Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
There is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:
Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab. This should update the article's talk page and the review page.
If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
Feel free to improve the article yourself!
Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.
This is the second time this article has been reviewed. I removed the original research that was discussed in the first review, and sourced alternative analysis of the ballad. Although I still have significant grammatical editing to do, content-wise do you all think this article meets the FAC?
I'm purposefully reviewing this without looking at the previous peer review so if I'm repeating some of what was said there, that's why! I'm also not familiar with the poem so I'm giving this a complete set of fresh eyes. :)
First mention of the poem should be in italics. According to Manual of Style on titles, long epic poems should be italicized (not in quotes). You do it right later on, but the first mention is possibly the most important spot to get it right. Generally, the intro can be expanded anyway. It should stand alone as its own sort of mini-article for people with low attention spans. See WP:LEDE. I'm curious about this odd line, "usually considered an epic poem." Is there debate? Should the article discuss it? Also, are the exploits of King Alfred 100% accurate or fictitious? The word "fictionalized" or even "idealized" or "romanticized" can give whole new meaning to "exploits." A quick line about the author (i.e. "English") might also help, as would Wikilinking directly to his article rather than a redirect. An image of the original publication or an early illustration for the poem would be fantastic here too but I'm not sure how likely that would be.
Your "Summary" section should probably come first. I would consider (though I don't feel strongly) to divide the Summary section not into subsections but just into bold headings (the difference is in text size and also how it affects the Table of Contents; as it is, the TOC is really long and hard to navigate, but that just might be my problem, not yours). I'd also consider swapping the
I would suggest the "Analysis" section come next. I would make a similar recommendation about subsections vs. bold headings here. Whatever you choose, make sure the two sections match! This section is the one that needs the most work. First, it should be your most referenced section or it violates the original research policy. Quoting the poem here is also very problematic and, really, very little analysis is actually offered. You have a couple options, I think. First, you can really expand the crap out of the analysis on each part, just as you currently have it set up. This would mean lots of sources, and lots of equal weight given to each section. Option two would be to collapse it all together into one overall analysis of the entire work all at once rather than in sections. This might be an easier way to go until you know the analysis is strong enough to stand in its many parts. As it is, I'm having trouble figuring out the different between Analysis and Summary sections.
As for the full text of the poem itself, just rely on Wikisource. There actually is a way to link each of the summary mini-sections to their corresponding original text in Wikisource if you want to have direct links for each section (rather than just one hard to find box amidst piles of text in the article).
I'd then add the "Technical Features" section after this, though I'd change the name. It currently sounds like a vacuum cleaner or something! :) Maybe "Poetic structure"? Either way, remember to only capitalize the first word of section headings unless it's a proper noun. You should definitely expand this section, though. This might be the place to add discussion about its "epic poem" status, if such a debate exists. Look at a recently-approved good article on a poem, "The Raven" (shameless plug), for some possibilities.
"Influence on other works" could be renamed to "Critical response and impact" (based on the suggestion of the behemoth Wikiproject Novels; WP:Poetry doesn't seem to have recommendations for structure of articles). This would definitely be expanded to include (sourced) quotes about the poem's historical value, contemporary and more modern responses, and definitely other works inspired by the poem. It's a good start there, but it could be much bigger.
Thanks for your response. It may take me a while to put all your reccomendations into effect. Here's a question:
I paraphrased almost an entire single article for the analysis, and referenced it in the heading (as well as noting that it was paraphrased). Why exactly are the qoutations problematic? I included the same passages that were present in the original document. I know the analysis isn't that extensive and not very concise or clear, but that's what was present in the original. I was only able to find a single relevant document in the Thomson Gale Literature resource database (from our public library) so I didn't have to much leeway. Should I check other sources to find more documents? Should I incoporate those documents into the existing structure or include it as a separate section?
Hmmm... consider this: If you're entirely analysis comes from only one source, it's hardly a well-rounded view. I think part of the policy on NPOV would suggest that's pushing a single bias rather than showing a broader view. I also think the heavy quotations of the verse make the section incredibly long but lacking in substance. Don't you? Also, think of it this way... if another editor comes along and adds some additional sourced information spliced into the middle of your sourced material,it gets hard to figure out what source applies to what analysis. Well, consider it anyway. I wonder if anyone else out there in Peer Review Land would like to offer an opinion... --Midnightdreary23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't post a link because it was in a limited-access database. I think you should be able to find the article in most databases or maybe from the journal Thought.
Do you think I should change it from a book-by-book analysis to a topic-by-topic analysis? That would make it easier to include other sources (if I can find more-the book is not well known). There is a little analysis in the book itself (as well as reviews of it when it was first published, which I may be able to use). I also have a homeschool study guide for it, which has a few excellent interpretations but I don't know if it was really "published" or just printed off someone's personal computer for sale.
I agree that the quotations make it long and cumbersome, but I also think they help illustrate some of the points made. However, this probably isn't necessary. Are there any guidlines or additional opinions?
Do they have a DOI, ISSN or ISBN? As it is, googling for thought academic journal gives me 18,100,000 hits. I'd also recommend that you take the citation from out of the section title - it looks like the source is referencing your section title, which isn't the case.-Malkinann22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think arranging the analysis thematically is a pretty good idea. It'd probably be easier to read and might make it look a slightly less daunting size. It might be worth seeing if anyone has written a critical biography of this author; that would be one additionally source to start to balance the one that's already used heavily. --Midnightdreary01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add all the comments, requests, additions, adjustments that you would like to recommend, especially if you are an expert or an interested person. :) Wikidea00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this list is compiled mainly by one user and therefore is not a consensus. Further, as I mentioned on the talk page, there's a long list of complaints, however little initiative from what I can see to actually address them. Also in regards to the complaints; while some of the information may be common knowledge, a bulk of the arguments may not be and there's no sources provided to backup the claims. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The list was reviewed by other users (all of whom were lawyers or law students) when I brought an RFC over the appropriateness of the NPOV tag (and when Wikidea brought a COI complaint against me), and all of whom agreed the tag was appropriate and my edits were appropriate. (2) There are sources to a number of matters than can be cited. Since many of the complaints are about POV phrasing, NOR violations, and lack of relevance of many sections, there's nothing to cite. If you think I've made a controversial claim, please identify it and I'll add a cite, but everything I mentioned is fairly obvious to American antitrust practitioners. (3) See WP:TAGGING. An editor who identifies problems has no obligation to correct them. In this case, correction would entail rewriting an entire article, something I'm not inclined to tackle before the WP:OWN and WP:NPA problems of an editor are fixed. THF12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Chicago school section requires substantial editing. Secondly I believe there was a Harvard school of thought? I'm relying on my memory at the moment. We are having a problem in terms of the structure of the article. I reckon we ought to reassess what it is this article is supposed to do. Many of the sections have their own dedicated articles. If it is to act as an introduction mini-portal, then we can restrain ourselves on the number of court cases that are required and broadly describe the theories behind competition law. At the moment I feel the purpose is confused - the competition in law practice cannot do itself justice because it concentrates on the EU side too much. At the same time we need to back up our comments, so finding a neutral source is necessary.
I would perhaps remove the competition law in practice section, if only because it lengthens the article and duplicates material that would be discussed in the main EU & US articles. If not, let's divide each part into three: overview, EU, US. That way each gets a dedicated treatment. Sephui00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind the object of Wikiproject law is to have a pan-jurisdictional treatment of the legal position. If there are people with any knowledge of US law that are willing to contribute, then that's the best thing, not deleting the practice part. Comments on specifics anyone? Wikidea11:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for comments on the entire article. Sorry to not be more specific, but I guess I'm looking to improve everything that I can with it. I can be more specific, now that I think about it. Ultimately I'd like to get this to FA status, so any suggestions for how to improve with that goal in mind are what I'm looking for. Thanks, JCO31221:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJH
Some of the sentences seem a little on the terse side, which (to me at least) hinders the flow slightly. But overall the article seems fine. I only have a few suggestions:
The lead is rather short. Could it be expanded to include a second paragraph?
Can the long paragraph in the lead of the "Personal life" section be split into two or more smaller paragraphs.
The article has plenty of references, but I have to recommend using the {{cite}} templates throughout for consistent formatting and information completeness.
I just want to know what I can add to this article and how can I can improve the quality. All comments will be appreciated. Thanks in Advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyangel252 (talk • contribs)
The article is difficult to follow for someone who does not already know about the region. Material about geography should be removed from the history section. The article on Alsace_Lorraine might be good inspiration for how to reorganize your article. VisitorTalk23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead should be two sentances, with a new sentance for "stars comedian..."
Truthiness should probably include Colbert's comment: "I don't trust books, they're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Let's face it folks, we are a divided nation.... between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart."
The "wrist violence" section should be renamed "wrist violence and painkiller addiction" as the latter seems a parody of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycotin addiction.
Should definitely include a section about the White House dinner speech and President Bush's response.
It might be worthwhile to include a comment about Colbert's interview of Presidential candidate Ron Paul. It seemed to me that in that interview, Colbert slipped out of character to show his genuine personal admiration of Paul's perspective, but then went back into his schtick.
I'm considering submitting this as a FAC, but there's a lot of history missing, despite the length of the section already (Once filled out, it will definitely be in need of some WP:SS-ing which I unfortunately don't have time for right now.). Is that likely to cause an automatic fail, or is there enough to allow it to receive decent consideration? I'm also concerned about redundancy, as some of the information deserved mention in a couple different sections, and while a few details are different in each section, others are not. Is it ok, or too much? How should I fix it? What can be removed from where, without leaving gaping holes? Also, have I gone overboard with the inline citations? If I have, how should I fix that without simply removing sources? Is there anything else that seems to be missing, or errors that I've overlooked? I'm busy now so may not be able to make suggested changes immediately, but if I can get a make-it-FA-quality to-do list to work on when I get the chance, that'd be much appreciated. -Bbik★15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lazy review by mcginnly
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.[?]
YIf there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Unlikely When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Can't find this problem anywhere, anyone up to being a second set of eyes? -Bbik★
Only used for centuries, which is specified as being correct by the same page. -Bbik★
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbor (A) (British: harbour), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), grey (B) (American: gray), programme (B) (American: program ).
According to the given link, grey is "but a minor variant in American English", but it is still acknowledged; I don't see the issue with leaving that spelling even if it is petty. If there are any other words that set this comment off, I can't find them. -Bbik★
DoneWatch 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 20 additive terms, a bit too much.
20 in 2,700-2,800 words doesn't seem like it's all that bad (Does this comment come from a pure count, or a percentage?), I'll see what can be done to cut some, though. -Bbik★
Five cut, another one will be once I update the history section with more information. I don't think things will work as well if I remove any others, but the script doesn't give this complaint anymore, in any case. -Bbik★00:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UnlikelyThe script has spotted the following contractions: can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
News to me, Ctrl+F can't find it, even if I stop at can and search all six of those (two of which are part of significant, would that have set it off?). -Bbik★
I have been working on Forbidden City for a while, with the aim of getting it to featured article status. I feel that it is meeting or close to meeting the criteria, so I would appreciate any comments or suggestions in that regard. Some things which I would like a "fresh eye" to comment on include style and quality of prose, formatting of references, and image quantity/placement. Thanks in advance, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by SpecialWindler
It's a good well constructed article, few pointers
DoneYour table of contents is a little too long, consider removing the === headings
To make a heading without putting it as table of contents simply add ; before the heading. for example
this heading has ; placed before it.
DoneThe lead is too short for a 64KB page. Consider 3 paragraphs
Lazy review by mcginnly
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 metres, use 7 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 metres.[?]
DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
DonePer 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 0.72 km2.
DoneWhen writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
DonePer 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==.[?]
DonePer 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.[?]
DoneThis 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.[?]
DoneThere 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).[?]
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.”
DoneAs 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][?]
I am progressively making the stylistic changes suggested, but I think one big issue is that I need to start a couple of sub-pages to make this summary style. I probably should have done that as the page was growing. Thanks! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mcginnly has made a lot of good points, so I won't repeat them. My only real bug is that a lot of citations come from the same source - "Yu". Would it be possible to have some of them replaced to vary the sources used?
DoneAlso, I don't see the original references for "Yu" and "Yang" - you need to have full citations for the first time they're used. John Smith's13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that!
Yu is probably the most authoritative source on the architecture of the Forbidden City out there. An alternative would be the Palace Museum website - but I've used Yu mostly because of two reasons: 1) the Palace Museum website is almost impossible to cite, becuase they disable right clicking and you can't see the URL of the framed page, and 2) Yu is an English language source, whereas the Palace Museum website has very little information in English - most of the information is in Chinese. Still, I'll see if I can replace some of the Yu refs with other sources.
The full citations for Yu and Yang are in the Bibliography - I guess I haven't fully grasped how the footnote/bibliography thing correlates with the paper version. Good suggestion - I will change that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by D. Recorder
This article looks very good. One minor comment is that there are a lot of paragraphs with only a few sentences in them. Very often there are only two or three sentences per paragraph. I would either merge or expand them so that the text flows more and isn't as broken by spaces. Secondly, it would be advantageous to have a labeled plan, diagram, or axonometric drawing that shows the locations of the individual buildings such as the gates and halls that are discussed. Furthermore, you can add a few more references, such as [1] if you have access, and you can also work from some surveys such as [2]. It is smart that you are using plenty of Chinese sources but the article may benefit from a few more in English. Where you are at now looks very close to featured article status. Well done so far and good luck. D. Recorder01:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that.
The one/two-sentence paragraph is a result of my attempt at Summary Style cull-and-move to daughter pages in the last couple of days - I will fix them up as suggested.
I'm attempting again for a push to FA, and I think that I've included nearly everything I can that is verifiable, but my main concern is the dreaded 1a), so I would like opinions on ways to improve the text of the article. Will(talk)02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a stab. I go over the M62 a lot, on Thursday I'm en route to the Leeds Festival - if I remember, I'll stop in the layby at the summit and get a photo or two. It would be good if there was a more-zoomed-in image of the route rather than (or in addition to) the little line on the whole UK map. Neilム09:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what's the height of the summit? Some like CBRD give 1442ft, others like LMARS give 1221ft, and I can't remember which one it says at the summit. Will(talk)18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much of the route is mountains and how much is flatlands?
I know this is still a future project but it is referenced quite well and there are a few other good features. I am a little worried that some sections are too short and possible OR. What should be required for this to become GA standard? Does it have to wait until the company comes into service? Simply south11:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on one of the above comments, references should be standardised with [statement][punctuation][citation], with no space, even if there are two references. For instance-
Section titles should only be capitalised if they are proper nouns. Not certain which are, but, for instances, 'Awards and Recognitions' should definitely be 'Awards and recognitions'.
We do not credit the author/owner of images in the image captions.
Are there really no public domain images, or images released to the press by the authority in charge of the Nobel prizes? They would be very much preferable to an image with obvious commercial value.
Are all the external links really needed? I think you could afford to lose a few.
A reference for each award would be rather useful.
I'm looking for any comments available to improve this article. However it would probably help the most with concentrations on headings and writing style, plus suggestions for improvements to citations. The35906:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section needs a lot of work, and should be phrased assuming zero prior knowledge. Somewhere in there you need to mention that it is a motor race, for example! See WP:LEAD for guidance.
I've attempted to expand the intro, but I'm am not quite sure if it works at the moment.
Similarly, the prose in the main body text assumes a certain amount of prior understanding. For example, the "Track Changes" section refers to "more upgrades to the Circuit de la Sarthe". More? More than what? This requires you to go away and read around the subject, not desirable.
Done Removed the word more and only listed things that changed between 2006 and 2007.
On a related point, in the Track Changes section specific mention is made of particular corners. As you are discussing the track changes here you ought to have a figure to assist. However, you may like to think about slimming this section down and moving most of the track and rule changes (combine the two? just a thought...) into the history page, and just providing a brief summary with links in this article.
Done Added a track map which, although not 100% correct in its layout of the course, does at least list the corners correctly. I also attempted to slim down both the Track Changes and Rule Changes as sections as well. For now I've kept them seperate, but they can be combined if needed.
Jargon, terminology and abbreviations. There is quite a lot of it! In some cases (e.g. IMSA) these are properly introduced, but others (LMP, GT, restrictor, muffler {fatuous numpty comment: the cars wear scarfs? ;-}, ACO, etc.) should be linked or explained on first use.
Done for the first sections. I've attempted to link many terms, especially Le Mans Prototype, Grand tourer, pit lane, and most acronyms. There might be some still to clean up. There are still some to work on in the reports.
Referencing. A few statements of disputable fact require a citation. There are too many to list specifically, but one example would be that the entry list was "planned to be released following the 2007 12 Hours of Sebring". Really? How do you know? etc etc etc... Any such statement ought to be accompanied by a citation.
I was mostly going off of what I am used to and realize I do not have an actual source to back up the claim. I removed that particular statement anyway in an attempt to slim down some sections.
Still on citation, there is an overwhelming reliance on the official website. For such a long and substantial article this is a major weakness. As there are reports of the race on many sites (BBC, Autosport, etc) and in magazines and newspapers, it would be better to introduce a range of sources, to introduce a variety of viewpoints and just in case the official site goes u/s at some point and the article is left without any traceable source information.
I had used the ACO site initially due to the fact that it was easier to find specific stories (since they updated every few minutes). I will replace some of these citations with other news websites soon.
Done
You need to get a good hold on the desirable level of detail. This should include a consideration of what actually matters to the subject of the article (i.e. the race itself). For example, failed reserve entries really don't even merit mention, let alone a full listing. I have a feeling that much of the entry list section and subsections may be a hang over from when it was a {{future sport}} article, and isn't really appropriate for a historical article. Remember that we are a general interest wiki, and there are specialist motorsport wikis that would love that level of detail.
I've removed the reserve entries that did not make it, but I feel that the entry list section is important enough to keep, simply because of the nature of Le Mans. Teams have to be invitated to participate, while most other races simply have you say you're going to participate and you're in, barring any space issues. Keeping some things such as teams which made it in from the reserve entry list would also explain why the initial entry list is different from the race results.
Minor point: linking dates. It adds nothing and in some browser/preferences configurations needlessly breaks up text. You only need link a year or date if it actually points to something related to the article, e.g. 2006.
Done I eliminated all date links except for the two in the intro. I also kept links specific to previous Le Mans results.
Headings for the "Reports" section. Although I like the broad structure, I would be more bold with the heading priorities. Get rid of "Reports" and elevate "Testing" to a == header. Similarly "Qualifying" and "Race" would be easier to find if they were first level headers; this is what the article is ultimately all about, after all. Conversely, the "Results" section should be a subset of the "Race" section, in a manner similar to how you have handled the qualifying information. All other headings can remain as they are.
Done I spent quite some time earlier trying to figure out how to lay the reports and results out. This seems to work.
On the results table. Why did you drop the previous form, with separate subheadings for NC and DNF categories? I think in an event with such a long entry list it makes it much easier to see what is what if they are delineated clearly, and not just left to the reader to spot the little DNF in the left column (e.g. 1968). Just my tuppen'th, but I liked your old style!
I dropped the old style for two reasons: 1) I did not like that the two or three seperate charts did not line up when an exceptionally long name would make one section longer then others. Having the single chart I felt looked cleaner and made finding things easier by simply reading straight down. I agree it may make it hard to go straight to the DNFs, but regardless of the chart style, one would expect DNFs to be at the bottom, would they not? 2) Many sports car races outside of Le Mans do not automatically move DNFs to the bottom since some DNFs may have done more laps then a car that finished. Therefore breaking things into multiple charts would be confusing. Therefore for the sake of keeping things similar I felt that having the unified results chart would be better overall for all sports car races, even Le Mans.
As for the race report itself, well, save the best for last. There are a few flaws (mostly unencyclopedic language and jargon; "took the green" for example, that just hurts my eyes to read!) but in general it is far better written than many recent F1 reports (unfortunately...). There should be a degree of formality to the language tone (we are not ESPN or SkySports), but your style is generally pleasantly lively so just minor tweaks to reduce the tabloid feel of some sections. Specific style comments are:
Use of tense. Maintain past perfect tense, not conditional (e.g. "would be the first retirement" should read "was the first retirement"), and don't be tempted to slip into the present tense (e.g. "with the gearbox failing" should read "when the gearbox failed").
Some of this is due to the article transforming from the future to the present to the past. I've been trying to clean these up, will continue to.
Done
Careful with some minor phrasing. For example "the Creation" sounds like biblical intervention, and would be better off as "the Creation Autosportif entry" or "the Creation car". Just a case of a widely used phrase also being a model of car.
Done I realized that Creation thing sounded unusual when I saved that revision but never bothered to fix it.
Content gaps. Some glaring omissions, but not many. For example, "a large amount of oil was spilled on the track". Where? By whom? How come? For something that had such an influence this is a bit skimpy on information.
Will fix once I figure out who actually dumped the oil...
Done
Spelling. Just a few minor points, e.g. passed -> past. Either "the Audi passed", or "the Audi had gone past".
Blimey, that was more than I was intending. Let me know when you have had your fun and I'll swing back and do a proper copyedit if you like. Nice article in any case! Pyrope10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of my fellow editors suggested nominating this article for peer review (it currently is rated 'B' class), and I would mostly like help in properly formatting and endnoting the references section, have an impartial observer locate any parts in need of citation or expansion, and point out any deficiencies that would keep it from being upgraded to a better class. Thanks! JMax55521:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Thank you all for your edits and comments! I seem to be having a problem with the actor's infobox: it's mysteriously "added" a field called "Resting place" to the box, but no such field is in the template. Since Farr was cremated and her ashes scattered, there is no "resting place" and I'd just like to make the blank field go away. How do I do this? JMax55520:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Awadewit
What a pleasure to read this article - I learned so much! I love all of the beautiful images, too. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
Lead:
The lead needs to be expanded so that is a standalone summary of the article. Ideally it should reference each part of the article (see WP:LEAD and WP:BETTER#Lead section for hints on writing leads.)
You might mention who all of the famous artists are you list in the lead, such as "author Oscar Wilde, poet Ezra Pound..." - not everyone knows who these people are, sadly. The same goes for all such famous people you mention (e.g. Florence Nightingale).
It seems a bit odd to list "divorcee" in the first sentence - from the article, I didn't gather that that piece of information was that important - is it worth listing in the first sentence?
Content:
But it was a disastrous marriage, and she chafed under the restrictions expected of a Victorian wife - Can you expand on this at all?
An early feminist, Farr was known for advocating equality for women in politics, employment, wages etc. amongst her intellectual circle of acquaintances. - This is a crucial section of your article - don't sell it short by using an "etc."! Spell out exactly what Farr thought and did. Teach us (me included - I'd never heard of her until I read this article!)
Within a year Farr became Shaw's mistress, who wished to mold her into his idealized vision of "The New Woman" and be the star of his plays. - Are there elements of My Fair Lady, just in a different register, here?
Small things:
I'm not a big fan of infoboxes, as they tend to intrude on articles and offer no additional information. If you decide to retain it, I would remove everything that is subjective, such as "Occupation".
The first time you mention a text in the article, it is a good idea to give its first publication date, so that the reader can place it historically.
Prose (if you go for FA, I would suggest a copy editor - someone who hasn't spent hours staring at the same sentences over and over again - it is very helpful to have a pair or two of fresh eyes):
EX: Her family sent her to school at Cheltenham Ladies College in 1873. - It is always good to start paragraphs with the specific noun rather than the pronoun - it is easier for readers to follow. (This happens a few other times in the article.)
EX: Farr, May Morris and other friends posed for Sir Edward Burne-Jones' Pre-Raphaelite painting, "The Golden Stairs" when she was 19 years old. - "she" doesn't match the "they" listed earlier in the sentence
EX: The painting is exhibited at the Tate Gallery in London. - I would put this in the caption for the image. I would also add a caption to the image of "The Golden Stairs" identifying it as such.
EX: In early 1890 Farr moved in with her sister, Henrietta, and brother-in-law, painter and stage designer Henry Marriott Paget, to Bedford Park, a bohemian London enclave of intellectuals, artists and writers. - awkward
EX: Shaw was in the audience to review the play, which he called "an hour's transparent Arcadian make-believe",[6] but was greatly impressed with Farr's performance, as well as her "starling beauty, large expressive eyes, crescent eyebrows, and luminous smile." - I don't quite follow the "but" - Shaw's quote sounds like it could be positive.
EX: dauntless in publicly championing unpopular causes such as campaigning for the welfare of prostitutes. - perhaps just "causes such as the welfare of prostitutes"? there seem to be extra words here...
EX: who's resonate voice was perfect for reciting his poetry - "whose"?
EX: Farr was also the first woman in England to perform in Ibsen's plays, in particular the role of "Rebecca West" in the first English production of Rosmersholm, at the Vaudeville Theatre in 1891, which gained her critical acclaim - just the teensiest bit awkward
MOS (if you go for FA, spend a day perusing the WP:MOS and making sure that the article meets every single standard - that way the FAC won't descend into long list of your MOS violations):
Sometimes you use single quotes and sometimes double - it is best to be consistent.
Might you add a little note at the beginning of the "List of works" telling the reader where you found the list and how complete it is?
All of the notes need page numbers so that readers can check your sources. (See WP:CITE and WP:FOOT for how to format footnotes.)
"University College of London, biographies collection, Reference code(s): GB 0096 MS 982" - Is this a manuscript? It seems to be missing an author, publisher, etc.
Reply - Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions! It's exactly what I needed (you're already providing one of those "2nd pairs of eyes".) I'm going to implement as many as I can, and even get some "non-wiki" friends to read it and help too -- I know a few librarians... :) Again, thank you. JMax55515:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snake scales is presently a GA. I would be grateful for the following kinds of feedback -
Ideas to improve the article.
MOS issues to improve the article.
Hints to bring it up to featured article quality.
For your info: the snake scale names in the sections dealing with nomenclature were bolded intentionally for maximum utility for readers to help them follow the annotated sketches effectively.
The first think that strikes me is the essayish tone of the article. it has a unique "voice", as if written by a single, well-informed editor - and in fact this is almost the case. It would need some rewriting to resemble a typical WP article, as well as some tweaking of the explanations - for instance, the fairly well-known Dorsal is explained in the article, but the obscure Mental groove isn't. There are some other problems as well, such as the opening statement that scales are important to snakes because it classifies them as reptiles - it's not important to a snake' how it's classified by us. So yes, this is a good article but it needs style editing. The picture at the top is beautiful.
I can't comment on the scientific accuracy as it's outside my area. 11:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting, but it doesn't seem quite there yet. Some comments:
Please use the cite templates for your reference; a bare URL isn't going to cut it during FAC.
There are a few too many short paragraphs. Please merge or expand.
You might want to run the article through a spelling checker.
Can the article tell us what light source was used for early lighthouses? Was it oil?
The lead section needs to provide more of a summary of the main article. There is content in the lead that is not covered by the body, so it's not a summary. (See: WP:Lead.)
First, I agree with the references comment from RJH. Consider more print sources as well; I'm sure there are plenty out there. That's just a personal opinion because I think print sources are a tad more reliable than internet sources. Anyway, here we go...
Lead: Your opening picture isn't so great. Something easier to see that properly illustrates a lighthouse would help (of course, I was raised in New England and spent summers down at Cape Cod, so I have no problem, but what about those poor land-locked folks in Oklahoma?? ;) Anyway, images won't affect your attempt to reach good article status (I don't think) so let's talk text. The first sentence is awkward; I wouldn't start with a clause like that. Try: A lighthouse is a tower building or framework meant to aid navigation and pilotage (umm... is this a word?) at sea, by sending out light from a system of lamps and lenses. The part about fires can be a separate sentence is at is secondary to the primary purpose. Also, take a look at WP:LEAD and spend some time improving the whole intro. It should really serve as a "mini article" that entices the reader to read ahead for more detailed information. Its own size should also be relative to the entire article; an article this size should have a good-sized intro to match.
History: This section is great. It's tempting to go over the top in a section like this, but this is very concise yet detailed. Well done. I'd try to get another in-line citation for the first paragraph just to increase verifiability if additional text is added in the middle by future editors. This article falls into passive voice occasionally (as do I), which is generally considered weak writing. For example: In the Islamic world, lighthouses were also known. Try Lighthouses were also known in the Islamic world (I'd also give more detail on dates right in that sentence). The final 'graph in that first subsection uses the word "use" twice in the same sentence; try "operation" the second time. Under "Classic period," the person "was drowned" or should it just be "drowned"? For your longer 'graphs in this subsection, I'd also suggest scattering a couple more in-line citations throughout, as mentioned a second ago. You also toss in the term "wick" before explaining that the lighthouses were using flames at the time (pretty obvious, but it couldn't hurt). Under "Modern," the term less picturesque may be challenged for NPOV so I'd stick an inline citation right there.
Light technology: Great section here and I'm glad it was included. I might consider, briefly, the possibility of starting with the building design before the tech-specs of the light. Maybe. Definitely more citations under "Lens technology" subsection. I also think the two-item list at the beginning breaks up some great prose writing; consider integrating. "Light characteristics" is very brief and, I think, would work fine as one medium-sized paragraph rather than several small ones. You also have a verb redundancy, to indicate distinguish safe water areas.
Building design: A bit word here throughout. Ex: ...the lamp needs to be placed at an appropriate height could be the lamp is placed. Otherwise, it kinda sounds like a "How-to" guide to make your own lighthouse. ;) I'm personally not a supporter of having bolded "vocab" words within the text of an article (other than the article's main subject in the first line) but that's really editor's choice. There are also a couple of single-sentence paragraphs which should be avoided. I'll make those same two comments for the Range lights section that follows; that section also could use more sources.
Maintenance and Preservation: Consider possibly merging these two sections together. I don't feel strongly about this but thought I'd just throw it out there.
Popular culture: As every pop culture section on Wikipedia, more sources would save this article from accusations of original research or questions of verifiability.
This article is very close to getting Good Article status. I hope my comments will prove helpful. Best of luck, and thanks for your efforts so far! --Midnightdreary15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for peer review to determine if the article is ready to submit for featured status. In particular I am soliciting comments on whether the article meets criteria 1(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details. --Trödel21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. The Superman film series is far older than either Spider-Man or X-Men, and its critical receptions should not be measured by websites like Rotten Tomatoes. Alientraveller20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Perhaps we can do without the precise measurements of the box office performance and critical reaction and just focus on prose to shape how the films did in these two areas? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a quick observation: is it right to call it Routh "series", when only one has been made? The heading seems to indicate that there is more than one movie, but the text does not say so. Are there more in the works? 69.202.41.11921:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. The same thing was done for Spider-Man 4 -- information was originally placed in a Sequel section at Spider-Man 3, but when Spider-Man film series was created, the future film information was placed there instead. When this one is developed more, the content at Superman Returns#Sequel can be brought here. Just seems like this article needs to be a bit more respectable first so it doesn't seem like an unwarranted move of content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the games (KH, CoM and KHII) have reached featured status. If there are any suggestions in making this an FA, it will be appreciated very much. GregJonesII18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment As someone unfamiliar with the content of Kingdom Hearts, I had trouble getting a clear version of what the games were about after having read the lead. In particular, the first two sentences of the second paragraph were confusing, even after rereading them a few times. What exactly are "alternate" Disney universes and "alternate versions" of characters? 69.202.41.11921:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd actually just get rid of that section altogether. There's plenty of sites where you can view that stuff. At first glance it looks pretty good, though i can check again if needed. Wizardman17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a MAJOR issue as far as i can tell. I will assert my thoughts on it, but the "what to do with stats" debate is rampant here and on most other sports related questions. Per WP:EL i have always been inclined to leave table stats to the els (except some minor summary stats for retired players). There are a lot of reasons for this - a) Stat tables could be considered inundating to some readers not familiar with the content. As it is easily conveyed in the stats sites as well... it's an easy fix (as i see it). b) Stats for most sports are going to change so frequently that unless they are "team oriented" it's awefully hard to keep them really relevant for active players. There is a guideline on this somewhere (i think it's a guideline though it may just be an essay). c) It's easy for vandals to make adjustments that are hard to catch in tables of stats. If i go change Barret's hit total by 3 in a table, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't caught. d) The "compromise" that i usually try and go with is that you do career totals up until the last completed season and just to leave everything else out. It's a hot topic with no true "my way is the right way", but just my 2 cents (or rather 10 cents). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 19:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went and removed that section, and also split the pro career sections up, since it looks neater that way. I'd probably pass this at GA actually. Wizardman15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to get this article to FA status soon. Any comments on what can be improved to get the level would be appreciated. Thanks, Chupper14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chupper. I don't have a full review to offer, but some random comments from a partial read:
In Violent behavior I don't quite follow this sentence, or at least would be interested in a citation for it: "In addition, having a high intelligence quotient, high aspirations, or insight into illnesses can also be risk factors for violence."
Done Fixed sentence so it is more clear and added citation.
The Anxiety section seems like it should be lower on the page, given its emergent status in comparison with substance abuse, psychosis, etc.
Done Reordered sections.
More detail on the practice of emergency psychiatry might be good. What does it mean to "stabilize a patient", for example.
Page numbers would be/would have been nice for the textbook citations.
This is a good idea, but there were two reasons page numbers were not used. First, the APA style (the reference style used in this article) only uses page numbers where specific quotes are used. Second, the references would have been listed multiple times, with different page numbers. This may have been confusing.
There is an accepted wiki style for short book-page citations in a "Notes" section ("^Smith, 200.") and then a full book citation under "References". Anyway, it may be more important in an FA nomination, so that's why I brought it up. (And now that you've referenced my above request to Hillard and Zitek, I would actually have wanted to read that section in the book, but where would I start? :) –Outriggr♠02:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sticking to APA format, and its my understanding Wikipedia is alright with that. I do use page numbers in journals, because specific articles are included within a certain area of the journal. However for books, the APA style does not use page numbers except when using a direct quote. Sorry, my professors have "conditioned" me into this strict usage. I have, however, included a quotation for the information you requested. Normally what I do in situations where something is cited (not quoted) using APA style is I grab the book and then look through the table of contents. In this situation the sentence in question is located in the "Violence" section of the Wikipedia article. If you open Emergency Psychiatry and look at the table of contents, you can notice a chapter called "The Potentially Violent Patient". That chapter begins on page 75. After reading just a few pages, you can find the content in question (it is located throughout page 76, but listed directly on page 77 of that book). Chupper22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about mentioning drug treatment in a bit more detail—it's a medicated world.
I'm working on entering more information on treatment and medication. I'll notate here when I'm finished.
I don't understand this sentence: "The initiation of treatments for mood and anxiety disorders are important as patients suffering from anxiety disorders have a high risk of premature death." ("is" important) Premature death from what? Just general mortality?—if so "high" is a strong word here.
I'm not sure anybody knows exactly why or exactly from what. I am aware that statistics do show that the risk is elevated above a baseline. The reference documents that. I'll switch the word high to higher so that this is more clear. Chupper00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making this small now if you don't mind!:
I'm at two PR responses in a row in which my comments weren't acknowledged. Surely this must be related to that trope, "peer review is dead"? No shrubberies are required, just an ack or even a "that was painfully useless stuff", maybe. –Outriggr§00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outriggr - as I mentioned on your talk page, your comments are appreciated. Sorry about the massive delay in response. I was hoping to address these issues pretty quickly, but things just got overwhelming for me in life outside Wikipedia. I've already read through your comments, and I will do what I can to address each issue. Of course any other reviews are welcomed as well. I'm thinking I should be able to get to work within the next week or two maximum. Thanks again, Chupper13:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I sure didn't mean that you are obligated to act on these comments, but it's just nice to know they don't disappear into a void—seems a danger on Peer Review. –Outriggr♠23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently completely rewritten this article (along with Genesis II (module), which I intend to submit for review at a later date, and Sundancer) and feel it may be acceptable as a Good Article (certainly too short for FA). Everything is fairly stable, decently sourced, etc; I like it, but extra eyes can only make it better. Any and all feedback is appreciated. -- HuntsterT • @ • C11:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As in 'launched in 2006' or similar? That should be easy enough. My reasoning for the article titles, however, is the conflict with the books of Genesis in the Christian Bible. It is something I've been tossing around in my skull for some time, that the "Genesis 1"/"Genesis I" current redirects should point to Genesis rather than this article, given that they are likely going to have higher intended traffic. For now, I'd like to see what others think, but it is certainly something that needs to be taken care of, one way or the other. -- HuntsterT • @ • C11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please search for errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar.
I hope to make the article interesting and informative for lay readers, while providing a useful starting-point for scholarly research. I will be grateful for suggestions relative to either of those objectives.Wugo20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article! I'd work to clarify the introduction (i.e. is only wheat glutens "a mixture of gliadin and glutenin", or are all glutens?) and if you have more information, perhaps say more about the chemistry, where it is found in the grain, and so on -- some of this could be taken from the introduction, which could be written in slightly less technical language, and put into it's own section (composition, maybe?). I'd also see if there are any general references out there (books about gluten? overview articles?) and list these as "further reading." In general, good job on an informative article! :) -- phoebe/(talk) 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been putting a lot of work into this article over the past two months or so and I plan to put forth a featured article candidacy by the end of August. Essentially, I want to get some feedback on the overall quality of the article – whether anything major has been overlooked, whether the article is (gasp) neutral enough, etc, etc. While this peer review is occurring, I will be copyediting, and otherwise proofreading the article, and perhaps raising a few points on Talk:Israel. I'm sure there may be a few other editors doing the same types of things. Feel free to leave a review here, respond to comments on the talk page, and/or contribute as you see fit. -- tariqabjotu19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article improved a lot, but still the two idiot groups make it a playground every now and than.
The first comment would be on the freedom of the press,[8] business regulations,[9] economic competition,[10] and overall human development although right it is a little bit too much for the lead.
I'm not going to touch the lead with a ten-foot pole. There has been quite a bit a conflict over the intro, and it seems to be stabilizing. I'm not going to act on this unless it becomes an issue in the FAC. -- tariqabjotu05:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Ancient history it should be mentioned who lived there in the specific times, because occupied sounds more like beeng empty excepting military.
Done Perhaps you fixed this yourself (or someone else has changed the wording since your posting), but it currently does not say "occupied". -- tariqabjotu05:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First reading this I thought of black humor, but looking into the past... Foreign relations and military Main articles: Foreign relations of Israel and Israel Defense Forces (combining Foreign relations directly with military sounds funny.)
The economy of Gaza and the West Bank is part of the statistics especially that of the settlements or is it listed elsewere? Israel calls them disputed, but the legal and economic implications are unknown to me and should be mentioned somewere. (Without Gaza West Bank and settlements there.)
Regarding the Third and Fourth Aliyahs, consider revising the following sentence to omit the word "they". Maybe I'm being silly, but "they" to me, and generally, refers to people, not movements.
"During World War II, as Jews fled the Holocaust in Europe and countries around the world refused to take them in or allow ships of refugees to enter their ports, a clandestine immigration movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine."' can be rewritten as "Jews fled the Holocaust in Euruope and settled in Palestine through the efforts of a clandestine immigration movement known as Aliyah Bet.
According to Wikipedia's guidelines, the lead should be longer. There's plenty more material that can be included in two or three paragraphs of summary.
It would 'feel' better to me to describe his parents before his siblings, but I'm not sure I can explain why!
Re middle names (and this is probably too trivial to cover in the article) it strikes me as odd that his three brothers all had middle names, but that he apparently did not until he adopted one at the age of 11. Are we sure that the story is correct?
Which version of English is the article in? I can see 'at age 11', which is American English (instead of 'at the age of 11'), but I can also see 'honoured', which is British English. I guess you can make a case for either version, given the man's history, but whichever it is it should be consistent. (On further reading, It looks like the article is in US English, in which case 'honoured' needs to be changed to 'honored', and any other necessary changes).
The order of events in the early part of 'Biography' seems a little mixed up. I would suggest moving the elements on deafness in the first para to around about the second mention of deafness (the fourth para).
Some one sentence paragraphs throughout, which probably need to be integrated more fully into the flow of the piece. 4u1e14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's a 'pupil-teacher'? Not a term I've heard of before - a pupil who also teaches? Suggest it should be clarified.
"The following year, he attended the University of Edinburgh, but he graduated from the University of Toronto." I assume that he did not graduate from Toronto until after he emigrated to Canada in 1870, 6 years later? If so, this should be clarified.
"He served as an instructor at Somerset College, Bath, Somerset, England". Do we know what he was an instructor in?
"...endeavored to find a way to transmit musical notes and articulate speech." Is ambiguous. Should it be "...endeavored to find a way to transmit speech and musical notes"?
The wikilink to the Bell Telephone Company goes to a disambiguation page. I guess it should probably go to American Telephone & Telegraph, or that a new article should be created, or there should be a redlink here.
The split between the biography and the other sections doesn't quite come off at present. I like the general principle, which I take to be to give an overview of his life first, before going into particular topics in depth. It's an approach I use myself. At present, though, the biography section doesn't cover enough of Bell's career - in particular the 'invention' (or whatever term you wish to use!) of the telephone. In the current version para 9 of the biography has Bell wondering whether he has the knowledge to make a telephone work. The next para starts with the foundation of the Bell Telephone Company - surely there must be something significant development that can be summarised in between these two points! More generally, in places the 'Biography' feels a bit like it's all the bits that couldn't be got in under any of the other headings (sorry!). I would suggest reviewing the structure and content of the biography from scratch, and finding other homes for bits of information that do not fit.
Bell's presidency of the National Geographic Society is repeated in two successive paragraphs; Suggest that it be rewritten so that it appears only once.
"Upon Bell's death, the nation's phones stilled their ringing for a silent minute in tribute to the man whose yearning to communicate made them possible." - This is unreferenced, sounds a bit unlikely and is not really in encyclopedic style: If it is true, and can be referenced, suggest something along the lines of "On Bell's death, phone services in the United States were suspended for one minute in tribute."
Appears to be an uncredited lift from this page. Another option would therefore be to put it in quote marks and attribute it, although it's a bit dramatic for my tastes! 4u1e08:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the 'Competitors' section belong here in such detail? I was expecting a brief summary of all the others who had worked on various telephone like devices, and their relationship to Bell, rather than a detailed account of Meucci's work. I suggest the current material be cut down, and perhaps some added on other inventors. I also suggest refocussing the piece on AGB's own involvement.
The heading 'Other inventions' under 'Later inventions' is a bit awkward - can an alternative be found?
The 'Other inventions' section lacks any inline references. Can these be added?
What is " the metal jacket that assists in breathing"? Sounds a bit like an Iron lung, but I can see no reference to Bell in that article.
"investigated on how to separate salt from seawater" Is this an invention? If so what is it? If not, suggest it is moved out of the list of inventions.
The 'Eugenics' section has no inline references. This is always going to be a controversial topic and needs to be carefully referenced from excellent sources.
'Tributes' is a bit listy, and reads a little like a trivia section. What is the relevance of the points listed? (presuambly that Bell has made it into the wider public consciousness or similar)
Hm. Sorry, but I couldn't make myself read all this. So, only a few points:
The lead is way too long.
Heh, I will try to work on that. A few other GAs I've submitted were initially turned down for having leads that were too short--so now I tend to do them overkill. I was attempting to follow the guideline that the lead should be an article in and of itself suitable for inclusion on Wiki for Schools CD or Wiki 1.0 MrPrada10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more an article about the TSP and Saul's current campaign. Done
I figured this would be an issue (at least the part about the TSP). However I would like to point out that the TSP section is fundamentally different then the other actual TSP article, except for the section on the TSP funds. The reason that this information isn't on the other article is because it discusses Saul's direct involvement, which I think is more relevant to this article then the one on the plan. As for the "TSP Funds", which I think there smallest case to include, I put it in there because the article goes on to discuss all of these various types of funds and I think it helps the reader differentiate between them. Besides, I've taken it almost directly from the TSP website, because I am by no means a financial expert. MrPrada10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
It even links to Saul's campaign website in a most prominent spot. Is that compatible with our NPOV rules? Done
As far as I know, Yes. It is identical to every other politician infobox I've seen. If its wrong, please let me know so I can take it out of the templates (since I know I've added website links to a number of articles and probably won't be able to go back and remove all of them by hand) MrPrada10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the above review that the current article is a disorganized and overlong mess.
I'm not sure I agree that it is overly long, although I have reread it several times and will attempt to organize it better. It weighs in about the same size as other FA bios.
"millionaire businessman from Katonah, New York" should be removed, and his candidacy should be included in the first paragraph. "Andrew Saul is Chairman... and a Republican candidate for United States Congress."
Out of curiosity, what is wrong with referring to him as a millionaire? I'd have no problem taking it out, I just don't really see a problem with stating the obvious. His money surely has had an influence on his political appointments and congressional ambitions.
All but the first sentence about TSP should be removed from the lead. The paragraph about the TSP's finances and his political views re: the TSP should all be moved to the TSP section.
Removing all of that content would bring it under what WP:Lead calls for. It is a summary of everything that follows in the TSP section, there is no new information to merge. Also, are you differentiating between the FTRIB or the TSP?
Cache: "has served on the board" - is he currently on the board? Done
As far as I know, yes, according to the last SEC filings.
Has he been required to set aside his board memberships for the political campaign, or would he be required to set them aside if elected?
No, at least not for his role as Chairman of the FRTIB according to the referenced Senate testimony. He may have to leave the board if elected, however I don't want to violate WP:OR and look it up. Perhaps I can include some prior precedent from another CEO-congerssman?
Bridge and tunnel "some public outcry" should be defined. Were there demonstrations? Newspaper editorials? Specific concerns about transportation safety, or just a general concern that maintenance should be better funded? How did the MTA respond? Done
The article that is cited details the outcry, it was town hall style meetings. Perhaps I could rephrase somehow? It is so recent that the MTA hasn't had their monthly board meeting yet to respond.
The photo caption is completely unneeded. It should simply read, "Andrew Saul (left) at an MTA station." Done
I was trying to follow the summarization suggestions from the how-to-write-an-FA guide. I can remove it.
The "bungled computer project" and "economic weapon" paragraphs read like campaign speeches praising a candidate, not encyclopedia reports of historical events. "Designed the TSP around index funds as a way to stymie..." is opinion unless you have a valid source indicating that this was officially the intention of Congress. "investment consultant" is duplicated. The nature of the conflict with Congress is not specified in the article. Done
Bungled computer project can easily be rephrased. Not sure how you would rework "economic weapon", that is what the divesting is supposed to accomplish, is it not? Also, it is cited, so I am unsure what other valid source I should provide? It is not the opinion of ALL congressmembers, I will reread it to make sure I am not implying that in the text. The conflict wtih congress was over political manipulation of the TSP-funds. I included a section on authority, and REITs.
ALL the background material about the TSP should be moved to a new article about the TSP. The Andrew Saul article should consist ONLY of material that is specific to Mr. Saul's career, campaign, and personal history. Done
The background material on the TSP (specifically, the first paragraph of the TSP section, and the "Fund section") already exist in the TSP-article. They are inserted here to help the reader better understand the difference between the different types of funds, how they work, and what they are invested in, since nearly all of what follow discusses Saul and the funds.
The references section should only be used for citing references. The long quotes should be used within the body of the article itself. Done
Perhaps I can move the quotes to a footnotes section? I did not want to make the article any longer then it already is in the main portion of it, so the full quotes were left down at the bottom.MrPrada21:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently done a lot of work on this article, with what I have done bordering upon a complete rewrite, and I believe that it is now more close than ever to featured status. Thus, I would like to hear any suggestions, to see if I can improve this article any further. Karrmann05:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article. I attended a talk at an art school by a former Taurus designer, who brought along a sample copy of the Ford "Human Factors Design Guide." This document had criteria to be used to evaluate designs, for example, controls should have distinctive shapes so as to be operable by touch without looking, and seats should provide for a variety of shifting positions on long trips. As a long time Taurus owner, I believe these principles contributed to the positive public response of the Taurus during its heyday. I would love to be able to find a copy of this document online. I'd also like to see some comments about reliability history and repair costs of the Taurus lines, since a big part of the ascendancy of Japanese sedans in the marketplace has been their reputation for better build quality than American cars. Finally, I'd like to see some mention of how the automotive press has responded to the renaming of the 500 as the new Taurus. I wonder if the professional reviewers have been as skeptical as I have about the very significant difference between the 500 and what I think of as the philosophy and patterns that went into the best aspects of the Taurus. VisitorTalk05:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
Very informative article, with a good, logical top level structure and plentiful references.
Introduction of terms: There's quite a lot here that probably won't make sense to readers who are neither North American nor interested in cars in general. For example, from the lead: 'Fairmont-based' - Is Fairmont a place, or a car, or what? I know it's linked, but for something like that I don't need to know much detail about it, just that it's another Ford model. Actually in that case, is it even worth mentioning that the LTD is based on the Fairmont? We're only talking about the car the Taurus replaced, so perhaps it's not worth mentioning the Fairmont at all? Suggest finding a non-North American victim guinea pig who has no interest in cars to read through the whole article and point out the terms that make no sense to them. These can then be introduced at their first appearance (i.e. "North American automobile manufacturer, General Motors").
Can you specify in the lead where the car was/is sold? I see that it was later sold in the Asian/Pacific market, for example, but from the lead one might think it was a US -only model.
From the lead: 'Milestone design' - in the US or worldwide?
Is the balance of the lead right? The model has existed for 20 years, but the longest part of the lead considers the death of the model name and its recent resurrection. Should there be more material on its history in the lead?
Redundancy. For example: "even prompting Honda..." in the lead could be simply "prompting Honda..." and "development started as early as 1981" could be "development started in 1981". See Tony's useful guide on this topic and see if it can be applied throughout the article. A longer example is the first para of 'Fifth generation', I reckon you could cut the length of that para by about half without losing any content. Much of the second para then repeats the same information. Have a go at chopping it down a bit!
"with Ford selling nearly 7.5 million examples during its 20 years of production—a longer bestselling run than the original Ford Model T" I know this statement is referenced, but I'm not quite convinced by it:
- What is meant by bestselling run? I guess in the US, rather than worldwide? Overall or in its market segment? And does it mean length of time as the bestseller, or just a bestseller (i.e in the top 10 for sales)?
- The Taurus's bestselling run (i.e. as the bestseller) was from 1992 to 1996 (five years, inclusive), in the US. Again, in what market segment?
- I find it hard to believe that the Model T wasn't the bestselling model in the US for longer than five years: "[In 1914] Ford produced more cars than all other automakers combined. The Model T was a great commercial success, and by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 9 out of 10 of all cars in the entire world were Fords" (from Ford Model T). A quick google didn't throw up more exact evidence one way or the other, so strictly speaking I'm arguing from personal incredulity here.
- If that's true, however, the 'bestselling run' referred to above couldn't literally mean the length of time for which the car was the bestseller in the US
- It also couldn't refer to the total numbers sold, since that's 15 million Model Ts, against 7.5 million Taurus
- So does it really mean simply the length of time for which the car was sold in large numbers? The Taurus was sold for 20 years (longer now) against 19 years for the Model T. However, the Model T was essentially the same car for its 19 year run, where several different models were given the Taurus name over the 20 year period, so that's not really a direct comparison. And if this is what is meant, it's not terribly notable, either. Looking at List_of_bestselling_vehicle_nameplates, I can see over 30 other mass production (i.e. bestselling) cars with longer production runs, several of which are Fords and several of which are for the North American market.
If my argument above is right, I suggest the statement is removed as not being very notable. It could be replaced with a more precise statement regarding the model's position compared to other North American Ford models (i.e. something like 'has the third (?) longest production run of any North American Ford model')
"Most Tauruses were built either in Chicago, Illinois (until April 23, 2004, at which time the plant was retooled to build the Five Hundred) or in Ford's Hapeville Plant in Atlanta, Georgia." This sentence appears towards the end of the final para of the lead, which is otherwise all about the ending and revival of the Taurus name. Should it be moved to another part of the lead?
The thoughts behind the writing are generally clear, but I'm finding quite a lot of cases where the wording is strictly ambiguous or incorrect. For example, from the first few sections:
-"the Ford Fusion, a midsize car closer in size to the Taurus". Closer in size to the original Taurus (described as a midsize vehicle) or the 2006 Taurus, a full size vehicle? Suggest this is clarified.
-From 'Development': "Originally, Ford, as well as General Motors, had its engineers, as well as the exterior and interior designers work separately without any input from each other.". Strictly speaking this says that the engineers worked separately from each other, which I guess is probably not correct! Should it be: "Ford, like General Motors, had its engineers, exterior designers and interior designers work in separate teams, with no input from each other."? Also, I'm not too keen on "Originally" here. Does it mean at the origins of Ford? Or at the origins of the Taurus? I guess it is neither and so should probably go or be replaced by a more precise statement on when this practice was in place.
-"As a result, many American cars at the time had their interiors seem "mismatched"". Again, strictly this says that only the interiors were mismatched (with what?), whereas presumably it means that the interior and exterior designs of the cars were mismatched? Suggest "As a result, many American cars of that time had interior and exterior designs that did not match." Does this point also relate to the engineering of the car? If not, is the inclusion of 'engineers' in the sentence from the previous point relevant?
-"The premiere for the Taurus was a resounding one". This can be re-written more simply as "The Taurus' premiere was resounding", which should presumably actually be "The Taurus' premiere was a resounding success"? (Which might in itself be considered peacock-y).
I'm not going to try and pick out all similar instances - you should be able to spot them youself if you read through the article very carefully (perhaps aloud?), considering whether each sentence is completely unambiguous and means exactly what you want it to. I suggest you also find a good copyeditor and get them to go through the article, with an especial eye to precision and clarity of phrasing. If you don't know any good copyeditors, you could either try the League of Copyditors (but they tend to be incredibly busy) or otherwise find someone on Wikipedia whose writing you find particularly clear and ask if they can help you. I also suggest finding someone who does not have an interest in cars, because this will help with the point made earlier about use of 'jargon'.
The development methodology. The first para of 'Development' says that for the Taurus Ford "employed a new strategy of teamwork that would prove to be revolutionary", but later in the same para it says that Ford used "a development method similar to that [...] used when developing the Escort". These two statements seem to contradict each other. Was the methodology new for the Taurus or not?
"...and even BMW 5 Series automobiles" My emphasis. Why is the 5-series picked out in this way?
"If the Taurus failed, Ford would not have been able to survive it, and would have had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy." This can't be a fact, because it didn't happen, so is presumably someone's opinion. If so, perhaps it should be attributed to that person, to make it clear where the view comes from.
The Sable appears in the second paragraph of 'First generation' without having been previously introduced. I guess from context that this is a rebadged sister model? Suggest that it is introduced fully earlier in this section, or possibly even in 'Development' if it was a significant consideration in the development of the Taurus. (Update: The mysterious Sable is finally explained in the section on the 'Fifth generation' so perhaps that bit should be moved nearer to the start of the article).
In 'First generation', the second and third paragraphs seem to overlap in content. Would it be better to make the second para about the exterior design, and include all the material about the aerodynamic styling of the car there, and make the third paragraph about the interior styling? Since the point about 'mismatched' interior and exterior styling was made earlier, it would also be nice to have something here about how successfully the interior and exterior of the Taurus were matched.
In 'First generation', the model designations (L, GL, MT-5 etc) are used in a paragraph about engines before they are explained in the following para. Better to move the fifth para to a position before the fourth para? SHO remains unexplained until even later and is never spelt out. What does it stand for?
Should the 'story' nature of the explanation of the origins of the SHO be made clearer? According to the source used it is only "The story that is most widely accepted among SHO owners", rather than a fact.
What is "a set of ground effects"? I would guess that it's what I would call the airdam at the front and the skirts at the side and rear? I'm 100% sure they don't produce any ground effect - the car will rarely be going fast enough, for one thing, and with no underbody shaping what you're really talking about at best is a (small) amount of front lift reduction from the airdam. I would strongly suggest using another term for this. If it really is normal, everyday usage in North America to call such a styling package 'ground effects' then I suppose it could stay, but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic and I feel it's a very misleading term.
First para of 'Second generation'. 'Taurus' is in italics twice in this section, but nowhere else in the article. Suggest the italics are removed - the name appears too often to italicise it consistently.
Minor slip: "The new second generation SHO gets its own distinctive front fascia" should be in past tense.
2nd generation SHO station wagon: It seems obvious that this was only ever a one-off special, with nothing to do with Ford, which makes the statement that "This model never got past prototype form" seem a bit odd. Perhaps that whole sentence could be removed?
Third generation: Did the design team really spend "sleepless nights" on the design, or is this a figure of speech? It's reported as reality, which I suspect is probably a bit misleading. Perhaps give a direct quote instead?
"specially tuned every panel so that it was acoustically pleasing, and so passengers could tell human tones from mechanical tones" I'm not quite sure what this means, can it be clarified?
The Vulcan engine should be wikilinked at its first appearance.
Wikilink Mercury Sable at first appearance (which partly answers my point above!)
Based on those two points, probably do a sweep checking for wikilinking throughout the article.
'Initial discontinuation': The term "foreign sedans" is an interesting one! I guess you actually mean Japanese sedans? Although I think the article as a whole has a fairly North American point of view (as suggested by some specific points above), I guess most readers will understand what is meant by this. Is is right, though? I assume the foreign sedans are built in North America by Japanese owned firms? Are they really foreign, then? Just a thought (from a Brit - our entire car building industry is foreign owned, so I probably have a rather different perspective on it!) In any case, it might be useful to specify which sedans. The Toyota Camry, presumably? Any others? Also, how was the Taurus performing against other domestic sedans? The current wording suggests that it was only 'foreign' cars that were a problem.
The third para of 'Initial discontinuation' gives both sides of the argument about whether Ford should have 'saved' the Taurus or not, but repeats the 'for' argument ("mostly due to the fact that it was believed that the Taurus was just left to die by Ford" and "because some believed that if Ford wanted to save the car, they could have easily done so") . Suggest only one of those is needed, and both could probably be written more neutrally.
"letting the Taurus widdle away". I don't know about the US, but in the UK 'widdle' means 'piss' (as in urine or to urinate). You might want to change the wording!
"After Mulally took position as Ford's CEO" - Who is Mulally? (Update - he's actually introduced in the next paragraph, so probably just shift that introduction to the first para)
Phew: That's a lot of comments! I actually think it's a fundamentally sound article, but it needs some work on the writing, on POV (mildly US centric) and on neutrality in places. Hope that's helpful! Give us a shout if I've been unclear anywhere. Cheers. 4u1e13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment (sorry): Some points from previous peer reviews also do not seem to have been addressed. In particular, Pc13's comments about the "design revolution that saw the end of the 'boxy' cars" and the loss of four wheel disc brakes from this review4u1e14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get this article up to GA and then FA status...anything along those lines would be much appreciated. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a start, the first thing I would do would be to cite references. There is only one reference source listed for a lot of information. I would think that having no references would be a big obstacle to getting to GA status. Doing it retroactively will be very time consuming, especially for info you didn't add personally. I can sympathize with this. I went through the same thing with the Kinston Indians page. It might help to place the citation needed template: [citation needed] after each sentence that needs to be backed up with a source. I just did something like that on the Reggie Jackson page.
I'm not sure about the sourcing...I mean, there's no real reason to source something that's not controversial or challenged. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as a GAC, GAR, and FAC reviewer, i concur that the inclusion of a broad set of reputable references should be cited with inline citations. i have marked several portions where claims need a specific reference. check other recent GAs related to players and you will notice proflific referencing. also, the prose needs to be formalized to remove slang speech and formalize the text, eg the "ashes of the Texans". was the franchise on fire? i have done a minor ce on the sections and will watch the page to offer more help. LurkingInChicago16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading up on Frank Barson I decided to look him up on wikipedia and found this was the article. I then decided to expanded it and put it up for a GA realising that i had a lot more to do to get it to that standard so i was wondering what needs doing? Baring in mind there isn't much info about him as his playing career finished in 1939 but started in 1911!
Thank you
(Everlast1910(Talk) 09:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Always good to read a well-developed article about a player from the game's early days, even if he spend six years playing for the dark side.
I have my doubts about the tagging on the infobox image, which states it was uploaded by the copyright holder. As the picture was taken in c.1920 this seems unlikely. The same image appears at [3], might be worth enquiring there.
Done:he finished playing for Villa in 1923 so added the
This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1929 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.
PD-USPublic domain in the United States//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review
tag
He's on holiday at the moment according to his userpage, but you could ask User:HornetMike if he has anything about Barson's time at Watford.
As there is not much information about his career after Aston Villa, it may be appropriate to merge some of the stubby subheadings to something like Later career.
There's alot about Watford so ill leave it for now and try to expand the other areas
The section about his international career implies he won a full England cap, but the infobox states "England A". Which was it? As he only gained a single cap, it may be better to merge this section into his club career instead of breaking it out into its own section.
Done
A couple of WikiProject Football members have access to various statistical archives, putting a request on the Wikiproject talk page might help you to fill the gaps in his appearance record.
I'll get onto that later
The lead should be a standalone summary - everything mentioned in it should also be included (in greater detail) in the body. See WP:LEAD for more details.
Frank was the club’s highest paid player and in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to stabilise the club’s terrible finances. Looks like there are some words missing here.
Done
There are a few run-on sentences which need breaking up e.g. He was 39 at the time and at the end of his career but he appeared 19 times in a Wigan shirt.
A Google Book Search gives a couple more sources of information beyond those included in the article.
This is really a great article; you've definitely done a lot of work and it's to be commended. I'm going to focus on only a few sections but give you an overwhelming amount of specific details about those sections. Here we go...
Lead: This section problem could use the most work. I'm sympathetic because I'm terrible at writing intros myself. Consider some of these suggestions... Try adding a third sentence to the very first paragraph. A short paragraph like that comes across as choppy, and it's important to make a solid first impression! Maybe the founding date? Remember that, as per WP:LEAD, the intro should introduce the important points in the article to follow. I interpret this to mean that anything in the intro will be expanded upon if they continue reading. So, information about the history of the name and the management should be somewhere in the sections below in more detail. By the way, the line "2007 marks the twenty-first season that the Kinston team has been known as the Indians" is a bit of a throw-away in my opinion, the info about the name compared with the Durham Bulls needs to be said elsewhere. Actually, there's a lot of "only such and such team did something longer" and it's a little annoying to read (no offense). You might consider leading with "one of the longest" and then mention who beats them for the record when you expand on it in the body of the article. Am I making sense? Really, when you're re-working the lead, think in your head that you are squishing the entire article down to about three paragraphs that can stand on their own if a reader chooses not to read any further. For example, if there is a lot of weight in the "History" section (which there is), there should be more weight given in the lead.
History: "Baseball" is wikilinked here. It should be in your intro somewhere (maybe try minor leaguebaseball in that first line?). Kinston doesn't need to be wikilinked here because it's already linked a few paragraphs above. Your sentences are occasionally a little long here, especially in the first paragraph, mostly due to wordiness. "Quickly found themselves in the cellar"? What does that mean? What "onfield problems" does the next sentence refer to? "Professional nine" is not encyclopedic. "Kinston enjoyed" may be breaking WP:NPOV. Here's one: "In 1984, he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. To this date, he is the only former Kinston player to have been given that honor." Try combining to one sentence (the two short ones here are implying a show-offy emphasis, definitely close to a NPOV problem, in my humble opinion). Oh, and the photo caption on those tickets should have a space after the colon. Phew.
Under "Coastal Plain League", you could use another citation midway through the section (maybe split up the two at the end?).
Under "Carolina League" - how many years without a team? Here's an example of wordiness: instead of deciding to move the team, maybe say he just moved the team? It also comes across as too anecdotal rather than encyclopedic. A couple sentences later seems worse, "something never before seen on any of the town's previous nines - black ball players." First, I'd consider "African-Americans" (but I'm not an expert on PC terms) but also the dramatic flair of the sentence isn't quite the correct tone for an encyclopedia. I'm also curious about "verbal and psychological abuse." That's a deep accusation, abuse vs. ridicule or hardship, for example. Is that from your source? Later, "Unfortunately for Kinston..." is definitely breaching NPOV. Basically, be careful of word choice throughout ("explosive"? "youngsters"?) - if you use these essentially color terms, you're kinda stepping outside the encyclopedia world and into sports writing. I'm skipping around here. "The Eagles would fail to win any more championships during this second period of Carolina League play, but they were in the hunt during most seasons and managed to make the playoffs following six of the thirteen seasons" - Cut out the middle of that sentence about being in the hunt. Later, "powerful" team is a breach of NPOV. Tell me more about this "working relationship" with the Yankees, otherwise I fail to see how those sentences are relevant.
The paragraph that talks about the 1970s having a decline in attendance needs more citations split into it. Also some excess color terms throughout. Careful with talking about all their talent; it really looks like NPOV or WP:OR, which is why additional sourcing (and possibly, at this point, quotations) is needed. Too much background on Ray Kuhlman not relevant to this team (he has his own article). Again, instead of saying "decided to", just say what he did. Don't call him "Ray" either. And definitely add more citations to this paragraph too (especially after "remembered fondly").
(Taking a quick breather... and here we go again...)
The last four paragraphs of the history section are getting stuck with very long sentences again. I know you're trying to be thorough and cram lots of information into a single article and I appreciate that. But I think that's what's inviting you to go with these long sentences so that you can cover a lot of ground. Just give it a read-through (try it out loud) and see if there are any that are going too far. Similar problems here with color words ("yardstick") and potential NPOV problems. Actually, the sentence about the yardstick might as well be tossed out. It's one of those "show, don't tell things." Saying the team increased in value speaks for itself without the interpretation. "An incredible array of... talent" a line or two before is also definitely an NPOV problem. I'd also toss in a couple more in-line citations midway through the last couple of 'graphs. That fair use image doesn't seem to have a fair use argument and, I think, is either unnecessary to illustrate the topic or could possible be easily replaced by a free image. Oh, and stop using the word "enjoy"! =)
Grainger Stadium: Nice, brief summary here. Remove the bold names, though. You need sources for the second half of it, too, especially for claims like, "the second oldest..." and who is referring to it as "Historic Grainger Stadium." Actually, I almost think you'd be better off taking out that copyrighted image of the championship and putting the image of the crowd at the stadium (from Grainger's main article) in this section.
Current roster: This might be a better place for all the detail about the current management staff, maybe as a subsection. By the way, the page for WikiProject Baseball seems to suggest this higher up in the article. I don't necessarily agree, and they don't seem particularly rigid in that suggestion, so use your best judgment here.
Bibliography/Footnotes: This was a little hard to follow (for me, but I didn't get the best night's sleep, so...). Consider what was done over at "The Raven" (currently at GA status) to make citations a little easier to read.
I hope I was helpful. I tried to be explicitly thorough because this is already at GA status and I know you want to bring it up to FA. I think the biggest problem is the color terms and possible challenges of NPOV. More in-line citations will also protect verifiability if another editor makes additions that splice into the middle of a large single-source chunk. I hope I didn't come across as harsh! Best of luck in getting this to FA! --Midnightdreary13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the work that went into this review. I appreciate it. I will try cleaning up all the areas you talk about throughout this week. Kinston eagle13:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've started to tighten up the prose in many places per your suggestions (nearly 2K bytes of material were removed), but I still have quite a bit more to do. That will have to wait til tomorrow though since I'm getting tired now. Much of the non-encyclopedic prose arose from my having written this for another medium and then trying to wikify it after moving it here. I do disagree with removing the line about "verbal and psychological abuse" during the integration year as death threats would certainly seem to qualify as "psychological abuse" in my mind, and the verbal abuse covers all manner of racial taunts without having to fill the article with the ugly details. I like the way the bibliography and footnotes were integrated together in The Raven, but it doesn't seem as though that approach would work well here with all the newspaper and program articles. I'm going to look around at some other sports articles that have been heavily sourced and hopefully find something that will work with these types of sources. Thanks again. The problems seem so obvious once you pointed them out to me. I really needed the fresh eyes to look at this. Kinston eagle03:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for a while now. The article achieved GA status on July 31, 2007, but has since been greatly expanded and given more references, images, and information. I am hoping to get it to FA-Status. Any comments and suggestions would be great, and I will do my best to respond to each one immediately. Thanks, Raime05:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malinaccier's Review
Red links: The article has a few, well a lot of red links (they look like this: redlink, they are links to empty pages). You should spend sometime working on this. You can use Popups (if you don't already) to make this easier.
Pictures: You have a ton of pictures on this page. I usually like articles that have a lot of pictures, but this one is just a little too cluttered for me. They make the page load slower for users with dial up, and take up reader's bandwidth. The text has also been squeezed into the middle of the page, which doesn't look very good. This may just be my personal dislike, but I would ask around.
Images - two seem oddly placed: the church in the "Climate" section and the monument in "Demographics". How do those illustrate the topic?
Well, the church fits somehwat in climate, as it was a rainy/cloudy day. It seemed like the only image that could possible fit in that section. There was no suitable image for "Demographics", so I followed along the lines of the "Media" section of the Boston, Massachusetts FA and added and important image that didn't fit in anywhere else. Is this really a major issue? It seems that several city/town articles put important images into sections that don't fit with the images, but do not have a suitable image that fit in with the topic. Raime02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References - some are stretching for reliability, especially in the Modern History section (don't use a real estate company as a reference on population statistics). 'Unlikely to be re-chartered as a city'..why not?
In "History" I can see a problem with balance. One paragraph explaining an entire century, followed by one paragraph on 30 years of unprecedented growth, followed by two paragraphs on incomplete developments? I'd recommend moving the developments into a paragraph on urban geography in the "Geography" section (or an "Economy" section), and expanding on the population boom.
In "Demographics", avoid repeating lists of census data, like 'x% White, x% African American, x% Native American, x% Asian, x% Pacific Islander, x% from other races, and x% from two or more races.' This kind of number heavy prose is better presented in tables or graphs. It is interesting to compare the city's key (or salient) demographics with that of the state or country.
The "Demographics" section was bot-generated, and needs a lot of work. That is a great idea about state compariosn, I'll get working on that as soon as possible. Raime02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of unnecessary or hyped words used. For example, "It is a popular camping...", "...boasts a natural beach...", "Plymouth is a major tourist destination...", "Plymouth operates a large school system...", "Students wishing to receive a...", "Plymouth has played a very important role in American..." The adjectives are unnecessary extra words.
Done - removed hyped words, except for "large" school district. This actually isn't hyped, the Plymouth School District is one of the largest in the state, and well above the Massachusetts average for numbe rof schools operated in a single system. I've added this information to the article. Raime02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potential topics you may wish to consider: map illustrating roads and other features, crime statistics, municipal infrastructure.
The use of stubby paragraphs (like the last one in "History", "Ferry", "Government") could result in an FAC objection based on prose. They seem like mere mentionings rather than part of a developed topic. --maclean07:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently a GA. I'm looking for any comments anyone may have, with the long-term aim of getting this to FA status. SP-KP18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this peer review list at Project Gender studies. Anyway I think its generally very good, I have a few suggestions though.
The second paragraph in Children's schooling seems unnecessary to me - only the line about the special needs schools near her home is important.
The Career as an MP section could do with more sourcing.
The sub-section Sex offenders in schools controversy is interesting & well sourced but not entirely relevant - what did Ruth Kelly say/do/promise about this issue? Similiarly the Trust schools section seems a bit long to me.
The initial section under the "Background" lacks sources
The "Family history" seems a bit out of the way. How relevant could her grandfather's political views/possible IRA membership really be?
The prospects section (other than the constituency bit which could be used elsewhere) is speculation of the worst kind and the claim about her deep voice is off the wall.
If it's notable enough at all, the section on her "Children's schooling" could do with being cut down to size.
The second paragraph on religion seems a bit speculative. The article provides no basis - other than prejudice and an explicit reference to the speculation by third parties - for the presumption of Kelly's religious opinions might affect her views on scientific and gay rights issues. I think we should have something a little more solid, before we start making these kind of claims. Caveat lector00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is petty, but are that many references in the lead necessary? If those stats are mentioned elsewhere then 'd prefer they'd be cited there. There's a debate going on about that though, really thugh it looks good so far, I'll give it a more detailed run over later. Wizardman17:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a few of those references out of the lead. The ones that are remaining should probably stay there, as the "more than 45" figure is subject to vandalism and the "good attitude" isn't mentioned elsewhere. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's good. I'd cite all the awards he's gotten, just to be safe as well. I actually think this is very near FA status, I'll look to see what else I ca find but this is very good. Wizardman00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick suggestions: The year of his draft should be in the first sentence as it helps establish his notability and/or timeliness of the article. The lead should be further expanded (see WP:LEAD) just a little bit more. The use of "(see below)" is a bit silly - I think readers know that there's more to the article. That sentence seems a bit awkward anyway; I'm not sure his trip necessarily "exemplifies" his humility. Even if it did, that needs sourcing or it's original research to come to that conclusion. The information that it refers to is under the subheading "Academic activities," which doesn't seem to fit (in my opinion). Did he get course credit for this trip, then? Otherwise, it might just be community service. And who gave him these options? And what's a solar latrine? Is it solar-powered, or are these facilities on the sun? (lol) Oh, and that final sentence in that same mini section doesn't need the word "also." The article, in my opinion, has some WP:NPOV problems as it seems to be just non-stop praise. I'm also a huge fan of occasionally repeating the full name of the article's subject, so good work there. But, under the section "NFL draft," the first subsection starts with "Johnson," then the second sentence has "Calvin Johnson." It's more logical to give the full name first, then use just his last name. Also in that subsection, there is a single-sentence paragraph. Actually, a lot of your paragraphs are very short but, personally, as long as they are three sentences, I approve. Towards the end, I'm not familiar with the term "guaranteed money," and other readers might not be either. That's all I have for now. Hope that helps a bit, and good luck! --Midnightdreary12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: It occurred to me, and confirmed by reading above, that his humility, etc. are mentioned in the lead but not further expanded in the article itself. That may be worth doing, maybe with a quote from a coach or fellow player illustrating it. --Midnightdreary12:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to someone at GTRI and asked them some questions about the project. IMO the remaining tasks you suggested are 1) expand the lead and 2) move that "good personality" sentence into the body somewhere and add a quote talking about him. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could individuals with appropriate talent please review this article for suggestions regarding possible removal of over-promotion, i also think there needs to be clearer emphasis on its architectural significance. Possibly requires an expansion as well. In fact any help on general improvement of this article would be appreciated.
In any case, I think the biggest problem with the article right now is the lack of sources.
Then we would need to look at the architecture aspect. This is one of the more recognizable buildings in Vegas and I cannot imagine that someone hasn't written something about it. There are several articles from last month (I referenced one in the WP article) about the building going through a renovation right now. That might be a good place to start.
Montco05:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction should mention that MGM Grand is the current owner, and is currently in the midst of a major renovation. In the article, there should be links to comments from management about the purpose and goals of the renovation. There should also be a mention of the history of the additional buildings that were added after the original pyramid. 08:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have so far been the only major contributer to this article about an ancient and destroyed Scottish castle.
I am looking for any comments and suggestions as I have contributed as much as I can find (I have no library access) and think now is the time to tidy up the article. I have been looking at this article from some time so it needs a fresh pair of eyes to look over it.
I will not have access to the internet until Monday but will reply to any suggestions after then weekend. thanks in advance, Bobbacon08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
You should include a lead, one or two paragraphs which summarise the article and sit ahead of the main piece. See Windsor Castle for an example: it's the bit that sits in front of the table of contents. See WP:LEAD for more details.
The article is long enough that it can usefully be broken down into sections with headings. Have a look at GA and FA level articles on other castles to get ideas as to what those headings could be, but don't feel you have to slavishly copy them.
I think I'm right in interpreting the map as showing a section of the north-east coast of Scotland, but it's not quite clear that the area north of the line is the sea. Is the grey area between the castles of Lonmay and Rattray Loch Strathbeg? Perhaps an arrow could be added to make that clearer?
The relationship between the different castles on the site isn't clear (to me anyway!). I read it as follows:
-Unknown date to ~1214 Timber motte and bailey castle, date of building unknown
-~1214 to 1308 William Comyn's timber castle (either an upgrade of "the existing buildings on the motte" or a new castle). Destroyed or fell into ruin in 1308.
-Unknown date to 1720. Stone castle, possibly buried during the 1720 storm.
If that is correct, that would be one way of structuring the piece, which would I think help to clarify the various developments on the site.
On a similar point, the article starts off with "It was a small, late middle age, 12th century "timber castle or Motte", but the article also covers the (much?) later stone castle as well. I suggest the lead could start: "The Castle of Rattray was a medieval castle, originally built as a timber motte and bailey in ??. It was rebuilt by William Comyn at some time between 1214 and 1233 before being destroyed in 1308. It was later replaced by a stone castle, which is believed to have been partially buried under sand dunes in a storm in 1720."
Although I have some concerns about the clarity of the structure, the writing itself seems good. There is some redundancy, though:
-"Castlehill was specifically found" Why not just "Castlehill was found"? Or even "Castlehill was"?
-"Building upon the Castlehill mound after his arrival" Why not just "Building on the Castlehill mound"? Arrival from where?
- "or built an entirely new castle" Why not "or built a new castle"?
- "found" is often used to give the position of the castle - can you just say that the castle is or was somewhere, rather than is or was found somewhere?
- "Some of which" (referring to superiors) Should be "Some of whom"?
- "What is known is that at some point..." Why not "At some point..."? Or perhaps better "At some time...?
- "There is a less likely story that..." Should probably be "There is another story that", since the sentence finishes "...and it is a very unlikely account".
- "Castlehill was thoroughly excavated in 1985-1989 and revealed the remains of..." should probably be something like: "Thorough excavations at Castlehill in 1985-1989 revealed the remains of..."
At present, the various discoveries at the site are not in chronological order - consider whether it would be clearer to treat them that way.
According to the article on Rattray, the 1720 storm also destroyed the village. Should this be mentioned?
thanks, i've implemented your suggestions! I know nothing about the article that you're working on but will have a look at it all the same and make some suggestions next couple of days! thanks, Bobbacon08:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble. Would be grateful for your comments on BT19, particularly on the question of whether the article makes sense to someone who's not familiar with the subject. And for that matter, is it of any interest? ;-) 4u1e14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be greatly appreciated if members with scientific knowledge would look over the validity of the claims made on this page and also help to establish a more scientific understanding of this subject. Jmm6f48807:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of disagreement over the correct terms and classifications for what pedophilia is. It would be greatly appreciated if members with a background in science could review this article and help bring it up to a more scientific standard. As it is now there is a lot of POV problems with the article. Thanks, Jmm6f48807:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.
This article was recently an article about the Kingdom Hearts manga that is related to the Kingdom Hearts video game series. It was switched to a list format in order to encompass all the related media of the series since the manga article looked like it wasn't making any real progress. Myself and other editors would like to make it to Featured List and would appreciate any comments and criticism that would help accomplish that. Thank you (Guyinblack25talk22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If possible, find a book review instead of amazon.com as a citation for the manga and the novels.
Done Some notes might be appropriate with the mangas and novels. For example "follows the storyline of the second game" - I know it is in the title, but explaining it further cannot hurt.
Done Mangas and novels have publishers. This is important, so note it.
Done Instead of writing N/A, make the cell in the table another colour - white perhaps, or a darker grey. N/A everywhere is a bit ugly.
Done I assume the Japanese titles are in Japanese, and that the current listings are translated from that. Maybe state the Japanese titles, and move the English titles to the "English" column.
Done Decrease the margin between the first table in the novels section and the image, so that the Japanese titles do not span two lines (like "Kingdom Hearts Part 1", with only "1" on the second line).
Done The lead section seems short, especially because you have some real text in the article as well, not only a list. See WP:LS.
I've begun to make edits per your comments, two of your points have been addressed and others are partially done. Thank you for your suggestions. (Guyinblack25talk04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Have finished addressing three more points. The list is really starting to shape up nicely. Any other comments/suggestions would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25talk05:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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.[?]
The article has had a major overhauling since placed on probation due to accusations of using WP original research. Any comments to improve the article welcome! Thanks--Termer07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 600 kilometer, use 600 kilometer, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 600 kilometer.[?]
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 100 kg.
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.
allege
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
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), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), pretense (A) (British: pretence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), fulfillment (A) (British: fulfilment), installment (A) (British: instalment), any more (B) (American: anymore).
I've taken this article from inadequate to what I hope can be GA soon. If you have a background in geology and glaciology, all the better. I have tried to gather related articles, in the category Category:Driftless Area. --Ace Telephone22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good article. Not being an expert in geology, I found the subject a little boring (and didn't read the whole article, but I don't usually read entire articles anyhow). There might be some way to make the content seem more interesting to a general audience without sacrificing the high standards of fidelity to geological terminology and scholarship. The organizational structure is also good. ShalomHello21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in geology and glaciers, and had not heard of the driftless area before. I have two questions: 1. Did the geological history affect the pattern of human settlement of the region? In other words, does its driftless nature make it more suitable for farming, or cities, or mines, or whatever? 2. Is the driftless history of the region the primary cause of any especially beautiful or famous locations? If the answer is yes to either question, please include this information in the article. 08:32, 12 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.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20 miles, use 20 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20 miles.[?]
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.”
It looks like it does, to me, but you could probably use some more reliable sources to back up some of the statements in the article. But a large and award-winning convention seems notable to me. --Haemo08:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer 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.[?]
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.[?]
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][?]
I need to know what should be improved in this article, so it would have a realistic chance at becoming a good article. This is my first time trying to raise an article up to good article standards so I need someone with experience to tell me what I should do to improve the article. Thanks --Mr.crabby(Talk)21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
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.”
The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
The article is currently rated GA and I'm (hopefully) working towards FA. Input on the article layout and quality of prose would be great especially suggestions on how to rework the first four paragraphs of History into something which reads better. Foxhill19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The History jumps from 1920 to 1969 - what happened in this period?
A few things which could do with citations:
...defeated Luton Town F.C. 9–1 in their first game of the season. This result stands as a record for the club in League matches.
the Football Association had previously agreed to inclusion criteria with the organizers which mandated that only League Cup winners from Division One would be able to take part.
They were relegated after recording only five wins and conceding 100 goals — the latter record has yet to be broken.
The addition of floodlights in 1951 at a cost of £350, gave Swindon the honour of being the first League club to do so.
The ground itself is on land owned by Swindon Borough Council to whom the club pay rent.
The completion of this match meant that Swindon had played a League game at home and away against every current team in the FA Premier League, Championship, League One and League Two. - though presumably the promotion of Morecambe and Dagenham & Redbridge makes this outdated.
long unsuccessful period culminating in them being relegated "Culminating" is inappropriate here, as it generally means "reaching the highest point".
I think the amount of detail about hooliganism is excessive - we're not talking Chelsea Headhunters type notoriety. The incidents mentioned, while regrettable, look like isolated events rather than a recurring trend.
Some of those rivalries look like non-entities e.g. Swindon Fans do not seriously consider them as rivals. If anything, mentioning so many clubs gives the impression that the club lacks strong rivalries.
Ditch the bolded headings in the colours and kits section
Trim the staff list. In particular, do not include those who are not notable enough for their own article.
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.[?]
I'd like to know what else needs to be done for this article to gain a higher rating than say B. It's got essentially everything covered, at least comparable to other codec articles like DTS. I've made some large edits lately, adding references, consistent writing style and all that. Please let us know what you think. Many thanks!
The lead summary: you need to split it up, or add to it, because at the moment it looks really chunky.
Sound quality: "Some conclusions made by recent studies". Source it, please.
References, change {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}, and properly cite all references using {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}, etc.
Thanks for the heads up sebi! I'll get myself and others to work on them. Regarding the sound quality section, there are source links for each quality level. Do you mean I should reference them in a different way? Thanks!
Yes, there are sources provided, but they aren't in the correct format. If the stuff in the sound quality was referenced from all different sources, and put together by you or some other editor, that's original research. Yes, they should be referenced in a different way. See citing sources for more information on ref syntax, etc. –sebi10:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the reply! When you say "put together", do you mean as in the interpretation that is given in each quality level? (ie. At 64kbps, WMA was better than...), etc?
In that case, do you think "At 64kbps, source claimed that WMA was better than...) would comply with NOR? Thanks
Ugh, did you compile the list of the different kbp levels with the sources yourself? Because if you did, that is original research. I have no problem with the list of different levels, however, the fact that you put them together yourself and said "Some conclusions made by recent studies", is original research, and isn't acceptable for a Wikipedia article. If you didn't compile the list, you need to track down the person who did compile the list, and cite it. –sebi02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: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==.[?]
I've recently expanded the article, and it's currently listed as a GA. It seems like the article is comprehensive now, considering there aren't as many Internet sources available as there are about the Gwen Stefani articles I've worked with, but it includes a lot of information not commonly known in the States about how it affected Bounty Killer's career. The main issue I need some help with is the Critical reception section. There are five reviews that have some information about it, but that's less than I'm used to working with, so any help on how to spin out a larger section would be helpful. 17Drew06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LuciferMorgan
With older songs there are several ways of cheating in order to expand a "Reception" section. I've taken a look at the song you mentioned, and the amount of sources is used thus far are probably quite healthy. The following is recommended;
Trawl through reviews of "The Singles 1992-2003" - compilation reviews are one way of digging up more song reception considering the song is a single.
Press interviews (online or offline) done at the time may have introductory paragraphs, and ones in which the interviewer makes a critical comment on the song.
"The Videos: 1992-2003" may have reviews out there somewhere, and ones which make critical comments upon the music video.
If it's possible to excerpt slightly larger portions of each review currently used, that'd be particularly welcomed.
In the "Reception" section, it says "Stylus Magazine thought blah blah blah" and so on, but this is slightly misleading. Some other staff at the very same magazine may have different viewpoints, and a review is only reflective of the reviewer. It's better to say "Stylus Magazine's person X" or "person X of Stylus Magazine", or something similar. LuciferMorgan10:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
I'm going over this article from top to bottom trying to improve it to at least GA standards, and I was hoping I could get some input concerning what needs immediate attention (in terms of comprehensiveness, prose and sourcing) to get it there. So far the only part of my draft I have placed in the article is its new introduction, so next is Characteristics. Thanks Enoktalk05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some (hopefully useful) comments:
Many more citations are needed.
There are too many single-sentence paragraphs; they need to be expanded or consolidated.
The "Other uses" section needs to be converted into prose, rather than a bulleted list.
I'm an astronomy weenie, so for the occurance section I'd like to see some text about formation of Lithium during the big bang, the primordial abundance in the universe and the fact that most stars destroy most of their lithium shortly after they are formed. (If so, how does the Lithium in the Universe get formed?)
Aluminum-lithium alloys have also been tested for rocket launchers, and I think the Russians had started using it on their platforms. But I seem to recall there were cracking issues.
Looks well done to me. I am confused by one thing: the passing mention that medical use of lithium causes increased excretion of potassium. It would be helpful to include a short paragraph explaining how and why that occurs. 08:38, 12 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.
Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?]
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.
apparently
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 16 additive terms, a bit too much.
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
The lithium niobat in usage states that 60% of lithium is used in cellular phones. Although this might be right it is not used as niobate, but mostly in the Lithium battery.--Stone09:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
alloying agent in organic synthesis is unspecific and the link goest to alloy which has no meaning within organic synthesis.--Stone09:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article while it was still current, to which a lot of WPTC members added and helped expand it. Now, it is an A-class article, and I'm curious what else might be needed before an FAC run. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I split a few paragraphs in the "storm overview" section. Overall the writing is high-quality, and the referencing is outstanding. Organization could be improved by adding sub-sections. I also wouldn't mind another entry in the "see also" section to explain more generally all the terms used in discussing cyclones. ShalomHello21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-titled "storm overview" back to "storm history", per the standards set by the tropical cyclone Wikiproject. The problem with adding some more sub-sections is that currently in preparations, impact, and aftermath, each country has one paragraph, so adding sub-sections would create several one-paragraph sections. Good suggestion regarding to the "see also" section, and I added two more entries. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 8 inches, use 8 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 8 inches.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
I've spent a great deal of time writing articles on the various carom billiards disciplines (a labor of love). This article is essentially my summary of that prior foundation. Already a GA and selected for Wikipedia:Version 0.7, I would like some suggestions for further improvement and expansion. Any clarifications, prose issues, etc. are welcome. Please don't provide an automated peer review. Note that I am aware of the recently added, fragmented text at the end of the three cushion billiards section.--Fuhghettaboutit22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<automated peer review removed>
As already stated above: Please don't provide an automated peer review. I did that myself long before posting here. If no one comments, fine, but at least read the request.--Fuhghettaboutit16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Midnightdreary
Great job on this article, plenty of good sources (though, really, you can never have enough, right?). Here are some suggestions.
Lede: First, I think the opening picture should be a little bit more illustrative. Rather than a historic illustration, maybe a more recognizable picture of a typical table used for gaming? Maybe even a pseudo-artsy close-up of the balls and part of a cue? It certainly would help me understand the topic of the article more quickly. The lede in general is good but there is one oddly placed sentence... The first 'graph talks about the general set-up of the game, then suddenly ends with info about the history of the game. The second graph, which talks about the origin of the name, seems like the better spot for that. I also wouldn't italicize any of the terms. As I understand it, the lede should be introducing the full article with expansion of all it introduces further in the article. The history of the term "carom," for example, should be repeated in the main body of the article if it's introduced in the lede.
Equipment: I wonder if it's worth a quick bit of prose introducing the equipment before breaking into subsections (maybe this is a good spot for further discussion of the origins of the term "carom."). I don't feel strongly about it, but it's just a suggestion. Also, under "Cloth," that first paragraph seems long enough that there should be another in-line citation midway through or even earlier. Your double citations at the end of the paragraphs could be split to help that. This is, I think, especially important for strong claims about, say, the "most famous maker of billiard cloth." The same is true for the "Billiard cues" subsection; it's definitely long enough to have further in-line citations. Really, this is a suggestion for the entire article. Also, should this "Billiard cues" subsection wikilink to cue stick or are there differences? Under "Heated slate," I don't understand why the quote ends with an ellipsis ("..."); just let the quote end. I also think the whole "Equipment" section could use a quick once-over for wordiness.
History: Just as the "Equipment" section, I weakly might recommend starting with some quick prose before jumping into the subsections. Feel free to ignore that suggestion. But, the whole section still needs more citations. Possibly less reliance on your 1st footnoted source too. Under "straight rail," "although no exact time of origin is known" should probably say "no exact date"; the time isn't entirely relevant. :) The excessive bold words here are also a little distracting... Not sure they need to be bolded here at all (throughout the full section). Some of your italicized, err, vocabulary terms might have definitions under Wiktionary (I didn't check, sorry) that you could link to. I'm also puzzled why "The champion's game" has a main article called "balkline and straight rail." It's not clear that this is the same type of game. Also, did this version die out? It is written in past tense but I wasn't convinced if this version has died out (maybe a quick line like, "this style of play was replaced by" or "evolved into"...). Under the "Balkline" subsection, your list of variants is very thorough, but perhaps excessive. Are some of those variants more notable than the others? Also, in the third 'graph in that subsection, your inline "1)" and "2)" takes away from the flowing prose.
Other I think the images can be sized up a bit, per editor's choice. Also, I feel like a section is missing after the History. Perhaps a "Modern play" section, starting with the final paragraph in the "Artistic billiards" subsection? Once it's in its own section (and I don't mean subsection), it may encourage further expansion of the current trends, popularity, etc.
-Hi English is not my first language so any grammar correction would be appreciated. I intend to Wikkified all major Colombian artists articles one at the time. (They are all very incomplete. I also have a contact with the Museo Nacional de Colombia to obtain pictures of the artists and their works with the proper copyrights for the use in Wikkipedia.
-*The lead contains too many paragraphs. I should join a few together.
DoneSimilarly, the sections are very short. Can you either expand or combine them? Maybe the middle five sections could be one larger "Career" section with 5 sub-headings?
DonePlease add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
DonePer 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==.[?]
DoneAs 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][?]
Dear DrKiernan great advice I had done what I could. Can you go ahead and make the grammar revisions? Also let me know of any other suggestions. I will be working on other Colombian artists after I am done with this article so don’t be surprise If I come back to you for advice. (Pgehr13:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply] -Old peer review
Ace Telephone
- I know little of art, so have refrained from any edits.
DoneA writer? He's an artist! * Done"Master Martinez" is bizarre in English. * Done"Raphael de Urbino" (Italian, Raphael da Urbino) is simply Raphael in English -- and WP (the archangel gets second billing). * Done==References== or ==Notes== instead of ==Appendices==. English speakers tend to be confused by double barreled last names especially when not hyphenated (he'd be alphabetized as "Delgado, Santiago Martinez"). * DoneI don't know if Frank Lloyd Wright can be characterized as following the art deco school. * DoneThe article would be better if it followed the Spanish language original more closely. --Ace Telephone17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ACE, I had made some changes, as for the Frank Lloyd Wright issue / in the book about this artist by Joaquin Pineros Corpas- used as reference -- it mention that it was at taliesin where Martinez made his move to the Art Deco Style. --- As for the double barreled last name, is because there are other 3 Santiago Martinez paiters. --- Great help, and if you can look in to the grammar, tone and cohesion (Pgehr19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply] -Old peer review
Pgehr
-It still need's someone to check: copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and spelling.
(Pgehr22:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply] -Old peer review
Holguin1943
-I think the article is great, you may work on the cohesion, yet it would be nice to work in the other prominet Colombian artists ast the majority are stubs, I hope this article get featured. (Holguin194318:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply] -Old peer review
thanks
-The idea is to work on all major Colombian artists; yet I will do one at the time and all the way to GA feature article, so ass soon as this is feature I will move up. (Pgehr00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply] -Old peer review
NEW TO WORK ON AS OF OCTOBER 5 - 2007
The article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker; there are many instances of inappropriate comma use, incorrect grammar, and what appear to be awkward translations from Spanish. (Pgehr14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
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][?]
I am currently trying to be the article promoted to FA status. I am not sure which areas need to be improved. An archive of the last here. ISD20:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
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.”
I've cleanup this biography of Mendy Rudolph and am looking for additional feedback to further improve the article. This article is well-cited and I believe it is GAC-ready. RyguyMN05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
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 is in limbo. Professional wrestling has had a long and extensive history across the United States. It has produced many major popular culture figures, including the Rock, Mankind, Triple H, Stone Cold 3:16, Hulk Hogan, and many others. Who hasn't heard of Hulk Hogan, or Mr. T, or gained a little glimpse of wrestling on TV ?(which isn't hard considering that it has over 5 hrs of showtime a week) Professional wrestling, far longer and wider than reality TV, or many American sitcoms, has been a major part of America's culture, and is part of our exports to foreign nations.
Wrestling's popularity is cyclical, and its current scene is definitely down. In fact, it seems to be looking very bleak. People want to erase every vestige of wrestling from their minds. But, it is still a mainstay in our minds; news articles read like wrestling events; ex: "slammed a proposal by Republicans to...", "The astronomers teamed with ocean scientists to study the phenomena of the reflective sky ...", "...the city Council decided to flex some muscle in its fight against a corrupt garbage company accused of mafia...", "...On Aug 15, Mrs. Jackson finally submitted after wrestling a virulent form of Hodgin's lymphoma for two-years...", etc.
I urge non-fans and critics, as well as more casual or older wrestling fans, to please contribute some info to the page. I know that memory is limited, and history can only be added to through multiple perspectives. For a form of entertainment that has arisen in the media and has provided some of the wackiest and unique programming on television, I'm sure that many different people will have something to say about it, especially for the periods I've missed out (the 60s, 70s, and 80s.)
Please help edit this page and provide a fresh perspective. My major concern is that hardcore wrestling fans will make it too esoteric and add jargon that will be confusing; non-fans usually won't even see the page, but if a compromise can be reached, it can be both historical, and enjoy wide readability.
Contact me personally for any questions or comments, or leave a response on the article's talk page or underneath this notice.
Thank you!
--Screwball23talk23:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the figures of speech you mentioned are exclusive to professional wrestling. Slam is a general purpose term that can refer to slamming a door, a lid, a window, or a rock down on a bug. Flexing muscle as a show of potentially coercive power is as old as muscles and bullying. Forming a team is not exclusive to wrestling. Submitting after wrestling goes back to at least ancient Greece. Ironically, you didn't mentioned "tag team," which as far as I know IS exclusive to professional wrestling, and has entered general conversation.
I'd like to see some controversies discussed:
A few years ago, a professional wrestler died upon falling from the ceiling in an unsuccessful stunt; the event was continued. This was widely covered in the news, and seemed to some people, including me, to show an appalling disregard for human life.
Some wrestling insiders claim that the characters, scenarios and even some particular moves are scripted ahead of time, despite the presentation of professional wrestling as a "reality show" event that is unpredictable. "As fake as professional wrestling" is another modern cliche!
Finally, are there different attitudes among wrestling fans and the general public about use of steroid drugs to enhance muscularity, aggression and physical performance of professional wrestlers?
These all seem like historical elements worth mentioning in your article.
I'd better quit commenting now, because I'm sure your article could kick my laptop's behind into the next state. 08:47, 12 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:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 78 feet, use 78 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 78 feet.[?]
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 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: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), travelled (B) (American: traveled), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
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: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
This was a former GA that I've been working on to try and restore it to that status. I would like some feedback on any improvements that need to be made in order to get it back to GA and possibly even FA status. – Dreadstar†21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3 mi, use 3 mi, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3 mi.[?]
When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
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 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.[?]
Whether this article is written in accordance to the appropriate manual of style.
Lastly, and very importantly, what can be done to improve this article?
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.[?]
I found the current version of the article difficult to follow. There is a link to "jihad," but not to "lesser jihad." The introduction says that the laws govern diplomacy, but the only diplomacy-related comments in the article were duplicate comments about the requirement to accept peace treaties. There was nothing in the article about how Islamic soldiers are dealt with when accused of military offenses; is there an Islamic equivalent to the Western court-martial? Where differences of interpretation were noted, it was not made clear if this is because the Quran does not specifically address those issues, leaving room for interpretation based on different traditions, or whether there are specific texts but different traditions insist on differing applications of those verses. The line "historically, lack of a central religious authority..." could well be expanded into its own paragraph, with well cited examples through history. The article does seem grammatically correct, but it would help to break the longer sentences into short, one-thought sentences where practical. It would be useful to cite research about how different philosophies of military jurisprudence have contributed to the outcomes of various battles and wars between the Islamic world and opponents from other cultural and religious traditions. VisitorTalk05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section on "negotiations". Coupled with "Declaration of war" it's a good start to the inclusion of diplomatic issues. Of course, more work has to be done.
I don't know what Islam dictates is to be done in case of offenses. This has to be researched.
The reason for different interpretations also has to be made clear, I'll try to do that.
I done some major work on this article and would like advice and comments. Looking to resubmit this artilce for Good Article Review. Thanks Shinerunner17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LuciferMorgan
Comment
Citations need formatting. Done
Trivia section needs zapping. Any worthwhile info must be integrated into the article, or ridden of. Done
External link farm needs pruning. Done
Verifiability needs to be improved, possibly through the use of citations. Done
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
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] Done
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 miles, use 100 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 miles.[?]
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==.[?] 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.)
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
I have done a lot of work on this article, taken photos, written sections. I have written most of it and would like to see how it is faring towards Featured Article. I know its probably nowhere near close...--TheJosh11:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Raime
Honestly, this article needs a lot of work before it even meets Good Article criteria. The lead needs to meet WP:LEAD criteria; it needs to summarize the article, Right now, it is far too short. The history section needs to be expanded, but mostly needs references. The Geography section needs far more information, i.e. coordinates, town size, neighbouring municipalities, geographical characteristics, etc. All sections of the article need to be improved, both with referencing and length. More images would greatly add to the article. The current infobox image would probably be more appropriate in the "Transportation" section, and a view of a prominent building or cityscape should be obtained if possible. (Images are not a requirement for promotion, but they certainly add to articles). The infrastructure section needs a lot of work as well, particularly with prose. References should be properly formatted using the cite web format. Overall, while this article is certainly not ready for FA-class, it is off to a great start. I would assess this as a Start-class article on its way to a B. To see what is expected of a mid-size city FA-class article, see Grand Forks, North Dakota. Raime05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is clear that the article has had a lot of work done. There are some huge improvements. I'd say this now almost meets B-Class requirements (very close), but not quite. It is also not yet ready for GAC or FAC nomination. TheJosh, I'd say you would want to work towards Good Article status before arriving at FAC, as it seems an appropriate step. However, it still needs some work:
Lead - Still very inadequate. An adequate lead needs to summarize the entire article. I'd say you would want to put the historical mention after the rapidly expanding information to start. You may also want to add information about geography, a slight expansion on history, an addition of transportation, etc. See Plymouth, Massachusetts or Chambersburg, Pennsylvania to see what is expected for a GA-lead.
History - Still needs expansion. First, it is out of order. You jump from native settlement to 1984, and then go back to 1830. History should be in chronological ordering. And, the section needs more information about modern history other than shopping centres and infrastructure problems. What new subdivisions? What new, major shopping centres? An expansion about infrastructure would also be good. And mention the population boom here. Overall, the section is pretty underdeveloped and needs expansion. Be wary of wikilinking years, as they they are usually not notable enough in relation to the article to be linked. For example, the completion of a radio tower in 1987 doesn't need a wikilink for 1987. I'd say that no years should be linked in this section.
Geography - Expansion and references needed. What major cities is it located near to? And do not separate minute details into separate, one or two senetence paragraphs. This makes for bad prose, and it will likely not pass at GAC in this condition. Paragraphs should contain fully developed ideas, not straggling facts. Overall, I have to say, this section fairly porrly written compared to "History". It needs punctuation, major expansion, and prose work. Other questions - What is the total land area? What mnicipalitie are located adjacent to it? I would say exapnd on the "wetlands" information, and mention nearby rivers and mounatins. Also be careful - It is confusing in some areas about whether you are talking about the city or the mountains. For example: "Mount Barker is roundish in shape, and is approximately four kilometres across and three and a half kilometres long." I assume this is the mountain? Is the entire section about the mountain? If so, this needs major work, because it should be about the city. Of course, the mountain should be mentioned, but not be a focus of the section.
Climate - Also needs work. I'd say use the usual climate format (See here). Hottest month? Coldest month? Wettest month? Weather patterns? Expansion and refs needed. Remove The following table shows the average minimum temperature, maximum temperature and average rainfall for the year. from the article; simply title the graph.
Demographics - Needs major work. "Mount Barker" is repeated too many times. Use "It" or "the city" to break up redundancy. For origins, I'd remove the section and put it into the Dem section, and remove the table. This could easily be mixed into prose. Also, regional comparisons to state statistics would be great.
Economy - Not notable enough to warrant its own heading. Merge into demographics. References are needed.
Culture - This is probably the best section, but it is not without its faults. For shopping, I'd remove list format, and find a reference for each center. Also, this heading is not really needed. Be wary about listing shopping centers; try to include only relevant information. Supermarkets aren't really relevant, it is general information that cities have these. Large malls and residential complexes, new and very large developemnts, etc. are notable. The "Recreation" section needs work. "Just up the hills" does not sound encyclopedic. "Mount Barker has numerous activities that are available" sounds like an excerpt from a tourism guide. And mention tourism if possible. How many tourists per year? Media needs expansion as well. Radio stations? Television? Many smaller cities do not have enough media to require such a sub-heading, and this is likely the case for Mount Barker. A redlink to a small newspaper does not require its own section. Removing this section would probably be best.
Roads - Not notable. Local roads should not be mentioned. Highways are really all that should be listed.
Schoolsshould be renamed Education, and more information is needed. How many students in the school district? How large is the district? Try to refrain from putting information in parentheses after the school name. Mix it into prose. And remove redlinks to small schools which do not warrant their own articles.
Buses- Definitely remove tables. Wikipedia should not be used to advertise local bus routes. I am sure you had good intentions, but this section is not notable. No external links should ever be used in the article. Mention local bus companies, and refrain from using language like "(and the Strathalbyn buses)connect at stop 63B. This stop is right next to the Mount Barker pool, and it currently shares the car park with the pool." This is very confusing to readers not familiar with the city. Relate directions based on prominent subdivisions or highways, not on pools.
Public Services - Well written, but very short. References are needed, and more information would be great. Do not use language such as "right next to". "Adjacent" would be more appropriate.
Possible Expansion Sections - Healthcare, Governmnent, and Points of Interest
Referencing - Needs more references. All existing refs should use cite web format. But this is certainly a great start.
Images - Great job with getting these. But my first comment still stands - You should get a better image for the infobox if possible. Also, consider aligning some photos to the left. If possible, get a satellite photo that is uncorrupted (w/o arrows and tabs). Also, the arrows are unnecessary. They do nothing for the image. If something is not shown on the image, you don't have to label it.
Overall, you have made great improvements. Please feel free to leave me further questions or comments. I will be glad to assist in any article cleanup. Raime02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auto Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2mm, use 2 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 mm.[?]
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][?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10 ft, use 10 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10 ft.[?]
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==.[?]
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).[?]
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.”
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, –sebi05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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". --TheJosh12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 :) –sebi07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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! GiggyTalk06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. –sebi07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: [4] 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. –sebi05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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!) GiggyTalk06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand on the sponsorship section, wherever possible. This is something that the article SHOULD discuss.
Yes, but if you make a separate list article, you can discuss the hotels too, rather then just plonking them on this one. GiggyTalk06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. –sebi07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. –sebi05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
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... GiggyTalk07:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I would like to come to a consensus about what quality this article should be rated at this time before I nominate it for higher quality than Start-Class or B-Class. I have looked over current B articles such as Damien Spinelli, good articles such as Homer Simpson, and featured articles such as Andrew Van De Kamp, The Cat and the Canary (1927 film), etc. And while there are no (as of yet) rated B, Good or Featured fictional couple articles that I can compare the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article to, I'm pretty sure that this article is of higher quality than Start-Class and would like to know what other editors think of this article.
Suggestions on improving its readability, if it needs improvement, would also be appreciated. Or if you feel that this article needs to be improved in any other way. Flyer2200:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.[?]
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.
allege
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
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.”
“In the year [of] 2005”
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, won't, can't, don't, isn't, doesn't, isn't, can't, can't, doesn't, doesn't, isn't, won't, doesn't, aren't, isn't, doesn't, doesn't, isn't, isn't, wasn't, couldn't, couldn't, didn't, didn't, can't, weren't, hadn't, can't, hadn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
You shouldn’t open with "are the members of a popular…" – They aren’t a band, they are two fictional characters. The first paragraph of the lead should be "basic", "objective" information. Try something more along the lines of: "Bianca ___ and Maggie ___ are two fictional characters in the _______." Because introducing them as the “BAM couple” means nothing to the casual reader. They are a lesbian couple, but BAM doesn’t say that.
The original love story was to be a short-lived one between two young women, where the murder of one prompted a murder mystery on the show. – This probably needs to be reworded. It’s slightly awkward sounding. It may even read better if it was broken into two complete sentences. Probably identifying which was supposed to die, and how got the twin is a good idea.
Former All My Children head writer Richard Culliton, who thought up the story, decided to bring the deceased character of the once-existing love story back as an identical twin, after fans of the show expressed notable discontent over the end of the romance. – "thought up"--> "developed". Reword to say, "…decided to bring ____ (actress’ name, not characters in that blank) as the identical twin of ____, after a notable discontent was expressed over the ending romance for ____."
With instant fan support of the duo displayed by viewers of the show, a deeper friendship between Bianca and Maggie came into focus by the show's writers. – Cut it. You should keep all dialogue such as “the fans” out, because it becomes really subjective. The rest just doesn’t make sense. It’s probably better left at the previous sentence, and the body can explain the outcome later.
much campaigned for on-again/off-again romantic flirtation – If you believe in citations in the lead, then this would be an instance where one might be necessary.
Despite the couple taking three and a half years to make their romance official, the couple gained a large and loyal fanbase (to this day) and managed to constantly intrigue not only the noted All My Children audience, but soap opera critics, gay/lesbian magazines such as The Advocate, and lesbian websites such as AfterEllen.com, ultimately becoming the most demanded homosexual pairing in American daytime soap opera history. – ditch the “fanbase” stuff again. The important stuff is not the fan opinion (though that’s important to fans, don’t get me wrong), but how the couple was viewed by professionals.
The pairing of Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone were designed to have many ups and downs, but were seemingly written with the underlying concept of being each others' star-crossed true loves. – Move it to a better place in the lead, or strike it out. It’s coming after you’ve discussed the cultural impact of the characters, which should be the last thing discussed.
Words such as "overwhelmingly" are peacock terms, and should be avoided. The peacock term page I believe gives examples on what to do to avoid such usage.
You mentioned on my talk page "formatting references to how they should be", I don’t know if you meant proper template usage…so I won’t beat this to the ground, and I’ll only mention it once because you may have meant otherwise, but references should come after punctuations marks, not before. You’ll need to go through and make sure all are after as I spotted at least one that wasn’t as I was reading.
…in which Culliton had set off earlier. – I don’t understand this statement. Probably needs rewording or clarification.
"some" is a weasel word. Check for more of those alongside the check for peacock terms.
Too much "fans said..." type of sentences. I know you have citations for when it’s mentioned that fans, but be careful how it’s written. Sometimes it’s ok to use it, but others it comes off like they are the priority. There are ways around it, like simply stating what the problem ones without directing the source to "fans". Like for: When the character of Frankie was killed, some All My Children fans claimed that the show was afraid to focus on a lesbian romance. – You could say: "When Frankie was killed, there was concern the show was afraid to focus on a lesbian romance".
Culliton’s firing in 2002, doesn’t appear relevant, unless it was because of these characters.
but that now audiences know them as well as writers do - ??? maybe drop the "that".
Actually, that entire paragraph is devoted to Frons and his belief. It strays from the characters. I'd scrap it for this article as it doesn't talk about how his ideals affect the characters.
began writing her character to become every woman, to make her more real and to understand what makes her good or bad -- This is plagarized from the source that is linked to it. There are no quotation marks, and I think even the source meant to say "everywoman", kind of like the everyman, instead of two separate words. I don't know how much more plagarizing is going on (not saying it was done maliciously, I'm sure it wasn't), but that needs to be checked. If you copy that much of the text, you need quotation marks around it. Even though you sourced it, you have to make it clear that you didn't paraphrase the text, but that you conveyed "word-for-word" what was said.
Okay, Bignole, I took care of your first pack of concerns and Paul's first pack too regarding this article, though I know that you may still want some of the plot within this article trimmed down and that there may still be some weasel words within this article that I need to take out. In the plot, I left the part about Bianca fainting, but that part is re-worded, and what was after it is re-worded and or cut out as well, to where I took out the quote and extra detail. I also left the two youtube clips in this article's plot. And, yeah, I didn't like the use of the word "members" in reference to Bianca and Maggie being a part of a fictional couple either. It wasn't there when I created this article. Another editor (IP user, to be exact) did that on the day that this article was featured in the Did you know? section on Wikipedia's main page.[5] I didn't protest that editor having re-worded it to that though, obviously. As for mentioning that Richard Culliton was fired, I added that to better transition from the paragraph about Culliton's writing to Frons' take on these characters, to point out where Culliton's whereabouts were, with the article then not mentioning him anymore, but I went ahead and cut off that part about Culliton being fired and just rather left it at when he stopped writing for this show. I also re-worded the mention where Frons states that now audiences know soap opera cliches as well as writers do. But I left that paragraph about Frons because I feel that it relates to his take on the Bianca and Maggie relationship, that it really shows what he was going for after a while, in trying to make these two characters as real as possible, and how he felt that some instances in their relationship were very real, as in relation to real-world issues. Oh, and the part of the message on your talk page where I comment on fixing some references within this article, I meant the references format. Flyer2208:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continued review
Already spoken about the lead sentence on your talk page.
The original love story was to be a short-lived one between two young women, as a murder mystery was set up for one, character Frankie Stone, in the aftermath of the character's death. Former All My Children head writer Richard Culliton, who developed the story, decided to bring Hendrickson back as the identical twin of Frankie Stone, after notable discontent was expressed over the ending of Bianca and Frankie's potential romance. -- I'm thinking this can be trimmed and reworded. It's too detailed. You go from identifying Elizabeth as Maggie to talking about the death of a different character. I would simply say that "the story revolved around Maggie coming to town to investigate the murder of her identical twin sister, Frankie, whom Bianca was in a romantic relationship with." [<--or friendship with..I don't now how they were connected]. Then say, "Elizabeth ____ was brought in as the character Frankie Stone, but when her death attracted criticism, writer Richard Culliton decided to bring the actress back as the character's identical twin sister to advance the potential romantic interest that was started between Bianca and Frankie." -- or something closer to that. It reads somewhat confusingly right now.
The twin, Maggie Stone, brought on in 2002, was then immediately set up to bond with Agnes Nixon's creation... -- We know already know she's the twin, so we can drop that part. I'd say something closer to: "In 2002, that character of Maggie Stone was brought into the show, and set up to bond with Agnes Nixon's character Bianca..." -- I've expressed my confusion over the suceeding sentence on your talk page.
And the pairing was designed to have many ups and downs, with the underlying concept being each others' star-crossed true loves. -- Don't start a sentence with "And". "Many" is a weasel word, just remove it.
"The couple" is said twice in one sentence. Change the second to a pronoun, "they". Remove "noted" from "noted All My Children audience". What are they "noted" for? Change "gay/lesbian" to "LGBT".
magazines such as The Advocate, and lesbian websites such as AfterEllen.com -- just say "LGBT magazines and websites," -- no need to be specific here.
Done Okay, Bignole. I took care of your other newly-listed concerns toward this article. Though, in its plot section, I left the image of when Bianca and Maggie first meet, because I feel that that adds to that section's readability. And I added a quote box, with a quote in it, of course. You can tell me what you think of that, as I know that you will. Also, on the topic of the plot section, you feel that it's better to name it Characters instead of Storylines? I mean, as we both know, that's what you renamed it in one of your example edits, of course. Thus I left it as that as well. Flyer2206:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read over it in detail tomorrow morning, it's kind of later right now. As for the "Characters" thing. That's a title I've seen used for Bernard Quartermass, the only featured television character. Normally it would be called "Appearances", but these characters only appear in one place so that's irrelevant. "Character" or "Character(s)" in this case is meant to say "this is who the character is in the show". I'm weary of certain titles, because if you say "Storylines", someone could take that to mean you want every storyline...and frankly, I'm sure that not every storyline involving the character is terribly important. But, if you prefer the other, that's your choice. It's just a header, and as long as it doesn't say something like "Biography", then it's usually alright. BIGNOLE (Contact me)06:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to state Storyline, Bignole, not Storylines. I'm right there with you on not titling it Storylines, but I do feel that titling this article's plot as Storyline would/is better than titling it Characters. Talk with you later. Flyer2210:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-worded the lead again, but just a little bit. Also, I went ahead and named this article's plot section back to its original title: Storyline. And thank you, Bignole, for the smile on my talk page. Flyer2203:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first article I nominated for peer review. This is for the purpose of nominating Fire Emblem as a featured article. I want the Fire Emblem series to be more recognizable to the English speaking audiences. The peer review will help reach this goal. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando00:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To achieve FA, more out of universe information must be written in. Interviews with the developers on why they chose this path, or this route. This is kind of hard to synthesis in the broad series page, but something is better than nothing. Also, include commentary on the series as whole. For instance, I read on the Famicom Wars (NES) articel that that game supposedly inspired Fire Emblem, and on the surface have played handheld versions of both series and noticed that they seem to run the same engine, have the same concept, etc. Does this story have any merit? hbdragon8806:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to have a development section, or more information in its history. To my honest knowledge, I can't find that sort of information anywhere on the web. That sort of information on Fire Emblem can't be cited easily. It's exacerbated by Fire Emblem's unique Western-Eastern releases. The closest that I can find to interviews is just minor interviews withsome translators, and the info there is barely notable. AshnardTalkContribs14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: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==.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
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][?]
I have edited the article to clean up contractions, dates, and reference placement. I don't feel that the heading concerns can be dealt with – the heading "The Fire Emblem" does not refer to the article title, but a specific item by the same name. I haven't worked on the other items. Infernal Inferno19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the automated review is that they notify you about the nuances of MoS errors, yet there is no info on the general direction of an article. How the content can be improved; what needs expanding; what can be designated as minutiae. I'm sorry, but I'm just not in favour of automated review; I don't feel that it can really be called a review. AshnardTalkContribs19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that by itself the automated review isn't extremely helpful. However, some of the nuances it points out are likely to be missed by the average human reader so it does help improve in the presentation, if not content, deparment. However, we really need some human input. I have left a message at WP:VG talk to that effect which will hopefully draw some human reviewers. Infernal Inferno22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to prepare the article for a GA nomination. I'm not a native English speaker so any comments on the language will be particularly helpful. — Kpalion(talk)11:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the "Banner of Poland" article, and I'll try to keep an eye on it. Your English is pretty darned good, if you don't mind my saying so. Critically speaking: Obviously, the pictures need to be arranged more pleasingly. And more facts would help a lot; in an article about what is essentially a flag, one expects something like a timeline of the changes in it. It might not be too hard to flesh the article out with modern examples. –Milkbreath23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Milkbreath. I have a few questions though: You only copyedited the first section, so I'm not sure if that means that the rest is simply good or you just didn't go through other sections. I don't know what you mean by modern examples, since the article is about a historical banner that is not used anymore. Obviously, I will be trying to find some more facts and examples of historical variants of the banner, and put them in the article. As for the images, I arranged them as nicely as I could, so if you have an idea how to do it better, please let me know. — Kpalion(talk)08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I screwed that up. Forget what I said above. Sometimes I don't know where my head is. And "hoist" is correct, obviously. Sorry, must have been tired. I will pull myself together and give the remainder of the article my very best edit job, which is normally at least adequate. —Milkbreath10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As penance for being such a bonehead, I spent the morning playing with this article in my sandbox trying to arrange the pictures. I think I've got it looking pretty good. I'd like to edit it in over the present page, but I don't want to give anybody a heart attack. Would that be OK? --Milkbreath15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having replied earlier, Milkbreath. I appreciate your help, especially with grammar. I see you went ahead and changed the layout of the images. I don't know if I'm really convinced to this new layout. It looks a little massy to me with images scattered on both sides sides of the page; and please see the automated review below which says "avoid including galleries in articles". Perhaps someone else could come and decide which layout looks better. It's not a big issue though.
One more little thing, why did you change all the n-dashes to m-dashes (with no spaces on either side)? I'm not complaining here, I just want to know, if that's some kind of policy (part of MoS?) that I'm not aware of. — Kpalion(talk)18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That layout looks ok to me, there were too many images crammed in before, and even with fewer, having them all on the same side makes it look like a wall of images, rather than visual aids, unfortunately. However, I would suggest flip-flopping them -- it's generally a better idea to not cut the header off from the text with an image, so either they should be moved to the previous section so they line up with the headers (a nuisance with the top ones because of the TOC), or just switch left and right for all but the first one. As for the gallery, are any of the images hosted at Commons? If so, add a {{Commons|Banner of Poland}} or the like to the external links section instead. If any aren't hosted there, perhaps try using those ones in the article, so the link will cover the rest, rather than leaving a bunch out entirely.
The dashes may well have an MoS thing to them, I'll leave Milkbreath to find that, but if not, it seems to be the standard usage around here -- ndash with no space for dates, mdash with no space in sentences, and who knows what other dash-based things. -Bbik★18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the silence was deafening. I played with the layout for a long time. I think it looks better than the original layout with a column of pictures several pages long right down the middle before the text begins. You have to bear in mind that you can't just make it look good in your browser at your monitor settings. Try it at 640X480 16 colors and watch it morph. I see they took away the pic of the Congress Kingdom banner for copyvio. Too bad, it was needed. As for the gallery, I was aware of the Wikipedia policy on them when I made it, but I think a gallery is justified in an article like this one about a changing visual object—they also don't like pictures all over the page. But a link to an external gallery might be better here. And if anybody wants to have another go at the layout, more power to them. I'm no artist.
The dashes. The MoS accepts both styles, like the practically useless, wishy-washy document it is. What do you want from a volunteer ad hoc committee? It says to leave them alone if they're consistent in the article, but I always make them unspaced em dashes if I think I can get away with it. The reason is that I want the page to be printer-ready and modern-looking, and I often edit section by section, so I can't readily tell when I encounter one which way the writer had them in general. The space-en-dash-space version is a throwback to typewriter days to my eyes. But don't imagine that I have strong feelings about the matter. Lazy personal quirk. --Milkbreath19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I also think we may treat this article as an exception to the no-galleries rule. Images are too important to understand the subject to move them away to Commons and too many (and some of them too tall) to fit nicely into the text. So we'll have to live with the little gallery at the bottom unless for now. Thanks again for your help, Milkbreath. Do you think I might try nominating it for GA now? — Kpalion(talk)13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) How's that work for image sorting? As for the intro, I'd try and summarize the history just a bit more to at least expand that paragraph, though leaving it at a single paragraph is probably fine, since the article is really about a single topic (history) rather than several (history, politics, architecture, whatever). Having a red link in the intro bothers me, too, especially since it's the only one in the entire article. Is there something else you can link there, perhaps? Or maybe move that link somewhere else?
Aside from those minor nitpicks, sure, go for GA! It's well-written, comprehensive (The only possible issues I can see here are perhaps complaints about how it is almost exclusively history -- are there any symbolic reasons for the colors or eagle that you could summarize in a separate section? Perhaps you could pull out/resummarize the parts about how it's used, when, for who into a separate section, too. Check flag pages for ideas of what they have beyond history, if that helps any.), has images (I assume they're all properly tagged for copyright stuff so they don't get deleted.), properly formatted references... Looks to me like it'll do just fine. Good luck! -Bbik★14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead to two short paragraphs, with history summarized in the second one. I tried to make it clearer that this is a historical symbol, not used anymore, which should also eplain why the whole article is only about history. I don't have any more images that I could add at the moment, but I will as soon as I find some. Thanks to both of you, I'll go ahead with the GA nomination now. — Kpalion(talk)23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
I'm trying to make a good and eventually a featured article of this one. I would be very thankful if you could leave comments on what can be improved. Silin200510:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
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.
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][?]
It looks pretty good. It's already been rated for a B-class article, which I fully agree, but I'm not sure what the article's missing from lifting this article into a GA or even a FA. I'll probably come back with a fresh pair of eyes again later. - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs12:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get this article to FA status. I have put it up for FA before (See archive here) and some thins were raised up that prevented. The main problem that was not resolved where the images. It was said that they were too large, though I don't know if they referring to the image size within the article, or the images were just too large to begin with.
Most of the references are to the List of QI episodes articles. Whilst there are references to Wikipedia are considered to be weak, these articles are the most detailed guides to all QI episodes that I am aware of, and therefore I believe to be acceptable. ISD07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
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.”
Well, writing about this book is definitely a worthy endeavor albeit a horrific topic. It makes me wonder how many terrible massacres have occurred throughout human history, and especially most recently. My comments are:
The lede should state where the massacre took place right away, which is in the then capital of the Republic of China. Perhaps copy something out of the Nanking Massacre article. Also maybe mention the historical context of this massacre. Was it the only massacre done by the Japanese Army. Also, why were they doing it? Why were they there? Maybe even convey what the book revealed that had been forgotten. Although this article's about the book, it presents important facts and you want the lede to basically give the reader a complete picture. So because the history is so important, the lede should tell you more about it.
Also, mention in the lede how Chang took her own life which is sad.
See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. The punctuation doesn't conform throughout the article, starting with In the introduction of The Rape of Nanking, she wrote that throughout her childhood, the Nanking Massacre "remained buried in the back of [her] mind as a metaphor for unspeakable evil."
Why didn't The San Francisco Chronicle publish her rebuttal? Was it cowardice or something else? Surely, they should have. Who did publish it?
In the lede mention that the book was published in English, and that a Japanese language edition was never published due to the controversial publishing practices, and Chang's refusal to submit to them.
Overall excellent and really the only issues are with the lede, and you definitely know this topic inside out. Best of luck as you proceed towards FA.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, especially about how to use quotes - that has always been confusing to me but was one thing I was too lazy to go and read about. I'll see about implementing the changes you suggested and reply again later. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by John Smith's
I would personally not mention Chang's suicide in the lead, though it may be relevant somewhere else. If I'm right she was so traumatised by the research on the massacre that it was the main reason she "lost it" in her last years?
I would propose merging the criticism section with the "reponse to criticism" bit. The critical review mentioned in the latter is confusing to lead off a section titled "response". Put that review in criticism and then have a sub-heading for the attempted response. It slots in much better that way. John Smith's (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, still needs caps for "first Test" and so forth. I should read it more cerfeully soon. And don't compare it to The Ashes simply because it is an FA. The Ashes is in terrible shape and isn't even a B class really. It became FA in the old old days. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I would like this article reviewed with Featured Article regulations in mind. Recently we achived GA status and were just wondering what needs to happen in order for the article to make it to FA. Any comments at all would be greatly appriciated.
Stu pendousmat21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer 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.[?]
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 15 km.
When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
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.[?]
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: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), orthopedic (A) (British: orthopaedic), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), program (A) (British: programme).
The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
This article has gone through various changes, since its last peer review and I am looking for further criticism in hopes of nominating it for FA. Any comments would be helpful. Thanks, Golem8899102:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to offer but I wanted to give you something besides the automated review. What I'd suggest is a look at WP:CAPTION to add some weight to your photo captions (the photos are great, by the way). There are also some definite places that need more citations that should be relatively easy. For example, under Alumni Association, one of the 2007 inductees... there should be a news article or press release or something you can cite. I'm also questioning the origins for the name of The Collegian - a source would make it more convincing. Also, under Notable Alumni (and here and there throughout) there are very short paragraphs. As a rule of thumb, I usually suggest at least three sentences in each paragraph. Those are all just examples of some suggestions that can be applied throughout. Overall, though, it's a great article! I'm especially impressed by the breadth of sources - college/university articles tend to have difficulty finding third party sources, but this looks great. Keep it up! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a large edit to this page, creating paragraphs, fixing linking, and creating somewhat of a logical progression and flow to the article. I'd like to see what people think.
4405:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a decent article, with plenty of content. There are a few style fixes I'd be tempted to make, just to bring it up to the standard it could be at. For one, I'd be tempted to link the page back to its disambiguation page at Mass transit incident, but I'd read WP:DISAMBIG before going ahead and doing that. Second, it's a pretty hefty chunk of text at the moment. Try splitting it up further, using ===section dividers===. For guidance on that, I think you can refer to WP:MOS. Thirdly, a picture would add a lot to the article. Check out WP:IUP for guidelines on that. Perhaps most vitally, some inline references would add an enormous amount of credence. See WP:CITE and WP:REF for how to do that. I know that's a lot of guidelines and generally boring shit, but it's the backbone of this place. Lastly, think about what wikilinks are really necessary. It's tempting to link every noun and verb you use, but I'm not sure we need referring to "fuck" and "shit". If you need further help or whatever, just message me. Good luck with it all. Seegoon22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer 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.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 kg, use 7 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 kg.[?]
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.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
I made a number of edits to this page, adding more information about his ECW and independent career. I'd like to know what people think.
4405:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be fairly content-full. The first thing I noticed was the non-verified tag. The second thing I noticed was a red link for the image. The lead section is a bit short (should be 1-2 paragraphs for this length article), and its not clear to a non-wrestling fan like myself. (e.g., what is "RAW Brand") The Lead section should be able to explain the entire article to a no-brainer with enough detail that I don't need to read the rest. Perhaps:
Francisco Pantoja Islas (best known by his ring nameSuper Crazy) was born on December 3rd, 1973. He is a Mexicanprofessional wrestler who is currently signed to World Wrestling Entertainment and performing in the RAWbrand category. Super Crazy has fought for Extreme Championship Wrestling, Independent circuit and World Wrestling Entertainment. He is known for his signature line "I am super! I am crazy! I am...Super Crazy!"
The career section is very large and detailed, although it can be a bit difficult to read for a non wrestling fan. The other sections seem fairly empty in comparison to the career section. The "Wrestling facts" is a bad section for an article (its like Trivia (see WP:Trivia). Much better would be to change that to "Finishing and signature moves", and to move the one quote somewhere else (perhaps the intro as per my example), or come up with a few more quotes and make a section of it. Also, that section needs paragraphs and sentences, and explanation. (e.g.: Missile dropkick - Jumping off the turnbuckle and kicking the standing opponent) take a look at Wikipedia:Explain jargon. The entire article is a tad Jargonish actually. Another section that needs sentences is Championships and accomplishments.
The personal life section needs expanding. (and why is is last name used, instead of his first name?) When was he married? What are the kids names and ages? What does his wife do? Where do they live (not a full address...) How does he recreate? Where did he grow up? Parents names? Uncle with one eye? Lastly, this article needs Images. Portrait in the box, a few of him fighting or doing some move on a guy, winning a big trophy. anything. Sorry if I have been harsh, and sorry for my factual non-accuracy (I know nothing about wrestling). Best of luck. --TheJosh12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
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 - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 200 lb, use 200 lb, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 200 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 94 kg.
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
I've got a couple of input that'll help make this article more well rounded - a couple of quick ones really.
This article is CRIMINALLY short on his pre-WWE time and then goes almost in the opposite direction and gets bloated with details the second he hits the WWE. it's a classic issue that a ton of wrestling articles suffer from and it's very evident here.
The section of Crazy's personal life reads like a trivia bullet point list, expand the prose a bit so it's not just two lines
Sources, sources and sources - I don't think I really need to say more right?
Just wanting to know what people think of this page. I've tried to make it as iformative as possible, and tried to make all links active.
4405:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're never supposed to include wikilinks in section headings; the whole thing should be converted to a table to avoid the section headings. The List is also completely uncited, so it wouldn't make GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?]
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.[?]
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
A while back I asked Jonyungk about getting this article to featured status. He had already been working on it for some time and continued to work on it tirelessly until it became what it is now. I never knew until recently that it is good to peer review an article before nominating it to featured status, and so here it is at your disposal. Is there anything left that needs done for it to be submitted for FAC? — $PЯINGεrαgђ04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is too long, ideally the text needs to be removed or shortened till the article is 3/5 its current length.
The "Musical works" "Style" and "Compositions" sections need to be merged.
The introduction needs to be shortened to four paragraphs.
Tchaikovsky being gay needs to be discussed, and not as a homophobic knee jerk reaction.
The section which currently discusses this is oddly titled and placed. It stands outside the chronological description of his life, is a discussion of the controversy regarding his sexuality and not about his personal life, and stands out since many articles do not have "Personal life" sections.
There is, however, good reason to present the information in a separate section in that it is apparently very controversial. As such the section needs to be made NPOV. It then needs to make reference to and perhaps be referenced in the description of his life and works so as to fit better into the article and its flow. Hyacinth22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Tchaikovsky being gay [sic] needs to be discussed, and not as a homophobic knee jerk reaction." Can you expound on this a bit? It is sourced and widely known that he had homosexual feelings (after all the talk page shows it falls under WikiProject LGBT Studies). — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication of him being gay, except the denial. What is briefly described is a cover up of him being gay, the sketchy proof of his straightness in that he thought about marriage (see beard), and a lack of consensus (which is uncited). Reading the section I imagine one would think "Why did they think he was gay anyways. Must not be." Hyacinth00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find this section a bit more filled out. I'm very concerned about NPOV, as much as Poznansky and Holden aree given more or less equal time. Suggestions would be most welcome at this point. Thanks. Jonyungk01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you guys cite the New Grove? Here's one example from the Tchaikovsky article in the online New Grove Dictionary of Opera (Richard Taruskin): "Professional success brought with it entrée to aristocratic circles where Tchaikovsky's homosexuality was more readily tolerated; this, plus a loving and protective family (including a worshipping younger brother, Modest, who, sharing his sexual orientation, became his literary collaborator and personal confidant, later his biographer), seems to have helped the composer towards self-acceptance in his later years." Here is a line from the article on 'Gay and lesbian music' in the New Grove (Philip Brett): "Following the inception of a homosexual identity (see §1), Tchaikovsky became the first musician widely known to fit the role." Good stuff: you can use that. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll keep your suggestions in mind and seek out both these sources at my local library, though please note my concerns stated above about NPOV. While considering additional sources can always be good, I'd greatly appreciate suggestions on what is currently in the article as well. Thanks again. Jonyungk07:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer Review
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.[?]
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), favorite (A) (British: favourite), defense (A) (British: defence), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), counselor (A) (British: counsellor), signalling (B) (American: signaling), travelled (B) (American: traveled), installment (A) (British: instalment).
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][?]
In the 10,000 foot view, I notice that the article as it stands is mainly a biography; it ends with a very short section on works and style. Detailed sections are available as links. Were these split off because there were complaints the article was too long? My opinion (feel free to disagree) is that it's OK to have long articles on subjects like this one, and that any article on a composer should be 40-60% biography and 40-60% works/style/influence. Sometimes that material can be integrated into the biography, but it's tough to do--better IMO to have a separate section as you do. Antandrus (talk)15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main comments would be that there seems to be an awful lot of material in the article at present which is simply cut-and-pasted out of other published sources (albeit referenced). Also a great deal of the language (e.g. describing his music) is very subjective, flowery and somewhat unencyclopaedic. For example, in the opening paragraph:
" While not part of the nationalistic music group "The Russian Five", Tchaikovsky wrote music now known and loved for its distinctly Russian character, rich harmonies and stirring melodies. His works, however, are much more western than those of his Russian contemporaries as he effectively uses international elements in addition to national folk melodies."
- Saying T's music is "loved" is a POV statement. It would be more objective to note things such as how often his works are still performed today at classical concerts, or used as incidental music in cinema, etc.
- The sentence handwaves to another article for any explanation of what might be the characteristics of "Russian-sounding music"
- what are "rich" harmonies?
- "stirring" melodies is not an objective phrase
--feline118:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've mentioned the opening paragraph (the only one, ironically, I didn't change), how about some examples from later in the article?
Also, yes, I drew on a number of sources and found out early on that if I didn't leavem in the form you have seen them, the WikiBOTs would ding what I was writing as an essay—even when I supplied attribution.
As for "flowery," no, I do not write in a style that could be considred dry, pedantic or pompously boring. But I do find "flowery" extremely insulting for what it connotes from the opposite extreme. Am I to assume I am wriiting a historical romance novel at Wikipedia's expense? Jonyungk05:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Extremely insulting"? Please familiarise yourself with WP:FAITH - Peer Review has been requested for the article, and I have given some. Please do not react to it as a personal insult. I cited examples from the opening paragraph because that's the one that people read first, and those examples are indicative and applicable to the rest of the article. Where language is subjective rather than objective, and making POV value judgements of Tchaikovsky's music, than it is less encyclodpaedic than it might be.--feline110:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know how far this article is from A/GA/FA quality. I would also appreciate some suggestions on the article's organization, some sections (e.g. Neurotics Anonymous in Mexico) seem a little out of place and could be integrated better. Also, I'm wondering how detrimental the articles length is, and would like suggestions on what could/should be cut. Suggestions on improving it's readability would also be appreciated. Please also point out anything else you consider to be important. -- Craigtalbert21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: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.[?]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
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.”
The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, aren't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
I've been writing this article during the last few days, with the intention to apply for FA status after a short while. I am still working on it at the moment, so the content might change slightly (but not dramatically). As it deals with a scientific topic, I would especially appreciate comments on whether the article is comprehensible and make sense to its readers.
Things taken into account so far:
Full inline citation from scientific articles
All images are GFDL, except one PD-government image in the gallery
No redlinks, I generated reasonable (stub) articles for all links where no article existed and improved some of the already existing closely linked articles.
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 21 additive terms, a bit too much.
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
There's really not enough referencing with footnotes in the article. Many of the sections need more referencing. It's especially important to have footnotes when numbers are cited or when absolute claims are being made, and this is something the article is lacking in certain areas. For example: The highest natural point of Singapore is Bukit Timah Hill. Something like that definitely needs a footnote, I would think. Another example: The lowest and highest temperatures recorded in its maritime history are 18.4 °C (65.1 °F) and 37.8 °C (100.0 °F) respectively. The highest wind speed recorded is 150 km/h on 26 May 2007. You don't need to add a footnote behind every single sentence, but ideally (in my opinion), you shouldn't leave a whole paragraph without footnotes either, and every fact should be verifiable by a reader who doesn't know anything about Singapore. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 280 metres, use 280 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 280 metres.[?]
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.[?]
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: flavour (B) (American: flavor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), offence (B) (American: offense), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), colonize (A) (British: colonise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), curb (A) (British: kerb), mould (B) (American: mold), programme (B) (American: program ).
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][?]
The following suggestions were partly generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 8 metre, use 8 metre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 8 metre.[?]
The table of contents (ToC) may be too long - consider shrinking it down by merging short sections.
There are 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 reported that...
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations, i.e. who reported it?[?]
I have recently spent significant time improving this article and its related pages, and would now like independent feedback on how it can be improved and what grade the article should recieve. Many thanks Oli12:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foxhill's comments
This is my first peer review for another article, I apologise if any of this is overly picky.
Seasons and date ranges in the article use both 1990-91 and 1990/91 format, WP:MOSNUM#Longer periods prefers the use of 1990–91 (using – instead of -)
"Although it reached 10th place in the Second Division in 1981, successive relegations in 1984 and 1985, including setting a league record for most games without a win in the 1983/84 season and equalling the record for most losses in a season during 1984/85 (33), put the club back in the league's basement."
to the following (or something you feel works better)
"Although it reached 10th place in the Second Division in 1981, the club was relegated in 1984 (setting a league record for most games without a win) and 1985 (equalling the league record for most losses in a season). These successive relegations placed the club back in Division Four, the lowest professional league in English football at the time."
and
"On 22 July 2005 the club came out of administration with a deal being struck with HM Revenue and Customs at the eleventh hour, after the intervention of then sports minister Richard Caborn, but by then had been relegated to the Conference National and lost control over its ground."
to
"On 22 July 2005 the club came out of administration with a deal being struck with HM Revenue and Customs at the eleventh hour after the intervention of then sports minister Richard Caborn. Cambridge had sold their Abbey Stadium home earlier in the season for £1.9 million; although they lost control of the ground - the money was essential in keeping the club afloat."
History - Recent history - consider changing
"Jimmy Quinn was appointed manager soon after Power took charge and after a difficult settling in period (including a humiliating 5-0 loss to local village team Histon), guided Cambridge to safety including five wins from their last seven games."
to
"Jimmy Quinn was appointed manager soon after Power took charge and, after a difficult settling-in period which included a humiliating 5-0 loss to local village team Histon, he guided Cambridge away from another possible relegation by achieving five wins from their last seven games of the season."
Colours and badge
"Cambridge has had a number of different shirt manufacturers since the first was displayed on the shirt including Umbro, Nike, Patrick, Sporta and currently Vandanel"
What does 'since the first was displayed on the shirt' refer to? Sponsors from the previous paragraph or kit manufacturer? If the latter, consider -
"The team's kits have been manufactured by a number of companies, with Umbro providing the first strip on which a maker's logo appeared. The club have subsequently worn kits created by Nike, Patrick, Sporta and Vandanel with the latter providing the strip for the 2007-08 season."
Stadium
"Cambridge United currently play their matches home matches at the Abbey Stadium" lose one of the matches
Supporters
The placement of the references for the list in this sections seems odd to me, consider what the sources are providing and the best location for the link.
"Away Travel Club[15]: officially linked with the club and provides match day travel to every away game, as well as hosting various fundraising events particularly for the youth system and sponsoring senior and youth players"
With the ref tag here, it seems to me that the source is verifying the fact that this group exists and what their name is, the statement that follows is then unsourced.
"Away Travel Club: officially linked with the club and provides match day travel to every away game, as well as hosting various fundraising events particularly for the youth system and sponsoring senior and youth players[15]"
With the ref tag here, the source would be verifying the entire statement.
for the following prose section -
"In the Conference, however, attendances at the Abbey have been among the highest in the league - in the first two seasons in the league the average home gate has been 2,607[20] (2005/06 season - 4th highest in the league) and 2,815[21] (2006/07 season - 4th). Attendance at away games has also been high in recent years compared to the home gate, although a precise figure is not available due to mixed crowds in some Conference games."
consider changing to -
"Since relegation, attendances at the Abbey have been amongst the highest in the Conference. Cambridge's first two seasons in this league saw them post the 4th highest attendance figures in both years (2,607 in 2005-06 and 2,815 in 2006-07).[20][21]"
The away game attendance is uncertain and shouldn't be included unless a figure or general statement can be provided to back the sentence up.
"Other rivals include Northampton and Rushden and Diamonds (due to geographical proximity), Brentford (due to sporting rivalry during the 1990s) and, due to their recent rise to the same league as Cambridge, Histon (based in the village of Histon just north of Cambridge)"
consider
"Other rivalries include those with Northampton and Rushden and Diamonds (due to geographical proximity), Brentford (due to sporting rivalry during the 1990s) and local team Histon who were promoted into the Conference in <season>."
Players - Reserves and centre of excellence
"Cambridge's Centre of Excellence is widely thought regarded throughout professional football circles as one of the best in England." choose between thought and regarded
Notable managers
Lose the 'arguably' statements, they're not needed
Following some changes to this article I feel it could be reclassified as a B-Class, however it would need a thorough copy editing by an outsider before pushing for GA. Hope this is of some help - Foxhill18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave101's comments
A few comments:
Records
Convert this section to prose, if you want to make a list of all records then I would suggest making a new article, but in the main article you should keep the lists to a minimum.
Use {{reflist|2}}, personally I have no problem with the use of scrolling references but the general opinion is that they should be avoided, see discussions here and this AfD.
I think if you wanted to bring this article to FA standard this section would need to be expanded with content from the History aritcle, at the moment it is perhaps too brief.
Overall, I think the article is in good shape, with a few changes you should be able to bring this to GA and then push for FA status. Dave101→talk21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
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][?]
This is the second request for Peer Review. After the previous one said the article had no problems and was ready for FA, the FAC failed miserably. Now that most of the problems issued there have been resolved, I would like to know if there are any problems with the article that would prevent this from reaching FA status. --wL<speak·check>11:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: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==.[?]
It needs:
1) a photo of the subject.
2) information about his activities since full release in 1998.
3) access to this work might reveal some information - Hussin Mutalib (2003). Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore.
4) information about the full extent of his activities in 1966 that the got the government of Singapore so scared of him.
5) venues and timeframes for the places where he was detained in the period 1966-1989.
6) anything from his own inside story, although I don't believe he published memoirs.
7) the description of his religion for the infobox.
8) information about his public speeches, writings, and activities in the period from 1999 onward.
9) a source confirming that he was conferred with his Masters degree and his PhD.
10) confirmation of his exact year of birth. If it wasn't 1941, it was 1940 or 1942.
The biographical subject has a email address which I've messaged to. It is: chia@iss.nl
I have no idea whether he is still in the Netherlands at the present time, or how freqently he has been back to Singapore. NonlisteningFriend02:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer 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.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
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.[?]
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).[?]
Hi I just followed the to-do list given to me by a fellow Pinoy Wikipedian.
We managed to fix all but one citation (we didn't go through the DENR people though) and I think the spelling is ok.
These is what the article needs:
Comments:
Is it GA worthy?
Contributions:
Images, we only managed to get two free images
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 0 centimeters, use 0 centimeters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 0 centimeters.[?]
*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 13.5 cm.
*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: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), gray (A) (British: grey).
Hoping to give this the final push to FA status. Has already failed once mainly due to the poor prose so that is the main thing I want to address in this PR. Buc (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
apparently
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Okay I don't see the need for a header as this is just one comment. Overall I'd say this article is fine, and in my view, is actually better than Palpatine. That said, some mention of Sparrow merchandise could be made - action figures etc. That seems to be the only thing that Palpatine has that this doesn't. Gran208:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article underwent a peer review a couple of months ago, resulting in its promotion to GA. I'm looking for assistance from experienced editors as to what further needs to be done in order to achieve FA status. Specific areas of concern are:
The length of the lead section. During GA myself and other regular contributors reached consensus that the lead was of acceptable length for the overall article's length, whilst the reviewer commented that it "would need be doubled or tripled in length to reach FA." Specifically are there any areas that appear to be sparsely covered in the lead, or any topics which should be given an extra sentence or two?
* Stability. A quick glance at the edit history would seem to suggest that the article is unstable. However the high volume of edits immediately after a Grand Prix are necessary to ensure that recent events (i.e. the last race) are covered in the same manner as the rest of the article and not given undue weight.
YResolved, subject to a current event template being added to this page during grand prix weekends and a thorough check of the prose afterwards.
Reliability of a specific source: see recent edit history and talk page relating to the f1fanatic site.
Please feel free to make additional comments and suggestions on any other areas of the article.
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.[?]
NNot Done. Agree that this needs to be done, will make an attempt later this evening. Further suggestions as to what is required welcome.
*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.[?]
*The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
YBelieve to be done. The only instances I could find of these contractions were within <!-- ... --> tags, and are both appropriate and necessary. BeL1EveR20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NNot Fully Done. I think the prose is of a good standard. However in response I will give article a thorough copyedit after the Hungarian Grand Prix and attempt to reduce redundant terms. I shall leave it for now as there is a grand prix weekend approaching and it would be more prudent to wait until the page is no longer documenting a current event. Thanks for the response! BeL1EveR20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am shortly to be doing a Jumpaclass for Robbie Ross, and because his life is most often written about through the context of Oscar's life, I'm going to be wading through every Oscar biography I can get my hands on. Which means I may as well get some work done on Oscar's article as well while I have the material in front of me (after I've finished the Jumpaclass). Immediate issues I can see are the short unhelpful lead and a lack of inline citations, but I haven't given the article that close an inspection. Reviews with an eye to an eventual FAC would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 miles, use 30 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30 miles.[?]
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==.[?]
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), meter (A) (British: metre), defence (B) (American: defense), offence (B) (American: offense), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), isation (B) (American: ization), travelled (B) (American: traveled), aging (A) (British: ageing).
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.
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][?]
The suggestions above are automatically generated so I don't know how many are generated from quotes rather than your actual article, anyway, I would suggest expanding the lead. Thanks, DrKiernan09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Awadewit
This article has some good parts, but many of the lists need to be changed into prose and whole sections on Wilde's writings need to be included. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
Missing sections:
There should be entire sections on Wilde's writings that explain their major themes and reception. These can either be integrated into the biography (see Sarah Trimmer) or separated out (see Anna Laetitia Barbauld, whichever you think works best for Wilde).
Content and organization:
I would delete the "Influences" and "Influenced" lists from the infobox. These lists are arbitrary, subjective and massive. Any important influences should be discussed in the article.
When you introduce people, you have to mention who they are in a brief phrase. Not all readers are going to know the names you are mentioning.
EX: Here, Lady Wilde held a regular Saturday afternoon salon with guests including Sheridan le Fanu, Samuel Lever, George Petrie, Isaac Butt and Samuel Ferguson.
EX: as it was in keeping with the doctrine of Art for art's sake, coined by the philosopher Victor Cousin, promoted by Theophile Gautier and brought into prominence by James McNeill Whistler
Wilde's address in the 1881 British Census is given as 1 Tite Street, London. The head of the household is listed as Frank Miles with whom Wilde shared rooms at this address. - This seems extraneous unless you can give more context.
Legends persist that his behaviour cost him a dunking in the River Cherwell in addition to having his rooms (which still survive as student accommodation at his old college) trashed, but the cult spread among certain segments of society to such an extent that languishing attitudes, "too-too" costumes and aestheticism generally became a recognised pose. - You might think about explaining "too-too" costumes and other topics readers might not be familiar with.
Wilde's mode of dress also came under attack by critics such as Higginson, who wrote in his paper Unmanly Manhood, at his general concern that Wildes' effeminacy would influence the behaviour of men and women, arguing that his poetry "eclipses masculine ideals [..that..] under such influence men would become effeminate dandies'. - Who is Higginson? awkward sentence - keeps going and going
Though he was sometimes ridiculed for them, his paradoxes and witty sayings were quoted on all sides. - Can we get a quote?
The section on Wilde's arrest is a little disorganized. Also, why not a quote from the famous poem?
Can you expand on De Profundis? What are differences between the versions? What does it actually say?
The "Biographies" section should either be rewritten in prose or made part of a "Bibliography" (by the way, novels are not biographies - the novelizations of Wilde's life should be separated out).
"Biographical films" should be written in prose, perhaps part of a "Legacy" section.
Prose:
The article needs a copy editor. There are quite a few awkward sentences:
EX: He was granted a scholarship to Magdalen College, Oxford, where he continued his studies from 1874 to 1878 and where he became a part of the Aesthetic movement, one of its tenets being to make an art of life.
EX: He also scrutinises the link that Oscar Wildes' writing, personal image and homosexuality may have, resulting in calling his work and lifestyle 'Immoral'.
Images:
Can we get a better picture of the Wilde statue in Merrion Square?
The "offending inscription" should be written out in the caption - the writing is hard to read.
Other:
The lead problem you have already recognized (see WP:LEAD for helpful hints on writing the lead).
The inline citation problem you have already noted (see WP:CITE for rules on this).
Let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. I look forward to reading the improved article. Wilde is an important figure and I'm glad someone has taken on the project of writing this article. Awadewit | talk11:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent, thank you. I've been having library card troubles but I should be fully booksed up in the next days and I look forward to dealing with your suggestions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely certain where the hell a week went, but I do now have the books. It must because it's the holidays or something... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article suffered from some POVpushing back in February 2007. This cooled down a few months ago and recently I made a number of edits to remove original research and synthesis.
I'm interested to see what other editors think of the article, its sourcing, its neutrality, tone etc. I'd really just like to see what other people think needs improvement--Caililtalk00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
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.[?]
Myself and alot of other users have been working hard to improve the article from its previous state, mostly adding sources and rewording already written material. However, I am confused; what can be done now to the article? Any comments and constructive criticism are welcome. Kind regards, Sebi[talk]09:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
There have been difficulties in locating a freely-licensed image that contains the current band lineup, so this is not done yet. –sebi07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.)
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: didn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
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][?]
Pretty much Done, some of the sources (like an interview on a .txt file) have no dates, authors or publishers anywhere on them, but I'll hunt down some of those a little later. Thanks for the suggestion, though :) –sebi07:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's overall a thorough, well done article, but strangely there seems to not be a specific description of musical style, tonality, composition and production techniques, etc. For comparison, look at the descriptions of musical techniques in the articles on Pink Floyd and Nine Inch Nails. I also wonder if you'd like to include some comments about the band's role in the "Sunset Strip scene/hair band genre" trends. VisitorTalk06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate any general feedback on the article, and suggestions about content changes/additions that would help advance it toward FA status. Thanks.--Elred20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as a very, very good article - so much so, that I can't actually find much/anything to critisise =P (but then I'm not hugely experienced). Seems very well referenced, a nice number of copyright-safe pictures. Reads very well (except for a slight hiccup in the introduction, which I corrected). I don't have a huge amount of experience with peer reviewing, but it seems to me that this article could certainly be worth FA status. Well done ;). TheIslander11:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Oldag, but are you saying we're off the guidelines? I believe we've adhered to them pretty well. Is there something specific that you think is contrary to how it should be? Thanks.--Elred16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ill be busy until wednesday. I wish i could read the article more carefully. Keep in mind, i really don't pay much attention to official guidelines. I generally make BOLD edits, and if you don't like it than change it back type of person. However here are some observations:
as for the advice above, well, the article doesn't violate the guidelines, but i feel it could be expanded according to the guidelines. notable people for example could have a paragraph or two with a pictures. I am not exactly sure why you have a libraries and research centers section and a notable buildings section, but no "campus" section. notable organizations could be merged into a expanded "student life" section. A campus section should describe the campus as whole.
There isn't a "notable buildings" section, unless you are talking about "facilities" which I agree should probably be folded into the (soon to be created) Campus section. My way of thinking with the libraries/research part is that these are entities more so than 'brick & mortar.' While they are housed in buildings, the buildings and physical aspect of them isn't the aim of the entry. It's more about the scope (and the work done within.) Perhaps that heading should be relabeled simply "research facilities." The Campus section seems to me that it should plainly entail the physical design of the campus (architecture, area, physical relationship, etc) whereas actual description of what goes on inside the specific buildings belongs elsewhere (mostly.) Do you agree?--Elred00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel: libraries/ research laboratories should go onto research i guess isn't a major section according to wikiproject university. parts of that paragraph could be merged into a research paragraph that goes under a a subsection of academics. part of it should go onto a brand new campus section with is another major section on wikiproject universities Oldag0704:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another big picture thing that i have seen. Well I can't exactly find where the guideline is, but i believe for either GA status or FA, most lists should be converted to prose (academics and facilities). bqzip01 probably could tell you more about that.
Not really a guideline, but i put athletics well below academics. I argued that athletics should be placed in a location reflective of its order of importance. The student life aspect of the school in my humble opinion is more important than its sports section. Traditions at a&m make sense to be above athletics. at another school, i can see the argument being the opposite.
so far so good. i have seen the a&m article in far worse condition. keep up the good work. i guess this is good enough for a peer review, but Id like to make a more detailed one. but keep up the good work. Oldag0700:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am WAY too busy to do a full review, but at the request of Wordbuilder, I shall acquiesce. In addition, (start sarcasm) if there has to be another Big XII school that is a featured article (end sarcasm here), I'd prefer this one or Baylor. Your school (sadly) seems the most reasonable when it comes to matters of professionalism off of the playing fields (my sister-in-law and her fiance both went there). As Wordbuilder and the guys that submitted the OU page for FA status will tell you I can be a nasty SOB when it comes to editing.
That said, I'll give you a quick overview of the problems I see and I'll give you a full overview sometime in the near future.
The lead is WAY too short. For an article of this length, you would expect 2-3 paragraphs. In addition, I am not a fan of citations in the lead. Everything in the lead should be addressed and expanded upon in the body of the article. Read WP:LEAD for more info. I think the last sentence is more speculation than fact and should not be mentioned in the lead. "Doctoral" is redundant since all universities grant doctorate degrees.
Lots of passive voice throughout. Be more assertive and specific. Example: Though plans for opening a college in West Texas had been in the legislature since before 1900, it had long been thought that any such institution should be a branch of Texas A&M. In 1923, however, the legislature decided to create a new university system to best serve the needs of the region. How about: The Texas legislature discussed plans for opening a college in West Texas as early as (insert actual date here, not ~1900)[citation needed], but the planned Texas A&M branch did not materialize as envisioned. Instead, in (insert the FULL date of the measure) 1923, the government of Texas (note variety in word choice) decided to create a completely new university system "to best serve the needs of the region." (get an actual quote here, it adds credibility)[citation needed]
Work on reducing lists to prose. It should be compelling, not a list. Example:
Serious problems with commas and apostrophes Example: Texas Tech University offers 150 Bachelor's, 104 Master's and 59 Doctoral degree programs. Apostophes not needed
Do a double check on the spelling. I didn't see anything jump out, but it is always good to do a double check for sanity. I recommend getting Firefox. It does a spell check as you type.
I recommend putting the songs and traditions in another article and expand other sections.
Get sources for ALL of your claims Examples: "1839-acre campus", the entire athletic section, etc.
RE: Spelling. I ran it through Word a couple of days ago and everything looked good. I think we should continue to be vigilant in this area as material is added. Thanks for weighing in, BQ. →Wordbuilder 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (Unfortunately, after posting this comment, I edited the article, successfully MAKING a typo/spelling error. →Wordbuilder00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The people who wrote the main articles on that seem to think so. For some reason I have it in my head that they aren't supposed to have an apostrophe. I believe older "Driver's Licenses" used to simply say "Drivers License" and I would assume a similar syntax was in use. But TX DL's now say "Driver License." It would appear that the wiki consensus prefers the apostrophes though. I'll stick em back in since I pulled em.--Elred00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ****. Karancs beat me to most of my comments. I second her inputs and others, but that is a really good start. Keep up the good work! — BQZip01 —talk06:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 200 pounds, use 200 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 200 pounds.[?]
I'm an Aggie like BQ and OlAg but I promise to be fair :) We got a lot of feedback when we brought Texas A&M University to FA and are just trying to share the knowledge. Some of my comments might mirror theirs; sorry for the duplication.
The lead is too short. It should contain one or two more paragraphs, and should mention more of the school's history and campus information.
Also, it isn't necessary to put major in quotes. The way that sentence is written it makes it sound like Tech competes in another division in minor sports. As I don't think that is the case, you might want to reword.
When Tech opened, was it coed or all-male?
make sure that all full dates are wikilinked
"In the 1960s, it was decided that " -> who decided or proposed the name changes?
Should board of directors be capitalized (Board of Directors)?
Need a citation directly after all quotations. This includes the sentence from the letter to the University Daily and the quote from Ed Whitacre.
"there is talk " of making Tech a flagship university. Who is talking? If this is the legislature, that should be noted.
The Organization section should be fleshed out more. If you choose to keep the list of colleges, you need to at least lead into it more (yes, you mention that there are 10, but then there are intervening sentences about locations). I prefer to see the list became prose, possibly containing the numbers or percentage of students who are enrolled in each college.
Although you mention in the lead that Tech has the 5th largest student body in the state, this is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. The Organization section would be a good place to add this. If it isn't in the body, then it should be removed from the lead.
The last paragraph, about the 1839 acre campus, should not be in organization, but instead in Campus. This fact is also listed in history -- does it need to be in both places?
All measurements should have both standard and metric versions. I use {{convert}}
Do not include external links (such as Museum of Texas Tech University) in the body of the article
The research facilities section reads like a list. It needs better transitions, or, at least, try to vary the beginnings of the sentences.
Is there anything else noteworthy about the campus?
Do you need to specify that the United Spirit Arena is in Lubbock?
First paragraph of athletics needs to vary the way the sentences start -- they all begin with Tech Tech or the university
Athletics section needs citations.
I would retitle the section Sports Traditions to Mascots.
You should mention in the athletics section that the team used to be called the Matadors (as is mentioned in traditions).
We got slammed in our FA for having a lot of citations reference various A&M websites, and percentage-wise we had a lot fewer that you. If at all possible, try to find non-university references for your facts. The Lubbock or school newspaper would be good places to look first.
Reformat your citations, and make sure to use named refs, as I see several of these are duplicated (10 and 11, 12 and 13, 24 and 25)
You need more citations -- everything should be able to be easily verified, and it's not from the article.
If the citation issues were fixed, I think this would have a good shot at GA. For FA, though, the prose is going to need major work. There are a lot of short and choppy sentences that don't flow well together. You would do well to go through each section and see if you can rewrite them into more cohesive, "compelling" prose.
I have an issue with some of the images. Image:TTUamin1923.jpg lists http://www.kensharpe.com/ as the source but I can't find the image anywhere on the site. Also, you state the image was released under the CC Attr 2.5 license. Did the photographer state that? Is there an OTRS ticket number? There is no proof the photographer credited released the image under the given license. Same issue for Image:MRstatue.jpg and Image:Techsubwide.jpg (which appears to be an HDR image which I'm not a fan of as far as being encyclopedic) which list http://dallasphotoworks.com/ as the source. I can't find either pictures on the site and there is no verfication the photographer released the photos under the given licenses. Please clarify the image issues.↔NMajdan•talk17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've corresponded via email directly with the photographer's grandson (and copyright holder) and received permission to use the 1925 photo. As for the HDR aspect, if these are HDR they are very subtle examples (i'm an amateur photographer at best). I believe, however, that the majority of the dramatic effects are due to the time of day both of these shots were taken (dusk.) Apparently they were both shot in the short period of time where the campus lights are on and it's still a bit light outside. Other than that, I don't believe they've been manipulated dramatically, and certainly not to the extent that they create a false impression of the subject matter. --Elred01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the photos on the page came from four sources: 1. I took them myself 2. Are the property of David Kozlowski (whom I corresponded with personally and received permission) 3. Are the property of Ken Sharpe (whom I corresponded with personally and received permission) 4. are in wikicommons (the mastodon). If there is a problem with the manner by which they are authorized I'm sure they will be willing to help. They both showed interest in the article and endeavor.--Elred02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'll leave most of the issues to Elred since he uploaded the photos. I do have one quesiton. Is the use of HDR images—if that's what it is, I'm not sure either way—forbidden or discouraged? Thanks! →Wordbuilder19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my opinion (although, knowing Wikipedia, there may be some buried policy/guideline on it) it comes down to a matter of encyclopedic content. That image isn't blatantly HDR (look at the shades of blue around the tree and building compared to the rest of the sky - its the biggest HDR give-a-away in this image) so it could be a lot worse (like this one). I would probably say this photo is OK since its not heavily altered but generally photos in an encyclopedia should have only the minimal post-processing and nothing artistic (which is what HDR is). The only post-processing for images should be things to clean an image such as remove dirt, brighten or darken an image, etc.↔NMajdan•talk21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Sangam age is considered an important period in the history of southern India. This article aims to give the reader a detailed account of the state of the economy in the ancient Tamil country. Please review and provide feedback, as to how to make this article FA quality. Thanks. Lotlil02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't read the article in detail, but it contains very detailed information supported by appropriate citations. My initial suggestion is to include a discussion on the source of the information such as from the ancient literates, epigraphy, archeology, etc. I will add more comments when I find some time to read it in full. Also, attribution of Kallanai to the ancient Karikala has not been universally accepted by historians. Parthitalk/contribs05:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Parthi. I've seen Kallanai attributed to Karikalan in many sources -journals and books - which is why I included that part. In any case, since there is doubt, I have removed his name from the article. We can take the discussion to the talk page once the review is over. As for the sources, currently the article mentions these primary sources not in one single section but wherever the reference to facts are made. For ex., in Foreign trade, I've included quotes from Periplus about the trade route. And, in the Markets section, I've mentioned the primary source to be Mathuraikanci etc. I will try to summarise all these into one section at the beginning, without repeating the info later. Lotlil12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 pounds, use 000 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 pounds.[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbour (B) (American: harbor), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), fibre (B) (American: fiber), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), jewellery (B) (American: jewelry).
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][?]
Thanks for running the auto-review tool on this article. I believe most of the issues are taken care of already. I dont know if an infobox would be useful for this article. Lotlil16:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Per WP:LEAD, you need to provide context as to what ancient Tamil country is. Atleast one ot twop sentence although you are linking to it. For a reader who does not understand the subject matter will not have any idea as to what you are talking about.
2) A map of ancient Tamil country would even be better
3) It is imperative the article on Korkai be complete
Thanks for the comments, Taprobanus. I'm working on the Korkai article, just havent had a chance to complete my edits. Point taken about the map. I'll get to the context thing shortly. Lotlil23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Done. Korkai article is a stub, but has relevant info to give a context to the reader. I'll expand it in the coming days. I also created a simple map, doesn't look too professional.. so please feel free to improve it if you prefer.Lotlil05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit and its edit summary caught my eye. So I thought that article was in pr and I typed out a review. Now I see that it is a different article that is in pr. However, most of my concerns for this article and few other articles also remains the same. So I will go ahead and paste the review of that article that I had typed out.
Reply Thanks for reviewing the article(s).
Review
I dont know any other way to say this, but since it is in PR, let me say this. Will you guys for once stop blurring the lines between history, mythology and fictional poetry?! Forget wikipedia for a minute, do you realise that when it comes to real historical evidence of the so called Sangam age, there is next to nothing? Do you realise that almost all the content of this and other articles that you've created is gleaned straight from Sangam poetry which is not considered to be of any historical worth by several historians? Even historians like KANS who claim to see an underlying historical 'basis' in Sangam literature do not go so far as to take every line literally. Even he does not advance beyond a nominal reconstruction of history from these Sangam accounts. And here, you have gone ahead and reproduced the entirety of Sangam poetry as history!! No disclaimers, nothing!
Reply First of all, let’s clarify this minor detail: I did not interpret Sangam poems, nor did I glean any material from them directly. I gleaned it from the books and journals written by the dozen-odd scholars, historians and academicians mentioned in the footnotes. In other words, these articles are based entirely on secondary sources, per policy. I should also mention here that I intentionally ignored any work written in Tamil, for the benefit of verifiability by the wiki community, even if it meant I had to spend some extra time collecting sources in English.
As for the alleged lack of "real historical evidence", I hope you meant non-literary evidence, because contemporary literature is the foremost source for the history of any age before the modern era. But, even with the non-literary sources, we do not draw a blank like you want to believe. There is numismatic and epigraphic evidence, that have been used by scholars to give us a corroborated version of the history. For a sample, see this article and this sandbox page which is incomplete.
BTW, whatever gave you the impression that this is the entirety of Sangam literature??
Getting into specifics, I havent read the article fully, but let me try..
Among the five geographical divisions of the Sangam age Tamil country, the Marutam region was the most fit for cultivation, as it had the most fertile lands.[3]
Comment - Tinai belongs in poetry. It belongs in the poetic imagination of Sangam poets. It is NOT recorded history.
Reply It is the accepted history. Saying that it is someone’s imagination is OR.
Follow-up: I've reworded this part a bit, clarifying that the division exists in literature. I will look for more instances that may need clarification, if you see any do mention them here. Lotlil23:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prosperity of a farmer depended on getting the necessary sunlight, seasonal rains and the fertiliy of the soil. Among these elements of nature, sunlight was considered indispensable by the ancient Tamils, because if rains fail other methods of irrigation could be put to use and if the soil wasn't naturally fertile, artificial manuring would enrich the soil.
Comment - Inanities. Is there any farmer or farming community in the world that does not depend on sunlight, rains and fertility of the soil? "Sunlight was considered indispensible"!! wow! I dont want to point out each one but the article is full of inanities like this.
Reply It was indeed thoughtful of you to remove that snide remark that you had made. Anyway, the bigger point to be grasped here is that their techniques were advanced enough that rain and soil fertility were *not* indispensable. People knew how to enhance shortcomings among these two elements of nature, but with sunlight they were helpless. Now, if you have a suggestion to reword, without compromising the information, I'm all ears.
Questionable historicity
Apart from the traditional landlords and cultivators, there were absentee landlords too. There are various instances in which the kings donated tax-free lands to poets, brahmins, educational institutions and hospitals. Lands given to brahmins was known Brahmateya. When lands were gifted to brahmins and poets, these donees quite often left the donated lands in the hands of tenants or farm laborers. The terms of tenancy in respect of such cultivation are not known. Sometimes independent laborers were engaged for specific puposes and were known as Adiyor. Regardless of the nature of ownership, ranging from great landlords who owned vast stretches of land to an ordinary cultivator who owned a tiny piece of land, there was a feeling of pride in the fact that they were the producers of food.
Comment - How do you/we know? Do you realise that to reconstruct a history of this sort, we'd need 'epigraphic' evidence? We'd need something like the copper plate grants of the later Cholas or Chalukyas or Hoysalas, Vijayanagara etc.,.? Do you realise that of epigraphic evidence there is next to nothing when it comes to the 'Sangam age'? For starters, there is no evidence even to prove the historicity of any of the Sangam kings.(see Early Chola kings). So how is it that you've managed to reconstruct the most minor details of how much land he held, how much he gave away as grants etc? Do you really think that reconstructing the most specific of details is possible from poetry?
Reply First of all, there are (unfortunately) no details of exactly how much the king owned and how much he gave away. But, like I said, to know more about how these details have been inferred from literature, I humbly refer you to my sources. They are better equipped than I am, to say why and how they did it.
About the apparent disrespect to literary sources, do you realize that all the accounts of early history has been arrived at using literature mostly. Other scientific evidence merely provides corroborative evidence. You wouldn’t, for example, find the entire account of Mauryan administration engraved in stone. But, let’s digress a bit: why do we even stop at epigraphic evidence, we could question that too. After all, they are just graffiti engraved on stone. Whoever did that could’ve imagined whatever they scribbled, couldn’t they? That is the very nature of reconstructing history. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can come up with their version of history or start questioning scholarly versions of history. We, at wikipedia, have the responsibility to give due weightage to every opinion, solely based on how popular it is among scholars. If you can bring sources that say all that I have written is trash, I will be happy to AfD these articles.
Coming back to literary sources, most of Roman and Greece history comes to us through literature, much more than epigraphy or archaeology. Ancient Ceylon became clear to us due to the Mahavamsa and the Culavamsa. For that matter, should we (as a fun exercise) analyse the articles on Gangas and Kadambas and find out exactly how much of the information is sourced from epigraphy or archaeology?
Let’s address the other issue about authenticity of Sangam literature, specifically. That was the very first thing I convinced myself of, before setting about writing these articles. The unanimous opinion is that the society, culture and polity that has been portrayed in Sangam poems is a reliable account of life during that time. I know people can opine all they want, but nobody can say so for sure. Which is why we need to accept the majority scholarly view as fact. If you can furnish proof that scholars are opposed to using Sangam literature to study history, we can talk.
Reply I don’t see the need to do that. It is the accepted history of ancient Tamil country and we should say so. And, there are other corroborative sources, not just Sangam.
Add a section about the primary sources involved in these articles.
Reply Fair enough. This is what Parthi has suggested above and I’m working on it (the sanbox article I referred to earlier)
Not letting people know that
a) these accounts are almost entirely drawn from poetry belonging to the "fiction" genre
b) several historians do not consider accounts in the Sangam literature to be of any historical worth; even the ones who grant it any historical legitimacy do it with qualifications and reservations and do not grant the corpus in its entirety any blanket historical legitimacy.
does not make for NPOV.
ReplyThis is POV and OR. I haven’t seen any historian worth his salt stand up and say that all of Sangam literature isnt worthy of historical study. I urge you to bring up sources that make these claims directly. I’m not looking for taken-out-of-context statements. Need solid accounts of scholars who say that *all* of Sangam literature is not to be used for historical study. Not only that, there needs to be enough of them, lest we violate UNDUE.
Change the tone of the article. Right now it reads like a {{story}}. Do not present accounts in a matter-of-fact tone as if their historicity has been established beyond a shadow of doubt!
Reply Specifics, please. All of what I said is paraphrased from accomplished scholars. The matter-of-fact tone is a direct consequence of the universal acceptance of what is being said.
I have typed this in a hurry and my choice of words may not be the best, but I really do hope that you see the point I am trying to make and take suitable action. Sarvagnya20:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for taking the time to review the article. May I suggest further discussions along these lines be carried on in the article talk page. If you would like other reviewers to know about your notes there, you can post a message there and a single-line link to it over here. I will do the same for my follow-ups. Lotlil23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks, Sundar. Most of the text content is there, except a section on primary sources, which was suggested by couple of reviewers above. I should be done with that section before end of this week. I will leave you a note then and we can work on the specifics of the flow/cpedit issues. As for the pictures, I tried to get relevant ones that are already in wiki with proper copyright. If there are other pictures that you can suggest, please let me know. Lotlil13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Done with the content (text) addition. The sources section def.ly needs some cpedit. I will try and come back to it in a couple of days. In the meantime, please feel free to improve the flow/prose if you get a chance.Lotlil05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Great work collating this information. The sources section and the child article show the quantity of work that has gone into this article. As Sundar says, when the text is stable we can go through a series of copyedits to tighten the prose to fit a summary article. Although citing each sentence is superflous, some may demand citations for assertions such as 'Surface irrigation, sprinkler mechanism and drip irrigation methods were followed to prevent wastage of water.' In such cases it will probably be sufficient to not be very specific. Parthitalk/contribs23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. A few comments. 1) The lead still needs work. I tried to help, but I couldn't think of how the third paragraph should be expanded. Three fully developed paragraphs that properly summarize the most important facets of the article would be ideal. 2) Is Ancient Tamil country really the accepted term scholars use? I'm not saying it's not, it's just rather jarring on first glance. 3) The Sangam era link and dates need to be looked at. The link isn't useful since it redirects to Sangam not really what the reader would be expecting, perhaps a stub should be created to Sangam era or Sangam just needs to be reworked a bit or the link should be taken out. The information in some of the related Sangam articles don't seem consistent at first pass. Sangam literature for example gives a 200BCE-300CE date range while Sangam gives a different one. And there's Sangam period which just seems to add to the confusion. 4) I agree with the comment Parthi made. A statement of such specificity and of a perhaps surprising assertion such as that is an excellent candidate to be cited directly. Try to directly cite only the most important or surprising conclusions such as that and not the mundane stuff that would be common knowledge to anyone familiar with the field. The references section covers that, so nice work organizing it that way. 5) Work to expand, merge or eliminate one or two sentence paragraphs. They break up the flow of the prose too much. 6) The rest looks pretty good to me, though perhaps the artistic license of the sources was followed a bit too much. For ex. "The ships returned from Tamilakam with rich cargo which, as soon as it was transported on the back of camels from the Red Sea to the Nile and descended the river as far as Alexandria, was poured without delay into the capital of the Roman empire." "Poured without delay" is possibly not true, and unless the source specifically expanded upon that point with evidence it isn't properly supported. - TaxmanTalk13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After its first FAC failed, I would like broader input about how this article can be improved. Major parts include sourcing, grammar, and the overall readers' experience. (→O -RLY?)02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems full of facts about the current route, but I don't see a comment about what is significant about this road unless one happened to be planning a drive to or from Allentown. VisitorTalk06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the article was difficult to follow. As somebody who has never been to Pennsylvania, the article was "fact overload". If I were planning a trip through Allentown and wanted to know if PA145 were right for me, it would be more helpful to know that PA145 is routed along MacArthur Road, a major thoroughfare. Listing every street or feature crossed makes it tough, as I have no map nor know what these things are. If I did need to know this I'd go to maps.google.com anyways. Similarly I'd cut down on, the highway is 2 lanes undivided here, 6 lane undivided there. With that said the article has a lot of potential. I definitely know more about the Lehigh valley than I did before. I'd say less facts, more detail on the more important facts. I suspect I will receive the same feedback on my request above, as I tend to do the same =-) Davemeistermoab04:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3dm, use 3 dm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3 dm.[?]
This article already is one of the more comprehensive country articles on water supply and sanitation in the world. I would like to initiate a peer review process covering any aspect of the article to see if it could be categorized as a good article.--Mschiffler15:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous editors have worked on this page over a period of months. We hope to have this featured near the 150th anniversary of the event on September 11, 2007. Please review for the following:
Speaking only for myself, I have trouble viewing this article in a dispassionate way, as my edits are perfect. I seek the clarity of fresh eyes, and the enthusiasm of neutral reviewers. Thanks in advance. Robbie Giles13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndyZ Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 miles, use 15 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15 miles.[?]
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 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.[?]
There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
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.”
The script has spotted the following contractions: couldn't, can't, don't, hasn't, hasn't, don't, don't, doesn't, isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
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][?]
There is debate among those of us currently editing the article. I agree that this article is too long and some of the background material is too detailed. I am working to tighten the prose, but it needs major trimming after verifying that material targeted for deletion is in a companion article. Thanks for your review. --Robbie Giles13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the article is just under 60kb of prose. This is within the "may eventually need to be divided" range in the Wikipedia:Article size guideline. I've worked to shorten the background section. Now, the background, including the background on the Fanchers, is just 7 KB, which I think is quite reasonable considering the fact that the secondary sources generally devote a much higher percentage to background, and this subject matter requires a particularly-large amount of context. Since the background is short now, and already represents just about the most compressed summary of the background that I can think of, I think we should leave it intact. Splitting it further would start to cause problems with NPOV forking, since most Mormon apologetic commentators emphasize the "past persecutions" part of the background as a way of explaining the massacre, while Mormon critics emphasize the "blood of the prophets" part of the background as a way of showing how the massacre was inevitable.
I think the best candidates for sub-articles would be "Escalating tensions", "Conspiracy and massacre" and "Investigations and prosecutions". Each of these three chunks all have about the same amount of (or potential for) substantive material in them. COGDEN19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipediatoperfection review
This is an exhaustive and well sourced article. Its main contributors should be proud. It seems to be more or less NPOV. It is, however, extremely long. To put this in perspective, this article is bigger than the article on Hitler. And the article on Hitler is massive. I agree with the suggestions above to break the article into several smaller articles. Particularly the section on the Utah War which already has its own page needs to be drastically scaled back. I tend not to like the policy of shoving virtually everything to separate articles as is often done with larger articles. I think that it tends to be used to sweep the dirt under the rug. However, this article desperately need it.
You have all obviously put a great deal of work into the article. If you do some trimming I think this page deserves to be on the front page around the 150th anniversary. Wikipediatoperfection09:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this article is somewhat smaller than Adolf Hitler. When considering article size, only the readable prose is counted, and the Mountain Meadows massacre article has about 60 kB, whereas Adolf Hitler has about 72 kB. By comparison, The Lord of the Rings, Alcibiades, and Punk rock, some of the larger articles to be featured on the front page, are each about 50 kB. I'm not saying that the Mountain Meadows article shouldn't be shortened, but the size isn't quite as out-of-proportion as the raw article size would suggest. That number is inflated because of the large number of citations. I think if we reduce the size slightly to 50kB we'll be okay. COGDEN17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to get some feedback to help make a stronger article. Any suggestions would be great. This article hasn't been reviewed yet. Thanks.--Celtus05:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 foot, use 100 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 foot.[?]
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==.[?]
You have several headings beginning with "The" and one beginning with "An", the recommendation is to remove these words, i.e. "An allliance with clan Gregor" would become "Alliance with clan Gregor", etc. Also, you have an extra l in alliance! DrKiernan07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[?]
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 is claimed
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Reviewers who like mythology and folklore may find the subject interesting and give me suggestions how to make this article as good as possible. Thanks in advance. VVVladimir18:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
Done I have a question here: dates so linked in the 'accessdate' field of the 'cite web' template are shown in the double brackets on the article page; is this an error in the software? VVVladimir23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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==.[?]
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.
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
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.”
Done I kept two some's, one several, one many and two any's, which, IMHO, is not much for the size of the article. I suppose we cannot totally banish these words. VVVladimir23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
The Naruto (the series, not the character) article is well written, but it needs to be far more well written to reach either GA or FA quality. Any suggestions are welcome. The only one I have is to talk about the theme of the series: ninja; and to also desribe more about the relationships between characters. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reads a bit fannishly, and could do with a copyedit. Grand pronouncements about the series being character-driven should be cited to critics, for example. Are there any reviews etc. of the series? (or of parts of the series) You should change the "growth and popularity" section to be a "Reception" section, in which you talk about critics and fans. Take a look at the anime wikiproject's series GAs for more ideas. -Malkinann01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the name to reception, but I fear what would happen should I put that It is the world's most popular anime and manga series (and it most likely is), since it is original research. I know nothing else about reception. Also, I would like to mention how the series developed into what it currently is and the themes of the series. I've already started to here, but it is far from ready to list yet. I'll start looking over other GA anime/manga articles tomorrow, I'm going to get off soon today. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naruto is quite popular, but hardly the most popular. Dragon Ball is still the most popular Shonen Jump title of all time, while in Japan alone One Piece is the most popular of current titles (although, Naruto and Bleach are not far behind). Here's a site with Shonen Jump circulation numbers. [6]Jonny2x416:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally you need to distinguish between current popularity (which will vary according to what series are currently in production) and long term popularity where you consider how well series were received in their time, plus the longevity of that popularity. (In the latter definition, Evangelion usually seem to come out top.) Samatarou22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.”
Ironically, I was about to suggest we take the example the Bleach article gave us and list a small and basic summary of the main characters. The problem is, however, we need to judge just which characters are main or major. For example, none of the other characters match up with Sasuke or Naruto, but some of them play just as important a role as Sakura and Kakashi do, like Shikamaru. So, like Bleach, we should decide just what qualities a character should have to be main besides be a mmeber of team 7. I suggest:
Close to Naruto Uzumaki.
Must have battled both a member of Akatsuki and a named follower of Orochimaru at least once.
I've added a little to the reception section that you might like to expand upon. I'd suggest that you read through a review, and pick out what it says are the good bits and the bad bits of Naruto. Then rewrite it in your own words and use the review as a source. Here's a couple of links to get you started: meta-reviewreview -Malkinann03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done:he finished playing for Villa in 1923 so added the 
