amazed at the state of the article right now - I didn't even think it was possible! I like the calm, hype-free approach the article takes now; especially how everything is referenced rather well.
In the past, this was a very controversial article; for example way back when there was constant squabbles over where it should be called a "disorder" or "condition" or even an "advantage" of sorts. Personally I hope it doesn't come to it, but you may have to change stuff like that. More especially though you may need to be careful about wording like "Applied Behavior Analysis has become accepted as an effective treatment"; you may need to append something like "among specialists" or mention it as "the most common" treatment instead - and similar things if you get where I am headed with this. Try to be very careful in avoiding the scientific point of view if you can without diluting the article too much (and note that I literally mean point of view - there are things that are referenced facts that don't need it) - you can delve into the deepness of the talk page archives to get some detail but I wouldn't do it too much as it can be kind of depressing :).
Thanks for the advice. The wording about ABA was taken from Strock (the cited info sheet from NIMH), but Strock merely cites the 1999 Surgeon General's report, so I went back and read that and decided that its wording was easier to follow and better supported, so I switched to that. Eubulides 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Some sections like "Causes" do tread closely to the "not understandable by the layperson" mark, but it isn't too bad; obviously there is going to be some inherit complexity here. As a minor note I'd spell out Array comparative genomic hybridization the first time you use it, and I'd probably throw in an inline reference on for the text on the image in that section (Causes) just in case.
Thanks, I've done both of the suggestions in your "minor note". It's tough to talk about the causes of autism in simple language (other than just say "the genetics of autism is complex" :-). I'll try to tone it down if I can but would appreciate another pair of eyes, as I've worked too closely with the wording at this point. Eubulides 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Consider elaborating on some of the minor points of "Prognosis" like "special residential provision and a high level of support" (i.e. explain "special residential provision" et al.)- I imagine such a thing would also be useful to some people as well. Don't be afraid to go into a small amount of detail.
Thanks, it turns out that "special residential provision" was a typo in Howlin et al.; it should have been "specialist residential provision". I fixed that and added more detail about what it and the other categories mean. Eubulides 01:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is it for now I guess - thanks again for the editors' hard work on the article, and I do mean hard work! I hope the editors are around to submit for featured status - it definitely deserves it!!! RN 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by JFW

  • Brilliant article - covers most of the major issues and controversies very well. Perhaps we need to devote some attention to the treatments that some parents have been seeking for the "immune overload" or "mercury poisoning" that they feel has caused their child's autism. There are also major discrepancies between the article and Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders - e.g. the bowel disorders. JFW | T@lk 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The MMR and mercury controversies are huge, and deserve (and have) their own Wikipedia articles, so Autism just summarizes the topics only briefly and refers to Vaccine_controversy#The_MMR_controversy Thiomersal_controversy for people who want more details. Autism currently spends about 3 sentences on the subject; I hope that's enough, but if it's not I guess we'll see. There are indeed many major discrepancies between Autism and its subpages, but I'm afraid nobody currently has the time to fix all the problems with the other pages so for now I'm focusing on just Autism. Eubulides 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Many people will have heard through "the grapevine" (internet chatrooms, parenting groups) that autism is caused by immune overload, mercury, or other garbage. They may also have heard that chelation, gold therapy, IVIG etc etc etc is effective. Unless we address these bogus claims (especially by super quacknicks Geier & Geier), some of this may be perpetuated. JFW | T@lk 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree that there is a lot of misinformation, but the article already talks about "immune system abnormalities", "thiomersal and autism" (by far the two greatest concerns in practice) as well as "botched chelation therapy" (which has been documented to kill). There is not enough room to cover all these therapies on this page, which is why we have a separate page Autism therapies. Whether gold salts and IVIG should make the cut into the Autism page is a judgment call; but right now Google News doesn't report any hits for ("gold salts" autism) or ("gold therapy" autism) or (IVIG autism) or (intraveneous autism), whereas it has 140 hits for (mercury autism) and 70 for (MMR autism); this suggests that gold therapy and IVIG are of far less concern in practice. One thing that would help is coverage of IVIG and autism on Wikipedia; currently Autism therapies doesn't address it. Eubulides 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree largely with your assessment. My opinion is based on experiences with an author now banned from medical articles who insisted on incorporating even the most ridiculous quackery when it came to autism. Let's see what others think. JFW | T@lk 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I think the more "prophylactic" bases that can be covered now, while the article is under scrutiny and building consensus, the more stability the article will enjoy in the long run. Within days, weeks and months of completing reviews of Schizophrenia and Asperger syndrome, issues returned. Best to deal with known issues to the extent possible now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • What sort of prophylatic bases did you have in mind? Autism therapies covers over two dozen therapies, of which Autism currently mentions 3 (ABA, TEACCH, chelation). Which others should be added and what rule should be used to keep some and exclude others? Surely Autism shouldn't mention all the alternative therapies; there's not enough room and anyway it's a constantly-mutating list. Eubulides 02:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I defer to JFW and RN (who have both followed the series of articles longer than I have), but I think the addition you just made to the article should help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Thanks. For others following along, the addition cites a study of provider self-reports saying that program marketing, training availability, and parent requests appear to matter more to community service providers than scientific evidence. Eubulides 06:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Colin

Firstly, I'd like to say I'm really glad somebody decided to take on this article. Eubulides has been slaving away for a while now and has addressed a lot of the concerns that saw this FA demoted. I've read over the article fairly quickly and it looks to be very well sourced and technically competent. It is a huge improvement and puts the daughter articles to shame. I'm no medical expert, so hopefully someone from the medical projects can check the facts. I'm also not an experienced copyeditor but somebody keeps mentioning my name so I've been persuaded to have a go. Please feel free to reject my suggestions/opinions. I do think the text needs a good going-over. Generally, it is pitched above the so-called general reader that we're supposed to aim for. I don't mean that it needs to be dumbed way down, or that we need to laboriously explain every hard concept. It is more a change of style, sentence order and being a little less terse. OK, I started with the lead and that's all I've managed for now. Note: I've used the word "you" without knowing who actually wrote the text. Don't take it personally :-). If you find this useful, I'll continue. Colin°Talk 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the Lead

The lead starts with a number of "also called" names. There are problems with each of these: "autistic disorder" uses the adjectival form of the noun so can be considered a variant of the same word. Similarly, the "childhood" and "infantile autism" names are variants of the core subject and equating them with "autism" may mislead the reader into thinking this affects childhood only. The latter eponym forms haven't been used in the title of an English-language article on PubMed in the last 30 years. Therefore, I suggest the whole "also called" be dropped.

Thanks very much for the detailed comments. Working through them one by one. I take your point about "Kanner's syndrome" and "Kanner syndrome" and have dropped those aliases. The other names are still in widespread use so I think they should be mentioned somewhere. I moved them to Autism#Characteristics with what I hope is a straightforward change. Eubulides 02:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be some sort of punctuation between "autism" and "emphasizing" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. The use of the phrase "first reports" might draw parallels with finding something new (as with news reports). Would "first descriptions" be less ambiguous?

I changed "first reports of autism emphasizing" to "first descriptions of autism, which emphasized". Eubulides 03:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"In most cases the causes of autism are not known." isn't consistent wrt plurality. Perhaps: "In most cases, the cause of autism is not known". "Genetic risk determines over 90% of whether a child will develop autism" is not clear. What is "genetic risk" -- is this a predisposition caused by certain genes or the risk of having those genes? The "90% of whether" hangs in the air. It isn't clear to me what this 90% is a percentage of. Are we saying, "It is estimated that there is a genetic component involved in 90% of cases of autism"? Perhaps these first two sentences can be linked.

Several different things can cause autism, so it wouldn't seem right to say just "cause". I don't follow the point about consistency; the sentence appears grammatically consistent to me. To address the second issue I replaced "Genetic risk determines" with "Heritability determines". Eubulides 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You use "but" a lot, which reads like the text is having an argument with itself. The reader gets the impression that the first half is wrong, incomplete, inexact, etc, while the second half is the accurate correction. This isn't how NPOV is done.

I removed some "but"s here. At this point I need to take a break but will continue later. Eubulides 08:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Another overused word is "cases" which is a rather clinical term. For example, you could rephrase "In rare cases autism is associated with ..." to "Autism has occasionally been associated with..." or similar. Do you mean to use as weak a link as "associated"?

I removed some "cases" here. Many are still left, I'm afraid; I couldn't think of nicer rewording for them. In the example you mention, there is a strong association in those rare cases; I added "strongly" to help clear that up. The cited source (Arndt et al.) is cautious about causation, using wording like "Five teratogens related to autism risk have been identified in epidemiological studies"; I didn't want to go beyond what the source says. Eubulides 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The "not been confirmed by reliable studies" only gives one aspect of the counter-argument here. There have been large, reliable studies that have failed to confirm the link. I'm not sure how to reword to say this and perhaps this is too much detail. Rather than go into specifics of what studies have/have not been done, can we just say something about lack of evidence (perhaps with a link to evidence based medicine).

Thanks, I reworded it to say those theories "have no convincing scientific evidence". This matches Rutter's wording better anyway, and Rutter is a better source than what I was using. Eubulides 17:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The "but its detailed mechanism is unknown" is another unnecessary "but" and I think the word "mechanism" is going to confuse the reader at this point. To say "is unknown" is also rather extreme if we later devote a whole section to this topic. We clearly know or think we know something.

I changed it to "mechanism that is not well understood". Eubulides 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of short sentences. That can be helpful, particularly in complex areas. But the lead shouldn't be complex. The text often doesn't flow and the paragraphs aren't cohesive. For example, one paragraph has causes and mechanism, and another has screening, treatment and culture. I'm not saying we need a separate paragraph for each topic, but if you combine topics then they need to be better linked. Too often, the reader is surprised by a sentence that is talking about something unrelated to the previous one.

Sometimes the order of a sentence means that an unfamiliar concept is thrown at the reader with no introduction. For example, "Applied Behaviour Analysis" starts a sentence but is only explained to be "an effective treatment" at the end. The name (ABA) really doesn't give the reader any clues as to what it is. That's not your fault, of course, but you need to compensate.

"No cure is known" is a back-to-front form of the cliché: "There is no known cure". The word "known" is redundant. So, we're left with "There is no cure", which is so short it demands to be combined with something. I think this sentence should come before the therapies one. We need to give the reader an idea of where Autism is on the spectrum of treatable but incurable conditions. For example, coeliac disease and diabetes have effective solutions that enable the person to lead a relatively normal life.

I changed it to "There is no cure." I tried to combine it but this weakened the text. There is some advantage to having a strong short sentence like "There is no cure." I added some text to try to address the flow and cohesion issues that you mentioned in the three paragraphs above. It's hard within this limited space to avoid jamming topics together but specific rewording suggestions are welcome. I applied several changes to try to address the above issues. Eubulides 17:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The autistic culture is part of a very long sentence. I understand what you are saying, but the wording is weak.

If long sentences are weak maybe we should stick to short sentences. :-) Anyway, if you understand the sentence then most of the battle is won; any suggestions for improving it are welcome. Eubulides 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The reader may not know what a "review" is. I haven't looked at your prevalence figures in detail but to go from "vary widely" to giving a relatively tight range seems contradictory. Perhaps the "vary widely" sentence can be dropped for the sake of brevity. The "It is not known whether prevalence has increased as well." is a rather bland way of summing up the whole Autism (incidence) controversy!

Colin°Talk 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I wikilinked to Review, for what that's worth. And I dropped the "vary widely" sentence. Can you tell that I like bland? Anyway, thanks very much for the review; the lead is now much stronger. If you have time to review the rest I'd be both grateful and amazed. Eubulides 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
And you claim not to be an experienced copyeditor! Ha, now your goose is cooked, the cat is out of the bag! Kudos to Eubulides for a real turnaround on the article; now if the daughter articles could only be cleaned up. I left some questions/comments on the talk page a few days ago, but unlike Colin, I'm *really* not a good copyeditor, and don't feel up to the task of tweaking the wording in those areas, so hope someone more capable will have a go at my list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Classification

I've been a bit braver and have copy edited some of the text directly where I think I can make changes without affecting the meaning. If there's a change you're not sure about, let me know. Here are some remaining comments:

The "dysfunctional" link (to Abnormality (behavior)) isn't appropriate since I think you are using the word to mean someone unable to look after themselves and operate in society.

If the HFA folk "appear unexceptional to others" surely they don't have autism. There must be some degree of oddness since the definition requires social-interaction problems. Can you think of an alternative?

Colin°Talk 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I reworded the "dysfunctional" and "appear unexceptional to others" sentence, replacing it with something that matches a cited source better (I used Happé). Eubulides 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Characteristics

I've made some more changes to the text. Please fix up anywhere I've wrongly altered the meaning/emphasis.

I'm not familiar with the term: "children with a history of language impairment." and am not sure why the reader should be interested in comparisons with that group. Does it overlap autism, or does the definition exclude autism?

  • The idea of that study was to focus on the effects of autism proper, distinguishing them from effects that come from non-autistic language impairment. "History of language impairment" (HLI in the paper) merely means the child had language impairment at some point in its life; this is not a common term but the cited reference uses that idea and uses the abbreviation "HLI" a lot. It'd be nice if we had cleaner and more to-the-point data for autism, tantrums, and aggression, but that's the best data I know right now. Eubulides 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Other symptoms" section has over-short paragraphs. With the sleep problems, are you saying that autistic children have more sleep problems than is typical for a child with "developmental disabilities". The sentence isn't clear, especially since autism is a developmental disability.

  • I made the paragraphs longer and rewrote that sentence in the hope of making it clearer. Eubulides 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Colin°Talk 21:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your updates and suggestions. For your reference, here are the changes I made in response. Eubulides 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Causes

The "perhaps" in the 1st paragraph is a little troublesome. Encyclopaedic text should be sure of what it says, and attribute doubt to others. Who is suggesting this and who doubts it?

The "perhaps" tried to briefly summarize Happé et al. I reworded it by using "some researchers argue" here. Eubulides 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The "It is now clear that" is out-of-place since there was no earlier discussion in the text that raised the possibility that the genetics weren't complex.

I removed that phrase here. Eubulides 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The "A large database" sentence is long and devoid of punctuation. I'm not clear how a "large database" can "summarise". Note also the UK spelling.

Thanks for catching that; I do tend to write sentences that must be puzzled out like Sudoku sometimes. To try to fix this I changed "A large database containing genetic linkage and CNV data connecting autism to genetic loci summarises research indicating…" to "The Autism Genome Project database contains genetic linkage and CNV data that connect autism to genetic loci and suggest…" here. Eubulides 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The part dealing teratogens claims that because these do their damage an an early stage, autism must arise at an early stage. Based on that sentence (i.e. not the source) I can't conclude that. Some forms of autism may develop at an early stage, but this doesn't prove they all or even most do.

You're of course correct. However, the quote from the source is surprisingly strong: Arndt et al. write "The fact that each of these teratogens appears to act during the embryonic period (the first eight weeks of life) does not rule out the possibility that autism could be initiated at other stages of development, or that later influences could add to the effects of an early injury. However, the coincidence of critical periods for the first five environmental risk factors identified is strong evidence that autism arises very early in development." I added the qualifier "though this does not exclude the possibility that autism can be initiated or affected during later stages" here. Eubulides 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
On further thought I made some more changes for clarity and and brevity in this section, here. Eubulides 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The "It can happen that" sentence is problematic. Firstly, it is a very weak statement. I see that Sandy also noticed this on the talk page. (BTW: serendepity (sic) is not the word you are looking for; there is nothing fortuitous about that chance alignment.) The second problem is that "it happens" is effectively saying that this is chance and coincidence. I know you want to say that and it is very likely to be true but it isn't NPOV. I've tried rewording this. Colin°Talk 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording. A nit: is there some reason "become aware of" replaced "notice"? "Notice" is shorter. Eubulides 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought it implied (better than "notice" alone) that they were noticing something that may be new or may have gone unnoticed for a while or may have been a gradual change. Change back if you prefer. Colin°Talk 20:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Mechanism

The first pathophysiology paragraph is possibly too absolute. Are these changes found in all autistic brains and are such brains always bigger/heavier?

The neuronal effects have been observed in all brains studied (though admittedly few brains have been studied). The size and weight is just a result about the averages, so I replaced "are greater" with "tend to be greater". Eubulides 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other end of the scale, "potentially could sometimes help cause ASD" is tentative and weak. How about moving the "potentially" to the start and modify slightly to "It is possible that abberant...". The rest of the sentence needs rephrased: "help" is an inappropriate word here. You don't need the "However" but you do need a comma after "area".

Thanks, I reworded it along the lines you suggested, here. Eubulides 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you may need to spell out MNS in the neuropsychology section. In complex topics, a new reader can forget acronyms quite quickly since there's little effort being made to remember them. Colin°Talk 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Eubulides 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Screening

Two delays and two mays in one sentence. Colin°Talk 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed that here. Eubulides 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Diagnosis

What is "stage 2 diagnosis"?

That's a UKism; it's a multidisciplinary multiagency assessment (MAA) which is another UKism. Basically, it's the complete diagnosis and evaluations previously described in that paragraph. I changed "30 weeks between first concern to completion of stage 2 diagnosis" to "30 weeks from first concern to completed diagnosis and assessment" here. Eubulides 23:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Treatment

Is the "respond unusually to these medications" talking about paradoxical reaction or something else?

The "Few are supported" sentence is very, very long. Chop, chop.

In the final sentence, the "After childhood" should begin the sentence, otherwise the reader consumes a lot of text with no context. Colin°Talk 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The source says just "atypical", which would include paradoxical reactions but also the merely out-of-the-ordinary reactions. I changed it to say "atypical" rather than "unusual". I chopped up the "Few are supported" sentence, and reworded the last sentence as you suggested. Here are the changes to Autism#Treatment that I made in response to the above comments. Eubulides 05:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Epidemiology

"A broader review" - That second review looks to be more specific (in that it concentrates on ASD/PDD rather than "common neurologic disorders") so in what way is it "broader"? It is disappointing that a review from 2007 should include no high-quality studies beyond 1999. I seriously doubt this general neurological review is the best source for discussing the epidemiology of autism. It contains only three paragraphs and just over 200 words on autism and admits to "major limitations", specifically with older data. Those studies are all old; between 8 and 15 years old! For a subject that receives so much attention, it strikes me that we should concentrate on good quality recent studies (i.e. this century!)

Sigh, nobody likes Hirtz et al.; they're too conservative and their standards are too high. :-) To get better consensus I removed the citation. I'll try to catch up with your other comments later. Eubulides 16:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In the final sentence, you use "but" to diss "most recent reviews" with the "2006 British study". It isn't acceptable for you (as a WP editor) to do that. To do that, you'd have to find a review that said the 2006 British study was a significant challenge to the current consensus. Perhaps that's possible? Alternatively, you could just passively discuss the issues by saying "Individual studies sometimes report figures outside the consensus range. For example, a 2006..."

The "but" came from Newschaffer et al. Here's a quote from their paper (they use "However" not "but" but it's the same thing): "Most recent reviews of the prevalence literature tend to conclude that prevalence of autistic disorder falls between 10 and 20 per 10,000. Recent prevalence estimates for the ASDs collectively have been surprisingly consistent, in comparison with the heterogeneity of autistic disorder estimates, falling close to 60 per 10,000 (7, 13, 22, 23). However, the most recent prevalence survey available at this writing reported ASD prevalence of ASDs in a population of more than 55,000 British eight- and nine-year-olds to be more than 110 per 10,000 (8)." (That "ASD prevalence of ASDs" is surely a typo: they meant either "ASD prevalence" or "prevalence of ASDs". They needed a copyeditor too!) Please see below for how I fixed the "but". Eubulides 20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

However, reading the abstract of the 2006 study (in the Lancet, so I suppose that says something), I see "A narrower definition of childhood autism, which combined clinical consensus with instrument criteria for past and current presentation, provided a prevalence of 24.8 per 10,000" (i.e. 2.48 per 1,000) which is not such an outlier. I don't know the details of narrow/wide definitions so can't comment on whether the other reviews were using the narrow or wide view?

Narrow view. Here's a quote from the 2006 Lancet study by Baird et al. which may help explain things:
"ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnostic criteria have been used most commonly in recent prevalence studies but still allow scope for variation in interpretation. Different severity thresholds applied within the same qualitative domains of impairment result in different prevalence rates. Our narrow autism group who met robust criteria of autism on ADI plus ADOS and consensus clinical diagnosis could represent the most reliable and repeatable diagnostic group for studies looking at prevalence over time and place. We postulate that this narrow autism group could represent the older conceptualisation of autism that is commonly associated with mental retardation and occurs four or five times more frequently in boys than in girls.… Children shown in this study to have ASD but who were not locally diagnosed had other coexisting developmental disorders causing significant impairment."
To help try to address this issue I mentioned the broadening diagnostic criteria and removed the "but" here. Eubulides 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, are you aware of the recent prominent news reports about unpublished UK work estimating over 17 per 1,000 for ASD? See, for example, The MMR story that wasn't. It's a real zoo out there. Eubulides 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The 10-15% known condition seems to contradict the earlier Causes section which says this happens "only rarely".

Most of the known conditions are single-gene but it's not a huge majority. Maybe 5–10% are single gene (I'm guessing here). Anyway, you're right, "only rarely" was too strong. I rewrote it to say "Typically autism cannot be traced to a single-gene mutation…" here. Eubulides 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The "2001 British study of 26 autistic children" is rather a small sample size for discussing the occurrence of different levels of mental retardations. Are there no larger studies?

Nothing recent. At least, none that I know of, and I looked. Some older studies are PMID 3610999 (23 adults in Sweden, 1987) and PMID 1383189 (201 young adults in Japan, 1992). The Japanese results are dated and are hard to explain (it wasn't a population-based study); I'm not sure they're worth mentioning. I found no recent review of this subject, though I suspect Howlin's 2004 book (ISBN 0415309689) would be a good source I don't have it. Autism#Prognosis does say "Few high-quality studies address long-term prognosis", citing Seltzer et al. 2004 (PMID 15666341), so it's not just me who has had trouble finding studies in this area. Part of the problem is that diagnosis was much rarer formerly, so there aren't that many adults to choose from. Eubulides 22:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To be continued... Colin°Talk 13:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. These comments are all quite helpful. Eubulides 22:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"associated with epilepsy, with variations in risk due to age...Boys are at higher risk for autism than girls." The first "risk" isn't clear (but the ref is clearly talking about risk of epilepsy in those with ASD). Can you make it explicit, especially since you use the word "risk" in the following sentence and we are back to risk of ASD.

Thanks, I changed "risk" to "risk of epilepsy". Eubulides 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "risk" is used throughout this article. This word generally means the chance of something bad happening. Now, the idea that autism is "simply another way of being" (which you mention earlier) is a distinctly minority POV. However, if you can find ways of describing things without loaded terms, then it keeps everyone happy. I'm not suggesting you remove all the "risks" but it is something to consider each time you use the word.

My vague recollection is that every instance of the word "risk" comes from the cited sources. I understand what you mean about terminology, though, and will try to avoid it when it comes to my own word choices. Eubulides 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Autism's incidence is less useful than its prevalence" might be better rephrased as "less useful a xxxx than its prevalence" where xxxx is "term", "concept", "statistic" or whatever you think incidence/prevalence are. Ultimately, I failed to understand (from this sentence) why prevalence is more useful than incidence.

Thanks, I changed that. Eubulides 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"..public awareness. though as-yet.." punctuation not quite right here. "A widely-cited.." is a huge sentence!

Thanks, I fixed the punctuation. It is a long sentence, but is it that unreadable? Suggestions for improvement are welcome. If it's any consolation, the sentence has a Gunning fog index of 16.01, which is a bit less than the text of the article as a whole (currently 16.59 according to one online calculator). Eubulides 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to explain "real" a bit better. The distinction is not between real and (its opposite) imaginary, which some might interpret as an insult implying folk just made it up. I know what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure how to revise it.

"would suggest more attention and funding on ..." doesn't work. How about "would suggestion more attention and funding should be directed towards ... than continuing..". The phrase "it is conceivable that" generally implies a reluctant admission of a possibility. It isn't neutral enough. Colin°Talk 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I made this change to fix the problems noted in the above two paragraphs. I removed the "conceivable" sentence for the reason you mention, as well as for a couple of other reasons: (1) it's dated, (2) it's about etiology and therefore doesn't belong in "Epidemiology". Eubulides 04:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Soon after making the above changes, Midgley commented on the same area, and I made the following further changes. Eubulides 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Countincr

  • This was my first visit to the article and after a brief reading, result of recent improvement drive was quite obvious. Hats off to everyone involved. However I think there are some minor issues that needs to be addressed:
  1. No mention of ICD criteria! Is there any particular reason behind this? May be I am unaware of shortcomings as I am not an expert on this field, but as far as I know it is widely used for diagnosis and some consider DSM and ICD to be complementary.
    These days ICD is basically the same as DSM for autism, no? But I added some text to this effect. Eubulides 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Assessment tools like CARS, ADI should be briefly discussed.
    Thanks, I added this. Eubulides 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Imaging studies like PET and gated MRI's findings should be mentioned. If we can find a PET image somewhere that will improve the aesthetic aspect of the article as well.
    I'm afraid you'll have to help me out with this one. I'm unaware of research using gated MRI for autism. For PET, were you thinking of any studies in particular? As for getting images I'd love to add some if we can get them; the current article has way too few images. Eubulides 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    TimVickers (talk · contribs) is often able to help in this area; you might drop him a note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Cognitive and behavioural therapies should be detailed a bit more in treatment section. Since they have their own articles, several lines would be enough.
    I added a bit of text there. Eubulides 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. A general reader might wonder what happens to these children when they grow up; prognosis section on this regard I think is some what brief.
    I added a bit there too. Perhaps more could be added; suggestions would help. Eubulides 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am not too critical, certainly that was not the intention. My overall impression on Autism is very positive. I am going to link it to scientific review and hopefully we will get some views from different angles.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. For your convenience the changes I made in response to your review can be found here and here. Eubulides 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have emailed publishers for PMID 15751273 and PMID 14762598 for SPECT images and I'll let you know if they agrees for GFDL or CC licensing. I also took the liberty of editing infobox image. There were too many distracting things, I wanted to draw the attention to the subject and did some other minor corrections. We can also put images of posters and one or two diagrams.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What posters? The Fair Use folks are really cracking down at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant posters from Gov. agencies for autistic awareness (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). Although I do not think Fair use rationale is necessary for this article, it can be applied to posters in general as per policy guideline.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Google Images reports [1] and [2] as sources for public-domain images about autism, but these images aren't that suitable for Autism, I'm afraid. Eubulides 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I did a goolge search as well, nothing exiting. See if you find Image:Autism.svg useful. Have not had any response from the journals yet.--Countincr ( t@lk ) 23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about the autism awareness ribbon. It doesn't add much technically. It would be more appropriate in an article on the subject of autism advocacy than in an article about autism itself. Eubulides 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the autism awareness ribbon doesn't illustrate the encylopedic aspects of the topic and is more appropriate for a website or support group. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by BirgitteSB

  • Lead: It is one of the five pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) or autism spectrum disorders (ASD), which are closely related and usually less severe than autism It would be more clear to say "It is the most severe of the five pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) or autism spectrum disorders (ASD), which are all closely related."
    • Thanks for the comments; I'll work on them one at a time. The proposed rewording isn't quite right, since autism is not the most severe PDD. I reworded the opening paragraph in a different way which I hope addresses this point adequately. Eubulides 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Characteristics: My biggest problem with the article is this section and it's overwhelming focus on children. I think some of that material might be better in "Screening" section which is right to focus on children. This is a life-long disorder and we need to have this section focus on the general characteristics as much as possible. Since social development is naturally about development, I think it is fine to give a run-down of the development milestones autistic children struggle with as they age. However there still need to be something about rest of the lifetime. Communication should not focus so much on development and maybe some of that should go in "Screening". Repetitive behavior is nicely general, but Other Symptoms returns to focusing on children. Do splinter skills disappear with maturity? I realize that if the studies done are solely with children then you cannot change that, but I really think you should look over your sources once more and be certain the restriction is always necessary. I have the feeling that contributors just got in the habit of typing "children" at times.
    • Thanks for this suggestion. I just now looked at each use of the word "children", and they were all taken from the citations (i.e., the cited material is about children, not all individuals) except for the splinter-skill reference. Good catch! So I corrected that one. It is a judgment call whether some of this stuff belongs under "Screening" and vice versa, but it is a development disorder and some of the characteristics discussion will naturally focus on children. The reason it's written the way it is, is because the literature for the more-general area is pretty sparse; but if we can track down some reliable sources in the more-general area I'd welcome adding the info to "Characteristics". Eubulides 21:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Since writing the above I have added more material on the limited research on adult residential programs (citing Van Bourgondien et al.), references to issues with residential care, job training and placement, sexuality, social skills, and estate planning for adults (citing Aman), severity of symptoms in later childhood (citing Howlin) and in adults (citing Seltzer et al.). Eubulides 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Screening: Any of the following warning signs is reason to have a child evaluated by a specialist: Please directly attribute this advice to someone. I almost want to insist it should either be prose or else done up as an illustration to the text, but I can live with the bullet points as long as there is a strong attribution.
  • Treatment: This section has the focus solely on children. How effective is treatment long term? It is effective at promoting social and language development and in reducing behaviors that interfere with functioning and learning. But does the social and language development continue when treatment is stopped, or stall, or regress? Do the problematic behaviors return when treatment is discontinued? I have read a little of the lawsuits people have undertaken to have school systems provide treatment and that there is little treatment available once a autistic person "ages out" of the schools. Do you think that aspect should be covered in this article? I would like to see something said of adult treatment in any event The paragraph on drugs reads as though autistic adults don't exist. Also the article often talks of the range of severity of this disorder, but this sections reads as if the severity has no relevance on treatments. I would imagine it does but if not you should say something explicitly about that facet.
    • I've changed the wording slightly in "Treatment" but the bottom line is that the vast majority of treatment is for children, and that the studies on efficacy for treatment hardly ever do long-term followups. I found no reliable sources to address your technical questions so I'm afraid the article will have to remain silent about them. For treatment and financing, I added this change to document some of the financial pressures families face, and this to talk about the limited data on adult treatment, and I chnaged change a "a child" to "someone" when talking about drugs. Severity does affect treatment, and I added this to talk about that. Eubulides 08:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • What I would still like to see, and this goes for "Characteristics" as well, is just that the adult situation is decalared to be little studied rather than simply ommited. Which you have done in the diff given above, but I think reading the article the lack of knowledge on adults almost becomes a theme. I know you have to find a source on this, but there has to be something out there that is focused on autism in adults. I would love to have a few places where it declared that adults exist but there is little that can be said definatively about them in this area.--BirgitteSB 16:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If someone can find a good medical review article focused on autism in adults, that would be great. I looked hard for one in the past day or two but came up dry. Eubulides 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Cultural references: This section is far to short. I am not sure that Cultural references is a good title.
    • The title is taken from WP:MEDMOS#Sections. What topics are missing from the section now? Eubulides 08:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That's one of the suggested sections in MEDMOS I'm less comfortable with. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. The name implies/encourages the "XX on TV episode YY" or "Song ZZ mentions it" sort of pop culture trivia. The actual (too brief) text and daughter article are more about social issues and "autistic culture" rather than mainstream culture. I may be worth discussing this on the MEDMOS talk page to see if we can come up with alternative name(s). Colin°Talk 08:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Those are my concerns exactly. The section (when I reviewed it) was only two sentances.--BirgitteSB 16:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, we need a better heading, but we haven't come up with one. Birgitte, would you be willing to help us sort that out at WP:MEDMOS? Tourette syndrome has more content in that area, so reviewing it may help generate some ideas of how to rename that section heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
            • How about the obvious heading "Society and Culture"? That would be a good ehading for Tourette syndrome too, and it maps well to the subarticle's name "Sociological and cultural aspects of <X>". Eubulides 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Works for me: let's see what others say (but it would be Society and culture per WP:MSH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
                • OK, thanks, nobody else responded yet so I renamed it to "Society and culture" for now. Eubulides 06:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I fixed the problem by removing the section, merging its old contents into Autism#History. Eubulides 23:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Writing level: I find the writing level to be a little more difficult than is absolutely necessary. Is etiology a key concept to autism that you must say, its etiology is usually unknown.? Why applied behavior analysis (ABA) has demonstrated efficacy in rather than "applied behavior analysis (ABA) has been effective at"? I think you should look for things that can be re-written in lay-mans terms where possible.
    • I replaced "etiology" with "theory of causation". "Demonstrated efficacy" does not mean the same thing as "has been effective at"; it means that the treatment is at least as good as other treatments in a clinical trial. I replaced "efficacy" with "therapeutic effect in clinical trials that is at least as good as other treatments" though to be honest this is pretty long and maybe I should just change it back to "efficacy"? Anyway, for reference here are the details about these edits. If you spot any other unnecessary medical jargon please let us know. Eubulides 06:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall I am impressed with the article and wish you guys good luck returning it to FA.--BirgitteSB 19:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the work you have done since this review has addressed each of my concerns. I realize we are all slaves to the sources available, but I hope everyone maintaining this article can keep the child/adult issue in mind for the future. And hopefully more sources about this disorder in adults will become available at some point.--BirgitteSB 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article link

I posted this question to the article talk page, but it doesn't appear anyone knows the answer; maybe by posting it here, someone will weigh in. The link to the Spoken article in External links is now to a very outdated article; should that link be removed to the talk page, and is there any policy/guideline about removing Spoken article links? I haven't located anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Leek Town F.C.

A couple of weeks ago I had to drive through Leek and happened to pass the football ground, so I thought I'd stop and take a photo which could be added to the club's WP page. When I saw the feeble state of the article as it stood at the time I decided to try and expand it. I think I've done so now, so here it is at PR...... ChrisTheDude 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Wow, the change is truly incredible. Hats off.

My summary on the bread and butter of what makes a good article:

Structure

The headings are consistent with those traditionally used for GA and FA football club articles. Appropriate number of images. Some sections are a little on the small side, but that is to be expected for a club of Leek's stature, for whom obtaining further information could prove difficult. Be prepared to consider merging a few sections to appease FA or GA reviewers, but I personally don't think it's necessary. Fine in my opinion, could possibly require very minor alterations during GA or FA nominations but that could be rectified at the time.

Content

No problems at all with the prose; it's excellent. Comprehensive, well written, factually accurate and sourced. However:

  • The squad list is not quite up to date, see www.leektown.co.uk/info/news.php


"July 15th

One out, three in as squad building continues.
Defender Kevin Brown has quit Harrison Park without kicking a ball due to difficulties travelling from Lancashire.
Darren Alexander (Hednesford), Paul Monaghan (Flixton) and John Maloney (Altrincham) have signed UniBond forms."


  • Is the list of notable former players really large enough to warrant a link? It's nicely done, consistent with the format used by other clubs, and understandably it is an incomplete list, but nevertheless I don't think it's a large enough category to warrant a link. Instead perhaps the players should just be listed on the main page?


Sourcing

All important and potentially contentious facts verified by a reliable source, with a wide range of sources used and an appropriate references section at the bottom. No problems at all here.


Images

All but one of the images are fine, the other one I've listed my concerns below but even that is more personal preference than something that detracts from the article. On the whole images are well positioned, although a couple of small improvements could be made:

  • I'm not a huge fan of the graph; it doesn't look very professional. Ideally it shouldn't overlap into the players section, should ideally have a title indicating that it represents Leek Town's performance in the National League System (as opposed to the Football League), and should probably be slightly larger as the years are difficult to read. The idea is good so I'm not suggesting it should be removed, I just don't think it's well done. My suggestions are that it could be redone (could be done in ten or fifteen minutes on Excel or similar), and/or obtain the copyright holder's permission to make minor alterations.
  • The gap in modern history is unattractive. My suggestion would be to move the magazine cover down to the honours section.


Overall I'm very impressed with the article. It's refreshing to see so much time and effort given to a club outside of the top two divisions. I hope this review helps and if you have any further questions feel free to contact me on my talk page. BeL1EveR 12:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


The only thing I would add is adding in national flags for former managers and current management just to 'add something'. I put the staff into a table, if you have the nationalities i will add in the national flags if you want? (Everlast1910 15:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

My reply

Thanks for the very kind words guys, to address a couple of points....

Contacting the creator of the graph would be easy as I created it myself, personally I don't think it looks too bad. The graph is there essentially because a number of other GA and FA football articles have them, so I thought this one might as well too. In fact when I put Gillingham F.C. and Margate F.C. up for PR I was told by other editors that the absence of such a graph was a major omission! I guess we can't please everyone.... ;-)
Personally I really dislike sticking flags into tables, and to be honest the only ones I could source would be the ones who have their own WP articles, sourcable info on the others is pretty much non-existent. I don't even have a confirmed nationality for Paul Ogden, the current boss, although I presume he's English. With only four or five of the names having flags by them I think the table would look pretty silly so I'd prefer to leave them out completely
I'll update the squad list, I hadn't noticed that news item
The link to the category of past/present (in this case mainly past!) players is consistent with other FA football articles such as Arsenal F.C. and avoids potential accusations of OR in selecting which players to mention on the club's page

As stated above, I appreciate you guys taking the time to look over the article, and thanks for your kind words and constructive criticism ChrisTheDude 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


I think now would be a good time to nominate for GA. I say GA as opposed to FA on the basis that there's nothing to prevent a nomination for FA immediately afterwards, and the GA process would help rectify any potential obstacles to achieving FA status.
Two final points. The graph was merely personal opinion; I agree it's a good idea and in one form or another is certainly worthy of inclusion. My objections were about presentation and clarity; the concept is sound and is a good addition.
Secondly I recommend seeking further opinion on the notable players issue. For my part I'm going to start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-league football, in the hope of obtaining consensus on an agreed standard. My school of thought is that a solution that's clearly required for a Premier League club isn't necessarily appropriate for a Northern Premier team, whilst at the same time accepting that having two systems could prove unworkable in certain cases (for instance AFC Wimbledon).
Once more, congratulations on a job well done, and good luck with GA and hopefully FA. BeL1EveR 19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers

I am requesting a peer review before submitting article as a Wikipedia:Featured lists candidate. I have sourced all entries and request feedback from other editors.--Ccson 17:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

I would like the article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn to be to be peer-reviewed by independant editors - mostly for NPOVness and quality of the sources - also, if all of the material is suitable for this article or some of it needs to be removed or moved to sub-article. Also, it would be good to hear suggestions about improving the article. Sander Säde 10:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Every web reference should provide as much content as is possible to discern from the page referenced: article title, date published, date accessed, author (lastname, firstname), and publisher. If it's difficult to determine that information, the reference probably doesn't meet WP:RS standards. Geuiwogbil 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know to come up the size of the prose minus references, but this article seems very large to me. The size of article is my biggest concern by far. I really think this needs to use summaries of daughter articles and end up being much shorter and more focused. My next greatest concern is the overall the structure, but I think using summary style and reworking material into daughter articles will end up altering that as a matter of course. However I will say when you start tacking on sections like "Epilogue" and "Echoes" it is a sign of a problem with the existing structure not being able to handle this material.--BirgitteSB 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's where you find that out. For this article, the figure is: Prose size (text only): 64 kB (10504 words) Geuiwogbil 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah that is large and this isn't the kind of broad topic that needs extra information --BirgitteSB 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Belarus

previous PR

Pigeon racing

I rewrote this article a while ago, others have since made minor changes. Any tips on improving it would be greatly appreciated! Abbott75 ☺ 04:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Paxse

Hey Abbot75, I really enjoyed the article and learned a lot of things I didn't know (God I love this Encyclopedia!). There are a few things that leaped out at me as I read through. I think you probably need a longer lead section (see WP:LEAD) for ideas. That short sentence is a little abrupt for me, I'd like to know more about what else is in the article before I dip my eye down into the next sections.

There is a lot of white space at the top of the article and that handsome bird on the right looks a little lost in the middle of it. Image placement is largely a matter of taste, but I think the vertical shot of birds on the wing a bit further down would look good as the first picture (and a bit closer to the topic of racing).

Some sections, particularly the subheadings under racing by region, are only one sentence long. This is a bit too short. Perhaps combine some of them or (better still) expand those sections with some more info. I enjoy history so I'd like to know a little more about the history of pigeon racing if you're able to expand that section.

Those are a few ideas, hope they're helpful. Cheers, Paxse 17:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comfort in Sound

Have I made good references and prose to make this a good article? :).

Thanks in advance!.

Marcus Bowen 01:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The references look good, but what about information reguarding the recording of the article? It would be good to know where it was recorded, how long the recording took or any history behind the creation of the songs as well as the recording? LordHarris 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Through the Looking Glass" (Lost)

Hello, I rewrote and added to this article about the third Lost season finale, changing it from this overly long plot synopsis to the current well-written version without an in-universe perspective. Spoiler warning: Do not read the article if you have any intention on ever watching Lost because this episode is the highest rated on TV.com. I am going to be applying it for featuring article status soon and am wondering if there is anything I can do to make the article better. Although the plot summary may seem long at first, the episode is two hours long and features approximately twenty major characters and five storylines. Thanks, thedemonhog talk • edits 06:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive fair-use images need to be cleaned up and/or their fair-use rationales improved. Nearly every image is justified only by the claim that they "feature significant characters", including Image:Lost radio tower.PNG, which has no discernable characters at all. Each image should justify why it uniquely belongs, because this seems in its current form to violate our WP:NFCC #3 that we should strive for minimal use of non-free media in an article. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed an image and strengthened each fair use rationale. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Another very nice and well-written Lost article! (Although I have resisted the temptation to read the Plot section, as we're over a month behind and I haven't seen the finale yet.) There's only one main criticism I can make, though, and that is the citation of blogs and fansites - only a few - which is against the Lost episode guidelines, which states: "Media and fan reaction: If an episode prompts a particularly notable reaction from fans or professional TV reviewers, this may be discussed if properly sourced through reliable sources (i.e. no blogs or fan sites)."
Other than that, I did do a quick word count of the Plot section - almost 300 words over the recommended count (500 words per hour), but I think 1,280 words is still a pretty modest plot summary considering the circumstances. Otherwise, well done! •97198 talk 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I only cited one blog and one forum (twice). The reason I cited that blog is because it is the original source of the leaked synopsis, although I could just cite an article about it being leaked. The forum is a list of what episodes have been submitted for Emmy consideration. While I am able to get a real article about submitting "Through the Looking Glass" for outstanding drama, I am unable to find another source for outstanding writing. --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a decent article. Though blogs are not reliable sources and I believe the article contains too many external links that which fail WP:EL (Television Without Pity, LOST Wiki, Lostpedia and YouTube). The infobox image could also do with some improvement as it's not very descriptive (this (which should be JPEG) would be better, in my opinion). Matthew 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the blog citation and removed all of the external links that you mentioned because, which do fail WP:EL. I disagree with your infobox image preference. Jack was the main character of the episode and his flashforward was a major revealtion and cliffhanger. --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It's just my opinion -- at the end of the day it doesn't really bother me which image is used. Also, what about splitting the guest stars into a separate section from the infobox (as there's quite a lot of them -- for example it could be called casting (and it could be a sub-section of production?)). Matthew 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Would this casting section be a list or information on how they were casted or would it be a section similar to the cast and characters section on the main page? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess it could be either. Prose rather than lists would probably strengthen the article, but it may not be possible as I personally can't find any sources that could be used. Matthew 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is well done overall, and impressively well-referenced. I think that it's just about worthy of FA-status. Cliff smith 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Guest stars" list is obnoxiously long in the infobox. They aren't all "stars" by any stretch of the imagination. Some of these are pratically extras. Savidan 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not "practically extras" – some of them were extras! --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be on vacation starting tomorrow until the 25, but when I return I will nominate this article for FA. --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Some thoughts:
    • You should perhaps wait until the DVD boxset comes out before going for FA status. GA status, certainly, but I doubt it will make FA until the DVD comes out.
    • The plot is WAY too long. I think the official limit is 10 words per minute, although it's a pretty loose guideline. As it is, the plot could easily be cut in half, and I don't know if the subheaders are necessary.
    • Some of the sources are a little questionable, ie. Blogs are generally frowned upon and I don't know if DarkUFO is considered a reliable source. We used to have poll results on all 3 Simpsons episode FAs, but we were forced to remove them.
  • Like I said, I suggest waiting for the DVD to come out, but you should go for GA status after you cut down the plot. I have 15 Simpsons episode GAs and 1 FA to my credit, and I know how hard TV episode pages are, but apart from what I pointed out, it looks very good. -- Scorpion0422 23:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You're a little late; I just nominated the article for featured article status. Nice work on all your G and FA's. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

This article, a subsection first split off of the The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article, and later the Development history of The Elder Scrolls series article, recently passed GA. I believe I've covered most of the comments brought up in the review, and am wondering what I could do to push this article closer to FAC. Any comments would be welcomed and appreciated! Geuiwogbil 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sdornan

  • Don't link parts of article titles. It just looks bad and it goes against the Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title anyway. Link the parts of the title in the first occurrence of the word in the article text.
  • Use italics, not quotes, for naming something specific, such as Oblivion Topless Mod.
  • Rewrite sentences so they don't appear redundant, such as in the first section (The "third party tool" in question was a game modification, the "Oblivion Topless Mod").
  • For dates, don't link months of the year by themselves. Also, add 2007 at the end of dates which make the reader assume you are referring to this year. It won't be so obvious for someone reading in a couple of years from now.
  • Too many quotes in the article in general, in my opinion. Most of the article reads like a newspaper, which is not what we're going for.(The events passed by with little outward concern from the either the public at large or gaming journalists in particular.[2] "Barely a cursory glance or raised eyebrow marked its passage," wrote Zenke. "There were bigger stories to cover that month." The news came just a week before E3 2006, the "last real E3 event"[2] before the show downshifted from a "mega-show" to a "highly targeted event". reads like a newspaper article for example.) Paraphrase a few of the more general quotes with the reference tag at the end. That's what it's for after all.

-- Sdornan 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Sdornan!
  • Did that.
    • Ah, OK, I'll de-bolden the title then. I'd like to link to rating, ESRB, and Oblivion as quickly as possible, since this article's really just a sub-feature of them.
  • Did that.
  • Is that the only one?
  • Did that. Whoops. I guess you've proven that I need to put years there: all of the dates are from 2006.
  • Did the sentences in question. I'll work on that, but I'd like to keep a hard kernel of quotations down at the bottom of all this. It's the best non-OR method of representing the feelings and aims of the protagonists in this issue. Citing the exact wording of the ESRB press-release, for example, seems the best way not to misrepresent their aims, intentions, or rationale. Geuiwogbil 21:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better already. :) Sdornan 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Your edits have been great too. It's the slightest changes make it seem far less 'newsy' and far more 'encyclopedic'. Style is such an odd thing... Geuiwogbil 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How do my de-quotifying measures look? Good? Bad? Ugly? Geuiwogbil 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks great so far. Just remember to use neutral words unless you're quoting someone, chastise for example might be a little harsh, don't want it to sound like the article is taking a side. Also, If the ESRB was so concerned with a single mod now, what would it do in response to "Game 3.0" concepts, where community involvement is key? should be attributed to someone or reworded. Such as so-and-so asks, "[quote]?" since a rhetorical question isn't very encyclopedic. :P Sdornan 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Geuiwogbil 02:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Did that. Geuiwogbil 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the reference you added that says The process of re-rating the games would end up costing Bethesda and Take-Two millions of dollars. isn't quite accurate. That part of the article was specifically referring to San Andreas getting an AO rating, a rating which equals doom for a publisher since Wal-Mart and many other retailers won't even sell Adults Only-rated games. Doesn't quite apply to Oblivion. Sdornan 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. I just read the "pulling games and re-stickering them is an expensive process." and the "cost its publisher millions of dollars." and conflated them. Sorry! Geuiwogbil 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Did that. Geuiwogbil 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sdornan, I feel like there should be a "The" before Oblivion Topless Mod in the subheading title. Am I wrong to feel that? Geuiwogbil 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Wording Sdornan 05:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I knew it! Anything else to recommend, Sdornan? Have the de-quotationifying measures been adequate? Geuiwogbil 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Sdornan 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

This article is currently at GA-status. I would like to know what it would take for this to be the first Featured Article about an MMORPG. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Spebi

Congratulations on a great article :)

  • I see a few external links within the article context, such as "[...] any player on any realm can view their current arena team's rankings called "The Armory"", under PvP rankings; this needs to be properly cited using <ref> tags.
  • Replace "More information on this topic is available in this forum post, made by a Blizzard MVP (Most Valuable Poster)." with <ref>More information on modification can be found on this World of Warcraft forum [http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=48647169&sid=1 post], made by [user name of poster].",</ref> or similar, or just add the link to External links.
  • Replace "Although widely popular (with 8 million players)," (under Controversy and criticism) with "Although widely popular (with 8 million players),<ref>[citation here]</ref>".
  • Try and find a reliable source to replace that {{fact}} tag (under Roleplaying). I doubt an article would ever become an FA with lousy {{fact}} tags all over the place (luckily there is only one in this article).

I can't really comment on any of the prose or Manual of Style issues right now, don't have the time. Again, it is a great article and everyone working on it has obviously put a lot of effort and time into it. Good luck with it! :) Kind regards, Sebi [talk] 04:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty

This article is about the Tang Dynasty of Medieval China. It has been improved drastically over the last couple of months, with the expansion of all sections, addition of new sections, addition of an infobox, and as of now 20 inline citations with proper references cited. However, reading through it, I realize there is much to be done with this article still. Some parts seem a bit sloppy in organization, and I'd like to get feedback on that. On the other hand, some parts are organized very well, flow very well, and are very informative while being, of course, relevant to the topic. Any general suggestions on how to improve this article?--PericlesofAthens 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made some general improvements to the article, and it now has 36 different inline citations, the majority of them being from Needham and Ebrey, though (books I own).--PericlesofAthens 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I just created a new article List of Tang Emperors as well, to leave some more room in this article for expansion.--PericlesofAthens 19:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
In expanding the article on the Tang capital of Chang'an, I've revamped the section here in this article on Chang'an. Go check it out!--PericlesofAthens 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 71 meters, use 71 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 71&nbsp;meters.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • 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.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), traveled (A) (British: travelled), any more (B) (American: anymore), grey (B) (American: gray), kerb (B) (American: curb).
  • 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.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't, wasn't.
  • 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.

(I've removed a couple of suggestions that were obviously not applicable, but there may be more — Use your own judgement.) Thanks, DrKiernan 09:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--PericlesofAthens 08:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Water supply and sanitation in the People's Republic of China

I would appreciate any comments that would improve the article so that it meets the good article criteria. In particular, I would appreciate if information could be added in the sections highlighted (tariffs and cost recovery, Linkage to Water Resources-Quantity) to ensure that the article is sufficiently broad in coverage. Also, any improvements in style are welcome to make sure the article is considered well written.--Mschiffler 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorporation of comments from automated review

A lead section and pictures have been added. The article does already have numerous references and an infobox. Certain sections should still be expanded to make the article sufficiently comprehensive. Also, more and better pictures would be appreciated.--Mschiffler 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Qanat

Seems an excellent candidate for featured article status. Any thoughts on this? -- maxrspct ping me 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey I'll review your article is you review mine's below. Showmanship is the key 17:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 200 km, use 200 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 200&nbsp;km.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 200 km.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that 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, DrKiernan 15:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador

The article is dreadfully written. Among the problems that I could point out are:

  • atrocious grammar and syntax leading to incomprehensibility in places;
  • preposterous diction which would do a bureaucrat proud;
  • use of unexplained technical terms that make reading difficult for the uninitiated;
  • use of Imperial measurements throughout without conversions to SI.
  • at least one reference to a thing that doesn't exist (namely the railway -- that packed up years ago).

It's a big job, and I may get around to it myself someday. Right now, though, this is an AWFUL article.Kelisi 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I will do what I can.Silverchemist 06:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 900 mi, use 900 mi, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 900&nbsp;mi.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 30 km.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • 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.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that 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, DrKiernan 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Please rename or eliminate the heading under Climate: Notes about the graphs. If I was just to look at the table of contents for some interesting reading, this just doesn't make any sense. As it turns out it is just a footnote type clarification, so should not be part of the outline of the whole article. It is not a subject to be introduced in the introduction for example.
  • Also under the section of Climate, their should either be no sub sections as one sentence should have an expand tag. So reword the Climate to prose, without sub headings, or expand the short guys. Same with the Section Industry and Economy. the sub sections are itsy bitsy, so the main section could be written as prose, or the subs filled out.
  • Rephrase the sentence with i.e. Labrador is an irregular shape: the western part of its border with Quebec is drainage divide for the Labrador Peninsula i.e. land drained by rivers that flow into the Atlantic Ocean are part of Labrador, the rest belongs to Quebec. and don't use i.e.
  • Section Fresh Water is not referenced, however, the majority of the article is wonderfully referenced for the most part which is nice to see.
  • Coyotes are a very recent addition to the fauna of Newfoundland, possibly crossing the ice from Cape Breton Island in the 1980s possibly? did they or didn't they. As an encyclopedia, state what happened. or why you have added it here. this expert...proposes that...or a theory by this university is that coyotes... Give it some substance or don't mention it.
  • Section Population could relate current demographics, and population size, and urban areas/major placenames.
  • As far as the coverage of the topic geography of this place, the notable items are covered, and referenced.
  • Are there any national parks?
  • The references don't appear consistent- sometimes the URL shows, sometimes the web page title. SriMesh | talk 04:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Age of Reason

This article is about Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, his text attacking religion. I would eventually like for it to reach FA, so please let me know what needs to be done to finish polishing it up. I am particularly interested in other editors' opinions regarding the inclusion of the "Creed" section and whether or not the prose falls into "essay style." Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Markus Poessel

Turning the tables, here's the opinion of someone who's decidedly a non-expert on the subject:

  • Lead - championing the cause of accessibility, I don't think you can assume that the typical reader has a clear idea of what a "deistic critique of Christianity and the Bible" entails. Some explanation would be good. Also, in the lead, you are saying more about the argument's originality than about the arguments themselves. I think that imbalance should be addresses - surely, given that the lead is meant to be a "mini article" in itself, some summary of what the arguments actually are is not amiss?
  • Yes, I think you are right. The lead needs to be expanded to include this topic. I am not a very good lead writer, I'm afraid. I struggle for hours over them. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've started working on this. I will come back to it every day for a while and revise a bit more. Awadewit | talk 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for staying away for a few days. With the Introduction to general relativity FAC review over, things are a bit less crowded now (although I hope we will continue the step-by-step re-writing there). Anyway, back to business. I think the lead has greatly improved - deism is now explained a bit more, though not so thoroughly, I think, as to annoy the reader who has previous knowledge. The main area of impact is made clearer. Nice! --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do add any two cents you can spare. I also hope I haven't scared off Willow. --Markus Poessel 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"In December of 1792 The Rights of Man" - comma after 1792?

  • Optional, but I will add it if you feel that the clause needs to be set off. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *Wikilinks to French_language and English_language look a bit awkward to me. I've seen complaints at FAC reviews about such obvious links, so given that editors are encouraged to only link where the link is important, you might want to think this over. I've no idea whether there are specific conventions for this when talking about a book's different editions, though. Similarly with Britain and France.

  • In my first FACs, I was criticized for not linking these topics (I think it's ridiculous), so I have just linked them ever since. I care more about fighting for "introductions" than against language links. :) I'll take them out and see what happens. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"Carlile charged one shilling sixpence for the work and the first run of 1,000 copies sold out in one month" - comma after "work", as he didn't charge that price for the work plus something else?

  • Agreed. It is two separate sentences joined by an "and". Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done*"Meanwhile, Paine, considered too moderate for this stage of the French revolution, was thrown into prison for ten months in France, narrowly avoiding the guillotine.[8] When James Monroe secured his release..." - did Paine narrowly avoid the guillotine only because of Monroe's intervention? Or did he avoid it because, say, the court passed a prison sentence instead? This could be made clearer.

  • It was an accident - sheer luck. I'll explain in more detail. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm glad I asked. Talk about a fascinating bit of trivia. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"He was convinced by Thomas Jefferson not to publish it in 1802 because the backlash would be too great—he had to wait until 1807.[5]" - he had to wait (i.e. we know that Jefferson gave him the OK at that date) or he chose/decided to wait (i.e. the decision was his own with no further intervention by Jefferson)?

  • "Arguments" as a section title is a bit non-descript. Is there a more specific title? Also, the first paragraph seems to me to focus too narrowly on modern assessment of the arguments, less on the arguments themselves. I for one would prefer that you started with a sentence explaining the content of that section - "The arguments advanced by Paine for (what exactly?) fall into ... classes, namely...". In fact, the natural order for the subsections after that would appear to be to me that you should first state the arguments, then the "Intellectual debts". An, hey, even something as basic as describing the books several part only occurs in the context of those "Intellectual debts" - in an article about the book, shouldn't the book's structure be more than a side aspect in a section exploring the book's context?
  • I've never liked the title "Arguments" either. I will try to refocus and reorganize the section a bit, make it more explanatory. Please keep in mind that I cannot just state the arguments, I have to rely on sources to do this for me. Any interpretation of the arguments is original research. This is part of what makes writing literature articles difficult. I cannot just write my idea of the overall structure and argument of the book, I have to find a description of it in a scholarly work somewhere. This is sometimes hard to do, as scholars shy away from the generalized statement. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see the problem. How about using something like the 1911 Britannica - does that give content summary? I.e. is there a source you might not want to use in a strictly academic article (in which summarizing content straight from a book would not be frowned upon), but which avoids this particular variety of the WP:Original Research problem? I think some solution should be found - otherwise, the article is decidedly lopsided. How about quoting from some introductory section of your master's thesis? :-) --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I'm not being clear. It is not possible to summarize the AR in a NPOV fashion. I have read several different summaries, all with slightly different emphases (my own included). Have you ever had several different people explain the same movie to you and wondered if they were talking about the same movie? That's the idea here; no summary is "objective". I will work on this. The best way to tackle it is to find several summaries and see where they overlap. I have started with one (you can see my feeble first attempts). You can now see why multiple citations are desirable for claims in literature articles. Awadewit | talk 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. I am starting to feel that the article is repetitious. After the summary of Paine's arguments, it returns to "Reason" and "Religion and the state". Do you think that these sections should be integrated into the initial outline of the AR? Awadewit | talk 07:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It might benefit from some streamlining. Having re-read the "Structure and major arguments" as a whole, a few things come to mind. Historical context has its own section, but Paine's intellectual debt and 18th century deism are sub-subsections of "Structure..." - would it make sense to put all the context together in some section? After all, previous deistic thought is part of the context. As for the "Creed": precisely because, as you say, it encapsulates the arguments to follow, should it perhaps stand at the beginning of the initial outline? Something like: Creed, then description of major themes, then certain major trends/groups of themes (corresponding to the other subsections of "Structure...") described in more depth? --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • All in all, I think there is an imbalance regarding the arguments themselves and their context (how original, influenced by whom). To you, it might be clear what "standard deistic arguments" are, but to a reader less familiar with the subject, I think it would be good to give examples. All in all, it appears to me that you say rather a lot about the context of what's in the book, but rather little about what the books content actually is. I would suggest that there be a section "Structure and arguments" describing the book's content, starting with the creed (subsection, not a special section of its own) as something that sets the scene, giving a brief summary of what's in the books three parts, and only then moving on to the question of how original the arguments are.
  • The importance of this book lies more with its context than with its content - that is the why the focus - but I see your point. Also, I personally cannot summarize the arguments of the book - that would be original research. If you read about the AR, you will discover that even scholars do not agree on the arguments, so a summary in the way you are suggesting is difficult. See my recent Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman for even more problems like this. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: Where in this section do you lose the sense that I am describing "standard deistic arguments"? Where does the writing become unclear? Paine presents standard deistic arguments throughout The Age of Reason, demonstrating the problems of Biblical authority and the necessity of proving the existence of God through reason rather than revelation. He also echoes earlier deist writers in his emphasis on the cruel and oppressive history of Christianity and his allusions to Newtonian mechanics. Robert Herrick, who has written extensively on eighteenth-century deism, lists the British deists' shared set of assumptions and arguments: they reject "religious privilege" and "priestcraft" and demand "rational liberty;" they embrace reason and reject revelation, particularly miracles; and they look to "primitive religion" for inspiration.[13] One of the most distinctive features of deistic writing was its insistence that God was a first cause or prime mover rather than an deity who interfered in the lives of individuals.[14] This was my attempt at a summary of the "standard deistic arguments", but it has obviously failed. Awadewit | talk 00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's just a matter of accessibility. You probably could cite 12 standard deistic arguments if woken from your sleep at 2 a.m., but the average WP reader might not recognize such arguments if they danced around his head shouting "No personal god! Church mythology not better than ancient mythology! Hearsay! Hearsay!". Take the statement that deists "reject 'religious privilege'". If you don't know what it means, it's a cipher. No special train compartments for priests? No tax-exempt status for churches? Personally, I assume that it means (having just re-read the first chapters of Paine) that revelation is not to be subjected to different standards of proof than other kinds of eye-witness testimony, and that, say, Christian mythology should not be afforded more leeway than Ancient Greek mythology. If that is indeed what it means, it would be helpful for accessibility to spell it out; if it means something different, it would be even more helpful. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have expanded this section significantly. It is still very rough, but please let me know if I am on the right track. Awadewit | talk 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you're definitely on the right track, and the additional content is a great help. The only question (see previous point) is whether this description of the deistic background should go into a context section (together with the - rest of the - historical context). --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"Following the lead of Henry Hayden Clark, one group of scholars has called Paine an "ideologue" or a "theorist" and discussed his work as a popularization of earlier deist and scientific works." - sounds a bit vague. How large were these groups? Was anyone else well-known involved? If you have them, it would be great if you could put a representative sample for both groups' publications in the reference instead of merely citing a secondary source.

  • I was trying to be broad early in the section and specific later. The "Intellectual debts" section lists some of these authors. You did not get this sense when reading it? I will have to be clearer about that. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not really an opening for that section - as far as I can see, full half of the statement (uniqueness/power of rhetoric) is mainly addressed in the later section "Style". From an opening like that, I would expect (hope for, more precisely) a concise summary of what is to follow, say, half a sentence for each sub-section. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This sentence is gone now. It was supposed to set up the entire article, but I think that kind of writing just doesn't work at wikipedia. It is "essay style". Awadewit | talk 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"The broadest influences on The Age of Reason include the works of David Hume, Spinoza and Voltaire." - sounds just ever-so-slightly strange, but may be it's just me. "Among the works that have had the greatest influence on The Age of Reason are...".

  • I have reworded this. It was not supposed to mean "the greatest influence". The greatest influences were the English deists, explained in the next paragraph ("it is to the English deists of the early eighteenth century that Paine owes the greatest intellectual debt"). It was really supposed to mean "broad", but as that word seems to be confusing, I have removed it. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "the greatest influence" was imprecision on my part then; I was on a much lower level - works can influence another work, have influence, exert influence; something "being" an influence on something else sounds more colloquial in my ears (which are, hence my reluctance to speak out more forcefully, not of those of a native speaker); something being included in influences on something else crosses the fuzzy red line. Anyway, I like the rewording. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"Paine repeatedly emphasizes the importance of relying on reason in The Age of Reason," since the whole section is about the book's content, do you need to repeat the title?

 Done *"In The Age of Reason Foner claims that Paine 'gave deism..." - surely what is meant is "In The Age of Reason, Foner claims, Paine 'gave deism..."?

 Done *Surely if "wit" gets a wiktionary link, so should "debauched"?

  • It's linked? I didn't know that. I will remove the link. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is not a wiktionary link, it is a link to the wit page. I am going to leave it, hoping that somebody, someday improves that page. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's good to know we have a "wit" page, even if it's currently only at 50% of what it could be. Anyway, even Wiktionary would not have helped; as far as I can see, for them, "debauchery" is a German heavy metal band. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In the "Style" section, the subsections are not optimally delineated. In the "irreverent" section, you are also talking about the "plainness" of Paine's language, while that would appear to belong to "Popularizing techniques" (which is where "concrete language", speaking to the people etc. is mentioned). May be the section now "Popularizing techniques" should come first, under the heading of "Speaking plainly" or something like that, and only then "Irreverent..."? Also, the memorable phrases that are currently in the introduction to "Style" might fit better into the part where ""pithy" lines that remained in his readers' memories" are mentioned.
  • I agree that "the subsections are not optimally delineated". The problem is that all of the arguments regarding Paine's style overlap so much. I will think about this some more. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have started reorganizing this section now. It has improved, I think, but now I need to fix all of the paragraphs to make them flow again. (I don't want to put the "memorable phrases" in the section on pithiness because I don't think they are pithy, necessarily, and they don't all come from the AR.) Awadewit | talk 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Can a section title "Paine's vulgar style" ever be NPOV? I do see where it comes from, but it does sound, well, non-encyclopedic - in everyday usage, it's predominantly pejorative, not descriptive, I'd have thought. In particular since later paragraphs make clear that "vulgar" is not an umbrella term for all that is to follow (an explicit contrast is made between "vulgar" and "irreverent"). "Populist style" - is that the common denominator? As for the section itself, at the moment, "Popularizing techniques" still overlaps with the previous subsections more than seems good. May be it should come first, with "Plain speaking" next (as a consequence of Paine's aiming for popularity), the irreverence and the religious things later. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, during the eighteenth century vulgar meant "low". Paine was attacked for his "low" language but he himself also celebrated his "vulgarity". I know that populist is more common, but I thought it would be nice for readers to learn some eighteenth-century usage. This adjective was very important in the response to Paine and to Paine's conception of himself. If I explain this term better and right at the start of the section, do you think it would be acceptable? (Slight pet peeve: Literary articles are expected to use "everyday" language, but science articles are not. There are some ideas that are best expressed using the language of literary theory or archaic language, I think.) Awadewit | talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm not surprised at this explanation. Still, it will give many readers a "wait a minute..." moment, even if you explain it right away. As a deliberate trick, it's probably more suited for an essay than for an encyclopedia. Also, as I said - the section title should encompass all that follows. That religious, sermon-y writing was part of Paine's style probably does not fall under any definition of vulgar, whatever century is chosen. As for science articles, I think the predominant problem here is the confusion between the archaic and the everyday sense of the word. Mention the Riemann tensor, and very few people will misunderstand (as opposed to not understand at all - so yes, outside an "unavoidably technical" section, it should be explained). --Markus Poessel 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • was "in general, hostilely received" - that's a mouthful (still trying to untie my tongue from saying it out loud). "was widely received in a hostile manner" or something similar?
  • That's too wordy, in my opinion. I don't really see the problem. Can you explain a little more clearly why you got hung up here? Awadewit | talk 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just applying the simplest test for how well a text flows: reading it out loud. Try saying "in general, hostilely received" out loud several times. It's a minor point - still, you are aiming for "brilliant prose", and, as far as I can see, generally succeeding. If you can avoid that word ("The reception was universally hostile?", or "decidedly hostile"?), fine, if not, don't worry about it. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Age of Reason provoked a hostile reaction from most readers and critics, although the level of that hostility varied by locality. - new version Awadewit | talk 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine, sorry to be so picky. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Totally fine - as if I'm not picky! Awadewit | talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, sorry for apologizing for being picky. (Just kidding.) --Markus Poessel 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done*"dominate popular nineteenth-century journalism, influencing Thomas Wooler, Richard Carlile, Henry Hetherington, William Lovett, George Holyoake, and Charles Bradlaugh." - on first reading this, I thought that all the names must be those of journalists. Of course they aren't, so I think it might be helpful to add qualifiers to the names - "noted activist X", just something so it becomes more of a list of names (none of which I had heard of previously) but gives some idea of why those names are there. If this makes the list too long, I don't think it would hurt to elaborate, adding one or two additional sentences.

  • Actually, they are all journalists (my source even says so!). I have added a slight description of each one and tried to make the statement more exact. Awadewit | talk 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I just had a look at the first one (more precisely, his wikipedia page), and it didn't sound as if the one word summary of that man's life should properly be "journalist". Anyway, I find the new version to be much more informative. Although I would appreciate a wikilink for "Chartist", which I've never consciously heard before. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You relied on wikipedia? That is very dangerous when it comes to the eighteenth century. I have seen many pages that are not just stubby but also just plain wrong. Almost every time I click on a new eighteenth-century page, I am appalled or disappointed. See Rights of Man, for example. That is a major text from the period and the page is in shambles. Literary critics and historians haven't quite taken to wikipedia like scientists have, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I might have relied upon it too firmly in this case. "Of course they aren't..." was written with a certainty that was inappropriate. I should have used Wikipedia the way I commonly do, namely as a starting point - which, in effect, it has been, now that you have made the statement more exact. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Age of Reason initially caused a deistic "revival,"" - what did that entail? People founding deist churches? Writing deist dramas and novels? I'd appreciate some more information here on what this revival entailed; otherwise it's hard to form an idea about its importance.
  • Again, this is supposed to be an introductory sentence (a "topic sentence", if you will), that the later paragraphs go on to elaborate. Sentences such as "Elihu Palmer, "a blind renegade minister" and Paine's most loyal follower in America, promoted deism throughout the country. Palmer published what became "the bible of American deism," The Principles of Nature,[77] established deistic societies from Maine to Georgia, built Temples of Reason throughout the nation, and founded two deistic newspapers for which Paine eventually wrote seventeen essays" are supposed to elaborate on the revival. When you finished reading, did you feel that you had not learned about the "revival" at all? Hmm. I will try to make the connection between the "introduction" and the details more explicit. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I guess what threw me was the very specific Roosevelt quote at the end of the second introductory sentence. If that were put into the proper section of subsequent text, and if, perhaps, the beginning of the next paragraph could feature a reprise of "initial" ("At the books initial publication..."), all ambiguities would, for me at least, be resolved. Again, I'm not claiming this is anything major. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See if the rewording is better. Awadewit | talk 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I still think a "topic sentence" should not be so concrete as to include a direct quote. As a topic sentence, it should (in my view) start the way it does, "In the United States, The Age of Reason initially caused a deistic "revival," but was then viciously attacked and soon forgotten." and then describe that among those who still knew about it, it was reviled (the "soon forgotten" doesn't square with the fact that Roosevelt evidently still knew about it, in the present version), and half a sentence about the modern reception history that is now part of this section. Then you would have summarized all that is to come, and could come back to the 18th century. The Roosevelt quote could come later in the text. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Roosevelt didn't necessarily read the book - what prevailed was Paine's negative reputation. I will try to make this clearer. Awadewit | talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, I think the main point is to move Roosevelt out of the topic sentence, although making the background of that quotation clearer is certainly commendable. --Markus Poessel 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done*Since Benjamin Waterhouse is currently a red link, a parenthetical clause stating who he was would be appreciated.

  • "In October of 1805 John Adams wrote to his friend Benjamin Waterhouse, an American physician and scientist, in disgust:" - again just a matter of taste, I suppose - the dangling "in disgust", especially now that it is separated from its rightful owner by the parenthetical description you so kindly inserted, looks a bit lost. There must be a more elegant way of putting this. May be the "in disgust" can simply be left out. I would expect that most readers will, upon reading the quotation, realize without prompting that Adams wasn't exactly enthusiastic. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The ending is a bit abrupt. What does it mean that his ideas took hold? Are they now widely accepted (surely not)? Is the book regarded a classic, required reading in philosophy courses?
  • See the talk page. I used to have a little conclusion, but it is gone now. What is the pressing need for an explanation of the book in today's context? I get this a lot in articles I write. I believe that I have talked about the AR's significant rhetorical and intellectual heritages. At least, I have followed the scholarship. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have said "pressing need". The reception history evidently continues; why should a description of the book's intellectual history have an arbitrary cut-off? I understand your sentiment, or at least I suppose I do; I'm not demanding that, in desperate search of something that no-one else has written about before, someone take on the task of writing an article about "Paine and the Internet" or "What Paine can teach us about islamic fundamentalism" (come to think of it, the latter might be interesting, though). I was merely referring to the fact that you can still find the book in bookshops today; since this is in contrast with other works that influence us only via their intellectual descendants, I thought it a notable fact. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I still haven't come up with anything to add at the end, but I am thinking. Intellectual history tends to stop when a work's direct influence (hard enough to trace) is no longer apparent. You might be able to draw a line from Paine to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and so forth, but I haven't seen any such references and proving any such lineage is very difficult - near impossible. They would be cool to include. (I think there is a line from Paine's Common Sense to Michael Moore and from Puritan children's literature to the Left Behind series for kids, but such lines, spanning centuries, are hard for scholars to trace because they are usually trained in only one period, not two or three.) Awadewit | talk 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See what you think of the references to Moore and Hitchens that I found. They could be worded better, but I want to know if this is what you are looking for before I bother. :) Awadewit | talk 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I had no idea about Moore and Hitchens, but yes, if they can reasonably be viewed as influenced by Paine, then they should be included. What I meant was a bit more modest, but if Paine's influence is alive in that particular way, all the better. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the article should contain at least some information on more modern editions. Is the Citadel Press even still in print? I bought the Dover edition not too long ago (edited by Moncure Daniel Conway, Dover: Mineola, New York; 2004, ISBN 0-486-43393-5, an unabridged republication of the Putnam & Sons version 1896). Even better would, of course, be more information on the editing history in general. If there is information on how many copies were printed, that would certainly give important information about the book's varying popularity.
  • Not the Dover! Dovers are generally terrible editions. They reprint old, out of copyright editions - they have no modern editors carefully scrutinizing the text, providing notes or writing introductions. The problems with Dover texts are notorious. I am very much against listing all of the editions of the book, unless I can find a scholar who has already done the research. This is a field of study called "bibliographical research". For me to randomly assemble a list would be a travesty. I agree that the editing history would be interesting, but I haven't seen much scholarship published on that (it is surprising how little is published on the AR). What I can tell you is that all of the "introductory" works on Paine do not mention such topics. Editing history tends to be a rather arcane topic. I didn't pursue such things in my research for this article because I thought the "average curious woman" :) wouldn't want all of that detail. I will look around some more and see what I can find, though, since you think readers might want to know that. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There's another difference between science and the humanities, then. With Dover editions of classic textbooks about physics and mathematics, their editorial policy doesn't matter so much. Incidentally, with Dover editions of works like Paine's, I would think that making the book accessible to a wider audience at an affordable price *should* count for something, even if I can see you wouldn't want to be caught reading it by your thesis advisor. I do agree that bibliographical research is a serious subject (my father-in-law's research is dedicated to bibliographical research covering a small section of French 17th century literature), and if there isn't anything published about it, you certainly shouldn't just "wing it". --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have heard that about physics and math Dovers. Some of the music scores are good, too (you just have to know which ones). Well, the problem of Dover editions, although they are cheap, is that they are often not the author's "original text". One classic example is Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Peter Rabbit. The words are the same, but not the illustrations; since Potter's books are just as much about the illustrations as the words, such an edition is worthless if you want to examine Potter as an author. Paine's works are available in many other editions that I don't feel are that expensive, such as Penguin Classics. Besides, you can get a used copy of the Foner edition for $3 or read the Conway online for free. :) I am still looking for a bibliographic essay or some such source for this. Awadewit | talk 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely forgot about the music scores. On occasion, I used to play from them during orchestra rehearsals, and it was always fun to have an overview of what everyone else was doing (although it involved an impractical level of page-turning activity). Anyway, precisely because most readers (such as I) will not know about a good edition to start from, it might be good to mention the Penguin edition, for instance. Actually, I think it's an important part of the reception history: Up to the present day, Paine's work is available in that popular edition. That's not something you can say about every 18th century work that has its own Wikipedia entry (or so I suppose). --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Both the Foner and the Penguin are listed. Awadewit | talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I found it interesting that (at least from the 1794 edition on) the work is dedicated "To My Fellow Citizens of the United States of America", followed by the sentence "I put the following work under your protection." [...] You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every man to his opinon, however different that opinion might be to mine" - an interesting insight into what Paine thought of the reception he was getting. May be that could be mentioned in passing (unless it's in there and I overlooked it.)
  • Yes, it is interesting. I can do one of two things: 1) Quote that without any explanation (making sure I steer clear of original research) or 2) Quote it with a scholarly interpretation. I don't remember seeing much on that statement, but I can look again. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I found one tiny thing on this. I will keep looking. Awadewit | talk 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All in all, an interesting read. I'll certainly take this as a sign that I should re-read the book itself, so further comments might be forthcoming. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The book is a lot of fun. Paine "rewrites" the Adam and Eve story in a hilarious fashion. I wanted to quote it here, but that section is much too long. If you are interested in Paine and these kinds of topics, you might be interested in another article that I've just started on the 1794 Treason Trials. I'm looking for a co-editor (I have already assembled a basic bibliography). :)
I will start working on these things today, but it will take me a while to fully address them all. Thank you for your thoughtful review. I was beginning to think no one was going to review the article! Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tōru Takemitsu

Hi I've been working on this article on my favourite composer of the second half of the 20th century for ages now, mainly on my own. I've used as many sources as I've been able to get hold of to get all the info, and I've tried to be as thorough as possible, using the Messiaen article as a guide at times.

It's not all finished, the last two sections of the biography need a lot more, and I think the presentation of the awards section could do with some work. But I need some people to have a good look, see what they think, and suggest any changes, improvements etc. - hopefully with some knowledge of Contemporary Classical music, and at least a decent knowledge of 20th Century Classical music.

Cheers. Matt.kaner 14:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • 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.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), metre (B) (American: meter), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): hadn't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that 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, DrKiernan 11:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of these apply to this article! Matt.kaner 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Scott Bradley

I've attempted to improve this brief bio beyond start class, so I'd like peer review on my changes. Thanks! --BigScaryMike (Talk/Contrib) 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jack Harkness

Hi, I'm trying to get this article up to FA standard and I'd like to know whatever would help with that, and when the article would be ready to apply. I think I've cited it quite thoroughly, but I'd really appreciate a ... well, review... by peers. Thanks! :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Dead Ringers parodies, can you source these episodes' dates? Alientraveller 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Got them in my sights now. :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Cited. ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by MPJ-DK

I've just run an semi-automatic review script to give you a few inputs to work with. I'll be happy to look at it again after you've addressed the issues found by the script. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), organise (B) (American: organize), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realise (B) (American: realize), isation (B) (American: ization), aging (A) (British: ageing), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, Don't, Don't, don't, doesn't, didn't, didn't.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas as well. hope it's helpful MPJ-DK 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on some of those. I'm back from Oxford now :D. ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ordinances of 1311

I'm pretty happy about this, but I would appreciate suggestions for improvements before I nominate it for FA. I'd especially like to hear if there are any problems with the clarity of the language. Lampman 16:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I liked the article overall, but there are things I still don't understand. Mainly I think a broader context is missing which why I have so many questions.

  • The lead doesn't summarize the whole article.
  • If these are the "New" Ordinances why doesn't the background speak of the old ones? The background section is a little too in depth. Some of this material would be better off giving more detail to section on the actual ordinances and the last paragraph mostly belongs under "Lord Ordainers"
  • I don't understand how the Lord Ordainers came to be chosen. Did the king appoint anyone he wished or was he not given any say in the matter at all or something in the middle? The article tries to explain the politics of some members of the group but I think it is less than clear. The detailed information on select members of the group is not very cohesive. When did this group "disband"? Was this the only time a group of Lord Ordainer was appointed? Did this position have any influence on future institutions?
  • Why where six Ordinances released early? And what were they? Where they Oct 5 ordinance eve revised or was that the final document?
  • When the Ordinances where repealed was anything at all from them integrated into the law?
  • Where there ever any other Ordinances issued?
  • I don't think Commons link to what you want it to.

--BirgitteSB 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fishing

I would like this article peer reviewed to see what other Wikipedians thought about it before I nominate it for FA - what needs cleaning up, re-writing etc. themcman1 talk 17:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I think you should move the sections on "Fish Products" and "Preservation" to a another article (maybe seafood) Then go to the library and find some good comprehensive sources and start re-working the articles based on the best structure you find in those sources. Because the most glaring problems are the structure and the poor sources.--BirgitteSB 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Saturn

This article is already a GA. However, I wish to promote it to FA status, of which it has a great potential. Therefore, I nominate it for a Peer Review. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 13:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RJH

It's getting better, but I think it still needs a little work. So here goes:

  • I'd like to see the "History" section expanded to include history of the planet, and so moved to a separate section (or combined with Exploration). See for example Venus#Studies_of_Venus.
    • Will be in-progress soon; I will notify and ask for feedback when this is done. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 10:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Done: I have expanded the "History and exploration" section to include more about Saturn's ancient status and post-Reformation discoveries. How is it now? Does it still need to be expanded? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 11:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Although there is a "Best viewing of Saturn" section, it does not correspond to the sections on viewing at Venus#Observation or Jupiter#Observation. In particular there is no discussion of retrograde motion.
  • There is no section on the orbit of Saturn (see Jupiter#Orbit_and_rotation). "Rotational behavior"
    • Done: I have renamed the section to "Orbit and rotation" and have expanded it a bit to include information about its orbit. How is it now? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Good thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs, particularly in the "Cassini orbiter" section.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Wording, the name "Saturn" should not typically be restated in the section headings.
  • Could the article explain what is generating the magnetosphere on Saturn? The magnetosphere section seems very short; can more be added?[3]
    • Perhaps-Done: I have added some information. Is it good now, or does more information need to be added? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 11:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there a reference for the sentence that begins "The cause of the change is unknown..."?
  • Could "Maxwell and Keeler gaps" be explained?
  • The references could use some work; many are missing details such as author or publication date. Reference #15, for example, does not include the full author name, the date, volume, or pages. The use of the anime web site "Sailor Moon" as a reference (#4) seems inappropriate. Please use a better reference. Please fix "[[2007-07-06]]" in the #14 reference. The link for #37 and #38 are also broken.
    • Almost-done: The references have been taken care of, except the Sailor Moon one, for which I will try to find a better ref. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 10:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope these were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ruslik

Review My general impression is that the article isn't ready for FA. It is not comprehensive and well sourced. The references are mostly various webcites that often don't cite their own sources. The rare good references are usually old and originate mostly from the Voyager era. Some statements are simply wrong. Now some examples:

  • 1) Infobox doesn't have any references although many of values aren't repeated in the text;
  • I'm satisfied however some reviewers in FAC can demand a ref near every number. Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 2) The first paragraph in the "Physical characteristics" section doesn't cite any sources;
    • Done: I have added some refs in the section. Are these enough, or do more need to be added to the section? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 10:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 3) In "Composition" subsection the phrase "consists of about 93.2% molecular hydrogen and 6.7% helium" is wrong: modern value for helium is close to 15 %. The ref [9] is obviously too old;
    • I'm going to speculate that the difference can be accounted for based on whether the value is by volume or by mass. But the article really should clarify that. (C.f. Jupiter#Composition.) — RJH (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 4) In the same subsection the sentence "The quantity of elements heavier than helium are not known precisely, but the proportions are assumed to match the primordial abundances from the formation of the Solar System." is wrong: heavy elements are now known to be overabudant in Saturn much like in Jupiter;
  • 5) In the "Internal structure" subsection the phrase "having a small rocky core made up mostly of the elements hydrogen and helium at the center" is contradictory. If it's made of H and He, how can it be rocky ? This subsection is also lacking necessary references;
    • It was worded wrongly. The rocky core is surrounded by H and He. I have fixed the wording. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the core is actually rocks+ices and the phrase is still not very good. I tweaked it slightly removing "at the center". Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 6) The "Clouds layers" subsection contains few sources and should be expanded. It is focused too much on the polar vortex, which is IMO of minor importance. In addition the phrase "that Saturn has a warm polar vortex, and is the only such planet known in the solar system" is wrong since polar vortexes are observed on Venus. The phrase "because eyewall clouds have not been seen on any planet other than Earth" in the next paragraph is wrong by the same reason;
    • WRONG: Yes, polar vortexes have been observed on other planets, but Saturn is the only planet on which it is warm. [4] has more info. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 7) The section "Magnetic field and magnetosphere" is too short. It claims that "Its strength is one fifth than that of the field around Jupiter (although stronger than Earth's magnetic field), giving the Saturn a smaller magnetosphere", which is completlely wrong. The strenth of the cronian magnetic field at the equator is 0.2×10−5 T or 0.2 G (can be calculated from the magnetic moment in [23]), of the terrestrial one – 0.35 G, and of the jovian – 4.2 G. In addition the section should discuss the influence of the inner moons on the magnetosphere;
    • Actually, I am not an expert at mathematically calculating the powers of magnetic fields. So, can I kindly ask you to please fix that. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I fixed this subsection. Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 8) The section about rings cite only few sources and the first two paragraphs in the "Physical characteristics" subsection are devoid of them at all. The same can be said about "Spokes of the rings" subsection.
  • I think enough. Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This list isn't complete. I only gave some examples. The article IMO should be focused mainly on the planet itself because rings and moons have their own articles. Ruslik 08:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the concerns raised in both reviews have been taken care of. However, as of yet, I have not received any replies on my askings of how the new versions of the suggested changes are. Any further reviews would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While the number refs is OK I would like to see more citations from peer reviewed sources, i.e. [5] or even pdf files is they are freely accessable. Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I am in the process of adding a couple of citations throughout the article. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives

This article deals with a pivotal event in Nazi Germany, and therefore modern history. I have added 30 citations from some of the standard works on Nazi Germany, uploaded four pictures from the public domain, and added content necessary to explain the event accurately.

I think that this article now meets featured article status, but would like to have your suggestions before it is nominated for featured article status. I am using University of Chicago Manual of Style citation- and reference-style.

Any article dealing with Hitler invites controversy, so I have tried my best to adhere to NPOV and keep the article accurate.

Thanks.--Mcattell 01:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:BirgitteSB

  • Lead: Doesn't properly summarize the entire article. Nothing from Aftermath.
Expanded the lead paragraphs. Done
    • The name "Night of the Long Knives" is a reference to the massacre of Vortigern's men by Angle, Jute, and Saxon mercenaries in Arthurian myth I am left wondering how it came to be called "The Night of the Long Knives". The planners called it "Hummingbird" but who started using this name and when? With the British allusion I imagine it is an English name, but it it would be good to explain this. Done
The phrase "night of the long knives" predates the purge itself. It was simply a phrase in German that refers to "revenge" or maybe even "payback." I can't seem to find a reference that definitively states who came up with the code name "Hummingbird."--Mcattell 23:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hitler and the Sturmabteilung (SA): What exactly is the Strumabteilung? It is not a politcal party nor part of the army, but I can't fathom exaclty what is meant by "paramilitary orginazation". This probably can be fixed by giving a little of it's history. How long has it been around, who started it, why did they start it, and how have the goals changed over time. Maybe there needs to be a section before this one called "Background of the Strumabteilung (SA)" made from some of this section plus new material. Done
To some extent, those who want further information on the SA are going to have to click the wikilink for SA. Too much background, and the article becomes a general history of the rise of Nazism. However, I have given it more context.--Mcattell 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Röhm's "continuing revolution": I don't know if that is the best title; the sectin is as much about the army as Rohm. Maybe "The Reichswehr and the Sturmabteilung (SA)" to follow the format from the last section. Done
Section is now "Conflict between the army and the SA."--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In response, Hitler met with Blomberg and the leadership of the SA and SS on February 28, 1934. This is the first mention of the SS since the "Lead". How exactly does the SS fit in with the army and the SA? I am not sure of their affliation at this point, although I think they are condisdered part of the army during WWII.
    • Crisis mounts: Again I am not a big fan of this title. It again seems a bit sensationalist to me. Maybe something like "Pressure against the Sturmabteilung (SA)". The section seems to focused alot on all the pressure from different groups to act against the SA.

part of the army during WWII. Done  Done**By the spring of 1934, it was clear that Röhm's vision of a new Germany was incompatible with Hitler's plan to consolidate power and expand the army. Clear to whom? If it is clear to Hitler why does he need to recieve such pressure. Why does Hitler not move against the SA until he is threatened by Hindenburg? Why does Rohm feel so confident that he would give Bloomberg the memo? I think something is missing here about either Hitler or Rohm that would explain these things.

Added, "Hitler had hesitated for months to move against Röhm, in part due to Röhm's visibility as the leader of a national militia with millions of members. However, a declaration of martial law from Hindenburg, the only person in Germany with the authority to depose the Nazi regime, left Hitler with little room for compromise."--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The eventual marginalization of the SA removed an obstacle to Himmler's accumulation of power in the coming years This is getting a little ahead of the game. Can you find something about why Himmler was against the SA at the time before this event rather that in hindsight. Done
    • There are alot of new names introduced in this section and sometimes without enough context.
      • with Prussian Minister-President Hermann Göring, Propaganda Minister Joseph Göbbels, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, and Himmler's deputy Reinhard Heydrich arraying themselves against Röhm. Try to find a place to mention Gobbels again in this section. Also I think you can cut Heydrich everywhere, he is never mentioned indepently of Himmler. And as he is Himmlers deputy it is hardly significant that he is supporting him. Done
I find it difficult to really explain the roles of these prominent Nazis without expanding the article a bit much. I think readers should click on their wikilinks to learn more.
      • Industrialists such as Gustav Krupp and Fritz Thyssen, It would be better to just say "Industrialists" and drop the names.
      • Privately, Papen, a Catholic aristocrat with ties to army and industry, threatened to resign if Hitler did not act This need more context. Why would Hitler care if Papen resigned? Who does Papen have influennce with? Done
Added context.
      • Blomberg and General Walther von Reichenau, the army's liaison to the party, gave it to him by expelling Röhm from the German Officers' League, and by placing the army on alert. How is Reichenau role here independent of Blomberg? Either only mention Blomberg or explain what Reichenau did that is notable here. Done
Reichenau is now mentioned a second time in the text.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Hitler felt confident enough in his position to attend the wedding reception of Gauleiter Josef Terboven in Essen, Is the bridegroom's name really significant? Done
Agreed. Done.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Purge One thing I would watch in this section is the quoted material. It would be better to focus more on the historical analysis of of what Hitler was doing at this time than his own words, since he is hardley being sincere. (i.e it wasn't really the "worst treachery in history" it was a frame-up) I don't mind some quotes, but it needs to followed what historians say about this event rather than letting the readers draw their own conclusions. This is especially true because it is assumed he is lying in some of this.
Agreed. Done.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hess even volunteered to shoot the "traitors" himself This is the first mention of Hess. It needs context. Done
Hess is now mentioned twice in the text.
    • Gestapo officers gunned down those loyal to Papen, First mention of the Gestapo, needs context. Done
  • Tone: Overall the writing is a little sensationalist in tone.
    • Hitler hurried off to Neudeck to meet with Hindenburg. Nothing is mentioned of where his was or what he was doing that makes this important. Was Neudeck a far distance to travel? Did he cut short a vacation? Why is it imporant to say "hurried off to Neudeck" rather than "Hitler met with Hindenburg". Is something significant about Neudeck? Done
Changed text.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The frantic planning of the past week had come to this. wrong tone for an encyclopedia. Done
    • One of the followers present recounted spittle dribbling from Hitler's mouth as he spoke. Not really relevant. Done
    • to loose the death squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims a bit melodramatic. Done
    • it appeared that no law would constrain Hitler in his use of power. This fratricidal bloodletting could be seen as a harbinger of the violence that characterized the Nazi regime, from the use of force to establish an empire of conquest, to the later abattoirs of the Holocaust. again melodramatic. Done
  • Partial list of victims I really dislike this sort of list. I think anyone notable should be discussed in the prose under "Purge" as some already are. Done

Overall I think this article is well-done. The big concerns I have are style and the lack of context in places. I imagine your are very familiar with this time period so just the mention of a name means a great deal more context-wise to you than the average reader and it is probably hard for you to see where more is needed. Push yourself to explain the importance all the small things even when it seems self-apparent to you. I would be happy to look it over again if you like.--BirgitteSB 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment With the edits you've done today, Mcattell, this article is definitely impressive, and worthy of its GA status. Great details and background information, while at the same time short and to the point. As far as I can see, you did not 'beat a dead horse' about any one subject in the article, instead giving fair attention and balance of material to each issue of the background, lead-up, purge, and aftermath. Great job.--PericlesofAthens 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:LordHarris

  • Hi, looking through I definately agree you need to expand the lead in line with Wikipedia:Lead. Done
Expanded lead.
  • The references all appear good though I do have one problem - mainly that they are all from a few sources and a lot from Third Reich in Power. I think IMO to go beyond GA, to FA level you need to incorporate a wider variety of references from multiple sources. The references you have are fine but I do feel that there is a large literature on the subject, with authors varying in opinions and facts etc?  Done
There are now more than a dozen references. Evans and Kershaw are the most recent and critically acclaimed (via scholars), so they are used somewhat more than others.
  • I think you could expand the category section at the bottom - there must be more than one category? Done
Did it.
  • Also in regards to the SA propaganda poster, can you expand the image caption? The same goes for some of the other images. See Wikipedia:Captions for more details. Good work though!  DoneLordHarris 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

  • The scrolling ref box won't do well at FAC; somewhere on one of the talk pages of FAC or WIAFA you'll find links to guideline reasoning for why they shouldn't be used. (If you can't find it, I'll got looking for it.) Besides that they won't mirror well on other sites, and don't show in printed versions, they render me unable to analyze and help with your footnotes the way I usually do (I go to the printable version, copy the footnotes, and put them into a spreadsheet to help identify missing instances of named refs that should be used -- the printable version is invalidated by the scroll box). For example, here, named refs aren't used:
    • 61. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. W. W. Norton & Company, 520.
    • 62. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. W. W. Norton & Company, 520.  Done
      • That should be shortened and combined to one ref via named refs: Kershaw (1999), p. 520.  Done
  • There's no need to repeat all of the Reference info in the footnotes; it just chunks up the article size and makes it harder to edit. I prefer author (date), p. xx. The rest of the info is already given in References and need be repeated in every footnote.  Done--Mcattell 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There's an ISBN finder in the user box on my talk page that you can use to fill in ISBNs on the books.
  • Very pleased that See also and External links are minimal; I prefer the strict order of appendices at WP:LAYOUT, as it gives top billing to Wikified content (See also before refs and external links). Done
  • The measures taken on June 30, July 1 and 2 ... example ... WP:MOSNUM, month day combos are wikified. At about 4:30 on the morning of June 30, 1934, ... full dates are wikified. By the spring of 1934, Röhm's vision ... solo years are not wikified. Review throughout. Done
  • Prose analysis is not my strength, so I didn't thoroughly read the article; I read enough to see that the prose is certainly FA standard. A few minor fixes and you should be on your way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Golden Film

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Golden Film is a comprehensive article, that treats its topic without going into unnecessary details. It follows Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and style. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know which improvements the article needs in order to pass as featured article. – Ilse@ 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Article is generally well done but the prose is a bit awkward and could use a copy edit. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The image comes from a website that seems to indicate it is copyrighted, but my Dutch is very poor and I am not sure what the disclaimer says. Is this a free image or not?
    The website mentions copyright, but as you can read on the image description page, Speravi gave permission to use the image under a GNU FDL license. – Ilse@ 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    OK, for FAC you will probably want to send a copy of the permission email to Wikipedia:OTRS. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I no longer have the email and I can't find any explanation on Wikipedia:OTRS about permission emails. – Ilse@ 10:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    QUoting from the page: "If you are an experienced Wikipedian with a question for OTRS about image licensing or permissions Please e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Hope this helps, you may need to contact the copyright holder again to get the image through FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A few examples of awkward sentences
    • For each awarded film there is one trophy for the film crew and another for the film cast. perhaps better as something like Each film that earns the Golden Film receives one trophy for the film crew and another for the cast.?
    • their receiving films? While the cast and crew have considered their receiving films to be successful, critics have said that films that sold only 75,000 or 100,000 tickets cannot be considered a commercial success.
    • during the original cinema circulation? A Golden Film is awarded to a film from the Netherlands once it has sold 100,000 cinema tickets in the Netherlands during the original cinema circulation.[1]
    • Even this See for a chronological list: List of films that received the Golden Film.
  • For FA the article has to be written at a professional level.
  • Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness. While what is here seems fine, it just feels like there is something missing. I think it might be a case of providing context for the reader - see WP:PCR
  • How many Dutch films are released each year? What percentage of Dutch films earn the Gold Film each year?
  • How many tickets does it take for a film to be a commercial success (break even / make a profit)? I know many countries subsidize their film industries - is this the case in the Netherlands?
    I believe this question is already answered in the section 'Response to the award'. "Johan Nijenhuis, the director of Full Moon Party, has admitted outright that he considers only 300,000 visitors a failure." and "It starts to be something for a producer when 350,000 or more cinema tickets are sold." – Ilse@ 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    OK, I wasn't sure if that was just for that film / that director or in general. Might want to somehow make it clearer that that is for all films. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Who gets the actual award - whose house or office is it in generally?
  • In the four years before the award, the bext percentage was 6.1%, in the years since the award started the worst percentage was 9.2% What are the explanations for this? Is it just the award or is something else going on or does no one really know?
    Interesting issue, but I have not found any analysis, and could therefore only speculate about it. – Ilse@ 10:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOS#Quote block quotes should only be used for quotes that are 4 lines or longer
    I posted a question on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Block quotes: four lines or four sentences?, so I will come back to this later. – Ilse@ 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Most refs look good but you cannot cite Wikipedia as a reliable source - ref 12.
    The Wikipedia article used is a featured list. It is used as a reference in this article in order to say how many films have been awarded a Golden Film in each year and how many films in total were awarded, for which at least 52 references are used. You don't consider refering to the featured list is an acceptable exception in this case? – Ilse@ 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    There is no way this will get through FAC with a cite to a Wikipedia article, even a FL. Is there no reliable source that is a list of all them by year - that could be cited here? I also note the External link to the official Golden Film website is now a redirect to some sort of film festival. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    The Netherlands Film Festival (www.filmfestival.nl) awards the Golden Film. The externally linked website (www.goldenfilm.nl) currently redirects to the most recently awarded film on the website of the film festival. However, the list of awarded films on this page is incomplete and does not contain dates, so in order to count the number of awards per year, 52 additional references are needed. (Previously, several users insisted on splitting off List of films that received the Golden Film from this article.) – Ilse@ 10:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; I am looking into the issues you have raised. I have already peer reviewed an article shortly after I had listed this article for a peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Polar city/archive1. – Ilse@ 16:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your review! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

2007 British Grand Prix

I've been working on this article since the race and it's filled out nicely. I'm looking for any constructive feedback in order to improve this article to get it to a FA status. This includes pointers on any verifiability issues, and also specifically looking at the prose, I need really good criticism on that in order to improve the readability. T. Moitie [talk] 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Lede - While I personally like how it's written in the article, I have concern that this part of the lede won't pass through as being part of an encyclopedic article, only because it quotes someone in a news format:

Following British driver Lewis Hamilton's win at the 2007 Canadian Grand Prix, circuit director Richard Phillips reported that ticket sales had "gone through the roof". Phillips added that he "haven't seen this level of interest since Mansell-mania in the late 80s and early 90s".[3]

Guroadrunner 18:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Pre-race - I've moved the Red Bull Wings Of Charity info to the 2nd graf and added numerical bullets. The info on StepneyGate and the Red Bull charity are choppily meshed together - no flow to the writing, just two pieces of information sitting there. I numerically bulleted them to mix it, but that harms, not helps, the article. Also, it may be useful if we have a StepneyGate article to link to in this case (I know I said not to write one, but it is worthwhile to add to the race report in some sense, and use a SeeAlso link in that area.) Guroadrunner 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Wings of Charity - update needed. If the goal was $1 mil before the race, did they reach their goal by race time? Guroadrunner 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the number points, they were awful. The idea of that section is the 2 events that lead up to the race. They are clearly separated by paragraphs. It shouldn't go into too much detail, just background to the race. When we decide what to do with the Stepney situation (StepneyGate is a rather silly name for it), I'll link to the appropriate article that goes into more detail, but I think only a Wikilink inside the prose is reasonable. T. Moitie [talk] 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Need better meshing/flow. I'll give it a go. Guroadrunner 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Final results - I've modified the fact that Massa and Sato started from the pits. They started at two different places. They were:
Massa started from pitlane; Sato started from garage.
Better wording than what I gave it probably would help. A source also would be needed and a good source is http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2482729,00.html -- Guroadrunner 19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

This is my first peer review and I would like to know what needs to be fixed in the article to help it reach FA status. It is currently in GAC right now behind a large backlog. Over the last few weeks I have scoured the Internet and found large amounts of information in a related book. I'm open to any suggestions to improve the article in an attempt to get this to FA, hopefully in time of the anniversary of the bombing. Thank you in advance for your time and effort. --Nehrams2020 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to include a section with the names of all of the victims (168 total) in a side bar similar to Columbine High School massacre? --Nehrams2020 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd attempt July 11, 2007

I didn't receive any feedback the last attempt except for the automated peer review suggestions. The article has become a Good Article, but I would like to know what it needs before it goes to FAC. --Nehrams2020 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "Just 90 minutes after the explosion" is too journalistic in style, just state the facts.
Changed to "shortly after the explosion".
  • Needs to summarise the main points in the article, looking at the headings, it appears that the "response and relief" section isn't summarised here.
  • The statement "Except where noted, all statements in this section are sourced from the book American Terrorist." would be best as a footnote or as part of the first reference in this section.
Converted to note.
  • "After finishing the configuration" maybe "construction" would be a better word.
Changed
  • Not clear from the text how the VIN number linked McVeigh to the bombing, since he used an alias and false ID to rent the truck.
  • The sentence "The missing leg appears to have been a sort of "clerical" error, but nothing after 1996 could be found about it" is unclear and confusing.
  • "(Michel & Herbeck 234)" should be moved to references if this is what it is. These also need to be moved from (Giordano 34), (Linenthal 140), (Linenthal 142-44) and (Michel & Herbeck 249) in later sections.
  • Reference 38 would be best using the Template: Cite journal.
  • The "see also" link seems unnecessary if there is no evidence to link this man to the crime. This link could also have libel issues, I'd strongly recommend removing it.
Removed the link and his name from the See Also section.
  • In the "See also" section, there are serious legal problems with linking living people with this crime.
Removed the majority of the names.
  • The image Image:OkcW.jpg may need a fair-use rationale.
The license appears to have changed from several months ago, but I'll add one.

Oil shale

Wikipedia:Peer review/Oil shale/archive1

After first peer review spin-off articles based on main sections were created and article sections summarize spin-off articles. Following spin-off articles are listed also for the peer review:

The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Beagel 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Balboa High School (San Francisco)

old peer review Requesting another peer review as the article is approaching a FAC. The article passes auto peer review, although I took some stylistic liberty with image captions. It doesn't make sense to caption the United Playaz logotype for example. — Zedla 00:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Image:Balboa Mock Trial team 0506.JPG needs a fair-use rationale. If used with permission, the details of the permission need to be spelled out. Note that "for non-commercial use only" doesn't get us anywhere; it needs to be fully released under the GFDL if you're claiming permission here. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years

Firstly this is a quality article, very good. A few preference things:

  • Might get a small American flag next to the location of the school (see Eton College or Aquinas College, Perth
  • A few of the reference tags (eg. [45]) are weirdly spaced, some have a space between the full stop and the ref tag, whilst other don’t. Please be consistent (id prefer to see the ref tag right next to the full stop.
  • JROTC should be appropriately wikilinked – not going to a redirect page. Also, it should be spelled out in full (I didn’t see it earlier in the article), because as a reader I didn’t know what it was until I clicked the link.
  • Army JROTC image, needs to have an image description – how else am I to know what it is?
  • Personally, I don’t care what clubs and organisations are at the school (sorry if I sound rude – but I don’t), why would anyone else?
  • Ref tag 46 & 47 should be merged together, (see reference style in Aquinas College, Perth), the second reference makes the article a tad longer and it just looks plain ugly to have 2 reference tags next to each other. This happens numerous times in the article, and should be merged in all circumstances.
  • The list of AP subjects the school offers is a bit over the top, but the section itself is good.
  • Personally, the history section needs to be lengthened, 3-4 paragraphs on the history of the school, which has operated since 1930! What is going on?
  • There is large gap under demographics thru sports to Army section, which I think could use a picture, hopefully of a championship sports team, or a sports team or something sports related.
  • Surely there is published book on the school, I noticed that there are 70 refs (which is very good), but surely there must be a book on this school, which could be used to expand some of the section, including History.
  • Also, some references on staff/student numbers wouldn’t hurt.
  • The author/s should be commended on their great work! This is a fantastic article! Keep up the great work! Hope the suggestions help.Twenty Years 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia)

This was listed as a Good Article back in May, and I've been tweaking the article with another editor since then. I think it needs a bit of copyediting and suggestions for improving the article to A-class or FA status. WikiProject Schools listed this as a future FAC. A bit of background, Westfield High School was recently important as the high school where Virginia Tech massacre gunman Seung-Hui Cho graduated from. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Arsonal 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by Walton
Excellent article, particularly good use of sources. The only thing I would rewrite is the lead section - it's a bit lengthy, and quoting all those stats about how great the school is gives the article a bit of a POV feel. Instead, I'd refer to the gun violence issues in the lead section - it's a big part of the school's notoriety, and more encyclopedic than telling us about its partnership with "Centreville Presbyterian Church". Waltontalk 13:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years

  • The enrolment, staff could do with a reference.
  • The history needs to be expanded, all this controversy is of good length, I know the school is quite young, but 1-2 paragraphs doesn’t cut it for FA (or GA in my opinion)
  • Some of the reference tags (eg. 30 and 31) are right next to each other and I think it looks a tad ugly and they should be merged together (for example: see reference style in Aquinas College, Perth)
  • I don’t like a lot of the referencing, there is too much referencing in the middle of the paragraphs, unless something quite controversial is being said, then please use less citations in the paragraph or merge them as stated above.
  • I don’t like the individual awards as part of the schools article, but that’s my preference
  • In the Notable Alumni section, I don’t approve of the Person X 05’ for example, the 05’ looks a tad messy, this is an encyclopedia, I would prefer it to be: Person X (2005) – Did this and that.
  • 111 references is QUITE A LOT, and that is good, there are a lot of Primary sources, which I would like to see go. They should only be used when no secondary source can be found. Please try and replace them.
  • Is the fight song by Jessica Lardin copyrighted? Id think it would be? And it isn’t referenced?
  • The article is quite strong, a lot of references, and I think overall it is a good job by the author/s, but with most school articles, getting them to FA is damn hard. But good luck. Hope the suggestions helped.Twenty Years 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Earl Strom

I'm re-writing this whole article to being it to at least GA status. This article is nearly complete (the legacy section still needs a little more expansion) and I'm looking for feedback from another set of eyes as to what needs to be done to bring it to GA level. Thanks! RyguyMN 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by karanacs

Your prose needs work. There are a lot of short sentences, much of the article doesn't flow well (reads more like a list of facts), and you should read through for areas where the prose is too informal. With a little rewriting, I think you'll have a good shot, though.

  • The paragraph in Early Life is a little choppy. See if you can rewrite by combining some sentences.
  • Use wikilinks for all full dates (December 15, 2007)
  • Need to incorporate the Family section with Early life (and remove the overall Personal heading).
  • This sentence does not read well, "This only occurence was the result of the two teams not agreeing on any other officials to use in the series"
  • The paragraph about Strom being the referee in the 1965 Eastern Conference finals doesn't make much sense. Did Strom produce one of the most memorable moments in NBA history? The information about the announcement doesn't seem to fit and has nothing to do with him.
  • Several paragraphs in a row begin with "Strom." Try to vary the beginnings of paragraphs (and sentences) for better flow. This probably also contributes to another problem -- the NBA section reads like a list of discrete items rather than a cohesive section. (ABA has same problem)
  • "Strom was offered a salary contract over 82 games for $16,000 for the first time by Commissioner Walter Kennedy in August 1969." - was it the first time he was offered a contract, the first time Kennedy offered a contract, the first time a contract lasted 82 games? The sentence isn't clear. The sentence following this could also use some work.
  • Paragraph on Erving should be restructured so that it focuses more on Strom than on Erving.
  • See if you can vary using "he" instead of "Strom" -- his last name seems to be everywhere. Don't use his first name though-- I think there are a few instances of that

Karanacs 18:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Craig Nicholls

I would like to know what more can be done to improve this article. Jade1984 05:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by karanacs

  • Moog goes to a disambig page in the lead. It should probably go directly to the page you want.
  • song titles should be in quotes "My Song Here" Album titles should be italicized.
  • The article needs a good copyediting. Just a few examples from the first main paragraph:
    • "enroll himself" -> "enroll"
    • "He used to attend" -> "He attended ..., until dropping out of school during tenth grade."
    • "He supplied his vocation with money" ????
  • Don't use his first name when referring to him (after the first instance) -- just Nicholls
  • full dates need to be wikilinked (September 19, 2002)
  • all quotations need a source immediately following them
  • A large part of the article has no sources
  • You might want to include more information in the Success and Vision Valley sections -- what did the critics think of their albums? What did they do to make them banned on Leno and Letterman? What about the concerts was almost total chaos?

Good luck Karanacs 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Goldfrapp

I have given this article a complete rewrite and would like to take it to FAC in the near future. It is already a good article, but I am not very confident in my writing skills. Any feedback on prose, grammar, etc. would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tōru Takemitsu

Hi I've been working on this article on my favourite composer of the second half of the 20th century for ages now, mainly on my own. I've used as many sources as I've been able to get hold of to get all the info, and I've tried to be as thorough as possible, using the Messiaen article as a guide at times.

It's not all finished, the last two sections of the biography need a lot more, and I think the presentation of the awards section could do with some work. But I need some people to have a good look, see what they think, and suggest any changes, improvements etc. - hopefully with some knowledge of Contemporary Classical music, and at least a decent knowledge of 20th Century Classical music.

Cheers. Matt.kaner 14:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • 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.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), metre (B) (American: meter), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): hadn't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that 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, DrKiernan 11:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of these apply to this article! Matt.kaner 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Soda Stereo

It's a good article and I'm looking for feedback to improve it to FA status. Any suggestions or comments would be very appreciated. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 06:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag of the Philippines

This article is currently at GA-status, and I am going to get it to FA-status! It may seem short at 18KB, but Flag of Armenia is even shorter and was featured earlier this year. So, let's pretend that we're at FAC, and I want you guys to tell me WHY you would object to this being featured. Thanks! TheCoffee 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, there could be a section on other Philippines flags, such as that on ensigns or that of the President. A few more citations around the regulations would also be good (I know it comes from RA 8491, but others might not). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

  • This article has an A-rating in WikiProject Biography,WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Germany and WikiProject Philosophy. It has been collaborated on by several mathematicians and other editors. It is well-developed and has a boxful of references (plus more stored away in case of challenges). We hope to send it along to WP:FAC in the near future. Ling.Nut 18:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

From SandyGeorgia

Beautiful, a few minor WP:MOS things:

  • Why is there a mention of sources in External links? It left me uncertain if that meant that site was used to source the article, in which case it shouldn't be in External links.
  • Removed message from over a year ago; when nothing was cited. No longer current/valid. Ling.Nut 12:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There's an ISBN finder in the userbox on my userpage that can be used to fill in some of the missing ISBNs in References.
  • Fixed Ling.Nut 12:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I fixed WP:DASH throughout; confusion between hyphens (-), emdashes (—) and endashes (–). Hyphens join words, endash separates page and date ranges, and unspaced emdashes are for punctuation (spaced emdashes aren't used on wiki).
  • WP:MOS, PhD not Ph.D.
  • See also should be pruned (see WP:GTL). Ideally, relevant links are incorporated into the text and not repeated in See also. See also should be minimized. Anything already in the text need not be repeated in See also.
  • Fixed Ling.Nut 04:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll read it next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This sentence is awkward: After his father's death in 1863, leaving a substantial inheritance, Cantor shifted his studies to the University of Berlin, attending lectures by Karl Weierstrass, Ernst Kummer, and Kronecker, and befriending his fellow student Hermann Schwarz.
  • Fixed Ling.Nut 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed, or at least significantly improved, according to my best judgment at the moment. Ling.Nut 03:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ... but Cantor very much desired a chair at a more prestigious university, in particular at Berlin, then the leading German university. (then ?)
  • Fixed Ling.Nut 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Overlinking, for example Kronecker, link only the first occurrence of relevant terms.
  • Fixed, or at least significantly improved, according to my best judgment at the moment. Ling.Nut 03:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Every one of the 52 letters Cantor wrote to ... check WP:MOSNUM on 52.
  • Fixed Ling.Nut 03:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strange to see his theorem as a mere parenthetical in the article, find a way to recast the sentence ?? He then proved that the power set of an infinite set A has a size greater than the size of A (this fact is now known as Cantor's theorem).
  • Fixed Ling.Nut 03:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Cantor's first 10 papers were ... check WP:MOSNUM on 10 vs. ten
  • Fixed Ling.Nut 03:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure why Romantic is capped? ... and Cantor's madness as Romantic despair over his failure to win acceptance for his mathematics.

A very nice example of how math can be cited in an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes

How can the article be improved? Any constructive comments will be gratefully received. Eventually, once all comments received have been rectified, the article will be posted up for FA status. Thank you.--Bulleid Pacific 10:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Hello Bulleid Pacific, as promised, some comments to push this on its way...

  • The lead starts with "The SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes..." while the title of the article is "SR West Country Class" and the infobox header is "SR Unrebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain Class". I like consistency, so if multiple names etc are used, be consistent with all of these parts of the article.
  • WP:MOS for section headings - just stick to "References" and don't over-cap, so (nationalisation) is fine, we're not dealing with proper (or German!) nouns here.
  • Don't like TOCleft on my browser (Firefox under MacOSX) so consider ditching it. It really squashes the Background section on both left and right-hand sides.
  • Spell check required, e.g. "primarilly", "unrebuilt" (the latter may be common train aficionado parlance but it doesn't work for me!)
  • rebuilt is bold, why?
  • What's a "secondary route"? Bear in mind for the non-expert reader, terms like this are difficult to comprehend.
  • Again, with FA in mind, you could explain or, at a minimum, wikilink terms such as "freight", "express", "chain-driven valve gear" etc.
  • "...larger Merchant Navy class.[2]" - that ref [2] needs to be made into a proper citation.
  • "..outshopping..." - what does that mean?
  • "...footplate spectacle plates..." - wow, another specialist term. FAs need to be accessible to all, you need to qualify this somehow, to make it readable to all.
  • Sometimes you use SR, sometimes it's expanded. Be consistent, and unless you're referring to the subject of the article, I'd stick with Southern Railway.
  • "...owns/regions/aircraft/personalities/squadrons ..." - this makes for grim prose. Reword required.
  • "(rather unfortunately!)" - I know what this means but it is colloquial, informal and non-encyclopaedic. If you want to keep the spirit of the meaning, I'm afraid you'll need to explain yourself!
  • "Southern" section needs to be flowed better, too many short paras, I'd make it one, or at most two, paragraphs.
  • Over use of parentheses. If something's worth saying, say it in prose, not in parentheses. You'll easily be able to swap them for commas and the effect will be better prose and easier reading.
  • Same thing that I said about SR applies to BR.
  • "Thus 66 Squadron was the only BB Class member not to have a crest>" - what's happened here? Finish with a . rather than a > (obviously!) but another single sentence paragraph so flow it back into the previous paragraph.
  • "Individual class members list" section - not keen at all. With a section like this, you might as well create a standard looking "See also" section with just the wikilink in place.
  • "List of Preserved light pacifics" could be a sub-section, the heading is a bit strange (it's not a proper heading for a start).
  • "34023 Blackmoor Vale appeared in the 2002 film "Two Men Went To War" starring Kenneth Cranham and Leo Bill: a strange choice considering that this locomotive had not been built at the time of the film's setting. This sort of anachronism clearly didn't bother director John Henderson too much, as a postwar Bedford OB coach was also used." could do with being added into a new "Popular culture" section, the film could be wikilinked to, avoid "didn't" - should be "did not", what does "OB" mean? Do Cranham and Bill have their own pages? Is "...a strange choice..." original research or do you have something you can use to cite it?

Hope some of these comments make sense and help. Let me know if there's more I can do to help, as always. The Rambling Man 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Bulleid Pacific

OK, I think I've sorted it out. Have another look and is there anything else? Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from EliminatorJR

Some terms that probably need a little explanation for the layman

  • semi-fast
  • route availability
  • post-nationalisation (it's in the Construction History paragraph but isn't linked until later)

The first paragraph of the "The British Railways batch" section reads a bit awkwardly to me, and might need recasting.

Though used in the first paragraph and the list of preserved locos, the term 'Spam Can' is never actually explained.

Hope this helps. ELIMINATORJR TALK 22:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from EdJogg

Thanks for the opportunity of learning about the GA/FA/Peer review processes -- very educational.

Having had yet another look at the article, and minded of The Rambling Man's comments, the following are some more comments for your consideration.

  • The article doesn't actually mention why they were known as "light pacifics", or at least, not directly. Might be a challenge squeezing this in. (Don't forget that the term "Pacific" is rather alien to a non- rail person, although I've added it to the Infobox to help).
  • Related point: should the term be capitalised ('Light Pacific'), since it is effectively a name, or all lower-case? (I would prefer the former, as it is usually used as a name rather than a description.
  • There's some overlap between the "Background" and "Construction history" sections
  • "Construction history" mentions Nationalisation without explaining what it refers to; other terms are also used before being defined
  • You rightly compare them to the MNs, but you miss the opportunity of describing features such as the 'air-smoothed casing' (which you refer to 'in passing' later) and other stuff (presumably) described on the MN page.
  • '"West Country Class" class scroll', quite apart from the unfortunate repetition, really needs a photo
  • Where were the plaques fitted relative to the nameplates?
  • Is it worth mentioning that, since scrapping, the plates are highly prized by the organisations concerned.
  • Would be helpful to link the colours if possible, or at least explain 'modified Southern Malachite Green' (etc).
  • Hammerblow?, "Modernisation Plan"? "Spam Can"? (used in loco list)
  • Hope this helps... EdJogg 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(These comments were posted on the original peer review page (Wikipedia:Peer review/SR West Country/Battle of Britain Classes/archive1) and were not seen. Many may have been addressed subsequently.)

EdJogg 23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A few more comments from EliminatorJR

  • In the Construction History section, the sentence that begins "Other refinements.." doesn't quite scan - should it be "Together with other refinements.." or suchlike?
  • In the same section, need to define the term "raves" in relation to the streamlined tender.
  • 'Unrebuilt' and 'Un-rebuilt' used through article - need to standardise on one form.
  • I've done a few minor copyedits.

HTH, ELIMINATORJR TALK 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Basingstoke

I've made a few addtions and changes to this page over the last few weeks, but I'm still new to this and I'm starting to get a bit cross-eyed with the overall picture that the article paints, would appreciate any comments from detached editors on general areas that still need significant work and any suggested improvements. Mighty Antar 23:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]

*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article. [?]

*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 miles, use 2 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2&nbsp;miles.[?]

*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]

*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformer

This article on an important electrical topic has had quite a varied history, but has stabilised to a point here where I feel it would benefit from peer review. Any comments for improvement would be welcomed. Thanks! — BillC talk 10:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? — BillC talk 00:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty damn good to me!--Tugjob 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
But Ive just made a few changes! See what U think.--Tugjob 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

Eek. Tugjob must know much more than I! I am certainly not the best person to review this article for you - I will try to find someone better. Here are the suggestions that I am able to offer. Feel free to disregard them, as they are obviously coming from a very ill-informed reader. I apologize.

Before I started this reading this article, I knew nothing about transformers. I am the (apparently) semi-educated, but curious reader coming to the article, asking "I wonder how a transformer works?" After reading it, I still only have the dimmest notion, I'm afraid, and I could not explain it to anyone else. I think that the problem lies in several areas:

  • Diction: The article introduces the semi-educated reader to a lot of new terms and then uses all of them right away: magnetic coupling, windings, core, magnetic flux...(These are all in the first paragraph of the lead). Because the semi-educated reader has only the slimmest understanding of these terms, it is hard to read the article. I had to keep stopping and asking myself "what is the winding, again?" That is the level I was at.
  • EX: The principles of the transformer are illustrated by consideration of a hypothetical ideal transformer consisting of two windings of zero resistance around a core of negligible reluctance. This is the first sentence in "Basic principles." I was trying to figure out what a "winding" was, what "zero resistance" is and what "negligible reluctance" might be. To not know all of that makes reading the article difficult.
  • Organization: I wonder if it would be better to place the "Basic principles" section before the "History" section. That way, some of the language and the ideas presented in the "History" section would not be so confusing.
  • Mathematical formulas: Mathematical formulas will scare a lot of people away from this page. Over at Introduction to general relativity (which I also peer reviewed - it has done an excellent job in appealing to the lay reader, I think), they have none. If you choose to have them, please explain the mathematical relationship in words. I don't consider this page one that only specialists will look at, do you?
  • Linking: The article relies too much on linking, I think. All key concepts should be explained using at least a phrase or a sentence.
  • EX: If a load impedance is connected to the secondary winding, a current will flow in the secondary circuit now created. - What is impedance? That seems crucial, but I didn't see it explained anywhere in the article (maybe I missed it?).

General content. I can say very little about this, I'm afraid.

  • Might you link the events in the history section together a little bit more? Right now, the section reads like a prose list, rather than a story about the development of the transformer.
  • Practical designs did not appear until the 1880s. - Why did they arise then? I'm intrigued.
  • Many others have patents on transformers. - What others? Experimenters? Companies? Might you list a few?

Prose considerations. These issues I am a little more confident discussing. :)

  • The article has many wordy (and sometimes awkward) sentences. Here are a few examples:
  • EX: It has thus shaped the electricity supply industry, permitting generation to be located remotely from points of demand.
  • EX: Within less than a decade, the transformer was instrumental during the "War of Currents" in seeing alternating current systems triumph over their direct current counterparts, a position in which they have remained dominant.
  • EX: The principles of the transformer are illustrated by consideration of a hypothetical ideal transformer consisting of two windings of zero resistance around a core of negligible reluctance.
  • EX: It is not itself directly a source of power loss, but results in poorer voltage regulation, causing the secondary voltage to fail to be directly proportional to the primary, particularly under heavy load.
  • All numbers need to be contextualized. I did not understand statements such as "Amongst the simplest of electrical machines, the transformer is also one of the most efficient,[3] with large units attaining performances in excess of 99.75%." - What would 100% mean? It is 99.75% of what?
  • Occasionally, there is some odd diction.
  • All operate with the same basic principles, though a variety of transformer designs exist to perform specialized roles throughout home and industry. - Is "perform specialized roles" quite right? Can transformers "perform roles"?
  • The transformer principle was demonstrated in 1831 by Michael Faraday - Is there a "transformer principle"? This sounded strange to me.
  • Many of the places where you write "the ideal transformer", I think "an idea transformer" would sound better.
  • Try to not to refer to anything as "clear" or "obvious"; it may not be clear to your reader and by using those words, you have just insulted them. If something really is obvious, it doesn't need to be stated. :)
  • By impregnating the transformer with epoxy under a vacuum, air spaces within the windings are replaced with epoxy - Is "impregnating" a technical word? It sounded odd to me. I have some (ahem!) biological associations with the word.
  • The paragraph beginning "William Stanley" in the "History" section has some stubby sentences.
  • The article has too many passive sentences - they can be confusing and add to the wordiness in many sentences.
  • The word "so" is used far too often in a colloquial, conversational sense.
  • By this means, electrical energy fed into the primary circuit is transferred to the secondary. - By what means? I couldn't quite follow.
  • The main disadvantages are higher cost and limited rating. - What rating?
  • Polychlorinated biphenyl has properties that once favored its use as a coolant - What properties?

FYI: Places I became totally lost:

  • The last paragraph of "Under load".
  • The descriptions of the different kinds of energy loss. Too much to click on: "resistive heating"; "proximity effect"; "hysteresis"; "Eddy currents"
  • Leaky transformers may be used to supply loads that exhibit negative resistance, such as electric arcs, mercury vapor lamps, and neon signs; or for safely handling loads that become periodically short-circuited such as electric arc welders. - Why negative resistance?
  • The time-derivative term in Faraday's Law shows that the flux in the core is the integral of the applied voltage.
  • If the flux in the core is sinusoidal, the relationship for either winding between its rms EMF E, and the supply frequency f, number of turns N, core cross-sectional area a and peak magnetic flux density B is given by the universal EMF equation - I remember the sine wave, but what does this mean?
  • The physical limitations of the practical transformer may be brought together as an equivalent circuit model built around an ideal lossless transformer. What are the variables in this section for? I found that confusing.
  • End of the "Polyphase transformers" section.
  • The "Resonant transformers" section.

MOS considerations (only if you care about FA, etc.):

  • There are a lot of links in this article (by necessity). Perhaps you could remove the obvious ones (such as to countries) and the repetitions (e.g. "War of Currents" in the "History" section).
  • If you decide to take this article to FAC, I suggest you take a day to peruse the MOS and make sure that everything in the article squares with it. I had someone object to an article I submitted to FAC on the grounds of dash and date style.

I'm so very sorry that this isn't a better review. I am posting messages among my wiki-friends who are more knowledgeable on this topic to try and find someone to properly review this for you. Awadewit | talk 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good review. Shows what the layman thinks. I was saying it looked pretty good from a technical point of view. Many , many edits ago, I believe someone tried to simplify this article, but other editors have complicated it again. Look back about 6 months to see it that version is any better.--Tugjob 22:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mukhannathun

What I am looking for is guidance from anyone who is knowledgeable of this subject matter. Secular GLBT editors, Perhaps a more traditional muslim scholar. Such people could give feedback on the content of the article. Specifically the gender identity and sexual orientation of the Mukhannathun. I have read many websites on this. Some that are by conservative scholars are very frank in saying that these men were not straight but they were not openly flaunting sodomy either. Some websites by Muslims who are GLBT make these people out as being totally equivalent to transsexuals if the author of the webpage is a transsexual. Others by GLBT muslims interpret them as simply being very flamboyant homosexual males. Still others deny that the mukhannathun were any kind of GLBT person at all. Given the many and varied interpretations of this subject matter I feel it would be prudent to solicit comments from any experts wikipedia may have on Islam. I myself being a MTF transsexual who is a muslim will see things differently to other muslims and other GLBT people.

Furtheremore I am looking for criticism of the generally structure flow and dynamics of the writing. Is it any good? Should I have summarized the passages I quoted? Should I somehow seek pictures of the subject? etc. etc. Hfarmer 00:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe Rogan

Let's try and clean this up and get it to good article quality Embassy 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555

It is a start. There are many things that can be done to improve it though.

  • The lead section needs extending. You may find it helpful to read this guideline to get an idea of how long this section should be and what it should contain.
  • A good lead section is built around a strong and full article which it currently is not. Most if not all sections need expanding such as UFC and early life. These are all stubs at the moment.
  • The television career section needs to be turned into prose. It is currently just a list.

There is a basis for a good article but it needs a lot of cleanup and the point of view questions will obviously need to be addressed. I hope that this is of some help. Woodym555 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Uhud

just passed GA... was wondering what in terms of content, style, expression (or anything else) could be done to improve the article and raise it to featured quality. ITAQALLAH 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

old windy bear

ITAQALLAH I have read the article carefully, and it is just my opinion, but it might benefit from citing from another couple of detailed military analysis of the battle itself, but it is generally quite good and manages to steer the narrow line between religion and history that is inevitable with the early battles during the rise of Islam. old windy bear 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • i'm currently in the process of looking to see if i can get any more in terms of narrative or analysis of this event. Watt's books and the Encyclopedia of Islam cover it quite comprehensively, and most biographies don't tend to go into meticulous detail about it. i'll see what i can dig up. ITAQALLAH 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH Watt is my source also, but I will check further too, but I think you covered it pretty thoroughly. It would be nice to have another good source analysis or two, but as you say, most histories of the period don't go into tremendous detail about the Battle of Uhad.old windy bear 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[User:Itaqallah|ITAQALLAH]] In a final review of the article, I added the fact that Khalid ibn al-Walid(ra) emerged as a brilliant general in this battle, displaying his talent for the first time as he would go on to conquer the Sassanids. Other than that, I think you did a superior job. Nice work! old windy bear 10:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you Oldwindybear. i've got a hold of Tor Andrae's book ("Mohammad: The Man and His Faith"), and i'll see if there's anything else i can add. ITAQALLAH 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian

  1. I checked the article and put some comments in the talk page. But why don't you use Arabic histories like Tabari and Ibn Athir. We can't find most of the details in the western histories.
  2. You can use Battle of Badr which is an FA article to complete the prelude and get some ideas about what sections can be added like Badr in the Qur'an and Important participants.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The participants idea is a good one, actually. Certainly the Shiites make a great deal out of Ali's role in the Battle. I still think the article is a good one as he constructed it, but a participants section is a good idea. Ibn Athir does not have many more details than are currently in the article, as I recollect it concentrates most heavily on Battle of Badr ?old windy bear 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately Shia and Sunni sources are agreed on Ali's role. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sa.vakilian(t Then it would do no harm at all to put it in the article. I simply wanted to avoid lengthy arguments. old windy bear 00:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or

The general impression from the article is that it is poorly written, does not describe the battle adequately, and is trying hard to demonstrate that the battle "may not have been a defeat for Muhammad".

  • The number of Muhammad's troops is incorrect. Muhammad's army numbered 1,000 only before Ibn Ubayy's departure; thereafter they were 700 strong.
  • Khalid ibn al-Walid was not a commander of the Meccans on par with Abu Sufyan. Khalid merely commanded the cavalry on the left flank. For this reason, the map that shows him on the right flank is also incorrect.
    • Watt and Muir both state that Khalid commanded the right flank, while Ikramah commanded the left. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The outcome "strategically undecisive" means nothing, except as an attempt to show this was not really a defeat for Muhammad. Very few battles are strategically decisive; this meaningless "strategically undecisive" expression can be appended to pretty much every battle.
  • Why is there no date for the battle according to the Islamic calendar?
  • The intro is very bad. It contains very little information on the battle itself, but lots of details on where the Muslim emigrated from, where the Mount Uhud stands, what some scholars supposedly think on the outcome etc.
    • the intro does need to be more comprehensive, which i shall address shortly. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Muslims had the worst of the affair" is unencyclopedic style.
  • "Prelude" is not an encyclopedic title for a section. Be sure not use the definite article in the titles of other sections.
  • "Muhammad had preached the message of Islam in Mecca" is loaded religious language. Avoid such Muslim terms as "message" (risala) and "call" (dawah).
  • "tight-knit community of followers" - bad English.
  • "but had also succeeded in angering the rest of the Quraysh" I don't think that angering the Quraysh was Muhammad's intention, so he couldn't "succeed" in it.
  • "After years of persecution" How exactly were the Muslims "persecuted"?
    • most sources relate the Meccan persecution of the Muslims. i don't think it's appropriate to delve into that here. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Abu Sufyan accompanied a party of 200 men to the city" Which men? Meccans?
    • Watt simply says men. we cannot assume that it was solely Meccans, it may have also consisted of nomadic allies. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "obtaining temporary residence with the chief of a Jewish tribe" What are the names of the tribe and its leader?
  • "He then left the city, burning two houses and laying waste to some fields in fulfillment of his vow." Did he do this alone? It's pretty diffcult for one man to lay waste to some fields. Also, the article previously mentions no "vow". This whole passage referenced to Watt (1964) pp. 132—135 is so strange and murky that one needs at least the full quote from the source; meybe then it could be decoded.
    • will try to improve the flow. mention of vow has been made more explicit. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Defeat by the Muslims the Battle of Badr had infuriated the Meccans, who now wanted revenge for their dead kinsmen." Already mentioned above.
  • "The following year on 11 March 625 with Abu Sufyan at the helm, they raised another force, often numbered at 3000" And less often numbered at what? In addition, this is bad English.
  • Usually, the descriptions of battles start with the order of battle, describing the opposing forces and their location. We can see none of this here, so the account of the battle is haphazard, with archers, cavalry, Khalid ibn al-Walid etc, popping out of nowhere. The course of the battle is thus pretty difficult to understand even with the help of the map. However, a map is not a substitute for the order of battle; in addition, the movements of troops are shown on the map rather selectively. As a result, we know something only from the text, something only from the map, and the reader must string together the events on his own.
    • have tried to make the text about the battle more comprehensive, though i'm not completely finished with that yet. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Shortly before the battle commenced, 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy (the chief of the Khazraj tribe) and his followers withdrew their support for Muhammad and returned to Medina" Wrong, Ibn Ubayy left on his way to the Mount Uhud, long before the battle commenced.
    • "Shortly before the battle" is attributed to Watt. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Ibn Ubayy and his followers would later receive censure in the Qur'an for this act." How and in what verse?
  • The article misses the famous story how Muhammad's uncle Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib successfully fought in the battle before being killed by the Ethiopean slave Wahshi. For this reason, "the corpse of Hamza" just pops up out of nowhere.
  • Why is there nothing in the article on what, if anything, Muhammad was doing during the battle?
  • Why is there nothing on the role of Ali in the battle, according to the Shi'a tradition?
  • "after some brief verbal exchanges with Umar ibn al-Khattab (a companion of Muhammad)" is an unnecessary detail.
    • the Abu Sufyan/Umar exchange is frequently mentioned in the accounts of this battle. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Other scholars such as Montgomery Watt disagree, noting that while the Muslims did not win, the Meccans had failed to achieve their strategic aim of destroying Muhammad and his followers; and that the Meccans' untimely withdrawal indicated weakness on their part." Watt may be right in what he notes, but I don't see any "disagreement" anywhere; namely, Watt doesn't state the battle was not a defeat for Muhammad. The who are the "other" scholars? I cannot see any. this appears to be an attempt to stir some non-existing controversy regarding the outcome of the battle, a major flaw of this article.
    • i will see if this opinion is restricted to Watt. however, he does appear to be disagreeing, as he says: "The battle of Uhud has sometimes been presented by occidental scholars as a serious defeat for the Muslims. This is certainly not so." (p. 47) - he then goes on to explain why. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "tactful military leadership of Khalid ibn al-Walid" How can military leadership be "tactful"?
  • "A verse of the Qur'an revealed soon after the battle" This is not a NPOV statement: Quranic verses were "revealed" only according to the Muslim tradition.
    • the ambiguity is deliberate: it doesn't say from whom it was revealed. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "The success of the Meccans' rousing of tribes against Muhammad reaped disastrous consequences for him and the Muslims with two main losses: one was where a Muslim party had been invited by a chieftan of the Ma'unah tribe, who were then killed as they approached by the tribe of Sulaym; while the other was when the Muslims had sent out instructors to a tribe which stated it wanted to convert to Islam — the instructors had been led into an ambush by the guides of the would-be Muslim tribe, and were subsequently killed." This sentence is nearly impossible to understand unless one already knows what it's talking about.
    • will try to make the passage clearer. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The section "The historical record" is unnecessary. The sources for the early Islam are all the same; there is no need to review the sources in every article. The paragraph on the battle in the Qur'an and tafsir must be moved to the section on the Muslim tradition. In addition, a Quranic "chapter" is known as sura.
    • there is substantial discussion dedicated to assessing this battle from a historical perspective in the Encyclopedia of Islam article, so it makes sense to cover that aspect. there is no section about the Muslim tradition, the section on the Muslim reaction is about the response of Muslims in the aftermath of the battle. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or Some of the structural flaws you point out are legitimate. But other issues are not, for instance:

  • Khalid, for instance, had begun to demonstrate the tactical, (not tactful), genius that would mark the career of the great general who destroyed the Sassanids, among other huge victories. You fail however to mention it was Khalid's swift movement to take advantage of the archers going after spoils that nearly cost the Muslims the field when you state he was a subordinate commander - the point is this is the day he began demonstrating why military history remembers him, and had the Meccan army followed his lead they would have pressed the battle home and ended Islam at Uhad;
  • You state the article should outline the shiite claims regarding Ali - they claim he killed between 2 dozen, and 200 men, which is so impossible to even dignify with putting them in an article. I think you set a bad precedent by diving into the Shiite claims on Ali, frankly. You open a door that leads to religious arguments rather than military ones.
  • You state the article is an attempt to sugarcoat a defeat. Quite the contrary - ITAQALLAH was very careful to state most historians regard it as a defeat. But what you do not say is the very simple fact that 3000 men had 700 at their mercy, and failed to follow up on Khalid's lightning advance, and let them fight their way to an effective draw - in addition, the Meccans had Medina at their mercy, and failed to follow up on that at all. Not only did they fail to follow up on the immediate battlefield and press home a victory that could have destroyed Muhammad's army, but even more disasteriously, they failed to attack a city that was effectively helpless. If ever an army managed to turn victory into defeat, it was the Meccan army at Uhad.

I don't want to minimize that you make some points on structure which I am sure ITAQALLAH will address. But I strongly agree with his decision to avoid the trap of discussing the Shia claims on Ali's slaying of hundreds, et al, and no amount of argument can change the fact the Battle of Uhad could have meant the end of Islam had the Meccan army pressed home their victory. Bluntly, strategically it was a huge defeat when you consider that Medina was at their mercy, in addition to the Muslim army, and they let both go. That is the real bottom line: thanks to Khalid's emerging genius they had the field, the opponent, and the entire city had they only fought to a conclusion! Instead in a few short years they were bowing 5 times a day! This was their last real chance to stop Muhammad, and they utterly failed when they could have and should have won a total victory. I agree ITAQALLAH has some language issues, but as to his work on this article, I would maintain he did a good job in avoiding the trap of arguing the claims on Ali, which are really religious in nature, not military, and he wrote a reasoned, basically sound article. old windy bear 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for everyone's input, including Beit Or's. i'll work on all the issues mentioned with some feedback on a few of the points raised. ITAQALLAH 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, for some of the content-based concerns you raised (Muhammad's role during the battle, Hamza and Wahshi, and so on), could you refer me to some academic sources for these accounts? i agree that the intro isn't of good quality yet. as for the section "historical record", i included it because Robinson in the EoI Uhud article discusses this aspect in reasonable depth, and it seems appropriate to relate it in the article. ITAQALLAH 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
the Shia claims on Ali's slaying of hundreds!!!
You're kidding. Please show a notable Shia source which claims. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sa.vakilian(t I really do not want to get into what sources are notable, and which are not. (Actually, the only source which is without question is the Holy Qur'an) But as to others - and again, please understand I accept no source except the Holy Qur'an as notable, for example, for online sources, [[6]] is one that makes such claims. I don't claim this is a reliable or notable source, and this is the kind of argument that I wanted to avoid to begin with. old windy bear 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
My dear friend, as I know Shia and Sunni sources are agreed on Ali's role and we can use Ibn Athir in this case. I've put a comment in the talk page of the article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sa.vakilian(t My friend, I happily defer to your superior knowledge in this matter. Are you going to let ITAQALLAH put it in, or will you? Your help in this is greatly appreciated. old windy bear 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
as i've opined on the talk page, we should stick to using established reliable sources. i don't have an objection to classical sources in principle, but given that they are frequently misused, they should be related through reliable third party sources. anyway, this kind of discussion belongs at the villiage pump really or some other community forum. ITAQALLAH 01:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
ITAQALLAH In the end, I feel you should add or not add to the article based on the relevance of the proposed edit to the subject. If the role of Ali is a legitimate part of the military history of the Battle, it is fair to ask that it be included - but that is just my opinion. I feel strenulously that we MUST stick to military subjects. I still feel strongly you did a good job in constructing this article. old windy bear 01:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Old windy bear, in my long list of comments I never mentioned a single editor by name. In your much briefer response you mentioned Itaqallah several times. You may want to move somewhat closer to the policy and comment on content, not editors. You may feel Itaqallah did a superb job on that article. Fine, it's up to you. However, please comment on the article's content, not the person you may feel is its author. Beit Or 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or I always address the person I am speaking to, as in this case, to you. I have reviewed the comments you are referring to, and respectfully, don't feel my comments were inappropriate. I have found that newer editors tend to get discouraged in the process, especially during peer reviews when critiques of the article may be viewed as a personal attack. I feel I commented on the article, and made no personal references whatsoever except to compliment the primary author for attempting to work on a difficult subject. No one except for you felt that my comments were inappropriate. You and I simply disagree on how to review an article, and how to work with other editors. old windy bear 15:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
i have struck through those concerns which have been addressed (just so i know what else needs to be done), and the other points i have either commented on or intend to address soon. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dave Bishop

I'd like to get this up to at least GA standard Embassy 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mount Tamalpais

It's been quite a while since this article was last assessed and there has been a lot of improvement made since then. If you want to review this article then please comment on the article quality and/or re-assess the article. Any suggestions for improving the article are also welcome. I would like to see this article get to at least GA class. Hydrogen Iodide 05:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • One simple (not so simple) thing might be to include some kind of topographical chart presenting information that is otherwise threated through the text.
    Also the cultural section lands with a thump. It's nothing more than trivia, and the "MT in art" section is nothing more than one of those endless namedrop paragraphs that are unuseful in that the links (and in this instance the names are almost all red or unlinked) lead to the persons in question and not to the art in question, which is much more helpful.
    Conservation issues part is way too light but that goes without saying; references are nicely varied but still lacking over all, especially in the art section.--Pablosecca 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

  • See WP:LEAD for beefing up the lead; also, redlinks in the lead really should be stubbified.
  • The first image of Mt. Tam really isn't adequate and could be improved
  • The External link farm needs pruning, per WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:RS
  • Websources need last access date, see WP:CITE/ES
  • Full dates should be wikified, see WP:MOSNUM
  • Miscellaneous is trivia that should be deleted, unencyclopedic
  • Weddings is a stubby section (one sentence) and should be expanded elsewhere or merged; there are many more ceremonies on the mountain than weddings (Easter comes to mind)
  • I fixed the footnote placement per WP:FN with Gimmetrow's ref fixer.
  • See WP:UNITS or consider using {{convert}}
  • Strange footnote placement and incorrect use of WP:DASH ( Precipitation[2] around Mount Tamalpais varies greatly from around 27.5 - 31.5 inches (700 - 800 mm) ... ) What is the [2] footnoting, and those hyphens should be unspaced endashes. And this should be an emdash: Coast redwood forests are restricted to areas where the particular ecological needs of redwood are met – areas characterized by high ...
  • LOTS of content expansion needed. Example, what wildlife? Cultural history is a lot of stubby, one-sentence paragraphs that could be expanded. Hang gliding ?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Estadio Monumental "U"

How can this article be improved? It seems too small.MicroX 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 Done MicroX 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 Done MicroX 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 meters, use 6 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6&nbsp;meters.[?]
 Done MicroX 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
 Done MicroX 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 Done MicroX 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
 Done MicroX 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Maroon 5

I do Good Article reviews all the time and I know what sort of things to look for, but, for what ever reason, I can't easily spot issues within articles I've read a dozen or more times. My goal is to eventually bring this article up to FA, hopefully. A task I have not yet attempted. LaraLoveT/C 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Fritz S.

In general, there are very little references. Many more of the statements could/should be referenced. Not even the quote given prominently in the Formation section is sourced. (Speaking of which, I don't see why this particular quote is formatted in cquotetxt, while others aren't).
Block quote states that block quotes are generally used for quotes that are four lines or more, which this quote is. It also says that it can be used stylistically for shorter quotes. WP:QUOTE, although currently inactive, states that block quotes can also be used when the quote is a major part of the article's topic. In this case, it was a turning point for the band, something that, as stated in the quote, had a "profound impact" on Levine's songwriting (which ultimately transformed their sound, leading to their success).
Additionally, the citation was after the colon just before the actual quote, I moved it to the end of the quote.
Here are some other things:
  • "backing vocals" is overlinked in the lead  Done
  • Singles should be linked in the lead (if they have articles)  Done
  • Caption in the infobox shouldn't be in italics.  Done
  • Image has been deleted, per my nomination for lack of justifiable fair use rationale, and replaced with previous concert photo.
  • Genres should all be in one line, seperated by commas.  Done
  • This varies between articles of various quality standards. I'm looking into whether or not one is preferred. I've changed this before (not sure if it was for this article or not), and my change was reverted. To avoid issues, I'm getting verification.
  • Okay. I based that on the example given in the template instructions. I just checked a couple of FAs and most of them list them without brakes. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me. Hopefully this isn't the article I had the issue with previously. I'm not in the mood for revert warring. :p LaraLoveT/C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Dashes are wrong throughout the article. See WP:DASH
  • Are you referring to the dashes used in the Awards section? I looked through other FAs and GAs to see what format others used for listing awards and I could not find one article with an awards section, except for Mariah Carey, but it was a separate article regarding only Grammy nominations/wins. Is there some standard against awards sections? LaraLoveT/C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually meant the use of dashes when it comes to time spans (e.g. "2003 - 2005", which should be "2003–2005"), there are a couple of these in the lead and in the infobox. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)  Done
  • "Maroon 5 returned with new music for the first time in five years with the release of It Won't Be Soon Before Long in May 2007" I think this is simply wrong since they did release a couple of new tracks on compilations in those five years.  Done
  • The new sentence now states "Maroon 5 returned with a new album for the first time in five years" although they released two live albums in between... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll have to get someone to help me word this. The new album is their first full album since Songs About Jane. I don't think that's accurate terminology, though. However, the current wording in the article is how it was referred to in Rolling Stone Magazine. I can source it, if that would make it acceptable. LaraLoveT/C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How about "Maroon 5 released their second studio album, It Won't Be Soon Before Long in May 2007, five years after Songs About Jane." ? --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC) {{Done)) That's perfect. LaraLoveT/C 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "In his section of Midnight Miles, Dusick detailed" should not include external link (especially since it's dead), but proper citation.  Done
  • It was cited, there just isn't an article for Midnight Miles. I've changed it to link to Wikipedia's book source page.
  • By "proper citation" I meant a reference tag and {{cite book}}, for example. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have the book, so there's no way for me to do this. It's also not available at the library, and I love the band, but not enough to buy this book. The comment used in the article is taken from the source that follows it. LaraLoveT/C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Then it should be cited with {{cite web}} instead of an inline link. You could also check if there is a mirror of that site at the Wayback Machine or Google Cache. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC). Just noticed this is there. Sorry. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Maroon 5's second album, It Won't Be Soon Before Long (A&M/Octone Records) was released worldwide." I think that part in parenthesis should either be removed, or properly incorporated into the sentence.  Done
  • "After its release, the record broke iTunes sales records its week of release, selling over 101,000 albums." It might be a little confusing to have record in that sentence twice with different meanings. Maybe album instead for the first time?  Done
  • "To support the album, from May 30 to June 11, the band will be on the road" out of date. The next sentence as well.  Done
  • The two album covers used lack fair use rationales, and aren't really necessary anyway.  Done However, a screenshot from "This Love" for the Controversy section might be a good idea (and easier to justify fair use wise).  Done
  • I added fair use rationales. I feel the covers add context. I'm looking for a good shot. None that I've currently found show the controversial computer-generated flowers. I may end up taking it myself, but probably not until I get the high-gain antenna for my wireless access point.
  • Many editors at WP:FU feel that the use of album artwork is only justified if the cover itself (not just the album) is being discussed. The current use seems to violate WP:FUC #8. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that's it for now... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Changes and above comments by LaraLoveT/C 04:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I still think many more statements should be sourced. If it helps I can go through it again and add {{fact}} whereever a statement should have a reference. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I didn't have time to address that suggestion yet. I would appreciate the fact tags. I don't currently have a lot of time to edit, plus my connection is like AOL in 1996 right now... I think some of my edits would go through faster if I wrote them out and mailed them in to someone via USPS! LaraLoveT/C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see what I can do. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm in the process of adding links for those places you specified, however, I have a question:

  • "The band signed with Reprise Records while still in high school and released its only album The Fourth World in the middle of 1997, just as three of the four members were about to graduate (Ryan Dusick was completing his sophomore year at UCLA)."
    • What part are you challenging? That they signed with Reprise while in HS, that The Fourth World is their only album, that it was released in 1997, that Ryan was a college sophomore while the rest were HS seniors, or that Ryan went to UCLA? LaraLove 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve "Cahoots" Nash

Hi i am putting this article up for a peer review at the bequest of Warrush. I am sure that all comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Woodym555 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

From a quick review, I can tell you a few things:
  • Needs to be referenced more thoroughly. The introduction for instance, has no citations at all. The Early life section is also in need of better referencing. As a general guideline, you should have at least one reference per fact/group of related facts. For instance "While in college, he played for the Canadian National Team" should be referenced, since that is a complete thought. (See WP:CITE for more detail)
  • Along the same lines, you should use citation templates wherever possible.
  • I also noticed some prose issues, some of which don't sound very objective or encyclopedic ("Nash continues to be the pivot of one of the league's most potent offensive teams." for example. Which is true, but is worded as if it is a point-of-view rather than a fact.)
All in all a pretty good job - lots of good information and a pretty broad scope - just needs to be cleaned up wherever possible.
Good luck! Drewcifer3000 09:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Nash

Has undergone some changes, still needs some tweaking. Some help would be much appreciated. Warrush 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Steve Nash

Truro

Attempting GA or FA status for the article, any ideas for improvement appreciated. --Joowwww 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

  • Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of Truro.[?]  Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 19 km, use 19 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 19&nbsp;km.[?]  Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]  Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.  Done
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 24 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- Working through redundancies. --Joowwww 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lost: The Journey

This article about a Lost clip-show was nominated for deletion five times, and in an effort to save the page, it ironically became the best-written article about a Lost episode. It is well sourced, and is written without an in-universe perspective so many episode articles on Wikipedia have. How can it be improved with the hope of achieving featured or good article status? --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw your request for a peer review of Lost:The journey and had a look at the article. I would suggest retitling the section "Purpose" and a slight cleanup of the section. Apart from that, avery good article. - Wardhog 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the article would be improved greatly if it was renamed and expanded by adding information on all of the Lost specials. I don't think any of them individually are notable enough to stand on their own, and quite a bit of the information in the article already applies to them all anyway, such as the entire "Purpose" section. It's a good article as it is, but I just see no reason why this specific special deserves it's own separate page. -- DocNox 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should see the various deletion discussions. --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I quickly read through them and didn't notice anyone mention anything about merging the other recap episodes into it. I'm not saying the article should be deleted, I'm saying why should it only be about the one recap when it could just as easily be about all of them? The other specials don't have their own articles and likely never will, and even if they did most of the information would be exactly the same as in is in this one. So why not merge it? Isn't that why Nikki and Paulo got merged, because most of the information was the same? Take em off the List of Lost episodes page (they're not true episodes anyway) and stick em here. Anyway, it's just a suggestion, I could be wrong. -- DocNox 05:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sounds like a good idea. I will do that in the next couple of days. Thanks, thedemonhog talk • edits 06:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oral sex in Islamic law

I present FYC this fascinating and topsy-turvily written article. Very interesting glimpse into ancient attitudes. Obviously someone very knowledgeable about Islamic law had done much work, but this person or group have alas a madcap command of our fine and supple English tongue. But I don't think it's anything that a little expansion and minor research, combined with a lot of formatting, couldn't fix. I've done a little work here and there but hardly know where to begin. But as I said it's very interesting stuff. And in sum, I want to see this article one day on the main page as an FA! Come on you Islamic scholars and wikipedia aces, help me!--Pablosecca 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You need to properly cite all of those [#] external links using <ref> tags. Sebi [talk] 09:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Accession of Turkey to the European Union

This article was a mess when I found it. Over the course of two years, it had become an ugly bulletin board of reasons why Turkey should or should not be in the European Union, with the weakest of sources tacked on almost as an afterthought. I've tried to do whatever I can to fix this: shuffling, rewriting, sourcing, et cetera. Now that I've done as much POV search-and-destroy as possible without getting rid of actual useful information, I find that plenty of problems remain. I'm looking for any and all suggestions and advice as to how to fix this article. --Hemlock Martinis 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to do a full review, but may come back and do one soon. From what I can see right now the citations need sorting out, a lot are missing, and you have a lot of areas bullet pointed for some reason, even if there is only one. I'd suggest ironing out the prose there. There ought to be a few more images around for some things, possibly also add the EU politics box? -don't know if that is too much but if you can fit it in cleanly then I think it is relevant considering how big the subject matter is. Hope that helps a bit, sorry I don't have time to read through properly right now. - J Logan t/c: 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Which EU politics box are you referring to? And yeah, the bullet points and citations are really wonky at the moment. I'll get to work on that. Thank you! --Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It needs all the standard stuff. More focused paragraphs, balance the coverage based on the subtopic's importance to the whole topic, paragraphs should be complete concepts, not 1-2 sentences, reduce the bulleted lists and replace them with prose, and of course clear the tags on the top, which generally will require more sources, and a search for what the best sources are for the topic. Left here per request. :) - Taxman Talk 04:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

SCO-Linux controversies

I wish to nominate SCO-Linux controversies for peer review in preparation for submission as a good article candidate.

69.140.164.142 12:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by MER-C
  • Article needs to be updated, particularly the "Status of current lawsuits" section. At least 10 summary judgement motions have been heard and fully briefed in the IBM and Novell cases which aren't mentioned in the article.
  • References should be converted to the {{cite web}} format.
  • Should have a paragraph about SCOX's Congress and Fortune 500 spamming.
  • Eliminate the weasel words.
  • More thorough referencing.
  • Pictures?
  • Quite a way to go, I'd say. I wish you good luck in understanding SCOX's legal briefs. MER-C 09:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Vines

This article has undergone substantial revisions and before we go any farther, I would like to get some input as to how to improve the article. Arundhati lejeune 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by CloudNine

Several issues:

Lead
  • The lead is too short as it stands. It should be expanded to two or three paragraphs (per WP:LEAD). The first paragraph should name the original and current members (if possible), along with the instruments they play. Try to summarise the band's history and musical style in the second and perhaps third paragraph.
  • The infobox logo should be removed, as it's hard to justify under fair use.
  • "notable for producing a raw musical hybrid of 60s rock and 90s alternative with the band being popularly promoted as "The Beatles meets Nirvana". This is uncited; could be construed as original research.
  • The promotional photo of the band is much too big, and could be replaced with a free image (check out Flickr or the Wikimedia Commons).
  • Reading through the article, surely Joe Dirt is an "also known as", rather than an associated act?
Early days
  • This section is general is vague.
  • "mid-1990s" is a little vague; surely the band members should have some idea of the year of forming?
  • who named the band "the Vines"? When was it done?
Highly Evolved
  • On my screen, the first paragraph of this section is thirteen lines long. Needs to be split for readability.
  • "in their native land". Australia should be fine here.
  • "with record companies only considering the release of an EP." Which record companies? Why?
  • "The Vines then signed with Heavenly Records in the United Kingdom." When? This and the previous section both need dates.
  • Several low-value links in this section; "single", "hype" and "production" don't need to be linked in a band article. There may be other examples throughout the article
Winning Days
  • "after Craig bleated at the crowd, calling them sheep," sounds strange to me. "bleated" doesn't sound too formal. The sentence it is part of is also quite a long run-on sentence. This needs splitting.
  • Also, the chart positions each album and single reached (particularly in Winning Days) don't need to be mentioned (unless they debuted at #1 or something equally notable); it makes the Discography section redundant.
Vision Valley
  • Why are the singles bulletpointed? Needs converting to prose.
  • "In November, the band's management announced they had finished recording all the songs that will be on the album." Sounds awkward, needs rephrasing.
Asperger's Syndrome
  • This section (along with "The Return" and "New Album") should a subsection of History.
  • Why did it stop him? Did any music magazines comment on this? I was confused after reading this section.
The return
  • Needs clearing up. Covers individual gigs (a sign of [[WP:RECENT|recentism), and is full of one or two line paragraphs.
  • Does New album need its own section? It would flow just as well as part of "The return".
Musical style
  • The article needs a description of the band's general musical style. Who writes most of the material? What are the main characteristics of the band? Who are their influences? etc.
Band members
  • This section could be summarised in the infobox and lead. See Pearl Jam for how this can be achieved.
Discography
  • Unfortunately the album covers need to go; a gallery of album covers can't be justified under fair use. See Pixies or any other alternative music featured article to see how this section should be formatted.
  • Why is the "Song" column of the Singles section so wide? It's unclear.
  • Album names in the Singles section need italics for consistency
Covers by The Vines
  • To me, this is a trivia section in disguise; it doesn't have much value in an encyclopedia, and is probably incomplete. (Note it doesn't mention the Nirvana covers that the earliest incarnation of the band performed). My advice is to remove it.
External links
  • I'm not sure about linking to the "Vines FAQ" or the Myspace page; I've not seen many quality band articles that do.
  • If you do find some free images, add a {{Wikicommons}} link to the section.
  • A {{Wikiquote}} link might also be appropriate.
In general
  • Direct quotes, statistics and facts need to be cited. The article needs more citations. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more on this; I can add [citation needed] tags if you want.
  • I would replace the album cover captions with "''[[Album name]]'' (year)", to help those skimming through the article to get an idea of dates. (Plus "album cover of" is redundant)
  • The prose covering the album should summarise the musical style of the material.
  • All the album covers need fair use rationale. (See "Lead" for an explanation)
  • I've noticed quite a few redundant words throughout the article. See " the group had reported ("announced") that they were working on their third album with producer Wayne Connolly." See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for a much more detailed guide.

The article needs a lot of work; this should be enough for now. Let me know if you disagree or desire clarification of any of the points raised. CloudNine 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tool (band)

After a first peer review, then passing the GA process, many good changes regarding broadness, style, etc. we are aiming at FA candidacy and inclusion on the next offline release version. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance, Johnnyw talk 11:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please notice: I will be on vacation from July 4th to July 13th and probably unable to respond during that time. Johnnyw talk 15:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive article, congratulations. Two things, however: 1) You will not need to submit for inclusion in the offline version, as inclusion of FAs is automatic. Or you might submit right now to get it done during the FAC process. 2) You will probably need a few print sources to go through FAC. Some people there seem to think that the net will crash in a few days, and that the only things we will be left with are silex stones and print sources. So any print magazine is good, any book with an ISBN is great. Here are a few:

Anyway, you get the idea. Enjoy!--SidiLemine 11:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! For the nice words, the info about the offline version and your suggestions. My thoughts:
  • Most sources currently used are print magazines — luckily there's an active Tool community transcribing and scanning these. But I'll guess I'll have to find some more of their ISBN# and use the right template to include that info. Since we only used inline citations and there is no comprehensive Tool bio (the closest thing right now is the WP article :), a reference section listing some "offline" articles seems to be useless. Following your suggestion I gathered what I could from Google books and included 3-4 new (traditional offline) sources.
  • The genres mentioned in the article are thoroughly sourced. Still, due to editorial reasons, some sources are placed in the beginning of the article, some in the bio, and some in the subsection about the genre allusions, all depending on the context. At times, this invites people to change the genres mentioned in the infobox at will. Would it be wise to gather the barrage of genre citations at the very beginning of the article, in the infobox and then depending on context as they are now?
  • I created a further reading section that at this point also lists a (quite unique) online source. Listing this under EL would complicate things a bit, I guess. What do you think about the "further reading" bit?
Well, all this considered, I'll go for some more ISBN'd sources and then off to FAC! Johnnyw talk 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No worries, it's deserved every bit. Now about what you write:
    • I had a look at that Tool website of yours... That's pretty impressive. I wish there was such an active community about some other subjects, too. But it raises a question. Isn't that blatant copyright violation? I'm not sure at all, but if it is, you cannot point to it from here. Still, it shouldn't bother you, as you have all the right sources and can give the links in private if asked during FAC. To cite newspapers and books, I recommend Template:cite news, and Template: cite book. Template: cite web is also good as it provides the retrieval date, etc. For the mags, be sure to give the ISSN.
    • About the genre, people generally don't put refs in the infobox, althought nothing is against it. My opinion is that you should only link in the body of the article, and keep an eye on that infobox to correct any "wild" changes. If you get in a dispute, then the references will come in handy. About these refs, you shouldn't have any in the lead (WP:LEAD). The lead is supposed to sum up the article, which is already sourced in its body. So you can't have any refs in there.
    • I'm all in favour of the Further Reading section. This is sure to impress the FAC people, althought I'm not sure what is the recommended order for FR/refs/EL. I'll have a look.
Well, the only criticism i feel you might get (apart from the eternal 1a, "excellent prose", that is a permanent bug for everyone) is that you may have too much references. The article is 80kb, and that's a bit long. Remember thought, that none of these two is an actual failing criterion, so don't let them give you any trouble.
Good luck at FAC!
Sad as it may be, you are probably right about not-linking to the transcripts. Will try to find the issn wherever possible and insert them; also will rm the direct link.
And regarding the sources about the genre and in the lead: I can't find the passage that says that Leads should be w/o their own sources. The only thing that is said is "It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate. "Which probably translates to "you don't need to source what has already been sourced in the body". Will take a closer look and probably move some of the sources to the body where appropriate.
All in all: another quick thank you and off I go to work! Johnnyw talk 10:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right, there is nothing precisely against sources in the lead, and most FAs have one or two. But as you said, most of the material in the lead should be present in the article, and this is where the sources should be. --SidiLemine 11:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Feel this controversial article could still do with some real help. I feel it is biased in favour of AA. I am in an edit war, which is kind of pathetic. I would really like someone to review it, and if possible get involved. I dont think either I, or the other regular editors, are capable of being NPOV on this matter. PLEASE HELP 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really asking for a review for the path to featured article, but ways to improve this article. This article has a little bit of controversy, with a group of people claiming that AA is a cult, overly religous, it's validity, etc. I would like to find the best way to cover all aspects of this in the article, but it's already kind of long (with lots of great information). I'm looking for ways we can restructure the article, reorganize things, and make sure all points of view are addressed while still NPOV. Thanks!--Twintone 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I think people saying that AA is a cult are probably wrong - Alcoholics Anonymous is a self-help group, well, as far as I'm aware. Any questions, ask on my talk page. --SunStar Net 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AA has had accusations of being cult-like from a fairly wide variety of sources. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. If it is, then it is one of the less damaging ones (though that is not to say not damaging at all). I think a thorough examination of both sides of that argument would be useful. 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

on Dictionary.com they say a cult could be any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. Now, Bill never said he had "sole" insight into the disease, but that is just "usually".
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. While AA is not bound together by veneration of the same person or thing, AA is definately bound by an ideal. Now, I don't think AA will ever order an attack on a subway with Sarin gas. I know they wont ever order suicide by drinking Vodka and taking Phenobarbital and then putting plastic over their head.-- ¢² Connor K.   20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AA does have some religious tenets, and the supreme court in America described it as such (as detailed in the articles "coercion" section). Similarly, Bill W's teachings are often held in such high regard that to question will bring a similar reaction to that of a satanist in an Easter ceremony. Read "AA Horror Stories" for examples of when these tenets have been corrupted and then exploited by cult like factions of AA, or look into the "Midtown AA Group" in Washington.

Interestingly, Bill kind of did imply that he had a "special cure" for alcoholism, with the following from the 12x12: " Any willing newcomer feels sure A.A. is the only safe harbor for the foundering vessel he has become." Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 35 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have read, there is a considerable insistence that AA's methods are the only effective way to control excess drinking. In fact, other people do seem to succeed by other methods (without appeal to a higher power, without total abstention, etc). Insisting that their way is the only possible way, contrary to the facts, is a cult-like behavior.
Having said that, I don't think that throwing around the word "cult" is very useful -- but it would be good if properly cited critics were properly explained. Subsolar 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could not agree more. Was hoping to get some "unbiased" (which excludes me!) editors to do a bit of work on the AA page. I would be happy to advise, as I am sure would other regular editors on the page. I think we could do with someone interested in learning more about the subject, who is experienced with wiki, to make this article give a balanced view of AA.82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Informed AA members do not insist "that AA's methods are the "only" effective way to control excess drinking." p. 20-21 of the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous describes moderate drinkers who can take it or leave it, hard drinkers who, given "sufficiently strong reason", can stop or moderate, and then there are "real alcoholics" who have both the allergic reaction cited in the Doctor's Opinion (Silkworth) and the obsession of the mind mentioned elsewhere. The basic text says its solution is fitting for those who have progressed to the point where they are beyond human aid. Informative websites can be found by searching for "primary purpose group". Many AA members are quite willing to say, "if it works for you, great! But, if you're a real alcoholic, my experience..." user:Don Karabelnikoff Don@Karabelnikoff.net 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Many AA members do state that AA is the only way though. I have witnessed it myself. It is well documented by others (Stanton Peele, Charles Buffe, The Orange Papers website). Comments in the big book imply it strongly, such as "you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer." or "At first some of us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else." 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Stanton Peele is at the extreme end of the academic community, Charles Buffe has only been published by 'See Sharp Press' (in the publishers own words: "a cause-driven small press" with a mission "to make available radical books and pamphlets that would otherwise not be published, especially in the areas of anarchism and atheism.") and 'The Orange Papers' website is one anonymous guy in his bedroom who hates AA. Of course this encyclopedic article doesn't read like their opinion!

Unfortunately this article is frequently marred by the insistence by a few individuals (who are easily identified by their refusal to sign in to Wiki, their repetitive insertion of conspiracy links and their contribution to Wiki being solely arguing on the discussion page rather than actually editing the article), that the AA article is biased unless it mirrors these conspiracy theories.

Ongoing Peer review would certainly be valued, but not all the comments from the previous peer review have been incorporated yet (the 'deeper structural' editing for example). Perhaps we could do with more editors and less conspiracy theorists! -- Mr Miles 11:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment Ok. This article will now be ripped apart my critique:
  • "The stated "primary purpose" of A.A. members is to stay sober and help other alcoholics do the same." Grammar needs work, try this: "The official "primary purpose" of Alcoholics Anonymous is to help dipsomaniacs become sober.
  • "A.A. teaches that to recover an alcoholic should abstain completely from alcohol.[1] and offers a community of recovering people who help each other and "work" the twelve steps." What ever happened to capitalizing after a period/not starting with the work and? Try: A.A teaches dipsomaniacs that complete recovery requires complete abstenance from alcohol. In place, it offers a community for recovering alcoholics who mutually assist their peers in reaching complete sobriety."
  • This article uses alcoholics and A.A WAY TOO MUCH! In place of alcoholics, switch some up with dipsomaniacs, and in place of A.A, switch it up with Alcoholics Anonymous.
  • "...listed as “nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship”[2])." Order of words to be changed. Citations after quotes and/or periods, periods inside quotations. Ergo, it should be like this: "...listed as "nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship.")[2] Besides this, the following is wrong, the bold comma must be inserted into the real passage: "alcoholics (aside from 7 out of 21 members of the A.A. Board of trustees, who are listed as “nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship”[2]). The previous clause is way too long not to have that comma there. Generally, 3 words in any prepositional phrase/clause requires a following comma; a good message for this article.
  • NO DOUBLE DASHES!!! It's ugly and unencylcopedic. Here's a sampling of when this article does this: "Silkworth meant Jesus Christ--advice Silkworth had also given..."; "A "phenomenon of craving" -- with the first drink the alcoholic..." Stop it. Also, either put Great Physician in quotations or just come out and say G-d. It's extremely POV and horribly religiously offensive to say Jesus Christ in this sort of article. Remove this.
  • Right here's a mess of miswritten code: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/621 Varieties of Religious Experience] Silkworth had also read this book which contained many conversion accounts. Bill spent the better part of the day pouring through its contents and concluded that his experience was like those reported by James. Dale Mitchel, The Little Doctor Who Loved Drunks, Hazelden. Silkworth advised Bill that had undergone a genuine conversion. In A.A. Comes of Age, Wilson states that Dr. Silkworth "reminded me of Professor William James's observation that truly transforming spiritual experiences are nearly always founded on calamity and collapse."

Half of that was in italics, and the link should be a citation. Why is that extra ], I don't know. Fix that. I think I gave you enough work. Drop a message by when you're ready for more. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Jam

I'm looking to take this to featured status soon, and it would be nice to receive comments about the article's comprehensiveness and prose etc. CloudNine 11:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

  • I've removed the album covers from the article. CloudNine 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Johnnyw

Hi! Since we`re both working on related topics, and both probably longing for some feedback, I'll try to point out some things that might be worth addressing. Note that this is not extensive, for example, this is not an in-depth analysis of the prose (although, when looking for claims missing citations (see below), I'll point out if s.th. catches my eye). Since I myself would love to see an analysis of the prose at the Tool article, I don't really know if I am qualified.. will do what I can :)

  • Citations
I'll go through the article after writing this and add just a few citation-needed tags. The article of course isn't under-referenced, but I figure it's appropriate since you're going towards FAC.
I believe all the unreferenced statements have been addressed with User:-5-'s help. Thanks for pointing them out. CloudNine 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Legacy - In popular culture
I'd probably remove mist if the soundtrack appearances, they don't really contribute to PJ's "legacy in popular culture" in my opinion. The Big Fish / Tim Burton thing is rather interesting though, but is already in the bio, right? I know they haven't appeared on the Simpsons or the like, but isn't there some other appearance that's more worth mentioning? Maybe you could mention the tons of tribute bands that exist..
  • I've now integrated the notable appearances into the biography and removed the 'In popular culture' section. CloudNine 10:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Campaigning and activism
Generally, I think this section should be expanded/completed. PJ have made numerous benefit appearances, most of them are not mentioned here. No need to list all, maybe name the most important ones, or the issues they raised. In particular, the introduction sentence says "from pro choice to anti GWB" — actually that's not really representing the wide range of topics they addressed. It summarizes basically what the section mentions, but as I said above, there's much more (wildlife protection, anti cancer, West Memphis 3, A Benefit for Maryville Academy, ...)
In regards to FAC, I think a good representative picture would be appropriate here, for illustration.. (if available... the inclusion of a fair use image would also be justified if nothing else is at hand..)
The second sentence says, "The band has promoted an array of causes, including awareness of Crohn's disease, which lead guitarist Mike McCready suffers from, Ticketmaster venue monopolization and the environment, among others". But I do agree, more causes could be mentioned. I found a fair use image of "pro-choice" on Vedder's arm, but I think the section would then focus on their pro-choice views a little too much. I'll keep looking. CloudNine 13:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I am sorry to have neglected the second sentence. But I still think the point is valid though, since a reader familiar with PJ would probably find the section lacking in terms of comprehensiveness (shouldn't be like Rage_Against_the_Machine#Politics, but the RATM article shows how far this could be taken.) Johnnyw talk 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Musical style
the sentence with the cobain quote should be part of the second paragraph, and treated as a singular comment on Ten, although it is used as a general description in the lead paragraph of that section. I'd remove the "at times, ..." part and just use it as a description on Ten.
Addressed that issue. Fits in quite nicely actually. CloudNine 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
what about Ament and Cameron? no info there?
Haven't found a lot; FA on bands tend to summarise the band's musical style, rather than go through each member. I'm planning to add to the Musical style section though. CloudNine 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope that helps, best wishes! Johnnyw talk 10:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • the name -> Etyomology
A short note: the bit about the pearl jam name disrupts reading the article a bit. why not move it to an etyomology section? It seems appropriate to me, since the reasons given are not really biographical in nature.. Johnnyw talk 11:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a separate etymology section (with a huge quote: see this revision), but the actual referenced content is less than a paragraph in length, so consensus indicated that it should be moved to the biography. It's a valid point though. CloudNine 11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that the quotes were quite big. I'd probably only include a citation if it hits the nail on the head, like I did at Tool_(band)#Etymology. Nevertheless, I'd reinstate the old section, shorten it, and rename it to "Etymology". Just my opinion though, but I don`t really see how the bio benefits from the current arrangement.. Johnnyw talk 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Now in separate section. Doesn't look as stubby as I thought it would. Thanks. CloudNine 19:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, those are my quick thoughts after reading the article twice:

  • questions unanswered
why did krusen leave the band?
Done. Apparently he entered rehab. CloudNine 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
ten's lyrical subjects are mentioned, but not a word about musical style is written
Added "Ten's musical style, influenced by classic rock, combined an "expansive harmonic vocabulary" with an anthemic sound". I may add a more thorough description later; what do you think? CloudNine 10:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Good! Just another suggestion: I'd think about moving the sentences about "Alive" and "Jeremy" right after the "produced hit singles ......" bit, since currently it reads like this: album, the 2 songs, the album's success, then the hit singles.. better: album, album's success, hit singles, details about the 2 songs.Johnnyw talk 12:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Rearranged, thanks for pointing that out. CloudNine 12:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
why was abbruzzese fired?
Political differences. Added to prose. CloudNine 10:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
the july 17 press conference before playing in mexico is mentioned, rare, but: what did they say? if what they said isn't worth mentioning, why not remove it? if it is worth mentioning: than include what it was about
No idea personally, and I don't think it's worthy of note either; I removed the prose in question. CloudNine 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
why did they leave epic?
Just that the band's contract had expired, and that they had no interest in re-signing. Added that information to the article. CloudNine 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • style
some minor style things that need checking: some things are wiki-linked twice in the same section (Saturday night live, e.g.)
  • Hopefully I've addressed these now. CloudNine 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • regarding citations-needed taggs
some phrases maybe just need to be toned-down a bit, rather than completely sourced or removed, e.g.
"Many fans had complained about the difficulty in obtaining tickets and the use of non-Ticketmaster venues, which were judged to be out-of-the-way and impersonal." The following, sourced sentence make it obvious that fans were complaining, but the specific problems, e.g. the "impersonality" of non-ticketmaster venues seem a bit far fetched to me to stay without a source.
  • Indeed, those were my thoughts on reading through the sentence. However, it's cited at the end of the next sentence, so I removed the {{fact}} tag. CloudNine 12:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • why not add the citation to both sentences? just to clarifiy.. Johnnyw talk 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've always seen it as a little redundant, but it's not a big deal either way. :) CloudNine 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Still not an in-depth analysis of the prose though, if nobody comments on that, I'll recommend reading User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a. Best wishes! Johnnyw talk 11:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed review! CloudNine 11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Beginning next Wednesday, I'll be on vacation for a week or so, but before and after that, I'll keep an eye on the developments and help if I can. Johnnyw talk 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to read the article's first, second and third peer reviews.



When failing I Not Stupid's first GA nomination on 26 December 2006, ExplorerCDT raised concerns about choppy prose, lack of broad coverage and poorly-placed images. The article has considerably improved since then; a thorough expansion and copy-edit (with the help of Haemo) has hopefully addressed the concerns about choppy prose and lack of coverage (Homestarmy deemed the image concerns moot).

Therefore, I had planned to renominate the article on 8 July 2007. In a comedy of errors (described by Wisekwai as a "tragedy"), Homestarmy renominated the article (prematurely) on 22 June 2007, placing it in the "Television" section (I Not Stupid's a movie). Less than 24 hours later, NSR77 failed this nomination; however, most of his reasons for failing the article were criticised by Wisekwai, Bishonen and myself.

I have decided to postpone the GA nomination date to 15 July, so I can file a request with the League of Copyeditors, as well as this peer review. Any suggestions for improving the article would be most appreciated. Please note that I am aiming only for GA status, not FA, because external systemic bias makes it difficult to find reliable referenced information on Singaporean movies.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "The image is being used in an informative way, for identification and critical commentary" is the "specific" justification for the fair-use rationale on each and every non-free image in the article. A better fair-use rationale would outline what that use actually entails, and specifically why that image is necessary in the article. If it were alright to just copy-and-paste a fair-use rationale across a ton of movie screenshots, then we wouldn't require a specific fair-use rationale at all. These need to be fixed in order to better align with our policies on fair use. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
When uploading the screenshots, I provided the following fair-use rationale: "A movie screenshot, used on article of said movie, is fair-use. The screenshot is for informational purposes and does not harm the movie makers commercially." Haemo replaced the fair-use rationales I provided with the template. (Note that the image of the movie cover was not uploaded by me.) Is the use of a screenshot in the Political satire section allowed under fair-use? I'm not an expert on fair-use rationales; could you give me a guide to providing a good fair-use rationale? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This is more than a little pedantic. It is readily apparent how it is being used from the context, and by simply reading the article, and the captions. You're placing an unduly high level of burden here -- I mean, look at the rationale on these FA class articles.
  1. Image:Calvinhobbes honk.gif
  2. Image:Calvin & Hobbes - Calvin.png
  3. Image:Oldmansea.jpg
  4. Image:Oldmansea fuentes.jpg
  5. Image:Mansteel1.png
  6. Image:CaptainMarvel.jpg
  7. Image:Marvel White Costume2.jpg
Many of these are worse, or differ in no substantive way from the rationales presented above. Fair use rationales are intended to explain how this qualifies as fair use. Critical commentary is an accepted explanation for fair use. It is exceptionally pedantic to request a detailed outline of that commentary, when the context is already clear on the article in question. However, I've updated them none-the-less. --Haemo 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You know, this reply seems a little sharp, and I just wanted to apologize. On reflection, I think you have a point, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is probably not a very compelling reply. I think a short "significance" section is worthwhile, and have adopted it. Thank you for your help. --Haemo 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and that's not a template; it's just got DIV headers on it. --Haemo 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I, too, thought it was a template. In my opinion, Haemo has provided excellent fair-use rationales; hopefully ESkog and the GA reviewer will agree. Any comments on the prose, references, style, organisation and other areas are most appreciated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One
  • The fair-use rationales on the images are specifically crafted for each image, even if they read the same. The most striking difference is on Screenshot 1, which says: "The image is significant since it illustrates one of the major social criticisms that the film levels, and relates it to the characters involved, putting it in context for the reader, and providing more meaningful critical commentary." This is different than the others. It's obvious that a lot of care has gone into crafting these rationales, and I find them sufficient. — WiseKwai 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I personally removed the caning image and expanded the lead to explain briefly what kiasu was. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I Not Stupid has achieved GA status, and I will not push for FA, could someone help me close and archive the peer review? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gifu, Gifu

The whole history section is a bit uneven and I'm looking for more sources, but any advice on any section would be wonderful. Is there a subtopic that still needs to be covered?Douggers 02:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it looks pretty good, but a lot of the sections are a bit too short - I kept feeling a little lost, as things were mentioned without much context - e.g. manufacture of fire balloons without mentioning what they were, the clans and such in the Warring States period without much context about the clans or people mentioned, etc. Expand things out a bit for us dummies and you'll have quite a good article on your hands. Adam Cuerden talk 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your input. I promise that I'm working on it. Whenever I try to clear things up, though, I end up referring to a Japanese article and get sidetracked while translating that into a new English article. Douggers 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College

We recently reached GA status and now we want to make it even better. All constructive criticism is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Professor Davies 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you had this, so I'll leave one or two quick thoughts I had. The introduction could be reorganized into three paragraphs. And more info can be included in the infobox. The history section mentions the number of founding students twice, which is awkward. Also there are many one sentence paragraphs under history which could be combined and shortened. Perhaps the history section could have a subsection on the founding and events leading up to it. Also the rest of the section should be chronological. Image captions could be much more informational, providing info about the place, and not just what it is, like the captions under Student life. The Student life section does need some citations. Is there a school paper yet that might describe more about it? Otherwise, just keep putting in more references when you can.--Patrick 00:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New Peer Review Request: 10-4-07

It's been a few months since the last peer review and I think we've made most of the improvements suggested in that one. So I'd like to request a new peer review of the article in general with the goal of preparing it to be nominated for featured status. I think we've made some good improvements just since reaching good article status and are just about there. Thanks for any suggestions that could help give this article the quality needed for featured.--DebateLord 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sai Baba of Shirdi

This article has already been nominated for FA and failed and I have made significant improvements. Please inform me about stylistic mistakes, too few sources cited (if such a situation occurs) and other mistakes. I would also be grateful if you told me how much you think is necessary to bring the article to GA and then to A class and FA status. Kkrystian 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


I am restarting the peer review. The article is currently at GA status. Please review article with an eye towards bringing it to A status.TheRingess (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Ulster

I would like to request a peer review for Alternative Ulster, the magazine. I wish to improve on the article and would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions.Ryannus 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Guideline and To-Do list
  • Comprehensive history of magazine, including images to accompany.
  • List of past staff.
  • A little bit of information on the 1977 fanzine. (Or else create a new page regarding it)
  • Information on the headquarters.
  • Sponsors ie. who has sponsored the magazine in the past.
  • Festivals etc. that the magazine insists on reviewing.
  • Events, Festival etc. that the magazine has supported or sponsored.
  • More information on the AU Army and its foundation etc.
  • More comprehenisive information on the sub sections within the magazine.
To be continued Ryannus 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think that the article could at least be raised to B-Article standard.Ryannus 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Searchers (film)

I am nominating this for Stillstudying, who is interested in improving this film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In line with suggestions from Erik, and in reading the guidelines, I believe a "Critical Interpretations" section would be very helpful for readers who are not familiar with the more controversial themes in The Searchers. I would appreciate imput from editors more experienced than myself, and would welcome everyone's thoughts before I attempt myself to add such a section. My long-term goal is to raise this article to be a GA at least. The movie is truly a great one, one of the all-time classics, and warrants a better article. I also thank Erik for his help (as I did not know how to post this!) Stillstudying 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Erik

  • The first issue for this article are the use of non-free images. Images, especially the non-free kind, need to be more than decoration for the article. Considering this is a film whose themes and cinematic style has been commented on by many, it would be best to remove the seemingly decorative images and create prose to describe the themes/style. Off the top of my head, I recall that the framing of the Western background through a door from the inside was thematically significant. If prose can be provided, a shot of this cinematic style would be warranted. I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Non-free content to understand how to implement such images.
  • For Themes, I would suggest using more academic resources (like the ones I listed on the article's talk page) to cover the themes of the film. The current references are rather simple reviews, and I believe that using in-depth critical interpretations from those with film studies backgrounds would be much stronger attribution.
  • For Cast, I would suggest using an Actor as Character format followed by a brief description of the character, as well as any information about how that particular actor was cast or how he or she portrayed his/her role. I would not be surprised if there was some controversy over the Native American casting, considering their depictions in the film.
  • I would suggest removing the Release section because a list of release dates is indiscriminate and does not serve much encyclopedic value. If there was a reason for the selection of dates for territories outside of the United States, then it may warrant a mention. For example, Spider-Man 3 was released in China before the United States in order to circumvent piracy.
  • For Reception, I would suggest starting off with a prose paragraph. Perhaps a list of recognitions would be warranted, but ideally, prose should be attempted before a list.
  • For Influence, there needs to be attribution about the influence of The Searchers on succeeding films. The Star Wars and Dominion mentions seem to be original research and should be backed by a secondary source.
  • I would suggest a Critical reaction section, both citing reviews given at the time and contemporary reviews, to reflect any change of opinion in the process.

These are my suggestions for now; there's obviously plenty to do. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Stillstudying

I agree with all the above.
  • On images, we do need to use those in the public realm which have great symbolic importance. For instance, as to the image of Ethan standing in the door, offhand I cannot remember the source, (but I will find it!) but a number of critics have suggested the symbolism is that Ethan is the eternal outsider, and having returned Debbie to civilization, stands alone in the door, and walks into the wild, symbolizing that his task being done, he is not part of the civilization he ostensibly champions. Still others suggest his blatant racism and hatred for practically everyone figures in his standing in the door, and walking away, as not belonging anywhere. Obviously this is a tremendously important image, and needs more explanation for those not familiar with the movie and it's symbolism.
  • As to using academic sources, I would add that we have many critical reviewers who make very deep examinations of the issues Ford approached so gingerly in this movie. I agree with Erik that we need to use those, such as Brenton Priestley's explosive "Race, Racism and the Fear of Miscegenation."
  • We do need to completely revamp the cast section, with an explanation of what the role of each is in terms of the symbolism of the movie. For instance, several characters are simply there for comic relief. Whether that was because Ford was afraid otherwise the movie would be unbearably bleak is a subject we can discuss, citing respectable scholars.

Personally, i would prefer to have consensus before the rewrite begins. Does anyone else wish to do the rewrite? I am willing to do so, but again, would like consensus that the type of changes Erik suggests, which I agree with, are the view of the majority of editors. That way we can avoid a great many reverts! Stillstudying 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that your plan for improvement will be much stronger than anything that has come before for this article. I would suggesting being bold in making the changes; they can only benefit the article, I'm sure. (And if anyone attempts to add a Trivia section, remove it and kindly point them at WP:AVTRIV.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Erik I will give this a couple of days, and then begin being being bold in making the changes. I think your suggestions are outstanding, and I will start, (if no one else more experienced comes along and wants to do it, or has good reasons we should not), with revamping the introduction, and the cast, while similtanously removing the images that have no meaning, while replacing them with those that do, along with an explanation for why they are there. I am going to work today and tomorrow on these changes, and again, waiting for input here, will begin a wholesale revamp based on what we have discussed, late tomorrow. I really appreciate your support. I strongly feel this is a genuine classic that has been badly served by our article, and that needs to change. Stillstudying 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Erik I would really appreciate your and Alien's input on the new section I just added. I was extremely careful - I worked a large part of the night on this! - to source everything and try to avoid anything super controversial, and stick to accepted language. I would really appreciate your evaluation on that new section and the updates on the cast, added language on the characters. If this is acceptable, I plan to work on the Production section next, and then finally delete meaningless pictures and add ones with great meaning - like him standing in the door! - with an explanation of why they are important. Your help is really appreciated! Stillstudying 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments by Erik

Looks like you've put some serious work into it! A few formatting notes:

  • For section titles, only the first letter should be capitalized, unless a later word is proper. So basically, Critical Interpretations → Critical interpretations
  • There should not be any spacing between a sentence's punctuation and the reference.
  • Try to use the Cite web, Cite news, and the Cite journal templates for your references. This provides easy, organized reading of the references.
  • The format of a film title in the content should just be with italics, with no quotation marks needed. So basically, "The Searchers" → The Searchers
  • It seems that the "Real-life inspiration" section should become part of The Searchers (novel) since the source material and its film adaptation are not always the same. What should be noted, though, is if the adaptation was faithful, or what changes John Ford made to the story. This should be done with independent, attributable sources instead of personal observations, which is original research.
  • The Themes section could be merged into the Critical interpretations section. Try to see if you can subsection different critical interpretations, such as Racism and Characterization. Not sure what more there are. Obviously, with so much critical coverage of this film, this shouldn't be the end of it.
  • For Cast, try to format it like below:
  • John Wayne as Ethan Edwards: A Confederate veteran of the American Civil War who comes to see his brother's family after being gone for three years. (Add detail about Wayne's casting or portrayal here, with attribution.)
  • I would suggest just going ahead and removing the images now. They don't serve any purpose for the article besides being decorative.
  • In Critical interpretations, I would suggest that you re-read what you wrote and try to edit the content to have a more neutral tone. Some of the sentences sound casually written when they should be more formal. An example is, "This horrible outburst made clear that..." and could be rewritten not to use the word "horrible" and something more encyclopedic than "made clear". Hope you understand the suggestions I've made.

Good luck with the Production section! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk • contrib Thanks, and I will get started...Stillstudying 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Erik (talk • contrib Thanks for your help, and I would appreciate your checking out the new sections, (I took your advice and incorporated the theme section into critial interpretations, and subdivided. I also took your advice and deleted the pictures, and worked more on the character descriptions and the production section. I am gone for a few hours, but would appreciate your evaluation of the work on the article so far...) thanks again.Stillstudying 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments by Stillstudying

Monkeyzpop To Monkey, I moved your assertation that the strongest motivator for Ethan is his love for his brother's wife to where it properly should be, to the "plot" section - This is discussed by many reviewers as underlying emotion throughout the movie, but it hardly stands as a "theme" in the sense Ford's examination of racism does! While I may agree iwth you - I do think he may well be in love with her, please, whether or not Ethan's character was in love with his brother's wife is a plot twist not a grand theme in the movie. What "theme" would you maintain this shows? Racism is an obvious and incredibly powerful theme for the movie, but love for your brother's wife as a theme? I am not trying to be cruel, but surely you see the problem, not only is this not a theme in the sense of an underlying socio-cultural more, it isn't even certain. The question of Ethan's feelings for his brother's wife has been debated considerably for the last 41 years. For every source you cite that claims this as a theme, others do not. Schneider, for instance, doesn't even consider it worthy of discussing in the same context as the giant themes of hatred and racism. Morever, you miscite your sources - they do discuss the underlying question of whether Ethan loved his brother's wife, but again, this is simply not a socio-cultural theme in the same league with racism!
  • So I moved this entire mess to "plot" which is where it belongs. I also set to work to correct a number of other things you deleted or changed improperly. For instance, the opening should be 3 paragraphs, and you deleted an outstanding quote by Schneider which explains why the movie is not really from the book, but from real life.
  • Finally, while I hope we can resolve our differences without an edit war, your swift reverting and the way you did so, without discussion - we do have a peer review going on, that you did not bother to post any of your proposed changes - I would remind you of the 3 edit rule. If you change this 3 times in 24 hours, you should be suspended. I will revert as I have to, unless a majority discusses these issues, and you have consensus for your changes - which I don't believe you have. I have asked others for their input, and will wait on consensus, in the interim, you have reverted twice in 24 hours, a third time warrants suspension. Stillstudying 11:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just noticed your edit summary comment when you reverted me, "What do you think we have peer review for?" It should be noted that nowhere on the main article page nor on the page that comes up for editing the main article does it say a peer review is under way. How is one to know that without a notice on either the article page or the editing page? Monkeyzpop 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments by Monkeyzpop

I have done my best to eliminate original research from my submissions and have cited where proper. Notwithstanding, having studied this film for forty years, written about it, been published on the topic, interviewed many of the players and crew, and collected possibly the largest private collection of material relating to the film, I obviously have some sense of awareness of the film and its background, themes, and the critical responses it has gotten over the years. Forgive me if I am not as fully confident in your take on things, especially as simple matters such as grammar, spelling, and formatting cause you some difficulty. This is not an insult, rather an observation that one's first look at your submissions makes one wonder how strong your academic credentials are. But that's not as important as reaching a clear-cut encyclopedic version for Wikipedia of what this film is and what the responses to it are. Let's take some of your objections one at a time. But first: let me apologize about the three-revert rule. I was thinking of reverting the material on this page in one fell swoop, but found it physically easier to do it section by section. If I'd done it all as one revert, I'd have not broken the 3RR. I forgot about that. Sorry. (I do note that you, Stillstudying, edited the same page 23 times within 48 hours, a clear and pretty large violation of 3RR itself. ;-) ) Now on to your objections. You've asked for peer review. That's fine. But peer review does not mean no one can edit a page without "permission" or consensus. It just means you're asking for and (hopefully) receiving commentary. Some of the peer review comments about my submissions make sense to me. Others don't. But the first "rule" of Wikipedia, the one that is trumpeted loudly whenever someone new comes aboard, is "If you don't want your material edited brutally, don't submit it." ANYONE can edit a page, whether that page is under peer review or controversy. So I'm sorry if you're unhappy that someone has "edited your material brutally" but there's nothing wrong with that, not by my reading of the rules of Wikipedia. Next: the fact that John Ford "never talked" about Ethan's love for Martha is both wrong and irrelevant. He certainly talks about it -- on-camera! -- in Bogdanovich's Directed by John Ford, but the main point is that Ford doesn't have to be on record talking about something for it to be relevant to the article. As you will note, I referenced about eight different citations regarding the Ethan/Martha love and how it is the unspoken but driving force of the story. That takes nothing away from the racism theme; in fact, it's absolutely interwoven into it and inextricable from the racism theme: Ethan loves Martha, already-hated Indians kill Martha and steal her child, Ethan seeks revenge for Martha, rescue for her child, and then purifying death for the child once Indians have defiled it. The fact that the love between Ethan and Martha has been a topic of scholarly discussion for fifty years is both verifiable and notable. To discard it shows a comparative unfamiliarity with the film's historical analysis and criticism. It's like throwing out all references to outer space in an article on Star Wars just because no one actually says "outer space" in the movie. Next: some of the items I deleted were deleted only because you say them in almost identical words three, four, or five times. In the case of these repetitive items, I did not delete all of them, just the redundant one or misplaced ones. I'm under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think anyone who would dare change what you wrote must be wrong or deliberately interfering. I assure you I am not deliberately interfering, and in this case I don't believe I'm wrong. I've been a published author for many, many years, and before that an English composition teacher. That doesn't make me God, but it makes me fairly well credentialed to critique writing style. I appreciate your efforts, and some of your points are quite wonderful. But your writing style can use some help, and I have tried to help (not so much help you as to help Wikipedia, which to be trustworthy should at least be as well-written as possible). Next: I've spent a lot of time with the LeMay book, and while it differs from the film in notable ways, to say that it "does not resemble the movie at all," as you did, is to ignore willfully what is in the book. Of course the book resembles the film: it has the same characters. It has the same locale. It has the same basic plotline of loss and rescue. These are resemblances! Even if the book takes liberties or detours from the detail of the novel, to say there is no resemblance is demonstrably erroneous. The fact, and I bow to your research on this, that the filmed version may indeed resemble MORE CLOSELY the Cynthia Parker story is no reason to state that it thus bears no resemblance to the book. No one who has experienced both the book and the film is going to take you seriously if you purport that. And I don't believe I edited anything of yours to suggest that the Parker story is not more relevant to the film. I only changed your POV that the book is IRRELEVANT to the film, and suggested that there is a middle ground. Which there is! Clearly these are matters of opinion, which, in Wikipedia terms, means that we can state that there ARE differing opinions (citing them is good), but we cannot insist that one opinion is the ONLY one, which is what you are doing in denying a relationship between the book and the film. You may believe that. I may believe differently. But neither of us can say that the other opinion doesn't exist or is wrong. You bolster your argument by citation, not deleting. I believe I have adhered to Wikipedia rules and tried to bring an objective awareness of this film which I have spent my life studying to this page. You can argue with my placement of certain things. But to insist that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (which if not in so many words is very much the tone of your edit summaries and talk page contributions on this subject) is quite the antithesis of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Monkeyzpop 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: referring to someone else's cited and well-formed submission, whether you agree with it or not, as "this mess" is counterproductive. And I am unaware of a rule stating that openings "should be 3 paragraphs." Please point me to that Wikipedia instruction. And yes, I deleted your quotation regarding the book/movie connection from the opening, as it was repeated several times throughout the article and is not STYLISTICALLY proper for the opening, which should -- from a good writing standpoint -- be a précis of clear definition, not detail. The Wikipedia entry on Film doesn't (and shouldn't) read "Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form, and the motion picture industry. Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects. The rise of European cinema was interrupted by the breakout of World War I while the film industry in United States flourished with the rise of Hollywood. However in the 1920s, European filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein and F. W. Murnau, along with American innovator D. W. Griffith and the contributions of Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton and others, continued to advance the medium." No, it opens with the first two sentences and saves the detail for later. (Sorry for the long example.) And finally, my "swift" reverting? This is the first time I've ever edited this page, to my memory. I just happened on your changes and edited the page. And I only did it once. You'll notice that even now, though I'm in vehement disagreement with you on several points, I've not re-reverted. Let it stand and let's get some more discussion. I'm glad you don't want an edit war. I don't either. But you seem to be quite willing to presume that's where I'm coming from. I'm not. I just know this film, have huge resources for citing references to it, and want to help, without promoting a POV that I cannot support from other sources. I hope that's acceptable to you. Monkeyzpop 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeyzpop I am sorry you chose to take this tact. However, I should not have written I felt your edits were poor, that was uncalled for, so I will take a lighter tact in responding, and hope we can avoid this sort of unpleasantness. First, let me say in plain english that I never said I was right and anyone who disagrees with me wrong - if you read my messages to other editors I have worked with, you would find the opposite to be true, that I seek consensus, and seek third or fourth party opinions when my work differs from someone elses in order that I may find whether mine is lacking. You left a somewhat different message on my talk page, which I responded to differently, and would hope that message would govern our responses. Frankly, I always sigh when someone begins to trumphet their academic achievements. I was educated in the good old law, to answer your question, not as a movie reviewer. But I have a degree in history also, (and another in legal studies), I suppose that qualifies me about as much as you to write an article on this film. To get to the issues and avoid more personal nastiness. First, I never suggested that there is NO relationship between the LeMay book and the Ford movie, I said that there was no nexus to point to except Brit Johnson did rescue his family by ransoming them. I think that needs to be pointed out, and I was careful to cite the close relationship between cold hard facts of the Parker saga and the Ford movie - Schneider said it better than I ever could! I wrote, and mean it, that I seek to work with you and craft an article we both can agree on, rather than engage in an edit war. I note that your edit summary in answering Erik's reversion was at least as tactless as mine. But I don't feel that we have to engage in this sort of unpleasantness, or "how many college degrees do you have, because I have three and that means WHAT?" (I have to admit amusement that you are a published author - I have articles published in the "real world" also, and I taught history in Texas, before the law seized on me! Your insinuations I lack your education please, the personal attacks on my academic credentials - it brings to mind the old saw, if you have the law, cite it, if you have the facts, recite them, if you have neither, call names. I will post this also on the peer review page. I say in closing that I respectfully ask you to not attack me personally - the worst thing I can be acused of in this disagreement is saying I thought your edits were poor. You, on the other hand, stated I am uneducated, (without a clue what my education is), rather suggested I said things I plainly did not, and made this quite personal. I think your attack on me speaks for itself. But I believe we can do differently, if you cease the personal attacks. By the way, the 3RR rule applies to such situations as ours, where one editor reverts the other without discussion and reverts 3 times in 24 hours. You can edit 1000 times in 24 hours if the edits are not reversions. Stillstudying 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Finishedwithschool

I have looked at the article, and the suggested changes by Stillstudying, and Monkeyzpoop. I think his suggestion that John Wayne's character being in love with his sister in law is possible, and a lot of reviewers agree with him, so it is reasonable to put it in the article, but not in the critical interpretation section, certainly. I also think it is no "theme" in the cinematic and/or novel sense of the word, and it is better off in the plot section. The entry paragraphs should be extended, and I like the comment by the reviewer talking about the movie and Cynthia Parker. Finishedwithschool 17:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Finishedwithschool. Monkeyzpop was kind enough to point out numerous spelling and gramatical errors which I have corrected. I hope he feels the placement of the love Ethan has for Martha in the plot is a better fit. Does anyone else have anything, other than I need to find a public picture of Ethan standing in the door - that pictures really sums up Ethan, alone by fate and choice after completely the mission that drove his life. Don't you wonder if he had anything left to live for, after fixating his entire existance on the search for so many years, as James Parker poured his entire life into his search for his niece? Stillstudying 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Requests for review of changes by Stillstudying

Erik (talk • contrib),Monkeyzpop, Finishedwithschool, Alien, I would really appreciate a review of the updated article. I have redone the article in toto, adding a production section, and making the other changes as we have discussed as a group on this page. I have added a number of relevant photos with explanations, and am looking for a fair use photo of Ethan standing in the door at the movie's end, so we can add that, complete with discussion of it's relevance, (him as the eternal outsider, his mission complete he has no place in the civilized home, etc.) Are there other major changes that anyone sees we need to do? Erik? Alien? Monkey is out of town, and will weigh in when he returns. Anyone else? How does everyone like the article now? Stillstudying 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation of changes oldwindybear

Nice job of rewriting. You managed to address the lack of a production section, and did what I believe is a very nice job of creating a good critical interpretation section. I liked the pictures you put in, liked the comments, and felt all in all you raised the article from a B to a GA, but that is my personal opinion! old windy bear 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Enron Scandal

Hello -- obviously much work to be done but I really believe this article can and will eventually reach FA status. Particularly I'd like to get pointers regarding maybe the scope and length -- from when to when should we cover events? IN what depth? Should I add various charts and all manner of photos? Other "side" topics to cover? And anything else you might think of. Much appreciated. Pablosecca 05:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts:

  • Lead: Presumes too much knowledge of financial terms - "white knight" and "blue chip", notably: This is an event important and well-known outside of the financial sphere, and so should be written for a lay audience.
I thought that it's par for the course to include jargon if you link it to pages explaining it; ? --Pablosecca 11:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Background: While you don't need to go into as much detail here as you will later, you need more detail than this. Give a rough idea of how Enron came into being, how it rose to become such a major power, etc. Keep it short, but give context. Try to avoid statements that presume the person already knows about the scandal like "few seemed to concern themselves with the opacity of the company's financial disclosures." - instead, mention the few who did concern themselves, and then explain why no-one listened.
Definite goal, to try and sketch out how the company worked, at least, how it was supposed to work.--Pablosecca 11:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Timeline: There's some awkward writing in this, like "On August 15, 2001, Jeffrey Skilling, the chief executive of Enron, a former energy consultant at McKinsey & Company who joined Enron in 1990, announced he was resigning his position after only six months." I'd be inclined to start it with him becoming CEO, then skip forward six months: That would allow information to be expressed more clearly.
    • "The columnist Paul Krugman, writing in the NY Times, asserted that Enron was an illustration of the consequences that occur from the deregulation and commodification of things such as energy" - The are consequences are being referred to are not clear at that point, and are only retrospectively explained by Ken Lay's letter. Better to summarise.
  • Investors begin to worry: pretty good section, a few insignificant format errors. However, "...possibily selling its 65% stake in the Dabhol project in India" is oddly uncertain: why?
They were uncertain about whether they'd do that at the time; it was a huge project -- anyway this could be added, I agree.--Pablosecca 11:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

After that point, the article looks fairly strong. But it has severe problems in the early sections, which, unfortunately, are what the reader sees first. It may be a little heavy on quotes: Quotes are best used when A. someone's statement would lose impact or believability if not given in those words: for instance, Intelligent design quotes Judge Jones' statement that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" - this is a surprisingly strong statement, and all attempts to paraphrase it either got watered down, or would be objected to. B. To present one side's POV in an unambiguous way - your quote from Ken Lay in the "Timeline" section does a good job of this. It also does a good job with C. giving a vivid sense of time, events, or location (and so on). It summarises the mood of the time well.

However, other quotes don't do that. ""In my continued discussions with the financial community, it became clear to me that restoring investor confidence would require us to replace Andy as C.F.O.," is a bland statement that doesn't really add anything that couldn't be paraphrased in simpler, more snappy terms.

Here the thinking was that since it was such a clear about-face, it was necessary to hear what Lay had to say. I at first just summarized, but upon rereading it seemed not in-depth enough. Then when I found Lay's quote, it is, as you mention, blandly corporate, but I think that tells us a lot; also the little he does tell us is of note, for instance how the 'investor confidence' problem was on his mind.--Pablosecca 11:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, a good start. Concentrate on the lead, background, and opening section of the Timeline to start: That should keep people reading until they hit the good sections. Adam Cuerden talk 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; I'll attempt to incorporate them in the coming month. Pablosecca 11:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sturm Brightblade

I'm hoping to bring this article to Good Article status soon, and want to know what needs to be done to do so. Compare to current good articles Goldmoon and Riverwind. Thanks. DoomsDay349 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall it looks good. A couple of comments:
  • The use of "we" in the "Appearances" section gives the article an informal feel that is not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. (See WP:TONE#Tone.)
  • The characteristics section employs some jargon that may not be transparent to readers who are unfamiliar with the game: "one handed sword", "two handed sword +3" and a "bonus to charisma checks". (See WP:Jargon.) Could these be explained in a form that does not require game rule knowledge? For example: two-handed sword—a magical weapon that, within the Dungeons and Dragons game system, provides a +3 bonus to attacks and inflicted damage.
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Crater Glacier

I saw this was tagged so I am opening the thread. I'll make comments later, but it appears this article needs some more refs and the images need to be less crowded.--MONGO 06:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by Spebi

  • The ref in the opening sentence should be added to the end of the sentence.
  • The opening paragraph (before the TOC) should be split into smaller paragraphs, for easier reading.
  • The refs at the end of the opening paragraph (and throughout the article) should not have spaces between eachother, and should be added immediatley after the full stop. (Example: Sentence.<ref> and not Sentence. <ref> or Sentence<ref>.)
  • Try finding some relevant categories, and add the article to these categories. Don't add too many irrelevant categories, though.
  • Not sure though, but I think the coordinates are ment to be placed in the top right hand corner of the page (along the title line), but if the infobox has a place for them, then they should be placed in there.

Good luck with the article! :) Sebi [talk] 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

One Rincon Hill

Link to old discussion here.

I've re-listed this article for peer review because I have cleaned up the article greatly after the last peer review. Unverifiable material has been removed, certain sections have been cleaned up and organized and an infobox has been added. However, I would still like to know how this article could be improved and I am also wondering if this article meets GA-standard.


Thanks,

Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Spebi
  • A lot of the articles in red links I see will probably not be notable enough to receive their own article, so sift through the current red links and determine whether the link is worth keeping or not.
  • Is it possible to expand the lead section a bit more? The lead section must summarise the whole article sufficiently, so one could read the whole lead section of an article and have a good understanding of what the subject is about.
  • "[...] entrance will be located on the sixth floor, and the "first" floor will be [...]"; "first" is in quotation marks, "sixth" isn't. Decide whether it's neccessary – marks or no marks, it must be consistent throughout the whole article.
  • When discussing gallons and litres, or metres and feet, remember to link the unit of measurement. The same principle applies when discussing currencies; use USD$100,000 (and future instances use USD$100,000 without the link) instead of just $100,000.

Other than that, it has proved quite a bit since I last had a look through. Good job at finding sources, and generally improving the article. Another thing I might suggest is find another editor at a relevant WikiProject or another editor in the San Fransisco area to collaborate with; taking on a project by yourself can be fun, but working with others can vastly improve the article and it makes it easier to spot errors and make changes if someone helps out. Sebi [talk] 05:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done - removed redlinks, quotation marks, formated units. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 Done - also did a minor rewrite of the intro; how does it look? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cardinal-nephew

I would appreciate comments of any kind on this article. However, the main issue is the question of the list of cardinal-nephews. I believe that it should not be split into a separate article because the history and evolution of the institution is deeply tied to the list itself and visa-versa. For example, to be able to see visually the continuity of the institution between successive pontiffs and the relevance of the number of cardinal-nephews relative to the immediate predecessors and successors of a given pope. I would like to get some feedback on the presentation of this part of the article in particular, regarding whether it should be moved into a separate article, and (if not, as I would prefer), how it can be improved. Savidan 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Personally I think that the list should be moved to a new article. After all the Cardinal nephew article should be about what a cardinal nephew is and perhaps a brief history of the most significant examples etc. Giving the long length of the list, I do think a list of Cardinal nephews would be more appropriate, especially to get both articles to FA criteria. However if you think it should be kept in the article then my approach would be to incorporate some, or as much as possible into some form of prose. IMO I do not think moving the list of cardinals would affect the continuity - as readers could simply click on the article link to the list to see the long continuation of cardinals. Wikipedia:Embedded list. LordHarris 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Having slept on it, I've thought about compressing the list so that readers could click on each century to enlarge it. I'll implement that and see if it addresses your concerns. Savidan 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have split the list. Savidan 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Russia

I’ve worked considerably on this article over the past month trying to bring it up to featured article status. I’ve added a lot of sections including ‘Armed Forces’, ‘Health’, ‘Language’, ‘Education’, ‘Fauna’, ‘Literature’, ‘Ballet’ and added supplementary information to most of the other sections. I’ve restructured the layout and resized the images to make it look more professional and added a lot of images which I thought were relevant and describe Russia well. I think what's left to do is add references to some sections. Also note that while the History section cites almost no references, I believe it is based on information from the History of Russia article which is a featured article. Please leave comments/suggestions on the current state of the article. I am planning on nominating this article for a featured article after I get some feedback from you guys. Thanks, --Ilya1166 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to comment on the article by section:
  • General. The article is extremely long. Some sections need to be split off, moved, or removed. In particular, the sections on Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev are not necessary and would work better in a separate article. The Post-Soviet section could be summed up more succinctly. "Recent economy" needs to be shortened as well, and "Challenge" seems unnecessary as a separate section. The image in the sports section is broken- it shouldn't be too hard to find a free image. Some of the references are malformed or inconsistent, which should be relatively easy to fix.
  • Lead section. The lead is alright, but in the third paragraph, there are too many bracketed sections. "After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the newly-independent Russian Federation emerged as a great power (although it is also considered to be an energy superpower)" could be rephrased as "After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the newly-independent Russian Federation emerged as a great power and energy superpower". Usually "see also" material can be incorporated into a pipe linked phrase in a rephrased passage, so "It is also one of the five recognized nuclear weapons states and possesses the world's largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (see Russia and weapons of mass destruction)" could be rewritten as "It is also one of the five recognized nuclear weapons states and its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction is the world's largest." You can rephrase it however you like, but the key is to avoid having bracketed statements at the end of sentences where possible
  • History. This section is far too detailed, and if it were to be nominated for Featured Status, it would probably fail because of this. It might sound difficult, but I would try to shorten it to one to two paragraphs for each major time period. Each of the leaders during the Soviet era shouldn't get their own section. For a good comparison to a featured article, see India. Basically, try to keep a brief, concise summary for each major time period- name the major rulers, major wars, boundary changes, etc. Also, try to avoid recentism in this section too- the Soviet and post-Soviet era make up over half of all Russian history. Also remember that history made in the Soviet era is often misleaded and even false, due to propegandaism. One example: the article claims that 3,6 million russian soldiers died in german captivity during WWII, this will be heavy disputed in the West. It is closer to the truth that most of them died on the battlefield, slaughtered because of Stalin and his generals war tactics.
  • Politics. Good summary. Concise, neutral, attributed, and gets the major points across. You may want to add historical context (ie former styles of government)
  • Subdivisions. You may want to detail this section a bit more. What are the responsibilities assigned to subdivisions? What does the federal government control? Are the elections the same style?
  • Geography and climate. The climate section needs better writing. Some parts of it don't make sense: "The coldest month is January (on the shores of the sea-February), a warm, usually in July." The section of Fauna is completely empty- it should be either filled in or eliminated. "Largest cities" should not be in this section- it should be in "Demographics"
  • Economy. This section needs to be shorted significantly or moved to Economy of Russia. "Recent economy" should be shortened to just what is happening right now, and its should be brief to avoid recentism. "Challenge" is a bit of a strange section (and a possible POV fork), and it might be better off having its content merged into other parts of the article. "Prospect" is also an unnecessary section and should be shortened, with some of its material moved to the main Economy article. This section could potentially use a table to break down major economic factors: poverty rate, GDP, etc, although FA-quality country articles don't need to have this.
  • Armed forces. Contains some redundancies. Namely, "Russia is spending more and more on its Armed Forces" is completely redundant with the sentence that follows. It should also have a section related to foreign policy. It could use a summary table to list forces and expenditure, but most FA-quality don't seem to have this.
  • Demographics. "Language" and "Religion" should be in the section on "Culture". This section also needs to be more brief- just give a general summary of what currently exists.
  • Culture. "Architecture" and "Cinema" need some footnotes. Try to avoid using subjective terms like "popular"- you can take the word out and still convey the meaning of the sentence. "Sport" needs to be pared down a bit too.
  • See also. The link columns are unbalanced and don't seem to have any coherence to how they are selected. It may be possible to create a template like {{Canada topics}}, which can be used instead.
  • Overall observations. This is a long, informative article. Right now, it's like a roughly carved piece of marble- almost a beautiful sculpture, but it needs to be chiseled some more. There is certainly work for the League of Copyeditors to do. Some sections need to be removed or merged, and others need to be moved or expanded. Specifically, politics, government, foreign relations, and the armed forces should be together or at least close to each other in the article, as they are in most countries. This article is good, but not FA-worthy yet. Hope I've helped.-Wafulz 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 SCSSRU Premier Division Grand Final

I want this article to be at either GA or A standard. I'm not sure on how to approach improving this article. I have a video of the game available if need be. RockerballAustralia 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pullman Square

  • General editing help would be appreciated, especially in the Construction and opening sub, where it was recently converted from bullet to paragraph format. I will be doing minor edits to see if it can be managed easier, but sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can be better. I believe I have covered the history of the project extensively, and cannot see it being expanded further unless there are new articles (which appear almost weekly it seems). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Cohesion (chemistry)

It's embarrassing how limited this article is, considering its top importance rating in WikiProject Physics. High school classes encounter this topic more frequently than ever, and frankly I think we can do a better job with this. WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology vowed to improve the article but the project hasn't lived up to its promise. As the talk page says, the article, or rather paragraph, is copied and pasted from somewhere else. I was looking for information on chromatography and since cohesion is a very big part of the topic, I would have definitely though that the article would have more information on the relationship between cohesion and chromatography. Because of the article's length and the lack of response from the Wikipedian community, I would like to see this article's content be enriched by a professional in the field of physics. Regards, --Gabycs 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have transcluded this also into WP:PR to get more input. I will also ask the chemists to look at it. It is certainly pretty bad right now. I am not sure whether it shoudl be made a redirect somewhere elese or rewritten. --Bduke 00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Grand Forks, North Dakota

previous PR

When I first nominated this article for FA status, it was a complete mess. It should have been delisted from GA status. There were only about 15 references, and now there are over 100. I added and reorganized sections for the important aspects of the city, and tried to make this article to be an overview of the city rather than just isolated useless information. It would be nice to see this become a Featured Article soon. I also worked on elaborated and organized most of the lists, since the second half of the article was primarily lists. I would appreciate feedback on how this can be improved more (it's far from being perfect), so it can hopefully reach FA status.--milk the cows (Talk) 16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Milk. Do you mind checking the talk page for WikiProjects and the history for main contributors and notifying them about the FAR with {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}}? Make a note here once you've done so. Marskell 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is for reviewing current featured articles. I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Peer review or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --- RockMFR 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I notified MatthewUND and Weatherman90 so they know about it.--milk the cows (Talk) 17:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The article has improved quite a bit since being nominated for FA status, but I'm not sure I would call the previous version "a complete mess." Actually, milkthecows called it "very well written" when nominating it for FA status...I don't think he would have nominated it if it was a "complete mess." I don't want to be picky here...I just don't like seeing the prior version of the article denigrated so much. Almost all of the framework and text was there...the only things that really needed to be changed were adding refs (which milkthecows did a wonderful job of doing) and turning a couple of lists into prose (most lists had actually been turned into prose or spun off into their own articles prior to the FA nomination). Except for its former lack of refs, this article has actually been in reasonably good shape for a year or more (June 06). I do agree that it has gotten even better in recent days though. I think FA status is deserved and attainable. After all of the work we have put into this article in the last couple of years, I would be very happy to see it given FA designation. BTW, I too am a little confused why this article is on here...should we instead be getting a peer review or re-applying for FA status? --MatthewUND(talk) 22:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From instructions at WP:FAR: This page facilitates the review of featured articles and the subsequent removal of the featured status of those that still fail to meet the featured article criteria after the review process. Removing this from FAR since the article is not a featured article; suggest a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comments:
    • The "Geography" could use some buffing up. The first 3 paragraphs, while disjointed, seem to be discussing the city's geographic setting in the larger region. You can merge and expand them, furthering the discussion of how the city relates to its environment. You can also add info on the city's layout, vegetation, wildlife, infrastructure, etc. A map of the city would be the biggest improvement.
    • The "Demographics" section sometimes devolves into simply listing census data. Compare the data with ND or the US.
      • "a median age was 28 years"? "22.9% from 18 to 24"? I bet that is the youngest population in ND.
    • "In the city the population was spread out with..." could use a re-wording.
    • In "Economy" and "Culture' don't use footnotes as an excuse for an external link to a company.
    • Great "Sister cities" section.
    • In "Government" name a few examples of what services the local government provides its citizens.
    • If it is not already repeated, integrate the "Sites of interest" grab-bag of topics into the remainder of the article, like "Shopping" into "Economy", "Museums and theaters" into "Culture", "Arenas" into "Sports".
    • Who are those people listed in "Notable residents and natives"? Why do they matter to Grand Forks? I think these "Notable residents" sections are trivia, but they seem to be popular. If one is going to be done relate them to the city, with references, like in Sale, Greater Manchester#Notable residents.
    • Other topics you can include in the article: fire/police protection, drinking water source, sewage processing/destination, other utilities, etc. --maclean 03:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series

I'm not entirely sure if this article, on its own, reflects a neutral point of view. Right now it seems slightly biased against Rowling, and I was wondering how I might make it more neutral. Serendipodous 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Image:Rahmuggles.jpg has a fair-use rationale which doesn't justify the image's use in this article, so that needs to be fixed. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham

I am looking for comments on how to improve the article up to Featured article status. I mainly want advice on the grammar and wording used, but if there are any other points about the article that you feel need to flagged up then please do so. - Erebus555 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

what i would like to see is a list of changes that would be needed to be made. when revieweing would it be possible to add it to the changes required list below? we can then address each one in turn and 'sign it off'16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Better leave that for the article talk page. This is just where other editors/ users can comment on the article and give some advice. - Erebus555 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The last two paragraphs of "History" state that much has changed since WWII, please expand.
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • "Nearby places" doesn't seem relevant. That info would be better communicated using a locational map. The article would benefit from a map of the city.
  • Tell us what services the City of Birmingham provides its citizens and don't bold Birmingham City Council (nor National City of Sport).
  • Any crime stats available?
  • Provide a complete demographic profile of the city (eg. age, household size, etc.) and compare it to West Midlands or England.
  • "Places of interest" is a vague title, why not "Culture and recreation" or place the recreation parts with the "Sports" section to create a "Sports and recreation" section.
  • "Famous residents" and "Literature" are just name-dropping. What is the relationship with these people and the city. Sale, Greater Manchester#Notable residents does a good job on this topic.
  • "Newspapers", "Film", "Television" and "Radio" can be combined into a "Media" section. --maclean 08:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Over-referencing in second city sentence in Lead, no references in other sections like "administration".
  2. The Suburb list looks bad. Consider making a template and put it below external links.
  3. Don't user fake headings. Incorporate or just remove.
  4. Transportation is too little for a city of this size. Looks like it was over-summarized.
  5. Many stubby little paragraphs. Expand or merge.
  6. Red links are a no. Create a stub or remove.
  7. Again, I see bolded words being used as headings. Remove or use these =
  8. Science has a list in it.
  9. No see also?
  • This article is good, but needs some work to make an FA.--trey 19:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pinky and the Brain

Looking at getting a peer review on this, specifically (but not inclusive to these issues) looking at:

  • Article length - it's long, but breaking off subsections to separate pages may hurt the context
  • References - I've made sure a lot of this article is sufficiently sourced, want to make sure that what needs referencing is
  • General article quality - Particularly in "Pinky" and "Brain" sections are historically a bit more formal in language than other parts, but adequetely do the job of describing the characters.

--Masem 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added fair-use to the cover in the info box, fixed the fair-use on the acme labs bit, and cut out several pictures and the DVD covers. --Masem 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Notting Hill (film)

I got this to GA in less than a week and would like some comments before it can get any higher quality. I don't know, maybe I can get this to FA in the future but not for a while. So any comments at all would be good. Gran2 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 SCSSRU Premier Division Grand Final

I want this article to be at either GA or A standard. I'm not sure on how to approach improving this article. I have a video of the game available if need be. RockerballAustralia 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

USB Decoration

Hey everyone, I would like some comments on what I can do to improve the article, hopefully to GA status. Any comments are appreciated! Thanks, Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

I have added references and am eager to hear suggestions as to what might help the article's chances of becoming a featured article. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cantabria

Cantabria is a Spanish and Esperanto language featured article translated to English by the collaborative proyect "Spanish Translation of the Week". This article has been recommended a Peer review, in a FAC discussion, to help prepare for FAC, including work on WP:LEAD, cleaning up listiness, referencing, formatting sources, and other MOS issues (such as the rambling TOC, 500px images and what looks like an oversized infobox). I ask for help mainly in tidying the article and technical hitchs in italics. Thanks. Uhanu 09:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SGGH

  • The LEAD does need copy editing to improve the flow of the text, to avoid the short bullet point sentences and slightly clunky grammar. For example: "Its capital is the city of Santander." could be incorporated with another sentence and replaced with "... the capital city is Santander". "however Upper Paleolithic is the best represented period, being Cantabria the richest region in the world in archaeological sites from this period." also needs tweaking.
  • Etymology section needs some citations.
  • You could remove "Surface area: 5,321 km²" from the geography section, that information is provided in the infobox and having it sitting by itself at the start of the geography section doesn't really look comfortable.
  • Great images
  • With the Geography section, possible incorporate the images into the paragraphs to avoid these big gaps?
  • Demographics, this section is good
  • History section, that quote doesnt really need cquote tags but could be placed directly in gthe text
  • A lot of redlinks, have you searched each one through wikipedia to check they don't exist under different names?
  • The Government and administration section: The... The... The... The... doesn't flow as best as it could.
  • Institutional symbols, could be incorporated into the text to avoid having so many lists.
  • Try to avoid continually wikilinking to the same terms, you only need to wikilink things like "autonomous community" once on their first occurance.
  • There are a huge amount of lists here, it would be good if they could be trimmed down into prose where possible.
  • Economy and Transportation and communications sections need cites.
  • Natural resources section: the title suggests it is going to talk about coal or oil, not what appears to be national parks. Possibly incorporate into the geography section?
  • Culture section, again these lists should preferably be turned into prose, Cuisine section also
  • Sports section needs cites
  • The existing citations are all set up well, however the article needs many more of them. By my reckoning we should be looking for (at least) 40 or more citations for this article.
  • Perhaps, when the lists are changed to proce, you could swap the images alternatively from side to side for asthetic reasons (if you are so inclined, not a big deal really).
  • Entire article does need coypediting for style and grammar.

Hope these points are helpful. SGGH speak! 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope these points help!

Music of Israel

  • The layout is very drab. Are there any images that could be used to break it up a bit? Cordless Larry 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Cordless, you are absolutely right! It was in the back of my mind, but I was so hyped about the writing I forgot. Give me a day or two. --Ravpapa 04:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Done --Ravpapa 08:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it would benefit by having fewer subsections, some of which are rather short. Consider moving some of the detail to daughter articles and combining subsections.
  • The section titles seem rather long and should be simplified.
  • It should probably also have subsections on music education and the music industry.
  • I think for an article on such a large topic, it would be better to have broad subsections with detailed subarticles -- see for example music of the United States (which, in the interest of fair disclosure, I mostly wrote, though I see it has since been messed up with an overwhelming focus on grunge and alternative rock -- ignore those sections for this purpose). Much of music of Israel would be better off, IMO, as the basis for a music history of Israel subarticle, with this article taking a broader focus. I guess fundamentally, I see "music of Israel" as being a basic introduction to how music plays a role in Israeli life today, and should thus cover in roughly equal amounts topics like "education", "economics (music industry)", "history", "social identity", "legal and political stuff", "holidays and festivals", etc. The article as it stands goes into those areas, but primarily seems to approach them from a historical standpoint.
  • This approach would give a broader scope to this article, while allowing subarticles (e.g. music history of Israel, music education in Israel, Israeli pop music, music and cultural identity in Israel, as examples) to be more specific and focused.
  • I'll also note that, on a casual read-through, this seems to be mostly about "Israeli music" and only covers topics like Russian immigrant folk music inasmuch as it has affected music that is considered "Israeli" - surely in a country with as many recent immigrants from as many areas as Israel, topics like Russian folk music are still relevant to a portion of Israelis today, and should be covered here appropriately. I do agree that "music of Israel" should focus on the aspects of music that are specifically Israeli in character, but a subsection on "folk music in immigrant communities" would be reasonable, as an example. (note: I know little about Israeli music and haven't even read this article thoroughly, so I may be off base with that, but it's worth considering.)
  • Anyway, sorry for the rambling - I think there's a lot of good content here, and with a little bit of work, this could be a great article with great subarticles too. Tuf-Kat 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding sooner to your excellent and detailed critique. There are things I agree with and other things that I don't, but I haven't had the time to deal with your comments in detail and with the attention they deserve. I promise to get back within a week or so. --Ravpapa 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I still haven't had a chance to work on your comments. In general, I must say that, while they are certainly well thought out, in the end I disagree with most of them. Particularly the idea to break the article up into smaller subarticles. I certainly agree with that approach in the case of Music of the United States - the topic is much, much larger, there is much more diversity, and there is virtually endless room for expansion. I think that is not so much the case in Israel. First of all, to separate out the history of Israeli music from the current role of music in Israeli society would be a mistake. This is because the history of Israeli music is relatively short (120 years, compared to 400 years for US music), and because the current role of music in Israel is largely a dictation of history. Unlike American music, Israeli music was a defining element in the Israeli ethos, an element which was consciously molded to create a new Israeli persona.
On the other hand, I believe you are right that much more could be said about contemporary popular music. Unfortunately, I am not a popular music aficionado - I would love it if some really knowledgeable Israeli would expand the sections on Israeli rock, pop and folk. Hey, guys, where are you?
I also agree completely that missing is a section on the musics of the various ethnic communities. You mention Russian immigrants, but that is the least of it. The main subject here is the music of the Israeli Palestinian community. They have their own bands, stars, radio stations. I simply don't know enough about this to write about it yet, but I hope to research the subject and add a section. also, as you mention, Russian immigrants. Also Ethiopian music, and the musics of foreign workers (Philipine, African, Thai, Romanian), all of which is available in stores around the Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv.
--Ravpapa 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we really disagree a lot - I agree that the US and Israel are very different, and Israel's shorter history is very relevant. I don't exactly think history and current music should be separated so much as I think the article should be about current music, and history will be necessary to provide the background for it. So, rather than saying "in the sixties, popular music was about this, then in the seventies, that happened", you'd have a section saying "popular music today includes this stuff, which draws on the sixties development of that and the seventies evolution into this". Much of the content in the current article is fine, I just think it would be better if the overall structure wasn't so history-focused.
This issue might seem a lot less important to me if some other topics, which are more inherently modern-day focused, were covered. Education (e.g. university and other avenues), scholarship (e.g. musicological studies and recording expeditions in Israel), legal issues (e.g. copyright), industry and economics, and holidays and festivals, for example. The "music in society" section is a good start, but it should be expanded and needs a more clear focus. Adding these topics, and covering "ethnic musics", would be a big improvement - do that and my first concern might be a lot mitigated anyway. Tuf-Kat 19:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sheldon Dick

This is a new article on a very obscure, very strange historical figure. I would be interested in any comments, but I'm particularly eager to get feedback on a few specific issues:

  1. The lead is very tricky. It's hard to say what Dick is notable for because, basically, he isn't. The murder-suicide (if that's what it was) is often mentioned (on the rare occasions you see his name in histories of photography, he is often referred to as "infamous" or "notorious"), so I thought it should be in there, but the actual details are so murky that I don't think I can characterize it more specifically then I have. This is a very tricky issue (and recall, please, that this is not all that long ago and his children are probably still alive), so I'd really appreciate help with that.
  2. The formatting of the article is a little unusual: I wanted to include the images in the body, since (as I say in the article) they're the only evidence available of where he was between 1937 and 1938. Could I format it any better? Wiki-wizardry would be helpful; I think my intentions for that section are reasonably clear, but there may be a better way to present it.
  3. Obviously the "Death" section was tough to write and any suggestions would be great.

Thanks very much. I'll be around off and on for the next few days. Chick Bowen 02:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting article and you've certainly tried hard.
Thanks! It was an interesting challenge.
Since you've gone to the length of locating stories in the NYT, I presumed that you'd have already found any odd mention of Dick in any of the books in "my" library -- and anyway the two most promising of these aren't on the shelves right now.
There's very little out there. I'm still looking for stuff.
Boring stuff first. You've used footnotes, which surely should be titled "Notes", not "References". Because they're in order of occurrence in the article, not alphabetical order, I can't think of any reason why the authors' names should be inverted. I'd switch them back, so that what's now note 7 will start "Herbert K. Russell, Edgar...".
Yeah, you're right. I don't know why I did it this way; I usually don't.
Dick supported himself through a series of literary and artistic endeavors -- but the rest of the article suggests, or says, almost the reverse: that his inherited wealth supported his literary and artistic endeavors.
Indeed--by "through" I just meant "during." As you say, it sounds like the opposite of what I mean.
Dick was active as a publisher: Aside from the one book, how?
A good question. As I say, he set up a partnership with Louis Rubsamen. But whether that actually led to any books I haven't been able to determine.
If the "mistakes" in Serpent are worth mentioning, they're worth at least a minimal description. (Typos, perhaps?) Ditto for the "poor judgement": Poor judgement in not having it proofed adequately, in overpricing it, or what?
Yep, will fill this in.
I don't understand the quote by Stryker that you've used as a quasi-epitaph: the very last sentence of the article. As I look at it in its original context, I very tentatively start to infer that Stryker means "It was one of the worst cases I've known of a wealthy son who was valued merely for being an easy mark." But I wonder about the value of what Stryker's saying in this area. Consider one of your quotes as followed by something you omit: He shot himself, or he shot his wife, and one of the kids and himself. But it's one of the things I'm sorry didn't happen because I looked forward to it, I mean it would be a wonderful thing that you could help a guy -- I haven't a clue what the second part (from "But") means; have you? -- Hoary 13:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not ecstatic about ending with it. The whole Stryker interview is a bit incoherent, though awfully interesting. I think what Stryker means by the "wealthy son" bit is that Dick was never able to make something of himself on his own--at least, that's how I took it. I believe the "wonderful thing" that he's "sorry didn't happen" is, in general, Dick's continued work for the FSA, and specifically the silicosis film. One of the things I found rather poignant in writing this is that Stryker evidently didn't know the film had actually been made.
Thanks very much for your comments; these are very helpful, and I'll get to work. Chick Bowen 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I need more resources, clearly; I'm going to the library on Monday and will dig deeper and see what I can find. Chick Bowen 15:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Power of Nightmares

Controversial BBC documentary. As of the 17th, this is awaiting a review at WP:GAC, and I am interested in how much it would take to get this to featured article status someday. Not a lot is known about production, and judging by the documentary (a montage of BBC archive footage) it doesn't look like there's much to know about it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Belovedfreak

Looks pretty good. A couple of small things I noticed:

  • Shouldn't "Synopsys" be "Synopsis"?
  • In the "Part 1 - Baby It's Cold Outside" section, it says "at a church-organised dance for young people", but you have used ize versions of words through the rest of the article.

That's all I can see at the moment. --Belovedfreak 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Erik
  • Should I assume that you're not a fan of the Cite news template? I found the date and accessdate attributes' bare-bones display odd and wasn't sure if you had a reason for not using the template, which would format the attributes based on the viewer's preferences.
  • Is there a reason for the Islamism template at the end? Usually, I see such templates used when the article's subject (meaning the documentary) is a part of it. This does not seem to be the specific case here. A more appropriate template would be one for Adam Curtis's productions. (Maybe the "See also" section can be removed and links be placed in such a template.) Readers can visit wiki-links in the article and find out more about the subject matter, including the Islamism template.
    • It was there when I first started rewriting. I'll replace it with an applicable categorization, but I don't really know that much about making templates. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to break up the Reactions section? Not by positive/negative, but perhaps by local and international? It's just a rather long body of text.
    • That could probably be done, and I'd probably find more specific reviews for the film in the process. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Possible issue: I don't know where to find "international" reviews outside the US. I'll check Google, but I don't know. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Doesn't necessarily have to be by region, but by the type of criticism... like for the technical aspect of the documentary format, and the accuracy/inaccuracy of information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There seem to be some minor copy-editing issues, but I hate to write out whole sentences to say that it's missing this kind of punctuation. I will see if I can brush anything up personally and save you the trouble.

Hope you can make use of my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Warlock of Firetop Mountain

I've done a lot of work on this article and I'd be interested to hear how I could get it to Good Article status - and in particular whether it stays within the guidelines on fiction, since I struggled with the tone in the plot part. Thanks. EvilRedEye 19:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The book cover images each need a fair-use rationale. Please check out WP:FURG for an explanation of what one of these should look like. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, didn't realise the need for a detailed rationale, thanks. EvilRedEye 10:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Detailed rationale added for both cover images EvilRedEye 10:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Benyoucef Ben Khedda

The first article I've really worked on. I started by translating what was on fr, then sourced using what I could find. Looking for general opinions and what can be done to improve it. Bnynms 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The image (Image:1101620316 400.jpeg) should probably not be included. Firstly, it has no fair-use rationale for use in this article. Secondly, if you read that licensing box carefully, it says that with few exceptions, we don't use magazine covers to illustrate articles about the people on the cover. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Removed. I'll look around for a free image. PD-Algeria might reward us with something. Bnynms 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

King Crimson

I am pleased with the recent GA pass this article received; it's a milestone but there's still considerable distance to go before this is a featured article, which is the stage I want to get it to. The user who passed the article said that with a few improvements, featured article status could be achieved. The following issues were highlighted:

  • Not all of the citations use the citeweb template
  • The 80s, 90s, and 00s sections are too short and not detailed enough
  • The lead section should have another paragraph

For featured article status, I believe we'd require:

  • More images with appropriate fair use rationale
  • Samples of the band's music
  • A general fleshing out of the information in the paragraphs, expanding them and adding more detail from the sources that are used in the article and elsewhere
  • Possibly a new paragaph? I don't know what subject it could be on, but the featured article Genesis (band) for example has sections on album art, and criticism - neither of which I feel I could write a whole paragraph on.
  • A check for gaps in the copyedit

Thanks.

--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Per WP:LEAD boost the lead up so that it "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable".
  • Fair Use images are not encouraged in featured articles. Look for free images like this one at flickr (email the uploader to licence it under GFDL here or for permission to use it) or from other fans of the band.
  • The Waterboys would be a feature article to follow. --maclean 07:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see how having one single picture of Tony Levin would be that useful in a King Crimson article. The Radiohead article, which is almost FA, seems to have freely licensed images of the band members taken during concerts. I myself don't have any pictures of the band members... that's gonna be difficult.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you think a paragraph about the band members in the King Crimson article, like the one in The Waterboys, would be useful to replace the section about band members that currently works as a list? I could probably do that quite easily...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC) - Done.
  • The audio clips all need fair-use rationales. It may also be that seven of them is more than a "minimal use" as required by our non-free content criteria. It's not really clear to me that each of these songs is the subject of critical commentary within the article; this might simply be a matter of rearranging where they are placed among the prose a little bit. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think five audio clips are necessary to demonstrate the diversity in sound that the band had at different stages.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Karnataka

This article has had a collaboration from Karnataka WikiProject members. The article has undergone a several rounds of copyedits, and is equipped with ample references, images, and significant sections that are necessary and required in an Indian state article. Each of the sections is expanded in detail in its own sub-article, for greater details covering that section. Request other members to review this article and share your comments/thoughts on further improvements. Thank you. - KNM Talk 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of fair-use images which need some help here. Image:Karnataka emblem.png is tagged as a non-free logo; I don't know enough about Indian copyright to know whether this is the proper tag, but if it is, the image needs a fair-use rationale and needs to be discussed within the article. Image:Kuvempu.jpg is really problematic, since by my reading it claims a "non-commercial use only" licensing arrangement. This is not compatible with Wikipedia and is in fact a criterion for speedy deletion. You can get around this if you can write a fair-use justification. The copyright holder should generally not be listed in the caption; giving credit on the image description page is enough. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Kuvempu.jpg - Green tickY Done. Fair-use justification in the image page is provided. Copyright holder information as a caption is removed from the article page. - KNM Talk 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Karnataka emblem.png - Green tickY Done. Fair-use rationale has been provided in the image page. The image is discussed within the article. - KNM Talk 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Munich

This is a very broad article. I would like to get a peer review to help improve to get it to GA status. I know it lack sources. What else can this article improve on? Kingjeff 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It has an over-whelming table of contents. Consider removing a some sub-headings, like "Setting", "Religion", "Sports clubs", "Olympic Park, Allianz Arena and Grünwalder Stadion", etc.
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • What does "city's sticky altitude" mean?
  • Provide a footnote for the information in "Demographics"
  • Use WP:SS with History of Munich and this article's "History"
  • In "Politics" tell us about the city's government (eg. mayor, local election, what the local gov does, etc.)
  • The "Houses of worship" and "The palaces, royal avenues and theatres" use a lot of space describing individual buildings, many of which have articles of their own. Avoid describing details of the buildings (let their own article do that) and concentrate on relating the group of buildings (of course you can mention them specifically) to the cityscape, skyline or architecture of the city in general.
  • "Famous people born in Munich" seems like trivia. --maclean 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Katherine van der Kerckhove, Countess of Chesterfield

I've been working on this for a few weeks now and guess I'd appreciate any feedback for it =) Any suggestions on how to get it to go up the BIO scale or possibly to a GA (don't think it'd make a FA in the near future). Thanks, Craigy (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Karanacs

First, this is defintely a B-class article, and, since I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, I changed the ranking for you. To get to GA class or above you have 2 main problems to address. The primary problem is the lack of inline citations. You will need to cite each fact, and it would be better if not all of your sources come from one citation. You will not reach GA status without those. Also, your prose could use a little work. There are a lot of very long, clunky sentences that are hard to read. Here are some other suggestions.

  • You don't need Mary Throckmorton's death date in the article, nor do you need née
  • After the "Born Katherine Wotton," do not refer to her by her first name. See WP:MOSBIO.
  • I would take the information about the money out of parentheses and make it a separate sentence.
  • Make sure that the article consistently uses a formal tone. "and, incidentally" is not formal.
  • The paragraph about her first marriage seems short on details about her marriage and is instead a conglomeration of other facts. You should expand on her marriage if possible, at the very least mentioning the names of all of her children. Do you know where she lived with her husband (since you mention where she lived after his death)? Once you have a good paragraph on her marriage, work on the transitions between the facts that are currently in that paragraph.
  • "with instructions of a marriage" -> with instruction to arrange a marriage? witness a marriage? Please be more specific.
  • You'll need to remove any red links
  • "the convinced Lady Stanhope" does not sound right
  • How old was Mary when Lady Stanhope became the governess?
  • The sentence about her appointment not being accepted is too long an unwieldy. It should probably be split into 2 sentences.
  • check for spelling errors; "consummated" has 2 ms
  • The word "soon" is a little overused in the article
  • "A week after her husband's short reign of just over three years in 1650, " This needs to be rewritten to be more straightforward.
  • The information about her stepdaughter seems out of place where it is located.
  • There is an overuse of parentheses as well. A lot of this information should be integrated more cleanly into the text.
  • Do you know what the serious accusation was?
  • When did Sir edward Nicholas return to the Low Countries? Please include a date, if possible.
  • citations should be placed after punctuation instead of in the middle of sentences.

Good luck! Karanacs 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

Hi, this has recently passed an A-Class Review on the Military History project and i now want to get any additional comments from this project. I have the intention of taking it to FAC once any comments that arise are acted upon. Thanks Woodym555 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)updated:Woodym555 18:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have archived this as it has been through a peer review and an A-Class review on the MILHIST project. I take the no comments in 3 weeks as a postive sign and will take it to FAC now. Thanks for your attention. Woodym555 12:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Chan

Jackie Chan is currently a GA class article. I've made some substantial edits to his biography, and rewrote the entire trivia section into prose. (Image and Celebrity Status) A new section has been created about his stunts, and the injuries list is linked to it. I hope to make the article eventually achieve FA status.--Kylohk 15:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 174 cm, use 174 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 174&nbsp;cm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 174 cm.
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), favourite (B) (American: favorite), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), isation (B) (American: ization).
  • 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, DrKiernan 11:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Secret (2006 film)

Looking to improve the article to achieve GA status towards the ultimate goal of being a featured article. FYI: Taken as a whole, the film is essentially a self-help work, although the content of this film touches on many discplines: film, religion, philosophy, self-help, mysticism, pseudoscience, new age, and new thought. —WikiLen 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Board of Trade Building

Of all of our successful COTWs, this is probably the best article produced by the WP:CHICOTW. I am considering moving it along to the WP:FAC. I need some feedback on its current state of progress. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan under Japanese rule

I think this article is good enough to be a Featured Article, but I want to see if anyone has any suggestions.--Jerry 17:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perth Airport

I am looking for input on this article to see how it currently stands in the context of the criteria for FA status and to look for ideas on possible improvements which could be made for it to attain that level. All comments and contributions appreciated. Thewinchester (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I just found this page trawling the Western Australia WikiProject. The article is excellent; with a couple of changes I feel it would easily become a GA, and with a couple of added bits and a bit of editing, a potential FA. My problems stem from the latter half of the article; the first part is generally of high standard. Here's some suggestions:
    • To be a Featured Article, I would expect a few more images - perhaps of one each terminal, and an historical photo in the history section somewhere? The overview picture and control tower picture are fine for their respective places, but some more pictures would significantly improve the article.
    • The future section contains quite a few {{fact}} tags. These will need fixing before even becoming a GA.
    • The "Federal operation and future expansion" and "2001 onwards" subsections of the history part need expansion, and/or a possible merger if two complete sections aren't possible. I'm sure there's information out there given it covers the most recent episodes in the airport's history. Most of that information doesn't really add anything to the article of importance, so i've consolidated the section heading. Thewinchester (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking at some other articles on airports around the world, a lot of them include information about the flight patterns and holding patterns of the major airports. Is there any information about that?
    • I think the facilities section could be expanded, though I'm not sure what you could add - it also needs at least one reference to verify the claims in that section of the article. Thewinchester (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The statistics section need to be presented in a more informative way, and not just a table with no explanation. Have added some more context to those statistics, and some good maths always helps there. Thewinchester (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Without it becoming a directory or something suitable for Wikitravel, I would include something about the ground transportation services. The lead paragraph mentions the connection to the Tonkin Highway and the bus services from the airport as a bit of detail in how public transport to Perth's airport works. You could perhaps tie in the proposed rail line there as well - although the "Future" section is more appropriate for a detailed discussion of that. Adequately covered in opening paragraph IMHO. Thewinchester (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Nope, got your point by looking at some other articles, now done. Thewinchester (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Do the scheduled passenger services need referencing? Yes, they should and that is now taken care of. Thewinchester (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there any connection with Jandakot Airport or any other airport in the vicinity of Perth? At the very least it should be in the See Also section. Thewinchester (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Surrounding lands and third runway expansion subsections in the "Future" part need expansion and updating (if necessary).

Hope that helps. JRG 13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems good. I would like to see if the Americans have any interest in service to Perth. I am also into airplanes. Talk to me if you have any questions, primarily about commercial service.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Plane nerd (talk • contribs)
  • Thanks for the comments, will look through these and see what we can do. Thewinchester (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl II

General peer review to see if it is ready for, or what needs imroving to make it ready for, either 'good article' status or 'featured article' status. Jhfireboy 12:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Reorganise Character traits to group together related points (although don't create subsections). Example:
  1. Date of birth, brief introduction of character (current second paragraph) and physical attributes
  2. Relationships: Family + the Butlers, Minerva, LEP, Section Eight, Mulch etc.
  3. Intellectual characteristics
  4. Social skills (link from previous paragraph e.g. "Despite his intellect, Artemis shows limited social skills...)
  5. Likes and dislikes
  6. Motto
  • Leave personality/character development and character history as they are.
  • Insert note in his physical attributes about his index and middle finger on his left hand being switched around in Lost Colony
  • Slim down the paragraph on Book Five to bring it in line with the other books, moving comments about stolen magic to personality or character traits, along with the "humorous subplot" in the current last paragraph
  • Move images of book covers for Arctic Incident and Eternity Code to the Books section - makes more sense
  • General proofread for copyediting e.g. in infobox Deep Blue should be Deep blue - grammar

Hope this helps. Editus Reloaded 13:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The non-free book covers should not be used for decoration. If your illustrations have to be copyrighted, they should be images which are critically discussed in the article - not just pictures for the sake of pictures. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Piper Halliwell

I think this article is one of the best fictional charecter articles there is and I thought it should have a peer review before nominating it for promotion. LizzieHarrison 15:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs expanding per WP:LEAD - each section should be distilled into a sentence or paragraph and put in the lead. Also, the article is very in-universe - has the actress ever done interviews where she's talked about playing Piper Halliwell? -Malkinann 03:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro

General peer review to see if it is ready for, or what needs improving to make it ready for, either 'good article' status or 'featured article' status. --CrnaGora 15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

RJH

The article appears to be in fairly decent condition, but there are a few details needing work. Here's some comments of a general nature:

  • More inline citations are needed in several sections. The Geography, Government and politics, Economy, and Miscellaneous sections have no citations at all, but most of those that do have citations are in need of more. That information had to have come from somewhere.
  • The later part of the article has too many one-sentence paragraphs.
  • I don't think the gallery is really appropriate for an encyclopedic article. None of the FA'd nation-state articles appear to include a gallery. My suggestion would be to move the appropriate images to the Commons and set up a gallery page there.
  • The references are not set up in the standard citation format. I recommend using Wikipedia:Citation templates throughout.

I hope these were of some help. — RJH (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GDallimore

I'm not an expert on international economics, but the economics section and the associated main article seem somewhat lacking in terms of the effect on the economy of the split from Serbia. I know it's early days yet, but how are the Montenegrins doing in managing their economy?

The reason I mention this side of things is that I've been following the development of Montenegro's intellectual property laws since their split from Serbia. Perhaps some of these sources could help beef up the relevant sections:

Hope it helps. Overall the article looks to be in great shape for some final tidying up. GDallimore (Talk) 10:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • One quick comment that Image:CG-Pobjeda.jpg needs a fair-use rationale. It should be pretty easy as it's arguably a very historically significant moment. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Adventures of Mao on the Long March

Brand spanking new article; eager to hear your impressions.AshcroftIleum 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Past Continuous (novel)

I've added significant amount of material to this article, specifically in themes, extensive quotes and criticisms.AshcroftIleum 23:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There's probably no need for two different versions of the non-free book cover. Would it be reasonable to pick one to better satisfy "minimal use" of non-free content? (ESkog)(Talk) 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I would rather have the first edition cover, either in Hebrew or English, instead of the two we have now. I guess we could drop the Overlook edition cover, it's not that important or interesting.AshcroftIleum 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

United States Tax Court

What can be done to push this article towards featured status? Does it need images? Discussion of any other aspects of Tax Court operations? bd2412 T 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer-review

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
    Done Morphh (talk) 1:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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, Morphh (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Morphh's review

  • I think the Notes section should be renamed to References and the References renamed to Notes (see WP:GTL).
    Made the change Morphh (talk) 1:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The section "Life cycle of a Tax Court case" has too many one/two sentence paragraphs. Perhaps this can be pulled together into something more structured.
  • Third sentence needs a source. While I agree, this may be considered POV or Original Research.
    Taken out for now - yes, very POV, and not more true than of other federal clerks. bd2412 T 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I expected to see a little bit about the criticism of a separate tax court outside of our normal judicial system, which I believe has been criticized by tax protesters (not certain of this... just remember hearing something about it). It seems to be briefly but not overtly mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead and lightly in "The Court and its jurisdiction" but it doesn't really discuss the controversy with it.
  • Consider {{UStaxation}} tag.
    Added the tag (and adding the Tax Court to the template). bd2412 T 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The second part of the third sentence almost seems like it should be part of the first sentence. The first sentence should be a solid definition of what the Tax Court is. The current first sentence doesn't do that for me. It tells me how it was created but it doesn't say.. "it is the court for tax disputes". I guess such can be implied by the article title but it should be further defined.
  • The section "Genesis of a Tax Court dispute" has a lot of "emphasis" quotes. It even had some bolding, which I changed to italic but I'm not even sure it should be that. Is there a reason for all the quotes and such?
    I reordered the first paragraph and added a history section as well. Don't know about the bold/italics. bd2412 T 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Famspear's comments

I don't know if I can or should "review" this article, since I contributed so much to it. Is there a rule on this?

No rule that I'm aware of! bd2412 T 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will provide a few comments. I agree with Morphh's comment about the third sentence of the article (the reference to law clerks, etc.). I agree with the article's statement about the law clerks, but the statement is opinion and is really appears unencyclopedic. I would say it could even be deleted, but sourced at a minimum if it's kept.

On the note about the Tax Court being outside of our normal (i.e., Article III) judicial system, I agree that this is something that some tax protesters have argued. From a legal standpoint, however, the validity and jurisdiction of the Tax Court, as an Article I court is well-settled. I believe the Court of Federal Claims is also an Article I court. Even bankruptcy judges, who are a "unit" of the Article III district courts, are themselves considered Article I judges if I recall correctly. Judges of the Tax Court, the Court of Federal Claims, and the Bankruptcy Courts do not have life tenure; they serve a specific term of years. I would suggest keeping discussion of tax protester arguments on the Tax Court out of this article if possible, as such arguments tend to give misleading undue weight to theories that the courts have ruled have no legal merit. Something on that could be added to Tax protester constitutional arguments, if desired.

I pretty much agree with editor Morphh's other comments. Yours, Famspear 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

SaarLorLux

I would like to improve the article and need some feedback. It would be nice if someone went through it and checked to see what needs to be done. Thank you kindly! --Thw1309 07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Some points:
  • The terms 'Macroregion' and 'Euregio' have to either be explained in this article, have their own articles, or (preferably) the latter and and bit of the former. Here, SaarLorLux is defined as being something that Wikipedia doesn't define.
As you can see, I tried to construct definitions. I think, this will require some more reading, because in the end, both terms mean the same: land on both sides of a border. If you think it´s one piece of land with a border therein, it is an euregio and if you think, there are two pieces of land on two sides of the border, then it is a macroregion or greater region. I will look for more encyclopedic definitions. You especially made me understand, that there is a need for more information on the diversity of the term saarlorlux--Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Done
  • The introduction is too short. I suggest that, in addition to giving summary definitions of 'Euregion' and 'macroregion', one also adds paragraphs on summaries of its characteristics (paragraph 2) and on its functions and activities (paragraph 3).
You are right. This will require some additional reading too, because it is difficult to give a short summary of a term with so many interlocked meanings. --Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Names and titles should be given in English; I've changed a few of these.
 DoneI hope I found everything--Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 Done --Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 Done --Thw1309 14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The relationship between the text and the sources should be better established; every time a fact or statistic is given, a source should be cited. One can achieve this easily by citing a source more than once, by using the mechanism <ref="[Unique title for source]" />.
  • There is some awkward phraseology and under-punctuation, particularly with regards to commas. I'll probably see to this myself.
I am sorry about the phraseology, but English is not my native language. --Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't established how SaarLorLux relates to the similar Greater Region.
This depends on the person you ask, because the term SaarLorLux is used in many different ways, but I will investigate.--Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That's all I've got at the moment. Bastin 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You were great help. Thank you very much. --Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest

previous peer review

Interstate 476

This article has been improved again. I would like some feedback regarding the writing, sourcing, and anything out of the FA criteria before this goes to FAC. (→zelzany - review) 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song)

This article is very well written and deserves to be Featured Article.But in order to avoid haste and carelessness, just thaught of asking for a Peer Review to know some defects.The article will be the first single by her to reach FA outside the Love.Angel.Music.Baby series if it manages to become FA Class.The article is very informative.All are requested to kindly review the article and express your views. User:Luxurious.gaurav

Pilot (Smallville)

I'm working to get this episode up to featured status. I'd like some suggestions for improvement. I think it's one of the better episode articles, but I'm a biased observer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The second paragraph of the lead is stubby and the lead does not cover the production as mcuh as it could (casting, filming, and effects aren't mentioned even though each have their own sections). There's probably a "two birds with one stone" solution here. Jay32183 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • How does it look now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a lot better. You're probably close to FA status, but I'm not a 1a(prose) guy. You're good on 1b, d, and e, and with 1c the only uncited section is the plot. Generally, no one will complain about that since the source is intuitive, but adding minutes couldn't hurt if you've got the time and resources. Hopefully, you get some more reviewers during the peer review so the FAC will run smoothly. Jay32183 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
        • LOL, citing the minutes. I have to honestly say that that is the first I'm I've heard that. It's good to know I guess; if someone says something in the FAC at least I can't say I've never heard that, now. Thanks for the criticism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

Here is my review of Pilot (Smallville). Feel free to paste it somewhere more convenient.

Content:

  • The lead seemed off to me somehow. I have not read any other wikipedia pages on TV episodes, but this one seemed to contain too much detail, such as the five months bit, and yet not enough information for the lead to be a true summary of the article. This was just the impression I received when I read it. According to WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." - I did not get the idea that it could stand alone or that the emphasis in the lead matched that of the article.
  • The sentences of the lead paragraphs do not flow into one another. They are not coherent paragraphs. Also, they are missing some detail (see internal comments). Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Leads are meant to summarize. Details are supposed to be in the body of the article. If you put details in the lead then what is the point of repeating yourself in the body.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I know, but without the details I suggested, the reader does not understand the large claims you are making. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Detail wise, it is all justified in the body of the article. The lead says "it broke several WB records", that's pretty clear. The question would be "what records?", which is answered in the reception section in detail as to what records.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is all justified, but a phrase such as "it broke several WB viewership records" or "it broke several WB premiere viewership records" would help draw the reader into the article without providing too much detail. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Aaah...now it makes sense. I thought you were refering to details as in literally listing the numbers that broke the record. Gotcha. I can make these changes though. Sorry about that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While I admire the short plot summary (way too many pages have exhaustive plot narrations, not plot summaries), I wonder if the summary emphasizes the crucial events in the episode (happily, I have seen a lot of Smallville, including this episode). It seems to focus too much on the details of the "introductory" material and not enough on the "meat" of the episode. The prose is also much too choppy.
  • The plot summary still spends too much time describing the introductory sequence. You could simply say that the scene establishes that they are all orphans and briefly say why - you do not need all of that description. Also, the sentences in that first paragraph of the plot summary are short and stubby. Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It has one paragraph for the "introduction", as that one paragraph describes the events of of the meteor shower as they pertain to the three leads of the show. Those events are the catalyst for the entire episode, so I would think they might need a bit more detail than Jeremy Creek's literal actions throughout the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am telling you how it reads to me. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The plot summary does not hang together. The paragraphs are not coherent wholes - they jump around from topic to topic. Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What would you suggest. Better transitions will only make it longer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Transitions and deletion of extraneous detail. A plot summary summarizes only the essential elements of a plot; it does not mention every element of the plot. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What would you suggest then, because it's broken into 3 paragraps. The first paragraph handles the major event of the teaser. The second paragraph is the next act, which is about Clark becoming friends with Lex, and developing his relationship with Lana. Jeremy is second fiddle in this episode (really more like third, or fourth, as he pops in and out just so you don't forget about him).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would use something like this (I did this in five minutes, so don't judge me too harshly):

The episode begins in 1989 when a meteor shower hits Smallville, KS; at the same time a small spacecraft, containing an alien boy, crashes in front of Jonathan and Martha Kent's truck. They adopt the superhumanly powerful child and name him Clark. Gough and Millar use this opening scene to establish that the three lead characters of the series, Clark, Lana and Lex, share a common bond—they are all orphans: Clark is the only survivor of his home world; Lana's entire family is killed in the meteor shower; and Lex is alienated from his father, Lionel Luther, after being made bald by the meteor blast.[1]

The episode jumps forward twelve years to when Clark (Tom Welling) is trying to find his identity. He is unable to handle being told of his alien origins and runs away and although he is in love with Lana Lang (Kristin Kreuk), he cannot get close to her without falling over in pain because she wears a necklace made of meteor rock (kryptonite). But Clark and Lana do share an intimate moment at a cemetery, where Lana is visiting the grave of her parents. In such scenes, Gough and Millar created a theme of loneliness through the life stories of Clark and Lana.

In the second strand of the story, Lex and Clark develop a "yin and yang" relationship. Clark first saves Lex from drowning when they get into a car accident and Lex saves Clark when he is strung up as a scarecrow in a field and immobilized by kryptonite.[2] Alerted by his friends Chloe and Pete, Clark is then able to save the high school students from a crazed student bent on revenge.

  • I took your suggestion and reworked the plot. I included a couple things you didn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Who is Whitney? The reader does not know - you introduce him out of the blue. Try to imagine a reader who does not know the episode well. Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I inserted "her boyfriend Whitney" in front of the first instance of his name to clarify who he is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are far too many details in this plot summary; the "Wall of Weird," for example, does not need to be mentioned. You need only the broad strokes of the episode (see Julie, or the New Heloise for a relatively short summary of a 600-page book to get an idea of how to do this). Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed the WoW stuff, so it just reads "After learning that it was ...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That was just one example. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you believe is extraneous when you are reading it? You have to remember, I've been working on this article for awhile, so it's harder for me to see "minor" things that can be deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
See above. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Gough and Millar use the words "yin and yang"? If so, they should be put in quotation marks. Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I've added the quotation marks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Annette O'Toole, who was fresh off the recent cancellation of her television series The Huntress, was cast in Ettinger's place. - I think that you should mention she played Lana Lang in a Superman movie - it's a nice metatextual connection.
  • When David Nutter joined the project, he joined with the belief that the show should be fun and smart, and at the same time respect their audience. - This implies that the show changed character and Nutter was no longer happy with it - is that true? If so, might you mention why?
Nutter apparently was specifically going for that "fun, smart..." in the pilot, as that is his style.
Can you make this more clear, then? Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Close-ups of Whitney were shot under a football stadium, while close-ups of Lana were shot in a potato factory. Um, why?
The multiple locations was generally because time did not allow them to do many reshoots in the same spot. I can only assume that was the problem with the Lana and Whitney scene on her porch.
Can you make this more clear, then? Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the major themes was relationship triangles. - "relationship triangles" is difficult to call a theme - it might be better classified as the plot element that leads to a theme like "unrequited love" or something like that - what are the ideas or concepts associated with the triangles?
  • Loneliness was a theme Gough and Millar wanted to attribute to Clark, Lana, and Lex. - themes are not really "attributed to" characters in this way - how about "Clark, Lana, and Lex exemplified the theme of loneliness that Gough and Millar wanted to emphasize" or "Loneliness, represented by Clark, Lana, and Lex's life stories, was an important theme to Gough and Millar."
  • One theme, kryptonite enhancing the sins of the antagonist, was created to help provide the stories from week to week. Instead of creating physical monsters, the kryptonite would enhance their personal demons, as well as give them powers. This was seen in a more literal sense in the later episodes. - This is a plot device, not a theme.
  • Did you decide to leave this out? Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because it's something that is more focused on the entire season and not really seen as literal in the pilot as in later episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Another major theme, designed to run the course of the series, was of the yin and yang relationship between Clark and Lex. In the pilot, this is played out when Clark saves Lex's life early in the episode when he saves him from drowning; it is reciprocated when Lex pulls Clark from the scarecrow stand, allowing the kryptonite around his neck to fall away, saving his life. - This is a plot device as you have described it - there are thematic elements to it, but you have not discussed them.
Your concerns about the theme can only be addressed when I have more sources for it. I'm not going to rewrite it to include original research on my part. If it is listed as a "theme" that is because Gough, Millar, and Nutter used that word specifically. They did not elaborate anymore than what is there, and thus it will have to wait till I get more sources.
I would either put this information under "plot summary" or under a section on "structure of episode" or something like that. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Prose:

  • They received Kristin Kreuk's audition tape, and liked it so much they immediately showed her to the network. - I wonder if it would be a good idea to remind audiences what characters the actors play. I myself never remember actors' names - I only remember the roles they play.
  • Tom Welling, after initially turning down the producers twice, was cast as Clark Kent. - shouldn't it be something like "accepted the role of"? I found the sentence confusing.
I added Kristin's character to that statement, and clarified Welling's casting. It actually read like he took the role, but in fact he still had to audition. Had they not liked him his readings I'm sure he wouldn't have been cast.
  • Gough believed Schneider's experience from The Dukes of Hazzard added belief that he could have grown up running a farm. - "added belief" is awkward phrasing - perhaps "added believability to the idea that he could have grown up running a farm" or someething like that
  • The character was created just for the series,[1] and was intended to have an ethnic background. - "intended to have an ethnic background" sounds very awkward - was the character supposed to be a minority?
  • Nutter crafted the scene of Clark and Lana in the barn to be the final scene for the pilot, as he saw it as the moment that expressed what the show was all about. - repetitious and awkward; how about "Nutter crafted the final scene, which shows Clark and Lana [doing what exactly?]; he saw [what is the "it"?] as the moment that expressed the show's essence."
I can only put what Nutter says, and that is the final scene showed, in his opinion, what the show was supposed to be about. I can't elaborate on something he didn't elaborate on. I can explain the scene better (which I just did), which is a fantasy Clark has about dancing with Lana, but I can't put words in his mouth. He didn't precisely say "the moment shows Clark's longing for Lana, and exemplifies that unrequited love that he has, blah blah blah", as he didn't say anything of the sort.
That is fine, then. Part of the problem was the missing details. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Initially, production was going to be in Australia, but Vancouver, Canada had more of the "Middle America landscape" the creators were looking for. - "going to be" sounds a little plain and vague; also, don't end a sentence on a preposition (general rule); how about "Production was initially slated to take place in Australia, but Vancouver, Canada had more of the "middle America" feel for which the creators were looking."
  • The area provided a site for the Kent farm, and their barn; the city itself doubled as Metropolis. - slightly awkward; how about "The area provided a site for the Kent farm, including their barn, and the city itself doubled as Metropolis."
  • Nutter spent sixteen days on main unit filming, and an additional five days for second unit filming. - Are there any appropriate links for "main unit filming" and "second unit filming" for uninformed readers?
Apparently, there are no direct links to "main unit" and "second unit" filming. They both take place in "production", but I don't see where that article explains that the difference between the two. I could try and find a definition of the two for the article, or do you think a red link should be placed there for someone to fill in?
I would definitely red-link them - they are important film terms. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The limited time forced Nutter to shoot the opening teaser of the meteor shower based on an extensive 150 page storyboard, which was drawn by Adrien Van Viersen. - meaning is unclear - what would he have shot from if he had had more time? also the "extensive 150" pages doesn't make it sound difficult to shoot in limited time
Had Nutter had more time he would have had the chance to deviate from the script a bit, but limited time forced him to stick to the storyboards. 150 pages of anything is extensive, even more so for just an opening segment. I'll try and find a source that states the usual storyboard amount for an entire episode so that we have a comparison.
Then you need to emphasize the fact that he had to stick to the storyboards. Right now the sentence emphasizes the 150 storyboards. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
A 150 page storyboard is not extensive, really, not for an hour long show such as this one with all the effects. Heck I've had 8 pages for a 3 minute production before, with very boring shoots. And this for a local industrial film. Also, I don't know how to explain unit filming to add to the article. "Main unit" filming involves the more important scenes, the main scenes. The "second unit" filming is for close ups, adding scenery, filler for continuity, adding special effects, perhaps snippets of couples, groups, etc, different locations shoots, etc., etc. All to be edited later in the editing room. I wouldn't know how to write that without confusing people more as it's a lot more complicated than what I wrote. - Jeeny Talk 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I just noticed it was for the opening teaser, not the whole pilot. Hmmm. Again, with all the effects I would think it would involve an extensive storyboard anyway. - Jeeny Talk 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, lets go by your personal experience. 8 pages for 3 minutes, that's 336 pages for 42 minutes, and way less than 100 for the opening teaser which probably lasted a little less than 10 minutes (i don't actually recall). 150 is rather large for such a short segment, especially if you cannot deviate at all from it. Regardless, I am again using Nutter's words to describe the boards, so to him they were extensive for that one segment. I think special effects are post-production. The setup for those effects would be second unit. Also, I saw you changed the Welling audition. If you accept the role, or at least if you write that, it appears as though he had nothing else to do after saying "yes". But he still had to audition, and if he had to audition then he had the chance to be rejected by the studio. I put "accepted the chance" so illustrate the next sentence that states he had to go in for auditions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Shannon Mews was used as an interior set for the Dark Angel pilot and the film Along Came a Spider. - A footnote perhaps? This information is not connected to the rest of the paragraph.
How would you suggest including it as a "footnote", as I'm not familiar with that usage for a Wikipedia article.
<ref>Shannon Mews was used as an interior set for the Dark Angel pilot and the film Along Came a Spider.</ref> Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The crash site of Clark's ship was shot at the sandpits where they filmed Mission to Mars. - not relevant; mere trivia - perhaps a footnote, again
  • I assume you think that readers will want to know this? If so fine. Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A couple set pieces were built just for the pilot. - Literally two? Use "two" then; if not, then "several."
  • Corn was a major problem the director faced, as it was a necessity for a show based in Kansas. - awkward syntax
  • Another theme introduced in the pilot, and one connected to the theme of triangle relationships, is that of the three leads all being orphans. - wordy
  • For Clark, it was the idea of "a young man with a secret," which is illustrated in the scene where he watches Lana and Whitney through his telescope in his barn. - wordy
  • For Lex, he is given everything anyone could ever want, except love. - awkward and vague
Tried to explain what Lex gets.
  • The "Themes" section feels like a list. Several sentences begin "Another theme..." I have tried to change some of these, but you should try to tell the reader what the dominant themes are and what the subthemes are - make a distinction.

Here are some sources you might find useful:

  • "The Wonder Woman Precedent: Female (Super)Heroism on Trial" By: O'Reilly, Julie D.; Journal of American Culture, 2005 Sept; 28 (3): 273-83
  • "Smallville’s Sexual Symbolism: From Queer Repression to Fans’ Queered Expressions" by A Kustritz - 2005 - Refractory
  • "Superman and Super Myth: Mapping Intertextuality in Smallville" KA Simmons, Dept. of Speech Communication - 2006 - Colorado State University (This is a dissertation.)
  • Jes Battis, "The Kryptonite closet: Silence and queer secrecy in Smallville," Jump Cut, No. 48, winter 2006
  • Robinson, Michael G. "The Day Superman Changed.” Refractory, vol 6, 2004: 1-15. (perhaps) Awadewit | talk 08:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've tried to expand this some more. The edit summary tries to explain what is going on. . . . I'll have to go through the themes section again, and I'll try and find those resources you listed. Bignole 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • For now, but obviously it would be best to have an entire article. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Prose:

  • Tom Welling, after twice turning down the producers' attempts to get him to audition, accepted the chance at the role of Clark Kent. - This sounds awkward - if he turned it down, why would he accepted "a chance"? The sentence sounds contradictory. Why did he accept in the end, anyway? Awadewit | talk 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't put in the fact that David Nutter saw his picture in some photo album of actors and called his manager to convince him to audition? Maybe I just put that on the main article's page...(going to check)...nope, it wasn't there...I put it in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The wording "chance" sounds odd, especially since he had to be coaxed into it. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
How about "Tom Welling, after twice turning down the producers' attempts to get him to audition for the role of Clark Kent, eventually accepted the opportunity to be apart of the show."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The character was created just for the series,[3] and was intended to have an ethnic minority background. - Probably should read "The character was created just for the series and was intended to add ethnic diversity to the cast" or something like that. Very awkward as it is now. Awadewit | talk 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Using your example.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Part of the reason she was cast was because Gough and Millar felt she had a "rare ability to deliver large chunks of expositionary dialogue conversationally." - Do you mean "expository"? Awadewit | talk 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If I do then it means there was a major typo in the book, because that was the exact word used by Paul Simpson when he quoted Al Gough. He could have misquoted him. I kept see WORD suggest the word you just did, but "expositionary" is the word that Simpson quoted Gough with. Maybe Gough just used the wrong word. I could put "rare ability to deliver large chunks of [expository] dialogue conversationally."...you know make the correction for them. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Webster's doesn't have "expositionary." I wouldn't replace it, though. I would put "expositionary [sic]." The [sic] just signifies to readers, "yeah, I know that's weird, but the quotation actually says that" (see sic). Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In the comics, Pete Ross is Caucasian, and the producers chose to cast Jones III, who is African-American, against the mythology. - Perhaps because they had cast Chloe as white? Do we know? (forgot to sign) Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No we don't. I have on the main article that he wasn't even cast until the Sunday (4 days) before they started shooting, so he was a last minute cast and it was merely because he auditioned well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Gough and Millar were fans of director David Nutter's previous work - What work? Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
They don't mention specific shows. Obviously they mean television shows, as he has worked on a lot of pilots. The mention The X-Files in passing, but it's more like "he's also done..." and less of "we really like what he did with ..."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The area provided a site for the Kent farm, including their barn, and the city itself doubled as Metropolis. Vancouver also provided a cheaper shooting location, and was in the same time zone as Los Angeles. - two "provided's" in a row Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Changed first one to "offered".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Time constrants forced Nutter stick to a 150 page storyboard, which was drawn by Adrien Van Viersen, when filming the opening teaser involving the meteor shower. - "stick to" is a little colloquial (fixed other parts of sentence myself) Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
How about "to film strictly from Adrien Van..."?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In general, there are a lot of wordy sentences. I have tried to fix some of them. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is coming along well. I would suggest you focus your efforts on the lead and the "Plots and themes" sections. (Of course, more research would be nice. Right now, all of your sources are the creators themselves, it looks like.) Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • When it comes to production type information, I don't see a more reliable source than the horses mouth. Obviously secondary sources are the best, but probably not when it comes to giving objective information like "we filmed this in 3 days". I find books that are "making of" to be most reliable. An interview is an interview, whether you have 30 interviews with 30 news organizations, or 30 with one organization.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with you on production, but not on interpretation. Interpretation should not be based solely on the creators themselves. They have one set of meanings, but viewers, scholars and critics often have others, which are just as legitimate. There isn't just "one meaning" or "one message" to the episode. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course, I know what you mean about how people see the themes of the show, I was only refering to how it's all first hand at the moment because most of the page reflects what was literally going on behind the secnes, and not so much on the interpretation aspect (i.e. the plot and themes section). That was why I haven't even started to go to an FAC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust

This article is important and well referenced and I think, rather well written, but it isnt formatted properly. Any suggestions as to how to improve it, and maybe get it featured? Cheers Brent Ward 11:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read all the way down yet, but I can that there is some overlinking, specifically "Jehovah's Witnesses". They're linked in the lead, why link them again in the body of the text? Also, do you have a cite for many Jews preferring "Shoah" over "Holocaust"? I don't remember getting that sense from any of the Jews I went to shul with.--Rmky87 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
To be clear: this means that even that really annoying Hebrew School teacher who chewed out one of my classmates for skipping (Hebrew) school to finish his real homework (she simply had no idea how much more homework you get in a public compared to that fancy dumb-bunny school she was sending her kids to) never berated us for using the word "Holocaust".--Rmky87 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mummy (1999 film)

I feel that this successful popcorn film that kickstarted a franchise could be easily upgraded to GA status with a little more work. Any comments, suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated. --J.D. 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lenin & McCarthy

First, try to find some way of merging the "Book of Amon-Ra" section into the main text of the article.

I ended up cutting it out completely. It wasn't really necessary. --J.D. 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, the picture in the plot summary doesn't really illustrate the text well. I thought that in the film they actually had a creepy-looking CG mummy. Perhaps a picture of him would be better.

Removed picture. --J.D. 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Third, there are still a few sentences in the "production" section that don't have a citation. To get this to GA that will have to be remedied.

Fourth, the reception section doesn't really have a proper comment on the general perception of the film. Something like "reviews were mixed, with critics commenting on (whatever they took note of)" that may incorporate some of the quoted reviews. The rating aggregation sites will also need citations.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Erik
  • Fraser and Weisz should be wiki-linked in the Plot section like everyone else. Wiki-links can be redundant for each new section.
  • Is there a need for Characters related to The Mummy? It seems that any important actions by the characters would already be mentioned in Plot, and a brief background description can be provided for each character in Cast. Also, can the Cast section be expanded to have some detail about the casting of each actor or how they carried out their role? (For example, is Rick O'Connell based on anyone real or fictional? Why was Arnold Vosloo chosen as the antagonist?)
  • The picture of Rachel Weisz as Evelyn at the beginning of Production seems purely decorative; she's already displayed with the other protagonists in Cast. I suggest removal of this image. If you want to break the monotony of the text, I would suggest implement quoteboxes (see Aaron Sorkin) of any significant quotes.
  • I see the Casting section now. Could this be merged into Cast? It would make the Cast section more than just a dry list.
  • Is there a need for the Soundtrack section for The Mummy? If it was notable, it would be better to mention critical reaction to the music, and background to the music, instead of the track listing and the soundtrack template.
  • Reception should reflect when the first festival release of this film, if any, took place, and also the opening date of this film (which does not seem to be mentioned here). I would also cite the editing in England, which I assume was done by the BBFC. Also, it may be an issue to quote three reviewers at length. There are better ways to write a Critical reaction section, in my opinion -- see Spider-Man 3#Critical reaction.
  • In External links, I don't think that the Angelfire.com link is appropriate for inclusion.

Hope you can make use of my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Llama

Thank you for taking your time to review this article. I am initially looking for a beginner's grade for the article and guidance to eventually GA and then FA status. All constructive criticisms are welcome. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Verisimilus T

Hi, there's quite a bit to say about this article, My main concern is that it reads very little like an encyclopaedia. A couple of brief points:

lede
The lede strikes me as a little odd. Rather than informing me what a llama is, you've told me what it's not... Have a look at WP:LEDE, which advises that the lede provides a succinct summary of the ensuing article.
First draft of first 3 paragraphs complete. Please review at your leisure and rip apart as you see fit. I reviewed your link and also reviewed several other animal articles that have either received grades or are being promoted. The format of the lead paragraphs are generally in this order: 1) quick intro, 2) about the animal, 3) a bit of history. I tried to stay in the intro-format of other articles. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Classification
This strikes me as quite a heavy start to the article, dropping me straight into specialist language which the average reader is unlikely to follow. Could the information perhaps be better conveyed in a graphical fashion?
Characteristics
Again, does not read like an encyclopaedia - more like a taxonomist's handbook.
Both Classification and Characteristics are from the original scanned article. I'm digging for a cite. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Order
I'd perhaps move Classification later in the article, as it is arguably of less key importance to what a llama is, or why I should be interested in them. I think it would be fair to suggest that most casual readers would be most interested in characteristics, behaviour and mating - maybe these sections should come earlier, to make the reader want to know more than they came for.
In popular culture
As well as a "see main article", you should include a brief summary of that article in the main one. Again, draw the reader in - make them want to click that blue link!
Added intro para. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Be concise
Wikipedia is (unfortunately, to my thinking) an encyclopaedia, not a collection of knowledge. I wouldn't expect a paper encyclopaedia to have a list of the diameters of different types fur, or nutritional requirements. If you think the information is crucial to our understanding of llamas, it would be wise to explain why in the article - I must admit to being slightly confused as to the reason for its inclusion. Maybe just a sentence such as Llama fur is much thicker than that of sheep, making fabrics made from llamas more scratchy would be of more use than the table? There are a few areas in the article which I think the painful decision to trim unnecessary information would improve the article as a whole. It's always nice if you can follow an article without having to stop and follow links in order to keep up.
Behaviour
This section is written in many short, simple sentences. It could benefit from a rewrite in order to improve its flow. Further, it does not come across in an encyclopaedic tone.
Testing for pregnancy
reads like instructions from a vet's handbook... Also, perhaps goes into unnecessary detail.
Fossil llamas
Perhaps this would be better housed in the "history" section? And few readers will be geologists - I'd explain the significance of the Tertiary, etc, in the article.
Reproduction
Is made up of many short sections. I'd remove some section headings and go for a coherent paragraph, but you may want to expand constituent sections instead.
Breeding situations
Incorporate into text - you need at least to use full sentences.


Feel free to address those points - I'll happily review the article more thoroughly at a later date. But your first priority should definitely to be to attain a more encyclopaedic tone that is accessible and instantly engaging to an uneducated reader. Verisimilus T 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thrud the Barbarian

I've been working on this article on and off since the end of March, expanding it from a stub to get it on DYK and continuing to add as much referenced material as I could find. I think I've said everything I want to say and think it's now a darn fine article! Be nice if other people thought that way. Let me know what you think and please do anything you can to improve it, maybe to FA status.

I have also requested a peer review from Wikiproject Comics, but in the absence of replies thought I'd open it up to a wider audience. GDallimore (Talk) 09:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten all about the old Thrud series, but I do remember them as a highlight of the White Dwarf magazine. The article seems to be in pretty good condition; I didn't find anything major to grumble about. Didn't the artist do a cameo in one or two of the Thrud strips? If so you might mention it. Thank you for the nostalgia trip. — RJH (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right, he did. I thought about putting it in but, ultimately, Critchlow as a character doesn't do a great deal so there's not a huge amount to say about his persona or actions in the same way as the other characters. Shame... GDallimore (Talk) 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
To me it seems appropriate to mention it briefly so that the article is comprehensive. But no matter. — RJH (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Elijah

User:ThomasHartman and I have been working on this article for awhile, and feel that it is ready for a peer review to increase its quality and get more editors involved. Our goal is GA status, so please keep this in mind as you review. Thanks in advance, Wrad 23:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just some referencing issues: use cite web templates to make some of the citations more than urls, there's some ref name problems as I look at the article. Nice work on structure and prose, bar a list of popular culture mentions. Remove unless you can encyclopedically study Elijah in popular culture. Alientraveller 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll have to fix those refs. What do you mean by "popular culture mentions?" Wrad 12:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroids

Please help me review this article. I am getting ready to nominate it for a "featured article" and would like some feedback on grammar, wording, organization, what should probably be added, etc.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is not broad in its coverage and does not remain neutral as it excludes a large body of recent scholarship on the psychiatric complications of AAS. In this way, it is not factually accurate, but rather displays only a slanted perspective on AAS. Moreover, critiques of this article are largely dismissed without serious consideration, even when critiques are offered by physicians and medical researchers whose opinions are worthy of serious consultation. Indubitocogito 07:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)indubitocogito

ON the contrary, It explains all of the relevant facts and just the facts. You claim that it excludes a "large body of recent scholarship"? This is false. The article relies primarily on case studies and if you can cite any recent case studies from peer reviewed journals which have more citations than the ones I have already provided that you believe would be relevant, please do so. The links you provided on the talk page of the article were mostly not even studies to begin with. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche

Archive 1

I'm renominating this article for peer review, aiming for FA. Most (if not all) of the issues from the previous peer review were addressed and the article was very much improved and expanded since then. So, give your suggestions and feedback on what is missing for it to become a Featured Article. Thanks--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Jiskairumoko

I have attempted to provide clear description and thorough referencing of research and results at the Peruvian Late Archaic archaeological site of Jiskairumoko. Feedback regarding ways to improve the entry would be greatly appreciated. --Nathancraig 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance

This article has been given 'Good Article' status, and named as one of the best articles on the Medicine WikiProject. I would now like to bring this article to full featured status, and would value the input of any wiki editors who can help achieve this.

Many thanks in advance for your input. Owain.davies 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody at all? Owain.davies 12:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good.

  • Though, I have some questions on costs. You list different ways the costs might be covered. I'm curious about how different countries cover the costs and how much people might be expected to pay. Seems to vary widely from place to place. Which places provide ambulance rides with costs covered by the national government, with no cost a point of care?
  • Also, I think some more cites are needed in places. Such as the "Move to life saving, not just transporting" section, which has only two refs. --Aude (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - a key example of where there is no cost is the United Kingdom, where everyone has the right to a free ambulance as part of the National Health Service. I'll try and bring this out a bit more. I'll check out the cites on that section. Thanks for your input. Owain.davies 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I know in Canada, where I once lived, even though they have the national health care system, it would cost a few hundred dollars to be transported by ambulance. I was a bit surprised to learn that the health care system did not cover this. In the U.S., I don't know how much it would cost (afraid to know), nor know what my insurance would cover. Of course, many people do not have insurance. --Aude (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It varies in the US. In some places there is no charge, and costs are either covered by the municipality, or through donation. Many places bill the patient/ patient's insurance company, and cost may start at a few hundred dollars US for a BLS trip. ALS care costs more, though I couldn't give you a number. Speaking more broadly, it may be difficult to create an athoritative list of who pays (and how much) by country - not only are there too many countries to list, but I believe that there can be wide variation within countries - I think this is most significant in lesser-developed ares, where ambulance service can be grass-roots, and also less expensive to maintain (I'm thinking of bicycle ambulances, for instance). --Badger151 21:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Previous peer review: 10 September 2006

We have done quite a bit of work updating this article based on the points raised in the previous peer review. Before submitting it as a GAC or FAC, I'd like one more round of comments to try to make that process go as smoothly as possible.

I've also addressed the issues raised by the lazy automatic reviewer. There are three points remaining:

  • A warning about abbreviations, which is incorrectly picking up "program)" at the end of a parenthetical.
  • A warning regarding "vague terms of size", which itself is too vague to be useful.
  • The standard warning that always shows up.

Please be as specific as possible in your suggestions. Thank you. Anomie 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

With all the extra references I've added while waiting for someone to respond to this review, it now triggers a "summary style" warning from the automatic reviewer for being over 50 KB. However, after stripping the images, tables, footnotes, references, and such as recommended by WP:SIZE it is under 30 KB (and under 5000 words). Anomie 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


"launch titles" section is a bit over-short; I'd expand it or merge it into another section. "Enhancement chips" needs references, on the whole, though, this is moving towards a GA, and on track for FA. Nice trip down memory lane. Adam Cuerden talk 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 Done I'd been procrastinating working on those sections... Any other comments? Anomie 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to the Future

Tring to get this up to GA status. I know it needs more refs, is there anything eles? Buc 09:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That lead is really shrimpy. Thanks for having a production section.--Rmky87 17:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

List of nationality transfers in sport

I would like to know what needs to be added to this list to make it reach Featured List status. Referencing? Context? More wikilinks? More subpages? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 09:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, few things:

  • The "list of sports persons who have moved to compete for another country" in the lead needs to be bolded.
  • This appears to be the main thing, there is just one reference. Do you have any others at hand, because it cannot make FL status with just one reference. Everything needs to be referenced.

That's all I can see right now. Gran2 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments:

  • I think the lead needs to be delisted. Then inclusion criteria can have it's own section. I think that you may want to be very clear on the criteria, maybe summarising it in two or three sentences exactly what the list is about. Then having a more detailed section with criteria for inclusion etc.
  • The list is bound to be full of errors unless every entry has a reference. I know mainly about rugby union, and I am confused as to whether or not some of those players should be included. For example, in rugby union, if you have played Test rugby for one nation you are not allowed to play for another. But if you play age grade level (like under 19, under 21) then I think you can. It's complicated, and not just based on where you are born.
  • I think a comprehensive list (like one you would need for a FL) would be massive using the current criteria. You may want to change the criteria, so that the list is smaller. Otherwise you will need to split the page up, into different lists for different sports.

Thats all I have. - Shudda talk 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Robson

This article has undergone a relatively large overhaul from four or five editors, has had a number of references added, and a couple of images. It's much more compliant with the manual of style now as well, and I would like to see it peer reviewed with featured article candidacy in mind. I am aware of a few outstanding citations required, any help with these would be excellent. Otherwise, all comments gratefully accepted. The Rambling Man 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Done, it was my own work so I've applied a pd-self tag to it. Thanks. The Rambling Man 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article still has two unsourced statements, first of them (about "political, diplomatic situation") seems to be impossible to confirm[7].
  • Yes, I've had trouble myself with that quotation. It may well be in his book which I'll have to go dig out later next week. I'll keep it there for now and if I can't find it, I'll blow it away. The Rambling Man 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The personal life section needs expansion.
  • I think I can expand this once I've got hold of his book next week.... The Rambling Man 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I should be able to help with this too at some point in the next week or two when I can get a copy. Dave101→talk  19:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article still has one-sentence paragraphs.
  • I'll see what I can do about those...cheers. The Rambling Man 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Cleared up now, hopefully, but as we expand the article we'll have to keep an eye on this. The Rambling Man 10:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MaxSem 16:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MaxSem, while I can't do much now, I'll get on with the comments asap. The Rambling Man 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • More information on on his playing career is needed.
  • Well, possibly, but while he gained quite a few England caps, his domestic career wasn't particularly notable, and he is considerably better known as a manager than as a player. However, I'll see if there's anything more that can be added. The Rambling Man 10:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MaxSem 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, Robson found himself at odds with the millionaire lifestyles of his players at Newcastle... is a personal opinion, and contains facts that need to be sourced. MaxSem 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do with that when I get hold of his book. Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Dave101→talk  10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Images in the article but no lead image? Seems a bit odd. Buc 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if you read the talk page you'll see I'm trying to source a usable image of Sir Bobby without all the associated paraphernalia like statues, book covers etc. Patience... The Rambling Man 21:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Szigeti

I've been working on this for a while, and I'd very much like to see it as a Featured Article sometime in the not-too-distant future. I know it's nowhere near FA caliber yet, but I'm not entirely sure what I should focus on improving to move towards that goal. Suggestions, general comments and constructive criticisms would be much appreciated. K. Lásztocska 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • A couple of quick things:
    • There's a bit of a sense of pageant here--a succession of accomplishments. Can you find sources that comment on his style, on his interpretive influences and positions, on the things, in short, that make him stand out? Not just what makes him good, but what makes him Szigeti.
    • By the same token, you may be relying a bit much on the autobiography. Musicologists writing on Szigeti may help provide context—to what extent he was a product of his time and place, to what extent he was different; that sort of thing. One thing I would definitely flesh out is what is now the second paragraph of the "Maturity" section, which discusses the composers whose works he premiered. Isn't his interpretation of those works his chief contribution?
    • Full citation is only needed for each source the first time. After that you can abbreviate. "With Strings Attached, p. 36," or whatever.
    • If you bring this to WP:FA, they'll want you to tone down the prose a bit and avoid peacock terms.
  • I'm very glad to see this article improving! It was sorely in need of it. Keep up the good work. Chick Bowen 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Excellent advice, thank you. I had been planning to add a whole second part to the article about critical response, comments on his style, his influence on other violinists etc. Basically the whole first thing you suggested--I've been awfully busy in real life and I somehow completely forgot my plans for this article. Thanks for reminding me!
As for the autobiography, I was afraid of that. To my knowledge there has never been a biography written of him by anyone else, so for life details that's pretty much all I'm going on at this point. Once I add more info about style, reception, legacy etc., I'll certainly be able to find other sources.
I know...peacock terms...that's what happens when you let me write an article about my favorite violinist ever. :-) Don't worry, I know how to be neutral, I'll tone it down eventually.
Thanks again for the excellent critique--I'll start work on implementing these suggestions as soon as I can. K. Lásztocska 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
just think *girl* peacock instead and you should be OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Istvan (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't come here at midnight (immediately after practicing Bach for three hours), but that one went right over my head, dear. K. Lásztocskatalk 05:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to general relativity

Introduction to general relativity has recently been overhauled, streamlined, and given a fair number of references and images, with the aim of eventually bringing it to featured article status. In preparation for that process, I would appreciate feedback especially on the following:

  • Is anything missing? Since this is only an introduction (there is a main article general relativity), it doesn't need to provide all the details, but it should still cover all important points.
  • Previous versions of this article were deemed too technical (see the discussion page). Is the present version accessible enough, and if not, what could be improved? I haven't participated in this kind of review process before, but I understand that the review request will also be posted to the standard WP:Peer review - since this article is meant to be accessible for everybody, feedback from non-scientists would be very helpful.

Of course, any suggestions on how to improve presentation, style, grammar etc. are welcome as well. Many thanks in advance! Markus Poessel 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also transcluded this into WP:PR. --Bduke 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

I am an English graduate student who is an avid reader of popular science books, so my review will focus on accessibility and prose. I found this article to be, in general, remarkably clear and easy to follow. I am curious as to who you believe your audience will be. My roommate, who is an undergraduate physics major, learned nothing from this page, so I am assuming that you are aiming exclusively for lay readers?

Sentences and sections that may be too technical:

  • General relativity (GR) is Albert Einstein's theory of gravitation, first published in 1916. It is based on Einstein's earlier theory of special relativity and the equivalence principle, and utilizes the mathematics of Riemannian geometry. - not clear to a non-scientist - Don't scare readers away with the first sentence!
  • The image in the "Physical consequences" section could be explained better. When I first looked at it, I dumbly thought "that wave isn't going up or down, it is going straight."
  • "Physical consequences" section - explain "downward" and "upward" more clearly as "down" and "up" into the gravitational field (this is done better later in the section, but should be done the first time such terms are mentioned).
  • I found the "From acceleration to gravity" section a bit technical and hard to follow.
  • But in relativity, mass and energy are equivalent (expressed by the famous formula E = mc²), and energy is intertwined with momentum (just as space is intertwined with time). - Explain equation and subsequent claims more clearly.
  • In the section on "Einstein's field equation", the phrases "right-hand" and "left-hand" are confusing when you don't have the equation.
  • The section on "Einstein's field equation" is a bit confusing overall.
  • It is still confusing. Perhaps that is inevitable. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still working on that one - but I need to make an image for it, and that takes a bit of time. Note that I only said I had addressed all your prose/minor style issues; I know very well that there's still this issue from the "Too technical" list I haven't solved yet. Markus Poessel 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I'm in the middle of responding to several reviews at the moment. I momentarily forgot that you are the careful and precise responder! Awadewit | talk 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! In fact, the new and improved (and hopefully less confusing) version of that section is now online. Markus Poessel 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury and other planets (anomalous perihelion shift) has been measured using VLBI observations. - Readers can't click on everything - any terms that are crucial to sentences, such as "precession," should be quickly defined.

Other concerns:

  • The lead lacks enough detail to be a standalone summary of the article as required by WP:LEAD.
  • In the "Gravity and acceleration" section, the numbered list is oddly positioned next to the picture. It is hard to see the numbers at a glance.
  • So far, general relativity is consistent with all available measurements of large-scale phenomena. - What does large-scale mean? What about small-scale? Does "quantum gravity" apply at that scale?

Prose:

  • I do not mind "essay style" (e.g. So much for the effects of curved spacetime, but what causes the curvature in the first place?) but some editors at FA do.
  • Still, a number of open questions remain, notably the question of how the theory can be reconciled with quantum theory, resulting in a theory of quantum gravity. - repetition of the word "theory"
  • This gave Einstein a first clue about the nature of gravity - Don't begin a paragraph with "this" - it is not always clear what the referent is.
  • Effects of this type, which are due to the differences in strength and direction of gravitational forces felt by different bodies, are called tidal effects - another example of the problem - we lose what the "effects" are Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I tried to fix it by spelling out what the effects are. Markus Poessel 08:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Following earlier ideas by Ernst Mach, Einstein also explored centrifugal forces and their gravitational analogue. - This statement could be clearer and more precise.
  • Using the analogy between gravitational and inertial effects, as well as the insight that, for an observer in free fall, the laws of physics are approximately those of special relativity, Einstein was able to derive a number of interesting consequences of the new approach to gravity. - unclear and long
  • In his considerations, Einstein had come across - Considerations of what? Always be absolutely clear at the beginning of a paragraph or section to what you are referring.
  • Going from an inertial to a rotating reference frame is analogous to going from a Cartesian to a curved coordinate system. - "Going" is colloquial and imprecise.
  • While the geometric analogy had set Einstein onto the right track - colloquial language
  • The analogue of the curved, two-dimensional surface is four-dimensional spacetime, a geometric entity that had been introduced in 1907 by Hermann Minkowski as part of a geometric formulation of special relativity in which it unifies and replaces the separate entities space and time. - Too long
  • In the third paragraph of "From acceleration to gravity" "Einstein" is used repetitiously.
  • Paraphrasing John Wheeler - Who is he? Why should we care what he said? At least say something like "Paraphrasing the physicist John Wheeler" or "Paraphrasing the great physicist..." or "Paraphrasing an expert in general relativity..."
Nice use of the word "doyen." :) Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For comparatively low-mass objects such as those we know from everyday life (such as our own bodies) - Two "such as" constructions in a row - perhaps eliminate the "everyday life" part and just use "our own bodies"?
Mountain is a nice touch. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In Newtonian gravity, the gravitation force is caused by matter, more precisely - Should that be "gravitational"?
  • The key part of general relativity are Einstein's equations - verb tense - should be "is" since "part" is the subject of the sentence
  • These equations are formulated using Riemannian geometry, where the geometry of spacetime is defined by an object called the metric. - "in which" instead of "where" - Riemannian geometry is not a place
  • the crucial observations that justified the adoption of general relativity over Newtonian gravity - awkward - perhaps "justified replacing Newtonian gravity with general relativity"?
  • notably VLBI observations of the deflection of the light of distant quasars by the sun, have confirmed Eddington's results with significantly higher accuracy - Do not use abbreviations without explanation
  • To this day, scientists try to challenge general relativity with more and more precise experiments and observations - Why are they still testing it? Also, "challenge" is not the best word - for lay readers it sounds like they want to overturn all of realativity theory (creationists challenge evolution, for example).
  • and the success of these models is further indirect evidence of the theory's validity - Just how "indirect" is it? Reading this sentence as a lay person, I think to myself - only indirect? Pshaw - they have nothing.
  • such as quasars and other types of active galactic nucleus - "nucleus" should be plural
  • The current cosmological models, the Big Bang models which postulate the emergence of our present expanding universe - repetition of "model"
  • It is a longstanding hope that the theory of quantum gravity would also do away with a rather disturbing feature of general relativity: The presence of spacetime singularities – spacetime boundaries at which geometry becomes ill-defined – in the interior of black holes and at the beginning of the universe (the big bang) that general relativity predicts via the so-called singularity theorems. - too long

Minor style details:

  • It is traditional to use a lower-case letter after a colon. This article sometimes uses upper-case letters (there is no pattern to the choice, either). Find a style and stick to it.
  • The "See also" section should not include articles that have already been linked.
  • Make it clear if the online tutorials are for a lay audience or not.

Two suggestions from my live-in physics expert:

  • Perhaps the page should recommend that users read the Introduction to special relativity article before reading this one?
  • Would a paragraph on GPS be helpful here? It would give readers a real-world example of the usefulness of general relativity. Astrophysics is fascinating to some (myself included) and I don't think that section should be deleted or cut down, but many more people know what GPS is and would be intrigued to know more about how it works. Awadewit | talk 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I do think that this is a good idea. It brings scientific knowledge to the everyday level. That is a necessity for many people. Also, they may vote to fund it, if they think that it helps them. :) Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Awadewit - many thanks for your very thorough review. This is exactly the kind of helpful and constructive reaction I was hoping for (OK, better than what I was hoping for, but then I'm relatively new to Wikipedia). I'll be addressing the different issues you have raised point by point as I make the appropriate changes to the article; for now let me just say that, yes, this article is intended for a lay audience. For everyone from knowledgeable undergraduate physics students on up, there is the main article general relativity. Markus Poessel 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that you didn't find it too overwhelming. If this article is exclusively for those unfamiliar with real science, there may be even more material that needs to be explained. If you are aiming for college-educated readers (which is almost what you have to do given the subject matter), you might consider exactly what type of college graduates you are thinking about. There is a huge variation. I teach freshmen composition and literature classes at a large state university and I am pretty sure that the majority of the students whom I have taught would not understand this page (sadly). I don't know how low you want to aim, but it is worth thinking quite a bit about what your audience knows. Have you read the NSF's report on the public understanding of science? It is quite enlightening. Only half of the US population knows that electrons are smaller than atoms, for example, and only 70% knew that the earth went around the sun (not the other way around). Awadewit | talk 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I have read similar report, but not this particular one (thanks for the link!). On reflection, my intended reader is someone who is interested in understanding general relativity at the level of the first few chapters of The Elegant Universe or A Brief History of Time - someone who has a good idea of what a planet is, has heard the expressions "black hole" and "expanding universe" before, and is interested in understanding some of the connections between the physics of relativity and more familiar notions, albeit at a simple level. And I suppose that, yes, for that intended readership some of the sections (you have indicated a number in your review) are in need for a bit of further simplification. I'll have a go at it, starting with the sections you suggested. Markus Poessel 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that that is a good way to think about the reader. From my perspective, this page seems much more sophisticated than the The Elegant Universe (that is not necessarily bad). I think that it is more along the lines of Deep Down Things. Awadewit | talk 20:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Lead section: I have fleshed out this section, adding a bit more detail, changing the rather technical first sentence, and taking care of the prose issue raised for this section. Hopefully, it is now long enough for a proper stand-alone lead section. Markus Poessel 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that it is better, although I feel that it might be too technical, especially for a lead. A lead should make people want to read the article. Looking at this lead, I would assume that the article was too advanced for me to understand when in fact it is not. Think of the lead as (horrifyingly, I know) yet another simplification of GR - it is a simplification of the already simplified article. Awadewit | talk 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the proposed recommendation that users read the Introduction to special relativity article before reading this one, I think it's not a good idea. The level of presentation in that introduction is markedly higher than in this (the intro to gr makes no great use of formulae, the intro to sr does), and in fact most of the ideas presented there are not needed to understand the basics of general relativity as they are presented here. I did add a reference to the Introduction to special relativity to the first mention of the theory in the main text, but I think it's wrong to give readers the impression that they should read that text first.Markus Poessel 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I was just passing along a recommendation. I wouldn't want to comment myself, being totally ignorant of the subject matter. Awadewit | talk 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have replaced the image in the "Physical consequences section" by one that is rotated by 90 degrees. Now, the directions in the image are the same that are associated with our everyday notions of "up" or "down". I have also added an explanation of "upward" and "downward", as you suggested, and changed the introductory sentence that was "unclear and long". Markus Poessel 18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That made more sense to my obviously spatially-challenged mind. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • an object that is less close to the massive body, and thus less strongly influenced by its gravity, is said to be "higher up" than an object that is closer to the massive body, and thus more strongly influenced by its gravity - Would "further away" be equivalent to "less close"? I found "less close" to be an awkward phrase. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I changed it to "further away", obviously much better - a simple case of me not seeing the wood for the trees. Thanks! Markus Poessel 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no idea why the numbered list in "Gravity and acceleration" was shown in the way it was (with the numbers to the left of the main text). Anyway, I've moved the image to the right, and that appears to have fixed the layout. Markus Poessel 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've now explained the anomalous perihelion shift a bit better, adding an image. There was a bit of a chain reaction, though: I had to shift the Cassini image (which I would like to keep) towards the bottom, and I have added a bit more about binary pulsars (which should have gotten more coverage anyway) to re-balance the layout. Markus Poessel 19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very cool image. It helps a lot with the explanation (at least for me). Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In such a star system, two highly compact neutron stars orbit each other; at least one of them is a pulsar – an astronomical objects that appears to send a highly regular series of radio pulses towards earth. - Can you spot the grammar mistake? :) Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And a singularly stupid mistake it was, too. OK, I fixed it! Markus Poessel 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The section "From acceleration to geometry" (apparently what is meant by "From acceleration to gravity" in the review) has now been re-written. I have added some more information on the analogies in the first paragraph, as well as a more elementary description of spacetime, fixing a number of prose issues along the way. Markus Poessel 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the confusing with titles. It is much better. What do you think about including this image in that section (click to enlarge)?
  • I think it would be confusing in several respects: It mixes the two- and three-dimensional views (in the curved surface, the third - embedding - dimension is only a mathematical artefact, but the inclusion of the three-dimensional globe makes it seem like a real space dimension), and it suggests that space curvature is the important effect (for near-Newtonian gravity, the distortion of time is much more important). All in all, I feel that if that picture were included, one would need to include so many qualifications the the text would become not simpler, but more complicated. Markus Poessel 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have now re-written the section "Sources of gravity", adding further explanation of the equivalence of mass and energy and the intertwining of energy and momentum. Markus Poessel 12:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • as well as the binding energy of bound systems such as nuclei or molecules - Could you just say "the binding energy of systems such as nuclei or molecules"? Having the word "bind" in the sentence twice is inelegant.
  • Consequently, in general relativity, all the different forms of energy are on an equal footing as sources of gravity. - Hmm. A little colloquial, perhaps? Also, not particularly clear. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I listened to my inner Thoreau and simplified that sentence. Markus Poessel 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • However, already in special relativity, energy is closely connected to another physical quantity, namely to momentum. - This sounds slightly odd; with "already," the sentence suggests a chronological progression of some kind. Do you want to suggest that? Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If a system has a certain energy, then for some observers (relative to which the system is in motion), it will also have a certain momentum. - Would this also be accurate? "If a system has energy, then for some observers (relative to which it is in motion), it will also have a momentum." - Yours is a bit wordy and vague. (I realize x's and y's would be preferable.) Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
*Except for one small change (...it will also have non-zero momentum), I have now used the simplified form you suggested. Markus Poessel 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what "four-momentum" is. (I clicked, but then I saw all of the equations that I know I can't understand, and I returned to your page. Anything you want readers without a strong mathematical background to understand must be explained on your page.) Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Tthe statement was meant to be that a) energy and momentum are part of one unified quantity, and b) physicists have taken to calling that quantity "four-momentum". I've tried to make it clearer in the new version. Markus Poessel 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed use of upper-/lower-case letters after each colon. There had, in fact, been a system at least to the colons written by me (upper-case if what follows could serve as a stand-alone sentence, lower-case otherwise), but it's now all changed to conform to the more traditional way. Markus Poessel 12:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked for just such a system, but didn't see one. I wonder if someone else messed up your system. :) Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Going by my annotated printout of your review, the changes I made should now address all the prose issues you raised as well as the three minor style details you remarked upon. What I don't understand is why you marked the first paragraph of the section "Beyond general relativity?" with "citation needed". That paragraph is merely an introductory sentence; the next three paragraph raise the three main issues on which the conclusion that "the theory is very likely incomplete" is based. Markus Poessel 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Since you said that you wanted to bring the article to FA (which I think will be no problem), you should probably just slap a citation on there. FAC seems to have a rule of thumb of at least one citation per paragraph. I have found, at least, that if you have one for each paragraph, you are less likely to have the citation police breathing down your neck. But I write literature and history articles; perhaps the rules are somewhat different for science articles. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In principle, I would have said that since "details follow", a reference for the first paragraph would be overdoing it, but in fact, I've found two references presenting some aspects that are not covered in the following paragraphs, so I've added those. Markus Poessel 14:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Having revised the "Einstein's equations" section, and having added a paragraph on GPS in the "General relativity and observation" section, it appears to me that I have now addressed all the issues you raised. Markus Poessel 17:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent piece of work! Before submitting it to FAC, you might want to look carefully at the manual of style and be sure that your article adheres to all of its guidelines. I am currently going through an FAC that seems to be hung up on those issues. Awadewit | talk 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming from someone with such a keen eye for a text's weaknesses, that is welcome praise indeed. Thanks for the suggestion regarding the manual of style; I'll certainly do that. All in all, many thanks for your very thorough, constructive, and helpful review! Markus Poessel 17:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you want me to review another "introductory" article, let me know. I had a lot of fun doing this one and learned a lot. That is the best kind of reviewing. Awadewit | talk 09:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll be sure to take you up on that offer the next time I do a similar article! Markus Poessel 18:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

J. R. Richard

This is currently at FAC, and it has run into some snags regarding grammar, style and such. I would really appreciate it if some editors could take a look at the article and make some copyediting corrections soon. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blyth, Northumberland

I've been working on this article for a while now and have expanded it considerably. I want to nominate it for GA status and would like some advice on any improvements necessary to achieve this, or perhaps even a higher rating. Any help will be very much appreciated. Dbam Talk/Contributions 13:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

DC++

I'm interested in getting feedback about the article on DC++ here at Wikipedia. Of particular interest is how to best address (or not) the list of DC++ based software that has grown into the article. I'm not sure what the notability guidelines say about software, but I think the number of end users, if nothing else, of each derivative may be small. I don't think the method of covering forks helps readers. The article may also benefit from some more defined sections, which would in turn allow expansion of the text. (In interests of disclosure, I am closely associated with DC++, and I have edited the article, keeping WP:NPOV and WP:COI in mind.) --GargoyleMT 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Verisimilus

  • Could the lede be made more concise and encyclopaedic? For example, I'd remove 'A partial list of DC++ mods is given below..
  • The article reads in places like a technical specification of manual. I didn't expect the first paragraph of the body to be on the support of addresses...
  • There are a lot of low-content lists. See WP:LISTS for details on the manual of style's advice.
My personal approach would be to list only the names of major mods, with a note on its distinguishing features. As a non-DC expert, I can't currently see what sets those mods apart as interesting from an encyclopaedic perspective. Yes, they're useful if I want to decide which mod to download, but not if I'm interested in the software from an academic point of view. See WP:NOT.
  • The information in the article is poorly distributed. Check out the WP:LEDE guidelines and consider including information on the origin of the program, controversies over its use in illegal media-sharing, and an explanation of what it does. I consider myself something of a geek but had I not encountered the program myself, I'd have difficulty working out what it was - what is a hub? a mod? even the term client is unfamiliar, I'd suggest, to a significant proportion of the population.

To summarise, this article would be improved most effectively by incorporating a sense of development - the first section introducing the computer-illiterate, perhaps the next providing a history, the next maybe its notability (controversies, width of use, use in DOS attacks), and then a short section detailing any technical specifications you'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia, with perhaps a short list of mods appended.

In answer to your mod question, I suppose I'd follow the line that if the mod merits its own page, create it and provide details there - but if it does not differ sufficiently from DC++, then it's probably not worth mentioning as anything more than an external link.

I hope that's helpful, and it is of course simply my personal views... Verisimilus T 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The following comments have been copied from my talk page for ease of access. Verisimilus T
Thanks for your feedback about the article on DC++. It is appreciated, especially the specificity of the comments. The project (and the entire DC network) has been largely low-profile, with few news articles about it. I'll see what I can do without engaging in too much original research. As a side note, some of the DC++ offshoots have had their own project pages (ex: StrongDC, BCDC++), but were merged back in due to notability concerns. (I'm not sure if this is supposed to go on the peer review page, but I won't be able to give the article the attention it deserves for at least a couple of days, and acknowledging your review of it is paramount.) --GargoyleMT 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. Perhaps it would be appropriate to create a section in this article to describe each of the projects that once had their own page - if the sections would have enough content to justify their inclusion, anyway. Verisimilus T 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Prince George, British Columbia

See my comments on the talk page [8] and the page history [9]. I think we need some expert advice here before things start looking sloppy.CindyBo 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done*Remove the Cougars and Spruce Kings logos, per Fair Use requirements.

 Done*The History section should be expanded beyond community's origins.

 Done*In the Economy section "Prince George is now experiencing a modest growth." - in terms of what? and accoring to who/what?

 Done*Avoid external links in the middle of text as seen in the Culture section.

 Done*I suggest integrating the "Local attractions" section into the rest of the article, like orchestra, playhouse, museum stuff into the Culture section; the local wild edible fruit stuff into the Geography section (with other native plants/animals); and parks either to the Geography or Recreation section.

 Done*I have never liked listing famous/notable people, seems trivial and peripheral to the purpose/focus of city articles. But if they have to be listed provide a line on what they meant to the city (with a reference, of course).

  • Lists of radio and tv stations can be done in tables or templates (like Template:Dawson Creek TV), and write prose descriptions/summaries in the body.

-- maclean 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I agree with all of your suggestions and will be working on the article, section by section, this weekend. So those fair use images should only be on the Prince George Cougars and Prince George Spruce Kings articles, period? Is there a way to get permission to keep them in the Prince George article?CindyBotalk 19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Read about fair use a bit, they're gone until we get permission to use them.CindyBotalk 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm on it, then I'll work on the rest tomorrow. Thanks again.CindyBotalk 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I took out a couple of dead links in external links as well as some advertising links. Then I integrated the local attractions as you suggested, and ended up coming up with more recreational activities and local events as it seems like there was quite a few important ones missing. I ended up adding an annual events section, which seems to make sense to me and should work quite nicely, once the blanks are filled in. I had no idea where to put Mr. PG. He's not that artsy, but he has to go somewhere. As for the famous people, I just gave them their own section...for now, but, I think you're right and they should probably go, or be tied in in some other manner. I just removed the modest growth sentence for now, actually the census stats speak against that anyway, although other things like housing prices seem to tilt it the other way. I'll have to dig around for some references. Anyway, I think the basic format is a little better now, but I still have a lot more to reference and explain, particulary for the annual events that I added. Once the rest of the article is in shape, I'll do the history section.CindyBotalk 10:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the famous people entirely and added more information on the annual events and that 8 way geography chart. However, I found this template here for the media as you mentioned[10] but I have no idea what to do with it. I usually just write history articles and I have no experience with charts and templates (outside of simple copy, paste and edit ones). Could you walk me through how I'm supposed to add the information and how to put it in the article?CindyBotalk 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, what should bibliography mean in this context?General books about Prince George or just books that were used in compiling the information for the article, or both?CindyBotalk 20:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the history section, probably overdid it, but it's hard to squeeze 200 years of history into under a thousand words. If you think it should be a main article, that's fine, I'll keep a copy of it in my sandox, so I can easily make a full article on it anytime and chop the Prince George article down a bit.CindyBotalk 08:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not followed up on. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Heteronormativity

I am nominating this article for review because the defense of section is problematic in several ways:

  • it has NPOV issues
  • it does not explain the reasoning, references, or thinkers who defend heteronormativity
  • it requires prior knowledge about a celebrity "scandal" in order to be understood
  • it does not engage the material in an academic manner, which is important, being that heteronormativity is an academic construct
  • it does not cite appropriate sources

In addition, the section is poorly written. Jmsast 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your nomination appears to imply you will not be working on the article. Do you yourself intend to address concerns, or someone on the article? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

E (mathematical constant)

I'm attempting to get this core article to GA status. I previously nominated it for GA status, and the article went through several dramatic changes before being (temporarily) failed for lack of stability. I'd like to get additional feedback and suggestions for the article before I renominate. Thank you. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:
  • I have a slight issue with the first sentence, because it appears to be using circular reasoning for the definition. e is the base of the natural logarithm, but the natural logarithm is defined as a logarithm to the base e. That doesn't seem very informative to me. The image to the right of the lead does a better job, I think, so perhaps e could also be defined in terms of the exponential function within the lead?
    • Not circular, merely complicated. "Natural log" is the basic concept here; e, and bases, can be defined in terms of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It might be helpful if the "compound-interest problem" section showed how the result extended to such real-world examples as population growth, the spread of disease, and radioactive decay.
  • A substantial portion of the text consists of mathematical formulae that may not be of general interest. But I'm not sure how that could be addressed.
  • There is some redundancy between the "Alternative characterizations" and "Representations of e" sub-sections. Should they be consolidated? — RJH (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope this was somewhat helpful. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made comments below on two of the points. These certainly merit further discussion, so I have sectioned them off accordingly. Silly rabbit 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Exponential growth and decay

All points are worth addressing, in my opinion. But allow me to zero in one the second bullet point for a moment. While it is certainly true that exponential functions play the fundamental role in all exponential growth and decay models, it is difficult to justify in general terms why one should use the peculiar base e. This is one reason for focusing on the probability applications rather than those manifestly involving exponential growth and decay: the number e arises quite naturally. It may be reasonable to include a mention of the applications of exponential functions (these are dealt with in other articles), but I would resist placing any emphasis on them here unless someone can come up with a convincing example why one would use e as the base rather than some other number. It's important to bear in mind that this article focuses on the number e rather than the function ex. Silly rabbit 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't e naturally arise as the necessary base of the solution to certain differential equations? (E.g. Radioactive_decay#Decay_timing.) Especially since the article spends an entire section on e in calculus. — RJH (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. Yes, certainly. If we are allowed to pursue the differential equations route, this could easily be worked into the e in calculus section. Silly rabbit 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I started to bring in the radioactive decay timing example you suggested, but it did not seem to be popular with the other editors. Silly rabbit 16:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. These are only suggestions, after all. — RJH (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical formulas

It's going to be hard to get rid of the mathematical formulas in the text. Already many formulas were moved to the Representations of e article. The trouble with e is that it is so intimately tied up with ideas of calculus, and to give a proper discussion seems to involve using formulas. There are levels of general interest to consider too. I doubt there is any way to make a compelling case for the number to someone who is unfamiliar with the basic ideas of differentiation, integration, and/or limits. The derangements example may come close, but that is mathematically sophisticated in other ways. Silly rabbit 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't have an issue with the presence of the formulae in the text. But they may deter some readers. So additional clarification may be needed. — RJH (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Clarification is always good. But the equations should not be trimmed; this is an encyclopedia, not Richard Feynman's publisher, who told him that every equation would halve his sales. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Septentrionalis' points there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

With regard to the redundancy, I'm not sure how to tackle this problem. I would like to get rid of the two redundant representations of e, since these are already discussed at length during the preceding sections. However, that would leave only the continued fraction representation, and this gives a rather misleading impression to the reader about its relative importance. It may be appropriate to reassess the inclusion of a few select candidates from the Representations of e article. It would be nice if we could say why the selected representations are important as well. Silly rabbit 10:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps then the article could give a mathematical representation of the software algorithm used to compute the digits e? (Presumably because it is the most efficient known means to compute said digits.) I think I would find that of interest. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that was a rather odd ommission as well, given that there is a big table of the number of digits computed. ;-) Silly rabbit 18:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Scottish independence

This article has undergone a fairly extensive rewrite over the last couple weeks and I would like to see where other editors feel it now stands. I feel input from non-Scottish editors may be especially useful. I am aware of the outstanding citations required, any help with those would be great. Kanaye 21:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good article, well done. A hasty (by no means thorough) review...
  • I don't like the bracketed i.e. in the lede. Can you find a way of rewording this that avoids needing to explain yourself?
  • Scotland and it's populace --> its!
  • POV - The Anti-devolution view is, as you suspect, under-represented. As far as I understand the situation, both sides of the argument are equally keenly fought - hence they ought really receive a similar amount of coverage.
  • Perhaps put the 'location of Scotland' image earlier in the article. If I didn't know it, I'd want to know before that stage of the article...
Thanks for your input, I've revised the article accordingly. I've beefed up the anti-devolution viewpoint, although I wasn't sure whether you were specifically referring to the the devolution section or the article in general. Kanaye 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Police duty belt

Would like to see whether any improvements can be made and whether it would pass GA status, and any other comments/questions are very welcome! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 08:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

SGGH

  • My first main thought is that it doesn't cover beyond the US and Europe, and it would be good to get some other perspectives from non-western police forces if possible.
  • You may want to expand the lead slightly to include a summary of more than just the equipment it holds.
  • The "colour" section (which should be color according to MoS) could use a cite
  • The huge coverage of every kind of equipment holder is excellent! Though a couple more cites would be good.
  • "Country-specific equipment" ought to be expanded beyond the US and the UK, as I mentioned above.
  • I think the link to Bianchi International could be placed in the history or somewhere in the prose rather than a see also, which I generally find to be pretty redundant in this article, but that's just me :)
  • Good reference summary
  • Great images, the handcuff key one should be a little bigger, possibly add one about the fasteners?
  • " Truncheons themselves had been introduced as early as 1764[6], however it was not until 1994 that police forces started to introduce the duty belt to contain such equipment,[7] as a alternative to having their staff carry equipment in their handbags or pockets, or in the case of the earliest officers, carrying a cutlass or firearm clipped to the belt of the frock coat." this sentence is huge (admittedly I did write some of it) so it does need cutting down a little.

Good article though, great work Dep. You suprised me with how much you found to talk about :) SGGH speak! 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll work on some of these issues which you have stated above! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Changed "Colour" to "Color" per MoS. Moved link to Bianchi to prose. Made image of handcuff key bigger, and added picture of "three way buckle". Working on the other points! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Most redirects I've ever seen! :O SGGH speak! 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aude

Impressive work on the article, so far, in such a short amount of time.

  • Suggest the "A popular product in this range is this." and "A good demo of this can be seen here." be removed or converted into proper cites.
  • Overall, the article needs more references.
  • Other equipment sometimes includes speedloader
  • Other manufacturers beside Bianchi International include Gould & Goodrich [11] and Michaels of Oregon ("Uncle Mike's") - 1998 Canadian Police Research Centre report
  • Holsters made by Uncle Mike's and Safariland
  • Here are some articles that may be good references [12]
  • 1995 Canadian Police Research Centre (CPRC) report [13] highlights health and safety concerns due to the size, weight, and overcrowding of duty belts, especially for officers of smaller stature. Health problems include back strain.
  • Leather vs. nylon duty belts - nylon belts are much more comfortable, easier to adjust, and did not slip on the waist, easier to maintain (washable, maintains color, and "virtually no care" needed). [14]
  • Leather vs. nylon - I can't find it online, but there is an article, "Consistent Evolution in Belt Gear" in Law and Order Volume:47 Issue:1 Dated:February 2000. I might be able to get a copy of it. [15]
  • How about types of duty belts used by corrections officers and other types of officers? this talks some about equipment
  • Differences in equipment for mounted police, bike patrol, etc. [16]

That's all I can think of at the moment. These are just suggestions and possible ideas for improving the article, but not obliged to cover all these points. --Aude (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More comments - I notice the article already references the 1995 CPRC report. The Wikipedia article says "supposedly rigid nylon belts and so many forces are now switching to leather belts as they are considered by some as more flexible." with reference to the CPRC report. I looked at the CPRC report again, but it talks about 83% of the officers preferring the Nylon belts, that they offered more comfort, etc. On page 17, they recommend that the Ontario Provincial Police purchase nylon belts, and not leather belts. So, I'm perplexed why the police duty belt seems to say the opposite of what the reference says. --Aude (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, i will work on some of the issues you have raised! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanner Trail

Just had a major expansion. I would like to know if anything should be added, and it would be great if you are familiar with grading the article, to grade it because it is no longer a stub. Any other suggestions or comments would be great. Thanks.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs

Some nice work. A few pointers:
  • The lead is too short at only two sentences and does not sum up the article, nor would it stand in isolation on its own. Done
  • I would place 'History' as the first subsection after the lead. Done
  • The words 'the trail' occur more times than might be necessary, and some tweaking to the wording to lessen their frequency might help. Done
  • The tone at times is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article: "it still descends at a nice rate", "Please remember that the sand dunes to west are off-limits". Done
  • http://www.bobspixels.com may not be a suitable source for citing from, being a personal website, though it makes a good external link. You can probably find the same information in printed form, and can cite from that instead.
  • You might want to expand on 'History', for example: when was the trail officially recognised, and provided with protection? Have any books been written about the trail, and has it featured in any hiking documentaries, or on film?
  • A map would be useful.
I hope these can be helpful. Regards, — BillC talk 10:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

QI

I personally think that areas that may need attention are images, the external links and the highlights section (I'm not sure if it is needed). ISD 15:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The main problems with the article is that it gives no information as to QI's production, filming and such like. And also no reception, critical acclaim or awards. Gran2 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added the sections you've asked for.ISD 20:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick Review by Verisimilus

  • The article goes into dare I say obsessive detail about the performance of Alan Davies. And is anyone likely to update the 6.122% after each show?
  • Short sections towards the end of the article should be expanded or merged

Verisimilus T 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed certain parts and expanded on sections that can be expanded. I don't think the "Awards" section can be lengthed but, the culture section has. ISD 07:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

John Frusciante

I and a few other editors have gone through great-lengths recently to greatly improve this article. I want to eventually nominate this article for featured status, but before we get way too ahead of ourselves, I thought a peer-review would be helpful. If anyone wants to look over this article and give us some pointers or offer some constructive criticism as to how we can further improve this article, then please, by all means. Our main concern with the article at this juncture is the equipment section. Although I have gone to great lengths to cite every piece of equipment listed, it's possible that further improvement could be made to the formatting or presentation of the section. Thanks. Grim-Gym 05:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Karanacs

  • Hi. This was a pretty informative article; I didn't know anything about him before I read it and it felt like you gave a pretty comprehensive overview of him as a person and his musical style. I think it could use some improvement, though.
  • per WP:MOSBIO, after you establish his name, just use the surname, Frusciante, instead of John Frusciante. For other people in the article who do not share his surname, after the first instance use only their surname, not their first name or fullname. This is a problem with references to Hillel Slovak.
    • Need citations!!! You should have at least one citation per paragraph, and more where necessary.*
  • The early life section is out of order. Since you talk about him moving to LA in paragraph 2, it shouldn't be in the first paragraph.
  • Many of your paragraphs have sentences that all begin the same. Four sentences in a row that begin with "He" is a little excessive, so try to mix those up a bit.
    • Some parts of your article sound a little too magaziney. For example, "Strangely enough,"*
  • There are other prose issues where the sentences are structured awkwardly. Here are a few examples
    • "When Frusciante was later inquired about the response he gave to his rapid sanction into the Red Hot Chili Peppers"
    • "By this time, he had developed serious drug habits as a result of touring with the band during the previous four years; similarly, during the time interval, Kiedis embarked on a drug-pillage, once again after being clean for five years."
  • This seems to be contradictory: "fell into a docile and volatile depression,"*
  • You don't need to specify that River Phoenix is dead.
    • Some parts of the 2004 recordings section appear more like trivia*
  • Do you really need the equipment section?*
  • Some of your citations are formatted incorrectly or are not using a proper template. These have the author's first name first instead of last name first.

Good luck! 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is very helpful, thank you. As you can see, I've already addressed the smaller points you made, we'll start work on the larger ones right away. I removed the "magaziney" statement you referred to. Was this the only example of this you could see, or were there others? The equipment section is becoming a scourge upon this article, and I must concede that it may be for the best if we removed it. This was tremendously helpful, thank you. If anyone else wants to help look over this article for other points that could be improved, that would be greatly helpful. Grim-Gym 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mozart piano concertos

Would be grateful for review of length, style, content etc!

--Grahbudd 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I really liked your piece - fascinating, enlightening, well written.

I would have nothing to say about it if you hadn't asked for a peer review. That kind of obligates me to make some kind of criticism, so here goes:

  • I think the lead paragraph doesn't really focus on the main stuff. I would take all the information about the history of analysis, and move it into a separate section. Instead of it, I would write something about the importance of these concertos to the history of piano concertos - something like, "With these concertos, Mozart created a new mold that changed the way composers would handle piano in an orchestral context."
  • In the section 1786 you write that "... a set of variations, is commonly called "sublime": it is a work that even Glenn Gould, not known for being a great supporter of Mozart, expressed some reluctant admiration for." First of all, if you use quotation marks, it means a quote. Who are you quoting? In any case, a statement like that requires attribution. Secondly, the part about Glenn Gould is painfully awkward. How about something like, "... that even Glenn Gould, not known as a great Mozart supporter, admired."
  • There are a few other places where you make value judgments like the one above, without attribution, but I was so carried away by the content that I forgot to mark them. So you will have to find them yourself.

Thank you for an enjoyable read. --Ravpapa 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A good article. It provides lots of useful information, but it only has one image. Perhaps a scan of the sheet music of one of them? - E2MB the museblogger 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

This is in many ways a very good article. I have played the piano for twenty-five years (even a Mozart concerto!) and I learned a lot from it. What needs to be done is to make sure that it complies with the most important policies at wikipedia. The language in many places could also be more precise. Here are my suggestions for improvement.

Lead: The lead is not a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." I would aim for 3-4 paragraphs for this article, as recommended in the guidelines. Be sure to include a mention of all of the major topics the article addresses.

  • The Mozart piano concertos are piano concertos by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791). - A bit redundant don't you think? The piano concertos are piano concertos? The Mozart concertos are by Mozart? I realize you want Mozart's full name in there, but there must be a better way.
  • These works, many of which Mozart composed for himself to play in the Vienna concert series of 1784–86 held a special place for him - "held a special place for him" is vague and awkward - can you be more specific?
  • These works, many of which Mozart composed for himself to play in the Vienna concert series of 1784–86 held a special place for him; indeed, Mozart's father apparently interrupted him composing a "harpsichord concerto" at age 4. - I don't see how the "indeed" logically follows.
  • For a long time relatively neglected, they have come to be seen as containing some of his greatest achievements. - awkward and unspecific - Can you say "Neglected for [time span], they are now considered some of his greatest works" or something like that?
  • Tovey championed them in his Essay on the Classical Concerto in 1903, and later came the famous books by Cuthbert Girdlestone and Arthur Hutchings in 1940 (originally published in French) and 1948, respectively. Hans Tischler published a structural and thematic analysis of the concertos in 1966, followed by the important works by Charles Rosen, and Leeson and Robert Levin. - too detailed for a lead - I would give only the first or most important "champion".
  • In recent years, two of the concertos have also been covered in the Cambridge Music Handbook series. - unnecessary in a lead
  • The first complete edition was not until that of Richault from around 1850; and since then the scores and autographs have become widely available through the publications of eg Norton, Eulenberg (edited by Friedrich Blume) and Dover. - too much detail for the lead - perhaps mention the first edition and then say it is currently widely available without listing all of them? That kind of list can come in the article itself.

Sources: The article needs to be cited to reliable sources (in this case, books and articles by musicologists). Your list of references looks good, although I am sure it could be expanded. Use those books to provide the reader with inline citations (footnotes) so that s/he knows where each piece of information is coming from. See citations and reliable sources. Here are some examples of sentences needing citation:

  • The next concerto, KV. 449 in E flat major, ushers in a period of creativity that has certainly never been surpassed in piano concerto production. - Statements like this are considered "point of view" (WP:NPOV) unless they have a reliable source backing them up.
  • The final work of the year, No. 25, KV. 503, sometimes referred to as "Mozart's Emperor Concerto" - We need to know where this is coming from.
  • The prelude is invariably rich in thematic material, with as many as six or more well-defined themes being introduced. However, the concertos fall into two rather marked groups as to what sort of themes they possess.
  • The genius of Mozart's mature movements, therefore, is to be able to manipulate a mass of thematic material without compromising the broader scale conception; and the listener, rather than being given the impression of "fiddling" with all the themes, instead is left with the ritornellic impression: Mozart truly uses "art to conceal art". - Quotations in particular must be sourced.
  • Girdlestone considers the slow movements to fall into five main groups, i.e. "galant", "romance", "dream", "meditative" and the "minor" ones. - Any ideas attributed to a specific writer must also be sourced.
  • Today, at least three of these works (nos 20, 21 and 23) are among the most recorded and popular classical works in the repertoire
  • For example, a search on Amazon.com for "K. 467, Mozart" (No. 21, by far the most recorded of the concertos, especially its slow movement) will give almost 600 hits - Eek! Why not use a reputable publication that lists all of the recordings?

General comments:

  • Instead of moving backwards in time in the "Origins" section, why don't you move forward? It is a little difficult to follow the way it is now.
  • Linking of individual years is usually discouraged, unless you are linking to something like "1776 in music."
  • Can you make the KV links clearer by perhaps including the KV in the linked phrase? Sometimes the typography becomes confusing. You do this sometimes in the article, but not always.
  • It is standard practice to link something the first time it appears in a section (Beethoven is linked later in the "First movement" section, for example.)
  • In the "Second movement" section, I would suggest listing only the types and explaining what they are rather than giving the reader the detailed list.
  • I do not mind your long paragraphs, but if you intend to go for GA or FA with this article, you might think about breaking them up. I have noticed a distinct preference for short paragraphs among wikipedia editors.
  • I would focus the "Discography" on famous and influential recordings rather than complete recordings or at least add a section on famous performances and interpretations of the Mozart concertos.
  • The "Piano concertos in films" section seems superfluous to me. As it is only a list, I would create a "Mozart piano concertos in popular culture" page and put it there. Those pages seem to be only lists of these kinds of things.
  • Can you include more sound clips?
  • I would add bullets to all lists to make them easier to read.
  • I would cite the Henle editions of Mozart's concertos - they are generally regarded as superior to Dover editions.
  • Again, if you want to submit this to FA, you will probably need to add more categories and more images (I added one of a fortepiano.)

One consistent problem that I saw in the article's prose was a tendency to make vague claims. Here are some examples of what I mean:

  • The next two, Nos 7–8 (KV. 242 and KV. 246) are generally not regarded as demonstrating much of an advance - an advance in what?
  • although No. 7, the concerto for three pianos, is quite well known - why is it well-known?
  • it is often described as "Tyrolean", and stands some comparison with the later A major concerto, KV. 488 - Why can it be compared with the later concerto?
  • The last of these three, No. 13, KV. 415, is an ambitious, perhaps even overambitious work, that introduces the first, military theme in a canon in an impressive orchestral opening: the last movement is considered to be the best. - Why "overambitious"? Considered to be the best by whom?
  • The advance in technique and structure from the early Vienna examples is marked from the very first of this mature series. - What specifically are the changes in technique and structure?

Another problem is that the writing at times assumes that the reader has a lot of specialized knowledge. Here are some examples:

  • so that some older works (e.g. Girdlestone) - Who is this? A scholar or a bibliographer? Be as clear as possible - perhaps something like "some older lists of Mozart's works, such as [first name] Girdlestone's"
  • KV. 451 is a not very well known work (Hutchings appears not to have liked it particularly, although Girdlestone ranks it highly). - Who is Hutchings?
  • His later concertos are truly described as concertos for "piano and orchestra" rather than the more obviously "piano" concertos of the nineteenth century (e.g. that of Grieg etc). - Tell the reader Grieg's entire name and eliminate the "etc." or fill in other examples (such as Franz Liszt).
  • Beethoven was clearly impressed by them, even if the anecdotal story about his comments to Ferdinand Ries about no. 24 is legendary - what anecdotal story?

Prose:

  • Early keyboard concertos were written by, among others, C.P.E. Bach, J.C. Bach, Soler, Wagenseil, Schobert, Vanhall and Haydn. - It is a good idea to include first names for each composer the first time you mention them, as a courtesy to the reader.
  • the tradition of Baroque operatic arias, from which the first movements of Mozart's piano concertos inherited their basic ritornellic structure - It is a good idea to explain basic concepts that are important to the topic at hand in a phrase even if you have the word linked. Users can only click so many times.
  • Mozart also wrote three arrangements of piano sonatas by J. C. Bach (Op 5. No. 2 in D major; Opus 5. No. 3 in G Major and Opus 5. No. 4 in E flat major, all composed by 1766), catalogued under KV. 107/1, 2 and 3 respectively. These works were written in 1771–1772, based on handwriting analysis of the autographs. - Confusing - they were written by 1766 or in 1771?
  • was his first real effort in the genre, and one that proved enduringly popular at the time - "enduringly popular" seems to contradict "at the time"
  • The final concerto Mozart wrote before the end of his Salzburg period was the well-known concerto No. 10 for two pianos - Perhaps you could mention at the beginning of the paragraph/section that this is considered Mozart's Salzburg period?
  • The next concerto in B flat, KV. 456, was for a long time considered to be written for the blind pianist Maria Theresa von Paradis to play in Paris - Is it no longer considered to be written for her? Confusing.
  • In the works of his mature series, Mozart created a unique conception of the piano concerto that attempted to solve the ongoing problem of how thematic material is dealt with by the orchestra and piano - vague
  • He strives to maintain a mean between a sort of symphony with piano solos stuffed in here and there, and a virtuoso piano fantasia with orchestral accompaniment; twin traps that later composers were not always able to avoid - "stuffed in here and there" is colloquial language
  • The form of Mozart's piano concerto first movements has generated much discussion, of which modern instances were initiated by the highly influential analysis provided by Tovey in his Essay. - awkward
  • ending in a shake in the dominant (for major key concertos) or the relative major (for minor key concertos) - I have never heard the word "shake" before in reference to piano music - what does it mean?
  • To express it in another way, in sonata form, the first group of subjects is linked to and generates an expectation of the second group, which would tend to detract attention away from the piano entry - a point that, as Tovey points out, was only grasped by Beethoven rather belatedly. - wordy
  • In other concertos, such as No. 16, there is no such thing. - "no such thing" is colloquial
  • In the earlier concertos, such as the not totally successful No. 13 in C major, and even more so, perforce, in the concertos for two and three pianos - "perforce" sounds stilted
  • However, two of his most important finales, that to KV. 453, and to KV. 491, are in variation form, and both these are generally regarded to be among his best. - Would this not be "theme and variation" form?
  • In addition, three more concertos, KV. 450, 451 and 467 can be regarded as being in rondo-sonata form - wordy
  • All of Mozart's mature concertos were concertos for the piano and not the harpsichord - wouldn't this be fortepiano? Awadewit | talk 04:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Verisimilus

A fine article. It would be easy to get bogged down in Wikipedia's style guidelines but I've always valued readability more highly - and this is a pleasure to read in its own right, a rare thing in the often over-formalised Wikipedia!

There are just a couple of points which I'd personally have avoided; most strikingly, the abundance of lists and listy sentences. From a readability perspective, I found myself skimming over lists containing more than three or four terms. Perhaps some lists (e.g. origins) could be abbreviated; elsewhere the information may be better conveyed as a table, which would also go some way to break up large blocks of text. I'd query how essential the list in, for example, the "second movenemt structure" section is with regards to this article.

Further, the "first movement structure" section is very long; Maybe consider adding sub-headings, or failing that, something else to break up the daunting-looking page of text.

The other thing I was going to mention was the lead. It gives a good introduction but not much of an overview. I'd mirror the previous comment with just a note that with such a long article, it may be ambitious to cram everything into 3 paragraphs whilst maintaining a readable style and capturing the reader's interest... it often boils down to a matter of personal choice which side of the fence one falls!

Verisimilus T 22:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney

I requested that this page be peer reviewed in June and received some great suggestions. I've taken these on board and made changes and was hoping that someone could have a look and see if it is worthy of GA status yet and/or make any further suggestions. Thanks in advance! Loopla 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney/archive1

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments of Twenty Years

  • First off, fix the infobox. May i recommend Template:Aust school private.
  • The principals degrees need not be listed in the infobox, this is about the school, not the principals life achievements. Remove all "qualifications" (except Dr. etc) from the chairman and chaplain sections aswell.
  • References should not be used in the lead, unless there are extra-ordinary claims made. As such - 7&8 can go.
  • The lead need not contain the information about the principal. Concise - remember.
  • (from History - para 1) 7th of January, 1888 should be wikilinked and changed to January 7, 1888.
  • The quote of the student is possibly a bit too far, and takes up WAY too much room
  • The school prayer could be a copyvio?
  • College Motto section should be deleted, or at best - merged with another section.
  • College Crest is prob a bit too far, who really cares about the crest, if its so important, chuck it into the history of the article
  • School hymn is prob a copy vio and also unencyclopedic.
  • College tartan should be merged with uniform.
  • School badge should be merged with uniform
  • Too much info in the House System. See Aquinas College, Perth it deals with that section well.
  • Facilities....BORING. Does an encyclopedia really care about the Transition House at PLC Sydney? NO! So delete it.
  • The list of sports/bands/ensembles is completely useless, and no-one cares about it. Scotch College, Perth handles it well.
  • Im bored of this, and this will remain incomplete. Someone read WP:AQC and re-do the article. I am onto it.
  • It has been a pleasure. Twenty Years 12:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Juventus F.C.

I have been working on this article a lot lately in an effort to bring it up from B rating to Good Article status. Most of the work seems to be done now, but is there anything else that could be done to it? Regards. - The Daddy 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by SpecialWindler

It seems a very good article, and definetly has the attributes to be GA and beyond. Some suggestions

  • The first paragraph of the LEAD is only one sentence, this isn't a big issue though. Done
  • Alot of the "history" section is uncited, how do i know (not really knowing the game of soccer) that it's total jiberish. Done
  • The "Players currently on loan" looks a little messy Done

(Note from the Daddy) - every paragraph now has atleast one citation. - The Daddy 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • What is "retired numbers", it dosen't elaborate on it
    • Although it has a main article attached, you should elaborate why and how Gianluca Pessotto got it.

(Note from the Daddy) - that isn't standard for football articles, the main article on the subject of retired numbers explains the circumstances in which a number is retired. - The Daddy 14:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The "Notable former players" section is messy as well Done
  • Again with sources how do I know the "Managerial history" section is total jibberish Done
  • The "Club statistics and records" section should be written in paragraphs rather than dot points Done
  • The "Colours, badge and nicknames" has a quote, it is a little unclear who said that quote (was it John Savage or his friend) Done
  • Can the lists in the "Juventus Football Club as a company" become tables Done
    • Again, can it be sources.

Thats a quick review. SpecialWindler 09:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review I'll tick each one off with a "done" tag when they've been sorted. - The Daddy 08:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by The Rambling Man

Okay, good so far. My comments will reflect what I think is needed for an WP:FA so if WP:GA is all you have in mind then you may be able to overlook some of them.

  • Move all citations in accordance with WP:CITE, e.g. most of them need to be moved to behind punctuation marks with no spaces between the [ref] and the mark. Done
  • WP:DASH should be applied for the seasons, e.g. 1998–99 instead of 1998-99. Done
  • Unwikilink club, no need. Done
  • Reduce width of infobox by adding a <br> between Ranieri and his appointment date. Done
  • For section headings, avoid re-use of the word "Juventus" and don't over-capitilise (i.e. "Supporters and rivalries" rather than "Supporters and Rivalries") Done
  • Why two stadium capacities in infobox (presumably seated/standing?), this is confusing.
  • player at the club; John Savage, not a semi-colon here I think, more likely a comma.
  • Specifically for WP:FAC, you could create a History of Juventus F.C. and leave a brief six or so paragraphs in this article. Done
  • Move Pessotto picture up one paragraph to tie it to text. Done
  • Consistent date formats needed (you have "December 15, 2006", "Jan. 14, 2007", "May 19, 2007" in one paragraph) - standardise and wikilink significant dates. Done
  • Explanation of "Primavera/Berretti" would help the non-expert reader. Done
  • What makes the Notable Players notable? See Arsenal F.C. and subpages for how to handle this subjectivity. Done
  • Turn stats section into prose. Done
  • Move one of the images in the "Colours, badge and nicknames" section to the right hand side. Done
  • No citations on kit sponsors. Done

Hope that helps a bit. All the best, The Rambling Man 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

My esteemed colleagues seem to have picked up most of the issues with this article, but I'd also draw your attention to some extremely poorly worded sentences e.g. in the "Colours, badge and nicknames" section what on earth does this actually mean: "This nickname, globally famous, was derived by the standard of living of then founders, all young torinesi students, in the latest years of the nineteenth century."? Not only does it not make grammatical sense, it doesn't actually explain the origin of the nickname "The Old Lady", which is the point it is supposed to be qualifying (certainly if there's an obvious connection between the founders of the club being poor students and the club winding up being known as The Old Lady I can't see it.....) ChrisTheDude 09:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Done

See the article "Trivia" in Juventus' article in it-wiki (Curiosita' sulla JFC). --Dantetheperuvian 20:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Dantetheperuvian

  • Urgent insert explanation of "Managerial history" would help the non-expert reader and -principally- the English readers (Managerial responsability in UK is not the same respect a Italy, Spain and Latin-America for example).
  • Insert Stadium (and Project Stadium) information (see the same article in it-wiki).
  • Insert + info for "Supporters" (is not the same respect to UK)...
  • Urgent make the article "History of Juventus F.C." (see the same article in it-wiki). In this moment this section is poor (and principally talks for Calciopoli). Very poor IN THIS MOMENT for one of most legendary clubs of the world according FIFA...
  • Insert Article "Juventus F.C. seasons" (exist only for 2006-07. The club was founded in 1897).
  • Insert some historical and present photos.
  • Insert Juventus Center and Juventus Channel links here:

Sorry for my poor English, it's not my native languaje. --Dantetheperuvian 20:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Connecticut tornadoes

This article is somewhat of an experiment for me. First, it is my first list here on Wikipedia. Second, there are no other lists of weather events by state, save tropical cyclones, so I'm not sure if this idea will carry well for further articles (i.e. List of Delaware tornadoes). Regardless, please let me know what you think. -RunningOnBrains 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good, tornadoes don't travel state boundaries too much, so it's a reasonable categorisation. Could be a Featured list if you added a good lead, and avoided jumping forwards (E.g. "1728 or 1729: A tornado passed through New Britain, in nearly the same spot as the 1787 tornado", before the 1787 tornado is described.) Good luck! Adam Cuerden talk 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
One thought: It would be helpful to include a map, or possibly one map per section, to avoid crowding, showing where the places mentioned are. Adam Cuerden talk 19:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins

Myself and some other editors are trying to improve this artice, and I would like to see it at G or F status sometime in the future. Please can you inform us about any changes you think needed to be made and which sections are the poorest. We have previously been informed that the "Romantic Interests" section is poor and suffers from poor sentencing/wording. If you agree, please copy/paste the related sentences here and make any corrections you see fit. Thanks. Dalejenkins 13:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gran2

Okay, overall its pretty good, and well sourced, but here are a few problems.

  • The image is a fair use image, its needs to go. It either can be replaced by a free use image, (an image you or another ha taken themselves, or has been uploaded by someone else to Flickr under an appropriate license) or just have no image at all.
  • The lead needs to be expanded, with info about here early life and personal life, and any other projects. Also a little more info about her appearance on the Apprentice. See WP:LEAD for more info, the lead needs to summarise the article. The "Exeter, Devon, England" birth location can go in the lead as well. Katie Hopkins (born 1976, in Exeter, Devon, England)
  • I would rename "Romantic Interests" to "Personal life".
  • All section headers should not be capitalised on both words. For example, "Early Life" needs to be "Early life", and so on.
  • Ref 38 is broken.
  • Ref 1 needs to be properly formated with cite news.
  • In the response section (this so very minor, more a personal request), could you change "Love, Actually and Four Weddings and a Funeral writer Richard Curtis" to "Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill writer Richard Curtis". As his most famous film, FWaaF should go first, and NH was more of a critical and commercial sucess than LA so is probably his second most sucessful film. But this doesn't really matter, as said, it would be a personal request as I got NH to GA status and want to have the article linked as much as possible. Also, the sentence could work fine with just saying "Richard Curtis", as he is a well known person anyway.
  • As for the prose, I'm not really much of a copy-editer. If you don't get many other comments about it from other people, I suggest submitting the article to WP:LOCE.

Hope this helps. Gran2 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that most of the refs have (English) written after them. This isn't needed as this is the English Wikipedia, meaning most refs are in English. Its only needed when its in another language. Gran2 17:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by karanacs

This article is unfortunately nowhere near GA-ready. If you are willing to do a bit of work you should be able to bring it up to that level, however. The biggest issues are the structure and the fact that the prose is not formal enough.

  • Lead
    • Does Reality TV need to be capitalized? I think this should be lower case
    • "You're Fired leads to a disambig page. It is really necessary?
    • The lead is a tad short -- it should be at least twice this long.
  • An encyclopedia should use a more formal tone, so refer to her as Hopkins instead of Katie. This is also the rule for others, such as Paul Collins (after first reference, refer to him only as Collins, not Paul and not his full name again).
  • The structure of this article needs a lot of work. I think you should try for a more chronological organization. Instead of having a separate personal life section, incorporate that information into the other parts of the article (it is confusing to talk about her relationship with Paul Callaghan in detail, and then to go back in the Apprentice section and talk about the same relationship. Likewise, the early life section does not really cover her early life; it's just a hodgepodge of facts about her.
    • A lot of the first half of the article borders on trivia, which shoud not be included in the article. Is it really important that she thinks she can out press up most men?
    • If possible, I'd like to see more information about her professional background. There had to be a reason that she was included on The Apprentice -- what about her previous profession was notable, other than lots of travel?
    • I'd like to see more information about her performance on the Apprentice. Did her team win when she was Project Manager? What did the tasks include during her project management stint, and what did her teammates think of her leadership skills? Why was she brought into the boardroom by the other contestants?
    • In what way did the tabloids compare her to real people? A few quotes (if they are printable) might be good.
  • The tone of the article overall also needs to be more encyclopediac. There are many instances, but these are a few that jumped out at me as needing fixing: "hit the headlines," "walked", "slammed"
  • full dates need to be wikilinked (June 12, 2007); partial dates should not be wikilinked (May 2007)
  • Citations
    • Citations should not occur in the middle of sentences; you can consolidate them at the end of the sentence instead. This helps to improve readability.
    • Need a citation for the salary information
    • Need to use cite news or citation template for the references to newspapers. That will help properly format the names of the newspapers.
    • Must include date of newspaper/tabloid articles, and the author if there was one.
    • The Internet Forum will most likely not be considered a quality source when you get to a GA or FA review. Try to find different sources for those facts.
    • Citations 53, 58 do not have a publisher listed
  • This is not a complete sentence: "Although, Mel Collins found out about both this new affair and the fact that she was expecting another child." Also, who was expecting another child -- Katie or Mel?

Karanacs 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Serranus Clinton Hastings

I think it would be interesting to have an article on an Iowa representative get GA status. I've worked fairly hard on this, but I know this would not come close to satisfying criterion 1a. If I was going for FA that is. Whether it can get GA status or not I'd just like to see the article improved from the peer review. References are a problem on this one since the ones I have are basically the only ones there are. --Psychless 04:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by karanacs

Overall, I think almost every sentence is well-written, but you need to work on your transitions between facts.

  • Lead should be expanded a bit.
  • When did Iowa become a territory (for those of us not from the state)
  • I'm confused about the 1838 election -- were his two terms consecutive or concurrent and was he elected to both of them at the same time (or was one of them in 1839)?
  • Last four sentences of the first paragraph of career seem to be kind of thrown in there -- don't flow at all with each other or the paragraph before.
  • When did Iowa become a state?
  • Why was his first term in the federal legislature so short?
  • Need to transition more smoothly between march 3, 1847 and Gov. Ansel Briss appointed him...
  • Any information on why he decided to move to California?

*Is it important that he converted to Catholicism? If you can't find any information on his reasons or whether it affected his life, this is trivia and could be removed. Likewise, the information on his personal appearance could be considered trivia unless you can find a better way to work it into the article.  Done Good luck! Karanacs 02:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why he moved to California, and can't find any source that tells why he did. I've removed the personal life section and incorporated the marraige and children bit into the career section of the article. Catholicism is just listed as his religion in the infobox now. I've tried to expand the lead as best I can. Any further comments on the article would be appreciated. Psychless 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Your changes look good. Here are some additional suggestions
  • suggestion: "When Iowa became a territory in 1838, he got involved in the territory's politics. In 1838, he was elected as a member of the House of the First Legislative Assembly." -> "When Iowa became a territory in 1838, he became involved in politics, winning election to be a member of the House of the First Lesiglative Assembly."
  • You might be able to expand the article a bit by talking a little about the "Blue Book" of Iowa laws. What did it encompass and what is its importance? You could also mention some of the early laws that were passed by the assemblies in which he served.
  • The two sentences on the border conflict with Missouri should be rewritten. Possibly expand.
  • You mention in the lead that the law school he founded is now the Law Department at UC. This should also be mentioned in the body of the article.

Karanacs 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done-ish. It's now a good article candidate. If anyone has any more suggestions feel free to leave them. --Psychless 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Philadelphia

I finally updated the article to the present and am wondering if there are any problems. I'm looking for any issues with length, content, whether the article makes sense to people who don't live in Philadelphia and other comments. Medvedenko 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I think you did a great job. Kitia 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Joe Rogan

Let's try and clean this up and get it to good article quality Embassy 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555

It is a start. There are many things that can be done to improve it though.

  • The lead section needs extending. You may find it helpful to read this guideline to get an idea of how long this section should be and what it should contain.
  • A good lead section is built around a strong and full article which it currently is not. Most if not all sections need expanding such as UFC and early life. These are all stubs at the moment.
  • The television career section needs to be turned into prose. It is currently just a list.

There is a basis for a good article but it needs a lot of cleanup and the point of view questions will obviously need to be addressed. I hope that this is of some help. Woodym555 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees

This article has recently passed GA-status but I still think it has some kinks that need to be worked out. I would love to hear some outside opinions on how this can be worked towards a featured article. For an archived peer review, see Archive 1. Sportskido8 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This poor, lonely Peer Review looks like it needs some love. I've noticed some things that might need fixing:

  • The lead does not state when the franchise changed its name from the Highlanders to the Yankees. It also does not explain the wild card very well (for the non-baseball-savvy), or wikilink an article (not sure if there is one). Done
  • Known as the Western League until 1899, the AL carried over five of its previous locations and added teams in three East Coast cities, including Baltimore, Maryland. This sentence is a bit unclear. Done
  • Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1907.png could use a caption instead of being a bare image.  Done
  • The "Franchise history" section needs some citations. It is also far too long...essentially a copy of the article History of the New York Yankees. I think a large majority of the section can be cut, since one click leads the reader to the same information.

This is after reading only up to "New Owners, A New Home, and a New Name (1913-1922)". I will try to review more later. -RunningOnBrains 01:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Some sub-sections which could use a good trim:
  1. New Owners, A New Home, and a New Name (1913-1922): Has an awful lot of newspaper headlines and specific instances where the word "Yankee" appeared in the media, most of which could be lost without impact to the article. Also, the paragraph on the "NY" logo could go, just leaving the note about the officiality of the franchise names.
  2. The Ruth and Gehrig era and the Stadium (1923-1935): The second-to-last paragraph can be taken out completely.
  3. The DiMaggio era (1936-1951): DiMaggio's hitting streak can be reduced to one or two sentences from the three paragraphs it currently holds.
  • And in general, just condense information that isn't essential to telling the story of the Yankee's franchise. History of the New York Yankees is an excellent article, but a lot of the info there is just clutter on this main page. -RunningOnBrains 10:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A few more suggestions:

  • I'm not sure about the fair use rationale for Image:TorrePoster.PNG in the context of this article. It's ok for now, but it might be brought up as a point of contention at WP:FAC.
  • The New Yankee Stadium needs a citation or two. An image of construction or an artists's rendition of the future statium would be great.
  • In Design, the note about the Knicks is probably not needed.
  • They are also one of the few teams in Major League Baseball to shun the trend of creating a "third jersey". What is a third jersey?
  • Not sure if the bit about the near-uniform change in 1974 warrants inclusion.
  • in the dawn of their new dynasty quite over-dramatic, no?
  • Mention of "Freddy" and "The Bleacher Creatures" should be in terms of one or two sentences, not several paragraphs.
  • In general, more references all around

Again, these are all just suggestions, so ignore anything you think is unreasonable. I just hate to see articles go this long on Peer Review without so much as a peep. Feel free to contact me here or on my talk page if you have questions/comments. -RunningOnBrains 11:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this. I agree with most of your points and I'll try to fix most of them at some point. Sportskido8 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Guerilla Filmmakers Handbook

The article is still too short, but it's difficult to say what else should be added. If anyone has any comments on the notability of the book, it'd be great to hear them at this stage. JMalky 14:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Hello, everybody! This article is looking pretty good so far. The only things we need to do now IMHO are to copyedit and any other problems in this article. I was considering getting this nominated for FA again, since the last FAC didn't work. This article needs a lot of work for this article. I consider it the best game article and certainly the best of Wikipedia IMHO. May the force be with you... Sjones23 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Also, any recommendations in improvement shall be appreciated. Thanks. Sjones23 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

this game is cool--S200048 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)s200048

Any ideas on improving this article? Thanks. Sjones23 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No response yet, huh? Well, I guess this will have to wait until anyone responds or puts an Automated PR response. Sjones23 22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Duuude, calm down. It's a big article, and PR isn't terribly active. That having been said:
  • The lead needs some work. It's currently one medium-big paragraph followed by a one-sentence paragraph, and basically says "It was delayed, released, released, and rated." The lead should cover all major points of the article, not just the development history. Sales numbers?
  • There's a bit of difference between the "approximately 100 years" in the article and the "few decades" stated in the source it cites.
  • Consider organizing the plot in a manner other than that revealed to the player (which leads to a lot of short, choppy "Link does this, Zelda explains that, Link and Midna go, etc" sentences, and often introduces characters before they've had a proper description). Most of our plot-heavy FAs (Final Fantasy) go setting, characters, story. Majora's Mask goes setting, story. Most also put gameplay before plot, but this is mostly a style issue.
  • The gameplay section, the items section in particular, is perhaps too devoted to specifics. I think one sentence per item is too much. How you go about condensing it is your choice, but take a look at our FAs to get an idea of what detail is appropriate.
  • You've got a {{cite}} tag in the TP on Wii section.
  • Lastly, make sure you've covered everything from the previous FAC. I see a lot of my comments mirror theirs.
That should be enough to get you started. Nifboy 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That should work, Nifboy and thanks. Anyone else? Sjones23 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Just to let you know that this is the second peer review, the first is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Sjones23 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Any other things? Sjones23 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Some sections lack adequate referencing, ex Game Play, Collectibles, Abilities, and Music. I'd recommend trimming the plot section down even further, remove anything that is not needed or break it up into Setting and Plot section. It would also be a good idea to cite the Wii/GC official guide. Consider ripping out the last section of the sales section, unless you can cite it. The article would also look better if the two sentences paragraphs were merged with other more substantial paragraphs.
Other than that, everything looks great. Being a huge LOZ fan, I'd like to help clean the article up, but I'm kinda busy pushing the Michael Barrett article up to GA status. --►ShadowJester07  09:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Io (moon)

I am submitting this article for scientific peer review with intention of later submitting the article for reinstatement as a featured article. My main purpose for this review is to try to gather opinions as to the use of jargon. I have tried to reduce such usage as much as possible, and provided wikilinks where jargon was used. I also request a peer review as to the general content of the article, and whether it is ready for a featured article candidate run, and what fixes should be made before such a nomination be put forward. --Volcanopele 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request transcluded to WP:PR. --Volcanopele 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Overall the article looks pretty good. However there might be an issue for some readers with the amount of specialized jargon employed. For example: "high-phase observations", "pyroclastic" "anti-correlated", "morphologies", "collimated streams" and "polar ionosphere". (See Wikipedia:Explain jargon.) The term "patera" is used several times in the article before it is explained; "mafic to ultramafic" is explained at it's second occurance rather than the first. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the review. For some of these I replaced the term with less jargon text, particularly when a term is only used once, like "high-phase observations" or "anti-correlated". Others, I added some explanatory text. Patera was never used as a term, but as part of the name of the feature, until it was explained in the text. However, I did add some text in the Name section to explain what each of the feature name types means in the context of Io, like patera. Morphology is explained in the same area. For pyroclastic, I added the words "silicate" and "like ash" to the its first usage in the text, as well as wikilinked to Pyroclastic rock. --Volcanopele 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. The one other item that stands out for me is the surprising amount of restraint in the number of images. There are sections that are downright sparse, yet Io is quite photogenic. For example, a quality image of the lava lake at Loki Patera or a size comparison image with Jupiter could be of interest to the casual reader. Just a suggestion, of course. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Certainly more Io images would be great, but at the same time, the images should be within the appropriate section and there should be too many images. I think one more in the Galileo Section might be appropriate, maybe one of the close approach images. --Volcanopele 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the article have a link to Io with {{dablink}}? I was suprised that this was not the premier article, as it is a very important astronomical body, while the mythological entity is less important (this coming from a scientist of course). -RunningOnBrains 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • While I agree that Io is a very important astronomical body, it has become a common convention to use " (moon)" for planetary satellite articles, rather than make them the premier article. --Volcanopele 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Città di Palermo

This is a second submission of this article for Peer Review. I did my best to follow all earlier suggestions and obtained this article to be accepted as Good Article. Now it's time for a step forward, i.e. reaching a Featured Article status for this article. Please look at it and let me know your opinions and suggestions to improve it.

Thanks in advance, --Angelo 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Okay, off to a good start but FA you want, FA comments forthcoming!

  • Reduce width of infobox by breaking the original name.
Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ensure references comply with WP:CITE, in short, don't have spaces between the [ref] and the text, and try to put the [ref] after punctuation (e.g. move ref [6] to the other side of the comma)
Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Three images in first History section feels cluttered.
Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...just after World War I; Palermo competed in..., not a semi-colon, perhaps a comma?
Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • League graph is great but not where it is, probably belongs in records/stats section.
Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:DASH for seasons, so not 1934-35, instead use en-dash, so 1934–35.
Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, I can see a few more (e.g. in the "See also" under "Back in Serie A", and "1953-54" in "Post-war Palermo" section
You're right. Now it's done. --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...decent side... is a bit over familiar. Perhaps something like ...made Palermo a well-established side... or something...
Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • About five whole sections in History without a single citation - this is a problem.
  • The image of the 1969–70 team, what's the significance?
Removed. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikilink years to the relevant Italian football seasons.
What do you mean with "relevant"? --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
By this I mean when you refer to, say, "2002–03", you can wikilink that as 2002–03
I am doing this for all seasons for which a Wikipedia article exists (I even created by myself a couple of them). --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • History section needs to be sub-paged - see Arsenal F.C. for guidance - then in the main article perhaps six or seven large paragraphs can be used.
  • Squad needs update - it says "as of January 31, 2007", we're now June.
It's the same than January, actually. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Youth squad isn't particularly relevant.
Yeah, but this is subtly subjective, say this to the ones who created articles such as F.C. Internazionale Milano Primavera. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but can you find examples of featured articles where this information is in the main team page? I'd suggest that you make it a subpage.
Okay, I removed it. Done. --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What makes the selection of "notable players" notable?
In fact I opened a discussion in the WikiProject Football to discuss this issue for all teams. --Angelo 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, it's always brought up at WP:FAC and, again, checking out featured articles such as Arsenal F.C. you'll find, again, that a both a subpage was created with a specified set of criteria applied for players inclusion.
A subpage already existed. In fact now the paragraph contains only a link to that one. --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Stadium section has too many short paragraphs.
Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Honours could be tablified and records should be made into prose.
Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps, let me know if there's anything I can help you with. The Rambling Man 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your suggestions. As you can see, the issues I already fixed have been marked with a tick. Some of your suggestions instead deserve to be discussed to find a common solution, and others will be fixed as soon as possible. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a number of massive edits in order to comply with your suggestions, including creating a history article. Let me know how the article looks now. --Angelo 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Structurally everything seems sound, and it looks like the Rambling Man has picked up most things. Before going to FAC it could do with a light copyedit from a native English speaker. I'll run through it when I get the chance, and bring up any further issues as I do so. Oldelpaso 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you wait for a couple of weeks? Just because I am supposed next week to go in Florence at the National Library to have a look at a few very reliable sources for the club foundation. --Angelo 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Drop a note on my talk page when you're ready. Oldelpaso 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orion (mythology)

I am particularly interested if the telling of the actual stories of Orion is clear and flows smoothly. There is no standard telling, but several almost consistent versions. Rather than synthesizing one, this article stresses the variety of the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much to say story-wise; the telling was clear to me, although a bit dry. It didn't flow for me though: the reference markers got in the way of the story, and the telling seems as fragmentary as the sources are stated to be. I'm not sure how to fix it, and maybe with the sources available there is no fixing it.
As far as the article goes,
  • IMO, at least one of "constellation of the same name" in the lead or the first mention of Orion the constellation in the first section should link to Orion (constellation).
  • The final paragraph under Variants sounds odd. Also, if you keep the dash you should use — (&mdash;) instead of -.
  • Maybe there isn't anything, but has the myth had any influence on later culture besides naming a constellation and giving mythologists something to talk about? I know there are a ton of things named after the constellation, which doesn't really count. The Literary culture section is a start.
    • Not as far as I know; most of these sources are very obscure, and without them, Orion comes across as "he was a giant hunter, killed by Scorpio". But I really haven't looked. Thank you for the idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Anomie 03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Peanuts

This is a cultural masterpiece of the XXth century. The main problem with the last GAC was the lack of references. Althought this has been partially adressed, it is still very far from GA level. Please help point out the assertions for which a ref is absolutely necessary. Any other comments on how to advance to GA or FA level is welcome.

Review by karanas

  • I've added the {{fact}} tag in the article where I thought citations were necessary. Sorry if it seems a little tag-heavy, but the information had to have come from somewhere, or it wouldn't be in the article, right? Basically, you need at least one citation for every paragraph. You should be especial notice to citations for the literary criticism of the work or it looks too much like Original research. Also, ALL quotations must be cited.
  • Citations don't need to be placed in the middle of a sentence. Instead, put all citations for that sentence at the end of the sentence.
  • Per WP:MOS, single years should not be linked (1948).
  • Need a better transition between Li'l Folks info an Saturday Evening Post sentence
  • The second paragraph of History section doesn't flow well - seems like two small paragraphs stuck together.
  • " they decided to go for " seems too informal for an encyclopedia article.
  • "By the time the first Sunday strip appeared," - this could be interpreted that it refers to the first Sunday strip ever, not the first Peanuts Sunday strip
  • Do not put facts in parantheses; find a way to incorporate the info into the paragraph.
  • I noticed that your time magazine source has statistics on the number of people who were following the strip. You should try to incorporate that information, as well as the info on what languages it has been translated into.
  • You need to edit the article for weasel words, unless they occur in very well-cited areas. Examples: "airport's amusing logo", "most popular", "memorable"
  • The sole citation in Television and film productions section is not formatted properly
  • Cast recordings section needs to be reworked. IT is just a collection of one-sentence paragraphs that either need to be merged into more paragraph form or removed. Can you cite those using the recording itself?
  • instead of using the word "currently", say as of 2007, because if someone reads this in 2009 that may no longer be true.
  • do not include external links within the text
  • I think you could probably trim a lot of the info in Other licensed appearances and merchandise and possibly in the recordings section.
  • Make sure all of your citations have a publisher listed.

Karanacs 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

William Bruce (architect)

I've put a fair bit of work into this over the last couple of weeks. I'd welcome any comments which would help it get to GA quality (or better!). Thanks, Edward Waverley 13:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is GA quality, and may well be able to reach FA, if you listen to any comments that come up on the FA review. Great work! Adam Cuerden talk 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that 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, DrKiernan 11:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Lupin III

Since the creation of the page, it has been improved very much. A large amount of information has been added and the page went through several phases of improvement. It would be nice if someone went through it and checked to see what else needs to be done :) thank you kindly! AutoGyro 09:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC) AutoGyro

You don't really have a plot or setup section in the article (which should go before characters), just something to say that the story is serial, and it usually involves Lupin and Jigen finding a mark, Fujiko muscling in on it, and sometimes Goemon comes in to save Lupin and Jigen. "Recurring themes" *needs* inline, reliable, citations. Beyond that, here's some automated suggestions to think about:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 22 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't, doesn't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that 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 03:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Each of the five images in the article is a non-free image, and thus needs a fair-use rationale on its image description page. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Is that not covered by the "Non-free film screenshot" licensing template? --AutoGyro 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. According to the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, you need to have a detailed fair use rationale on each image page that, in addition to saying why the image is important, names the article that the image is fair use in. -Malkinann 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have spent a long time today fixing up the article and adding references. If someone wants to go through and see if anything else is needed, I would greatly appreciate it :) --AutoGyro 05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Something else you might want to think about is turning the lists in the movies, video games, and OVA sections into prose - lists are looked down upon at GA level. Stuff about the production of the films may be appropriate there. -Malkinann 05:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the article is on the Lupin franchise rather than a manga or anime series, you might want to check out Sailor Moon as an example of an anime media franchise article... I'll come back later with a review.--Nohansen 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sailor Moon is much more compact, though. What were you thinking of doing with the split-off videogames page? You mention the musical in the lead, but I can't really find any further mention of it in the article? -Malkinann 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Major edits for the overhaul of the Lupin III article have now been completed. If anyone wants to go through it again and give any further suggestions, it would be much appreciated. I hope everyone is pleased with the way the article has changed in the past few weeks. I think with a few more minor edits, the article will be ready for GA or FA nominations :)--AutoGyro 02:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris Young (pitcher)

I put this up for peer review a few weeks ago and was encouraged to expand the article. I have now and would like feedback before submitting for WP:FAC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here are the changes since the last comment on the original peer review.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous information

Expanding the article is fine, but I think the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction. There can be too much information, especially when it becomes as esoteric as it can become in this article. The article (as about 90% of those on WP) also has a current day bias. I think the 2007 section discusses half of his starts this season.

I am not trying to beat you up here. And I am sure that lots of the obscure stuff is not all your doing. But at some point, reading an article becomes sort of unbearable if you have to sit for a moment and think about whether some random statistic is actually relevant.

But as to some specifics:

  • Young took a no-hitter into the sixth inning of his 2nd Triple-A start on August 2, 2004 against the Sacramento River Cats.
  • Other Princeton baseball players who played in the major leagues include Moe Berg, Charlie Caldwell, and John Easton.[32] The other Ivy League players to have played for the Texas Rangers are Pete Broberg (Dartmouth College) and Doug Glanville (University of Pennsylvania). OK that's good, but is it necessary?
  • This was the first Ranger 1-0 victory since August 25, 2000 against the Toronto Blue Jays,[43] a stretch of 669 games.[24]. The club went 5-2 in his brief 2004 stint with the club. How important is that to the article. Its fun to think that the team went 5-2 with him on the team, but I cannot believe that his mere presence is correlated with victory
  • May included his season high 13.2 scoreless innings recorded in May 3 - May 9, 2005. Is this all that impressive? A lot of guys throw 13 scoreless innings
  • Young's closest no-hitter was 5.2 innings of hitless pitching against the Houston Astros before allowing a Craig Biggio single in the sixth inning on June 25, 2007 at Houston. About a thousand other guys have taken no-hitters into the sixth inning. Is that impressive or notable
  • He went 3-1, 2.59 over 24.1 IP in four starts in interleague play giving him the 10th-best (tied) interleague ERA in the American League. 10th best?
  • Young, the former Princeton Tiger athlete, started seven games alongside former University of Pennsylvania infielder Mark DeRosa making them the second Ivy League tandem in the last 50 years to start for the same team, the other being Ron Darling (Yale University) and Bill Almon (Brown University) of the 1987 New York Mets. I think the Ron Darling part is unecessary.
  • Allie Reynolds set the record at 25 straight road starts spanning the 1948 and 1949 seasons that Russ Meyer almost matched with his 24 straight road contests spanning the 1953 and 1954 seasons. OK, Young had a great road stretch. Probably enough to mention that it was the last time since Allie Reynolds and move on
  • This would have been the first no-hitter in San Diego Padres history.[62] It was the first time a Padre had taken a no hitter into the ninth inning since Andy Ashby on September 5, 1997 vs. the Atlanta Braves (8.0 innings). The Padres are joined by the New York Mets, Colorado Rockies and Tampa Bay Devil Rays as the only franchises who have never pitched no-hitters. The last part is irrelevant to Chris Young
  • During Young's next start on June 4, 2006 at Pittsburgh he did not allow a hit for the first 5 1/3 innings,[68][69] making him one of only two pitchers (Steve Trachsel—June 20–25, 2002)[70][71] to have consecutive starts with at least five hitless innings since the 2000 season. this may be one of the most obscure statistics I have ever seen
  • He pitched 6 2/3rds shutout innings facing twenty-five batters and throwing 102 pitches (63 of them for strikes Pitching 6 2/3 shutout innings is really notable, his pitch count really isn't
  • Young's 6–0 2006 road performance was one of forty-nine undefeated road seasons with at least five victories by pitchers since post-season play began in 1903. It is the first, however, to be followed by a post-season road victory. I'm sorry, this is the most obscure statistic ever
  • Allie Reynolds is the only other pitcher to go twenty-five road starts without a loss.[57] Reynolds' twenty-five game streak spanned the 1948 and 1949 seasons.[3] The last of the nine other pitchers to go twenty consecutive road starts without a loss was Greg Maddux who went twenty-two starts without a loss during the 1997 and 1998 OK, we get it, good road pitcher, Reynolds
  • Young continued his mastery over the Pittsburgh Pirates against whom he twice took no-hitters into the 6th inning in 2006. He posted 7 shutout innings and has now allowed only 7 hits against the Pirates in 23 2/3 innings I am surprised that every pitcher in the national league can't claim utter superiority over the Pirates.
    • :)17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The day before, Alfonso Soriano homered off David Wells, and upset the Padres with his admiration and celebration of his own work. He stopped at the plate to admire the ball and then started his home run trot with a few steps backward.Maybe this is valid, maybe not. I just cannot imagine how a fight takes as much time to discuss as his entire minor league career

These just need to be re-written

    • Normally I would just rewrite an article myself and fry some of the more random stuff. But you have made the effort to ask for input so that's my two cents. Take it for what its worth. Montco 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Too many citations/extraneous information

But there are some parts of the article that have numerous citations for the same sentence, like this: "His five starts in June were highlighted by a career high twelve strikeout performance on June 9, 2006 against the Florida Marlins and a June 21, 2006 win over his former team, the Texas Rangers.[45][58][59][60][61]" I don't think you really need 5 citations for one sentence. Another thing that kinda bothers me about this is the fact that it jumps from 45 to 61, meaning that in between the first time "reference 45" is used to here, there are (at least) 16 other citations.

I am considering using either the box score citation or the game summary/recap. This change would take a sentence like the above from 5 to 3 citations.
Jumping citations are caused when a very important reference is used throughout a well cited article. This is a good thing. It says we have cited several important claims and that we have found a very important resource. Recall WP is a tertiary resource that relies on credible secondary resources. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware that proves that the source is a really good source. But I think that if you have a lot of information from one source, then you could just group all that stuff together. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Reference 1: cited 8 times.
Reference 16: cited 9 times.
Reference 24: cited 15 times.
Reference 44: cited 13 times.
Again, this is an indicator that we have found a credible secondary source chock full of interesting claims. This is a sign of a high caliber WP article. It is a common feature of WP:FAs. Not so common in stubs and start class articles. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think this could all be grouped together so the site only needs to be referenced once. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Now here are the similar references I've spotted, followed by how many references I think are necessary:

References 97-103: 2
When this goes through WP:FAC next month we will get much broader feedback on this issue. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be good. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are also several parts of this article that are unrelated to Young, which I think can be removed (not in any particular order, just the order that I found it in). These following sections could be better placed in San Diego Padres:

"Young was overshadowed by teammate Jake Peavy (4-0, 0.79 ERA) for the National League Pitcher of the Month in a month where teammate Trevor Hoffman (0.00 ERA, 11 saves) was also a contender.[94]"
Explains why his performance was better than the month he won the award last year, but did not win. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Young's performance is independant of that of Jake Peavy or Trevor Hoffman. What they do doesn't affect Young. He didn't win the award, so it doesn't need to be mentioned. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes but Young's story is intertwined with Peavy's. See the latest addition from this weekend's activities. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"...when the Cubs travelled to play Young's former team the Texas Rangers, whose Sammy Sosa hit his 600th home run during the series against his former Cubs team"
Will be removed soon. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Should be removed, this is only in the article because of Sosa through the Rangers through the Cubs through Derrek Lee through Young. This is a five-link chain created by Young. Additionally, what Young does doesn't change the schedule. The Cubs would play the Rangers, no matter what. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
All gone. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"However, Carlos Zambrano continued his no hit bid into the 8th inning, but took the l-0 loss by surrendering a home run.[103]"
Young got ejected in the fourth when both had no hitters going. This may be modified, but is part of the story. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, what Zambrano does has absolutely no affect on Young's performance. And this isn't an article for the story. Zambrano's no-hit bid is completely irrelevant to the events that occurred earlier in the game and it is completely irrelevant to Young in anyway. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a reminder that it could have been a nohit duel. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"Other Princeton baseball players who played in the major leagues include Moe Berg, Charlie Caldwell, and John Easton.[32] The other Ivy League players to have played for the Texas Rangers are Pete Broberg (Dartmouth College) and Doug Glanville (University of Pennsylvania).[24]"
Believe me his numerous Ivy League fans find this to be an encyclopedic claim. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Um... how are you able to prove this "claim?" How are you able to prove that he has numerous Ivy League fans and that they find this claim notable? The Ivy League players who played in the MLB don't affect him and him playing in the MLB. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Proof would be its source who is meeting the interests of its audience. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Three other current and previous pitchers--Randy Johnson,[34] Andrew Sisco,[35] and Eric Hillman[36]--are also 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m). "
Better to say he is among only 4 6 ft 10 in major league pitchers ever than to say he is 6 ft 10 in. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, it isn't really important to list the other 6'10" players. I actually think it would be preferrable to only say that he is 6'10" without listing the other players. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Watch for WP:FAC and the majority will rule. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"This was the first Ranger 1-0 victory since August 25, 2000 against the Toronto Blue Jays,[43] a stretch of 669 games.[24]"
May be removed. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, more about the Rangers than Young. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably after a few all-star games this kind of stuff will be less important. It is probably still topical now. Again, watch for WP:FAC
"The Padres are joined by the New York Mets, Colorado Rockies and Tampa Bay Devil Rays as the only franchises who have never pitched no-hitters.[62]"
Every time Young pitches he will be shooting to erase the Padre name from this list. As a tertiary resource we report what is important according to secondary resources. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If you said that every single night, a player has the chance of hitting 6 home runs in a game, then you would say on every single article "[Player] hasn't hit 6 home runs in a game in his career. Additionally, you can't be sure that Young will be the pitcher to throw the Padres' first no-hitter. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
We report what secondary sources include. If it is important enough to include in a news story, it may be important enough for this. Watch for FAC.
"Allie Reynolds is the only other pitcher to go twenty-five road starts without a loss.[57] Reynolds' twenty-five game streak spanned the 1948 and 1949 seasons.[3]" (is that Reference 3 again? From 57 to 3?
Common when one uses a cited WP:LEAD to have such skips. If a fact is important it will be cited in the lead and then again wherever it occurs.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Somebody else performing a particular feat doesn't affect another player's odds of performing that same feat. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't understand point.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"last of the nine other pitchers to go twenty consecutive road starts without a loss was Greg Maddux who went twenty-two starts without a loss during the 1997 and 1998.[85]"
His streak was an important accomplishment. He must put it in context. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who was the last player to accomplish the feat, that still doesn't affect Young's chances of performing that same feat. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It is an odd streak. This helps people get a perspective of how commonly it occurs. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And I still think that only one reference is needed for one sentence, not five, four, or more.

Reference 24 is his player profile. It doesn't need to be referenced 15 times. It's his player profile for the 2004 season, which I believe is only necessary at the end of the 2004 season section.

If this were the only reference for this section I would do that. However, with numerous references, people need to know where the claims are coming from.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply group all that information together and reference it at the end of the section. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 16 is "The Top 20 Greatest Athletes." Why is that referencing his personal life?

Look at article and see claim cited. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not gonna worry about this. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 44 is his player profile for 2005. Again, I believe it is only necessary to reference it at the end of the 2005 season section.

We'll get feedback on this at WP:FAC, however, see above. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Same thing as above. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 56 is his player profile for 2006. "Broken record," end of 2006 season section

Same as above. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

References 97-103 are about the Cubs/Padres brawl. I believe that it is only necessary to have one reference for the fight and one for the suspension. The other 5 we can do away with.

Each story has bits of the claim. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand how one or two references can't be used for this. And if the references contain parts and parts of the whole story, then simply find a source that contains the whole story. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 77 is a blog written by Young. A blog itself isn't valid as a source, even an autobiographical blog.

"In November 2006, he traveled to Japan to take part in the Major League Baseball Japan All-Star Series.[77][78] Young was the starter in an exhibition game against the Yomiuri Giants which was memorable for the Major leaguers' three run ninth inning rally to earn a tie.[79] This game was the prelude to the 5-game series which began with three games at the Tokyo Dome and was followed by games in Osaka, Japan and Fukuoka, Japan.[80] Young pitched the fourth game of the series. Young also blogged on behalf of mlb.com about daily life during the trip. He detailed visits with United States Ambassador to Japan Tom Schieffer, time in the Harajuku, and travels on the Bullet Train.[77]"

I believe this is far too much info to talk about one event. If it were me, I'd simply say that he traveled to Japan to participate in a baseball game against the Yomiuri Giants. The last part, "He detailed visits with United States Ambassador to Japan Tom Schieffer, time in the Harajuku, and travels on the Bullet Train.[77]," seems too biographical for an encyclopedia.
A common complaint is that an article is not broad enough. We have to focus as much as we can on things outside the lines when they are relevant. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Young's performance didn't determine the rally, it didn't determine that three games were played here and the other two were played here. I would just say "In November 2006, Young traveled to Japan and pitched in an exhibition game against Japanese All-Stars." --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, not every single game needs to be mentioned. I would mention games like his closest no-hitter, career-high for strikeouts in a game, the brawl, team/rookie records, and I don't think that every single season needs its own section, maybe a section for his pre-MLB years, a section for his Rangers years, and a section for his Padres years. I would remove anything that doesn't directly relate to Chris Young, like Trevor Hoffman and Jake Peavy in the competition for the NL Pitcher of the Month award. The part that says, "The day before the fracus, Alfonso Soriano homered off David Wells, and upset the Padres with his admiration and celebration of his own work. He stopped at the plate to admire the ball and then started his home run trot with a few steps backward," isn't directly related to Young, but is indirectly. First, it should be before the mention of the HBP. Second, shorten it to saying something like "the Padres weren't happy that Alfonso Soriano took his time to round the bases."

Personally, I think that a lot of the abbreviated versions you suggest are a good way to take a viable WP:FAC and send it back to WP:GA status. I will make some changes to this one. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Not only does not every game need to be mentioned, but the ones that are don't need to be sourced. Game stats aren't something that somebody will come to and argue about. I think you've over-referenced the article. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the pictures in the 2005 season section are just pictures of him warming up before a game. First, I would remove those pictures because it isn't any different than his picture in the infobox, just a different angle of a different pitch. Second, those pictures would belong in the 2007 season, anyway.

This is a really good article, no doubt. But it has way too much information. This isn't a game-by-game biography of Chris Young. I believe only the most important, extremely crucial stats should be included such as the aforementioned personal bests, team/rookie records, notable events like the brawl, how close he came to that no hitter in 2005, etc.

I counted over 200 times in the article that something was referenced. I don't think any FA comes close to that amount. It's very hard to read the article to see [1][5][48][38][2][7][4][85][35][74] everywhere. It needs flow so it's easier to read, and by that I mean the references are distracting and make it more difficult to read. A lot of duplicate references I think need to be removed and a lot of the excess information about every single game should be cut and only kept in if it's notable, such as those career/team highs, etc. --Ksy92003(talk) 14:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Many FAs have twice as many citations as this one. I will likely eliminate dual references from the same publisher for the same game as I mentioned before. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are too many references here and every little detail is referenced by about 3 sources. Most of them can be combined by finding one source that contains all that information and can group together information. The others are mostly sentences which don't even need to be referenced. And true, many FAs have more citations than this one; however, those FAs also are a lot longer and the references are throughout the article and spread out throughout the article. Those FAs don't have a reference/citation every 1.5 sentences.
At FAC I have personally had people add such citations to sports articles such as Toronto Raptors and Dominik Hasek. A general reference verifying claim is useful, but an additional box score or game recap is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, in my opinion, I don't think this article will become a FA in its current state because it's far too challenging to read the article. The large amount of references disrupts the flow in the article and you can't read it without being disrupted by ...[23][4]...[23][86][32]...[64][24]...[43][27]...[83]. It really makes it hard to read. Also, it's too much like a biography as opposed to an encyclopedia, which is what it should be. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You are under no obligation to stop and read each reference. I think this has a good shot at FAC. How many FAC's have you been involved in? TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in any FAC's because usually the articles that I edit are not articles that were created for the purpose of trying to get it to be one.
As far as "stopping and reading each reference," I'm not really planning on spending a couple hours of my precious, valuable time to read 100 references just because of one baseball player. But if you're so confident that this will be a FA, then we'll just see. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Raëlian Church

/Archive 1

Octopus card

The article had been listed as FA for nearly 2 years when it failed an FAR in January and was demoted. Lack of sources was a problem and so was some of the section structuring. Since then, work has been done to improve the article. It was subsequently promoted as a GA article a few days ago, and now I'd like to request a peer review before nominating it for FA again. I'd like to make the FAC as smooth as possible so please take a look to see if there's any problems with the article. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Molybdenum

Well, molybdenum was pretty fleshed-out before I started working on it. My main goal was to just find good sources. I'd appreciate any feedback at all, especially regarding missing information or not-comprehensive-enough parts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also added it to WP:PR so you should get some feedback here from there too. --Bduke 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I can never figure out how to transclude reviews. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by SpecialWindler

Some suggestions

  • For a transition metal, can the Characteristics be expanded?
  • The first paragraph of Applications, could be split into two paragraphs done
  • The following sections are stubs and should probably be merged or expanded
    • Copper-molybdenum antagonism
    • Isotopes
      • Although there is a main article for that, it should be expanded a little
    • Precautions
  • Category's should be in alphebetical order (numbers then letters) done
  • Do you have a citation for this statement
    • "In 2005, USA was the top producer of molybdenum with about 30% world share followed by Chile and China, reports the British Geological Survey."
  • There is an external link that links to wikipedia, this should be moved to "See Also" done

Thats a quick review. SpecialWindler 09:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Windler. I'm going to go back to the library to get some more isotope information. I know exactly what I want to get. I'll also try to expand the other sections. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I put some literature onto the talk page which might help in a history section, the chemistry and the toxicology.--Stone 11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional Climax, Colorado as one of the biggest Molybdenum mines between 1915 and 1980 should be mentioned.--Stone 14:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The production of pure Mo from MoO3 and H2 and the production of FeMo from iron and molybdenum oxides in a electrical oven should be mentioned.--Stone 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Troy McClure

I've pretty much re-written this article from scratch, in an out of universe perspective over the past week and have now gone as far as I can. I hope to get this to GA one day, but that won't be for a while. So I would like any comments at all on the page, other sources people have found and any prose improvements needed. Gran2 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a GA now, so this is now a peer-review for hoping to get this to FA. Gran2 18:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by SpecialWindler

I can understand that articles like these may have a hard time to find sources for information, but it may need a little expanding. However it is a very well written article. Here a some pointers

  • A short pargraph in "Cultural influence and legacy", consider merging or expanding.
  • You also have a long paragraph in "Cultural influence and legacy", consider spliting
  • Rather than replace Hartman with a new voice actor, McClure was retired from the show.[10] Who retired him? Producers, Mat Groening, (If its unknown, ignore, but its interesting to know)
  • Hartman was cast before his death as Zapp Brannigan in Matt Groening's Futurama. Billy West took over the role, and based his vocal performance on Hartman's characterizations, particularly McClure.[16] You have a picture below, consider moving up.
  • You use James L. Brooks in the "Development" section, although it's wikilinked could you state what he was eg. director James L. Brooks or writer James L. Brooks...
  • Phil Hartman was cast in the role due to his ability to pull "the maximum amount of humour" out of any line he was given. could you expand to perhaps discuss Hartman's opinion on the role (I know hes dead, but is there anything)
  • Could you mention (in the "Role in The Simpsons" section) that he presented "spin-off shows" rather than main Simpsons episodes. A regular Simpsons watcher, will not know what "presenting" a Simpsons episode means. (for those who haven't watched them)
    • Although it's mentioned in the sentence after, it still can be confusing. (well, thats the way I read it)
  • I don't have a problem with it but much of the "Role in The Simpsons" probably actually belongs in the "Character" section, like statements below
    • McClure drives a De Lorean DMC-12 and lives in an "ultramodern" house that was based on the Chemosphere from the film Body Double.
    • "Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such [films, educational videos, voiceovers, etc.] as..."
  • You could perhaps have the above quote in a quote template (just a suggestion), as it is very important aspect of this character.
  • You may be unable to change the template in the right upper corner, but seeing this is a former character, you might want to add a Last appearence to it.
  • In the lead. You have one long paragraph and one short.
    • Consider having one paragraph about the character's performance in the Simpsons which is stuff about "First appearence, last, how he retired"
    • The second paragraph on the character himself. Eg "Traits (that quote), Notable appearences (eg. marrying selma)

Hope you use this information well, noting that I used Consider. SpecialWindler talk 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll look into the stuff you have raised, when I have more time. Gran2 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ACT (examination)

I am Looking to improve the article to achieve GA status towards the ultimate goal of being a featured article. I no it is not their yet but I do not know where to go from here.Zginder 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Anomie

Here are a few comments to get you started:

  • Most sections could use expansion; compare to similar sections in SAT. Look for secondary sources discussing various aspects of the test.
  • If there are official composite statistics, those should generally be used instead of the 2006 statistics.
  • The text gets squished between the two images in Use. I would move the graph down to Score percentiles, along with the second paragraph of the section.
  • In the Format summary chart, the information in the Content column could better be described in the prose.
  • Inline links should be turned into <ref> tags, and should be after punctuation ("foo.[1]" rather than "foo[1]."). Also, you should either use the citation templates or format the references in similar style.
  • Swap the order of Taking the tests and Score Percentiles, to put Score Percentiles next to Score comparison with SAT.
  • I might rename Taking the tests to something like "Test availability".
  • A Criticism section could be interesting, if you can find good sources.

Hope this helps! Anomie 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have incorporated some of you edits. what do you mean on your second point.Zginder 12:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If ACT or some reliable source publishes statistics that average over the past few years, those might be more helpful than 2006 statistics. If not, the 2006 statistics are fine. Anomie 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Battlefield Earth (film)

Moved by Lenin & McCarthy on 13th July. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Some comments:
    • The lead section seems too short. Perhaps a paragraph could be added to summarize the Development section?
    • I don't see a lot of discussion of the special effects. Some reviewers had at least a modicum of praise for a few of the effects. Perhaps the article could expand on this, and also cover why most of the effects were bad.
    • It could mention any Scientology influence on the plot, or lack thereof.
    • "Scientology factor" should be explained for those readers who may unfamiliar with the cult.
    That's all I've got. =) — RJH (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for providing your feedback here. Smee 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Katie Hopkins

Myself and some other editors are trying to improve this artice, and I would like to see it at G or F status sometime in the future. Please can you inform us about any changes you think needed to be made and which sections are the poorest. We have previously been informed that the "Romantic Interests" section is poor and suffers from poor sentencing/wording. If you agree, please copy/paste the related sentences here and make any corrections you see fit. Thanks. Dalejenkins 10:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arras (1917)

Recently passed a project A-Class review through WP:MILHIST, and I am hoping to advance this to FAC in (relatively) short order. All comments and criticisms welcome and appreciated, especially those with an eye towards the FA criteria. Carom 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a few comments that I hope are of some use, and are mostly related to the organizational flow. Please don't take them too negatively as the article has good content.
To me the introduction doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines as a concise, stand-alone overview of the article. The second paragraph of the lead belongs in the Overview section. The first three paragraphs of the Overview section begins with the battle already over, and they look like they belong in the lead section. A number of the subsequent sections consist of only a single paragraph; some of which are quite long (which makes for more tedious reading). This organization results in a table of contents that is much longer than necessary.
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
After a few abortive attempts to address your comments, I've made a few changes to the first part of the article. Hopefully the lead and dirst section fit together a little more logically now; let me know if (and how) you think it can still be improved. Regarding your second point, I'm not entirely sure how to address this. I believe you are referring to the short paragraphs on the local actions subsequent to the initial offensive. I don't believe these actions should be folded together, as they are generally treated individually in both the primary and secondary literature. Any suggestions on how this might be reworked? (Thanks for your comments, by the way). Carom 00:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Article has been moved to Battles of Arras (1917) for the obvious reason.LeadSongDog 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yuji Ide

Someone with a very brief F1 career. I've added references, copyedited and given serious attention to this article, but I am looking to make this even stronger. I want to get ol' Yuji up to B-class in part for sh--- and giggles. Guroadrunner 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Psychless

This article covers his racing career very well and is well referenced. The only problem is it really doesn't tell me much about him as a person, just as a racing driver. It needs some info on his childhood, family, personal life, religion, etc. If you can do that the article would be great, I would peer review it for you. Oh, and if you could find a picture that would improve it as well. Pictures that wikipedia can use are always hell to find though... Regards, Psychless 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic conflict

I'd appreciate some views on this article, which I found in a bit of a sorry state and have added references to and tidied up. Would be good to get advice on what changes to make, as well as how to expand it further. Cordless Larry 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The lead needs to be much longer than that.--Rmky87 14:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1981 Irish hunger strike

Recently passed GA, and I would like comments on how to improve the article for FA status. One Night In Hackney303 12:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I love the article and don't see anything I would directly change, however it might be better if you allow the strikers tables to be sorted. For information on sortable tables, go to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Sorting Professor Davies 17:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look. I know very little about tables, so any help with those is appreciated. One Night In Hackney303 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Spider Wars

What I hope to get out of this review are ways to improve upon wording, phrasing and just and overall opinion on where this article is at the moment. Some suggestions regarding the pictures would be nice as well. --Spikeleefan 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry to have to be so negative, but... this article is in effect one long plot summary, which is not recommended per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It's also nearly devoid of references and has very little detail on real world factors such as production costs, where the cells were painted, the producer and editor, &c. The trivia should be folded into the article or eliminated, per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. — RJH (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Bernard Roumain

This article IMO is in need of a rewrite and re-organization to save it from a possible speedy delete. Right now there is an advert tag at the top. This artist is highly notable IMO and several sources can most likely be pulled from the popular press and well as classical music-related sources to make a good re-started article on an exciting young musical star.--Msr69er 04:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

President of Pakistan

The article is fairly comprehensive about the list of Pakistani presidents with sources and some notes. It could use some hints on how to proceed to become a FA list as I've noticed several similarities to other good FA lists on similar topics. Additional help would also be welcome to improve the article. Thanks. --Idleguy 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

archived PR

Kondō Isami

If anyone can make any suggestions on how to elaborate, or what to add or clarify, or anything like that, it'd be much appreciated. -Tadakuni 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Shinsengumi section has a variety of different romanization styles; these can be unified. There's a link to Tosa, which leads to a disambiguation page; this should lead to the Tosa Domain or (second choice) Tosa Province. The trivia section should be removed, and in the Fiction section ("fiction" should be lowercase) the reference to the NHK series should be a direct link to the series. The Shinsengumi is an extremely popular subject in Japanese film and television and this can be developed further. The "Papuwa" paragraph should be removed. Fg2 10:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tamsin Greig

The main areas of concern in this article are the filmography and the number of external links, although all improvements are welcome. ISD 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • References are needed almost EVERYWHERE.
  • Remove the fan site external links, keep only IMDb and other reliables.
  • Non-free picture-->remove ASAP
  • Remove "Interviews" section etc and turn into referneces.

Dalejenkins 17:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay lets see.

  • In the filmography, axe the "Television (herself)" section. It doesn't really add anything. I did te same with David Mitchell and its a GA now.
  • The references need to be cleaned up, they arn't properly formatted, so I suggest the cite web and cite news formats.
  • Remove the Green Wing, Black Books, Love Soup and Sally Hope Associates external links, they're to do with the shows and agency themselves, not Greig.

Aside from that its good, the prose could use some expansion, as the page seems a little short. And it could use a free use image, and the scrapping of one of the fair use ones, possibly the Fran Katzenjammer one. But everything is referenced so it probably would pass a GAC. Gran2 14:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review Habbo Hotel has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived.

Habbo Hotel

Relisting for peer review, as I received no response last time. I'd really like for someone to give this article a thorough review, if not, a short note pointing out some obvious errors. Input on the talk page is limited, so please, any input will be much appreciated. Kind regards, –sebi 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Box at the top: "This article or section is written like an advertisement.". That's no good. Plenty of pictures, good (although be careful with copyright, that's a lot of fair-use images). There appears to be a lot of content about the in-game world, although not that much about the game itself. I think you should shorten the "Inside the Hotel" section. i.e., you probably don't need to explain the four in-game games with a paragraph each, just give them a sentence (e.g. Wobble Squabble - an elimination game played on inflatables in a swimming pool in the Hotel). The image under "Habbo eXperts" flows beyond its section, killing the line under "Sponsorship", you should move that image up so its under the previous heading. There are some table cells missing in "Current Hotels". --TheJosh 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The only pictures that we can include that are relevant to the subject are in-game screenshots, which are fair-use images, and so there's not a lot anyone can do about that. The inside the hotel section is just about the main cause of that advert tag at the top of the page, I'll discuss that a little further on the talk page. And I'm planning to expand the Habbo eXpert section and the Sponsorship section, so it might fit after I've finished. Thanks for the review, though :) –sebi 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Giggy

Well, the advertisment tag isn't a good start.

  • The lead is to long and drawn out IMO - we really don't need that much of a gameplay analysis in it. Merge paragraphs 2 and 3, and shorten them both, so it's only a broad, broad summary.
I actually think the lead is a perfect size, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's because too much of the article is devoted to gameplay ;) If you shorten that and de-cruft it, you'll have to shorten the lead too! Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
But the lead only covers a short history, credits and furniture, moderation and management and achievements in a short summary; these are the most important points of the article. I personally believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lead right now. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Expand the history section - discuss the idea, the creation, any problems in its creation, etc. That's a much more important section then gameplay etc.
  • Remove the subsections in the features section, and merge the whole thing into one paragraph on features - avoid gamecruft, this isn't a game manual.
  • Same with the inside the hotel section - a few paragraphs could summarise the entire thing. Precedent: [17] The current article discusses gameplay, and instructs, way to much - shouldn't be a game guide!
  • You only really need one paragraph on mods and experts, not all the (I'll say it again) cruft.
IMHO, the mods and experts sections don't look like cruft to me, the information in them is quite valuable. If you could point out a couple of advertise-y comments in those sections, I'll remove them. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Moderators can be recognised by the prefix "MOD-" in front of their account name and by a Habbo Staff badge. - Does the article really need this? It's totally useless to someone who isn't/hasn't played the game. Habbo eXperts are given a badge next to their avatar to enable newer users to identify them easily - Same...and a lot of the gameplay based statements here fall under the same cat (only I don't want to cite the majority of the paragraph!) Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Expand on the sponsorship section, wherever possible. This is something that the article SHOULD discuss.
I have an idea on expanding the section, I'll make the changes later on. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Really? I wouldn't have thought so, the list isn't that long. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if you make a separate list article, you can discuss the hotels too, rather then just plonking them on this one. Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What is there to discuss? I think that everything about the Hotel can be included in this one article, rather than expanding to other articles; the scope isn't that large anyway. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What's with the external links - where's the link to the HH home page, etc.?
As there are 29 hotels with 29 different home pages, the Current hotels list has all the links to the websites. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a "main" hotel? Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all I've got for now...I've watchlisted this page, so ask any questions :) Giggy Talk 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
    • Nope, all pictures that could be of any use are copyrighted screenshots, so this can't be done. –sebi 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I know it sounds like a long shot, or just odd, but sometimes a picture of people playing the game is appreciated. Strange, yes, but most a few people ask for that sort of thing... Giggy Talk 07:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 23 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
    • "Wouldn't" wasn't found in the article, it was found in the html comment text, so I'm ignoring this. –sebi 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 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, Davnel03 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

AEMT-CC

I've reworked this page and would like it reviewed for clarity, grammar, etc. --Demantos 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Itzik Zohar

  • I hope to get this page as good as it possibly can be. Perhaps in the distant future, a featured article. But that would take many more resources and perhaps for the subject to gain some worldwide recognition. -NYC2TLV 07:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The article is a little short, can you expand on his playing career?
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't.
  • 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, DrKiernan 11:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Havasupai/archive1

Eaton Canyon

I'd like a fresh set of eyeballs to help me improve this article. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Bueller? --evrik (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that no one else is stepping up to the plate, so I'll take a whack at it.

  • Some of the paragraphs in the history section could be merged, one and two-sentence paragraphs are generally undesirable.
  • the canyon falls under several governmental jurisdictions What are they?
  • Not all the landmarks should have their own section, consider maybe an "other landmarks" subsection to avoid having sections with only a few sentences.
  • The nature center is unique in the area because it houses exhibits that educate on the flora and fauna local to the San Gabriel Valley Southern California. This sentence is very awkward.
  • The falls are where the Eaton Creek has a fifty foot drop and are located north of the bridge in the part of the canyon administered by the US Forest Service This can also be worded better.

Hope this helps, contact me here or on my talk page if you have questions/comments. -RunningOnBrains 11:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Redwall

Redwall is one of the most well-known fantasy series of the past 20 years, attracting fans of all ages. This is the page for the overall series, not one individual novel. The article has improved quite a bit over the past year or so, but it still lacks content, editing, and refinement before it can trult be considered a "Good" article. I think it could benefit from a quality peer review. - Runch 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I was a fan of these books when I was younger. Glad to see people are working on this article. One big thing I see is that a lot of the summary section could be moved to the characters and locations sections. Most of this section is well written, I just think a summary section should include more of the basic plot of the stories and less of commentary and heavy universe description. Wrad 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I loved these books as a kid. I agree with Wrad regarding the summary section. Also, the Characters and Locations sections should be expanded, which should be simple considering that there are already articles on those subjects(although the List of species in Redwall article says that rabbits are "neutral"-what about the Long Patrol?). Cheers, Jude. 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid

You may wish to read the article's first, second, third and fourth peer reviews.

Bobby Eaton

I’ve been working on this article for a while and taken it through the automated peer review and fixed it’s comments. I’m hoping to put it forward for Good Article or Feature Article nomination soon but I’m hoping to get a good peer review in before hand to handle any issues before a nomination. I’m especially looking for copyedit comments since my native language isn’t English (I’m generally good at it but there are still things that I may miss). Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 21:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives

This article deals with a pivotal event in Nazi Germany, and therefore modern history. I have added 30 citations from some of the standard works on Nazi Germany, uploaded four pictures from the public domain, and added content necessary to explain the event accurately.

I think that this article now meets featured article status, but would like to have your suggestions before it is nominated for featured article status. I am using University of Chicago Manual of Style citation- and reference-style.

Any article dealing with Hitler invites controversy, so I have tried my best to adhere to NPOV and keep the article accurate.

Thanks.--Mcattell 01:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:BirgitteSB

  • Lead: Doesn't properly summarize the entire article. Nothing from Aftermath.
Expanded the lead paragraphs. Done
    • The name "Night of the Long Knives" is a reference to the massacre of Vortigern's men by Angle, Jute, and Saxon mercenaries in Arthurian myth I am left wondering how it came to be called "The Night of the Long Knives". The planners called it "Hummingbird" but who started using this name and when? With the British allusion I imagine it is an English name, but it it would be good to explain this. Done
The phrase "night of the long knives" predates the purge itself. It was simply a phrase in German that refers to "revenge" or maybe even "payback." I can't seem to find a reference that definitively states who came up with the code name "Hummingbird."--Mcattell 23:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hitler and the Sturmabteilung (SA): What exactly is the Strumabteilung? It is not a politcal party nor part of the army, but I can't fathom exaclty what is meant by "paramilitary orginazation". This probably can be fixed by giving a little of it's history. How long has it been around, who started it, why did they start it, and how have the goals changed over time. Maybe there needs to be a section before this one called "Background of the Strumabteilung (SA)" made from some of this section plus new material. Done
To some extent, those who want further information on the SA are going to have to click the wikilink for SA. Too much background, and the article becomes a general history of the rise of Nazism. However, I have given it more context.--Mcattell 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Röhm's "continuing revolution": I don't know if that is the best title; the sectin is as much about the army as Rohm. Maybe "The Reichswehr and the Sturmabteilung (SA)" to follow the format from the last section. Done
Section is now "Conflict between the army and the SA."--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In response, Hitler met with Blomberg and the leadership of the SA and SS on February 28, 1934. This is the first mention of the SS since the "Lead". How exactly does the SS fit in with the army and the SA? I am not sure of their affliation at this point, although I think they are condisdered part of the army during WWII.
    • Crisis mounts: Again I am not a big fan of this title. It again seems a bit sensationalist to me. Maybe something like "Pressure against the Sturmabteilung (SA)". The section seems to focused alot on all the pressure from different groups to act against the SA.

part of the army during WWII. Done  Done**By the spring of 1934, it was clear that Röhm's vision of a new Germany was incompatible with Hitler's plan to consolidate power and expand the army. Clear to whom? If it is clear to Hitler why does he need to recieve such pressure. Why does Hitler not move against the SA until he is threatened by Hindenburg? Why does Rohm feel so confident that he would give Bloomberg the memo? I think something is missing here about either Hitler or Rohm that would explain these things.

Added, "Hitler had hesitated for months to move against Röhm, in part due to Röhm's visibility as the leader of a national militia with millions of members. However, a declaration of martial law from Hindenburg, the only person in Germany with the authority to depose the Nazi regime, left Hitler with little room for compromise."--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The eventual marginalization of the SA removed an obstacle to Himmler's accumulation of power in the coming years This is getting a little ahead of the game. Can you find something about why Himmler was against the SA at the time before this event rather that in hindsight. Done
    • There are alot of new names introduced in this section and sometimes without enough context.
      • with Prussian Minister-President Hermann Göring, Propaganda Minister Joseph Göbbels, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, and Himmler's deputy Reinhard Heydrich arraying themselves against Röhm. Try to find a place to mention Gobbels again in this section. Also I think you can cut Heydrich everywhere, he is never mentioned indepently of Himmler. And as he is Himmlers deputy it is hardly significant that he is supporting him. Done
I find it difficult to really explain the roles of these prominent Nazis without expanding the article a bit much. I think readers should click on their wikilinks to learn more.
      • Industrialists such as Gustav Krupp and Fritz Thyssen, It would be better to just say "Industrialists" and drop the names.
      • Privately, Papen, a Catholic aristocrat with ties to army and industry, threatened to resign if Hitler did not act This need more context. Why would Hitler care if Papen resigned? Who does Papen have influennce with? Done
Added context.
      • Blomberg and General Walther von Reichenau, the army's liaison to the party, gave it to him by expelling Röhm from the German Officers' League, and by placing the army on alert. How is Reichenau role here independent of Blomberg? Either only mention Blomberg or explain what Reichenau did that is notable here. Done
Reichenau is now mentioned a second time in the text.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Hitler felt confident enough in his position to attend the wedding reception of Gauleiter Josef Terboven in Essen, Is the bridegroom's name really significant? Done
Agreed. Done.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Purge One thing I would watch in this section is the quoted material. It would be better to focus more on the historical analysis of of what Hitler was doing at this time than his own words, since he is hardley being sincere. (i.e it wasn't really the "worst treachery in history" it was a frame-up) I don't mind some quotes, but it needs to followed what historians say about this event rather than letting the readers draw their own conclusions. This is especially true because it is assumed he is lying in some of this.
Agreed. Done.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hess even volunteered to shoot the "traitors" himself This is the first mention of Hess. It needs context. Done
Hess is now mentioned twice in the text.
    • Gestapo officers gunned down those loyal to Papen, First mention of the Gestapo, needs context. Done
  • Tone: Overall the writing is a little sensationalist in tone.
    • Hitler hurried off to Neudeck to meet with Hindenburg. Nothing is mentioned of where his was or what he was doing that makes this important. Was Neudeck a far distance to travel? Did he cut short a vacation? Why is it imporant to say "hurried off to Neudeck" rather than "Hitler met with Hindenburg". Is something significant about Neudeck? Done
Changed text.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The frantic planning of the past week had come to this. wrong tone for an encyclopedia. Done
    • One of the followers present recounted spittle dribbling from Hitler's mouth as he spoke. Not really relevant. Done
    • to loose the death squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims a bit melodramatic. Done
    • it appeared that no law would constrain Hitler in his use of power. This fratricidal bloodletting could be seen as a harbinger of the violence that characterized the Nazi regime, from the use of force to establish an empire of conquest, to the later abattoirs of the Holocaust. again melodramatic. Done
  • Partial list of victims I really dislike this sort of list. I think anyone notable should be discussed in the prose under "Purge" as some already are. Done

Overall I think this article is well-done. The big concerns I have are style and the lack of context in places. I imagine your are very familiar with this time period so just the mention of a name means a great deal more context-wise to you than the average reader and it is probably hard for you to see where more is needed. Push yourself to explain the importance all the small things even when it seems self-apparent to you. I would be happy to look it over again if you like.--BirgitteSB 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment With the edits you've done today, Mcattell, this article is definitely impressive, and worthy of its GA status. Great details and background information, while at the same time short and to the point. As far as I can see, you did not 'beat a dead horse' about any one subject in the article, instead giving fair attention and balance of material to each issue of the background, lead-up, purge, and aftermath. Great job.--PericlesofAthens 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:LordHarris

  • Hi, looking through I definately agree you need to expand the lead in line with Wikipedia:Lead. Done
Expanded lead.
  • The references all appear good though I do have one problem - mainly that they are all from a few sources and a lot from Third Reich in Power. I think IMO to go beyond GA, to FA level you need to incorporate a wider variety of references from multiple sources. The references you have are fine but I do feel that there is a large literature on the subject, with authors varying in opinions and facts etc?  Done
There are now more than a dozen references. Evans and Kershaw are the most recent and critically acclaimed (via scholars), so they are used somewhat more than others.
  • I think you could expand the category section at the bottom - there must be more than one category? Done
Did it.
  • Also in regards to the SA propaganda poster, can you expand the image caption? The same goes for some of the other images. See Wikipedia:Captions for more details. Good work though!  DoneLordHarris 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

  • The scrolling ref box won't do well at FAC; somewhere on one of the talk pages of FAC or WIAFA you'll find links to guideline reasoning for why they shouldn't be used. (If you can't find it, I'll got looking for it.) Besides that they won't mirror well on other sites, and don't show in printed versions, they render me unable to analyze and help with your footnotes the way I usually do (I go to the printable version, copy the footnotes, and put them into a spreadsheet to help identify missing instances of named refs that should be used -- the printable version is invalidated by the scroll box). For example, here, named refs aren't used:
    • 61. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. W. W. Norton & Company, 520.
    • 62. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. W. W. Norton & Company, 520.  Done
      • That should be shortened and combined to one ref via named refs: Kershaw (1999), p. 520.  Done
  • There's no need to repeat all of the Reference info in the footnotes; it just chunks up the article size and makes it harder to edit. I prefer author (date), p. xx. The rest of the info is already given in References and need be repeated in every footnote.  Done--Mcattell 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There's an ISBN finder in the user box on my talk page that you can use to fill in ISBNs on the books.
  • Very pleased that See also and External links are minimal; I prefer the strict order of appendices at WP:LAYOUT, as it gives top billing to Wikified content (See also before refs and external links). Done
  • The measures taken on June 30, July 1 and 2 ... example ... WP:MOSNUM, month day combos are wikified. At about 4:30 on the morning of June 30, 1934, ... full dates are wikified. By the spring of 1934, Röhm's vision ... solo years are not wikified. Review throughout. Done
  • Prose analysis is not my strength, so I didn't thoroughly read the article; I read enough to see that the prose is certainly FA standard. A few minor fixes and you should be on your way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference pilcom was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Metamorphosis" commentary by Al Gough and Miles Millar (DVD). Warner Bros. Television. 2002.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/July_2007&oldid=217170854"