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.
I'm curious about how it became GA with no inline citations? In order to approach FAC, the first thing you must do is thoroughly cite the article. Also, the lead will need to be 3 or 4 compelling paragraphs; sections and headings will need to conform with WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOS (there is currently something called miscellaneous which actually seems to be See also); short, choppy sections should be expanded or merged into other sections (example, National symbols, Language); and Foreign relations doesn't seem comprehensive and needs to be much longer. There are many sections that need to be more comprehensive: Culture is another. You can find some tips from other users at the bottom of WP:WIAFA. For comparison, you can have a look at Canada and Australia, but the first order of business is to expand the text and provide inline citations for everything. Sandy22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one had a peer review before which didn't receive that much feedback but during the GA nomination it was improved greatly. Now it is a GA and quite nice article overall. Now before possible FA nomination we'd like to have some reviewing. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very impressive! For FA nomination, I would focus your efforts on the lead. See WP:LEAD. This is a long article, and the lead does not adequately summarize its contents. Only two paragraphs, and one of them uses most of its words to describe alternate names for the war. In a very summarized form, I suggest answering the big questions of the article: what was the background to the conflict? The results? For example, it says "The Civil War was in many ways a major catastrophe for the Finnish nation and society" toward the end of the article. That's something the reader would want a brief explanation of in the lead. I'd suggest four paragraphs (others might say three).
Have an independent party review the prose to find improvements in sentence structure (always a good thing). I could offer some assistance, but it's probably too big an article to do it all. For example, A renewed attempt of russification began which was called "the second period of oppression 1908-1917". is awkward, and since it's in quotes, who called it that? Surely they didn't tack on a date range at the end? In general, there are a lot of date ranges in the form "during 2000-2006" which might be better written as "between 2000 and 2006".
Minor details: Full dates should be linked so date preferences can format them; years by themselves should not be linked. See WP:DATE.
The tags on Image:Civil War Prison Camp in Helsinki.gif, Image:Suojeluskunta.jpg, Image:General Strike Helsinki 1917.jpg, Image:Peasants in finland.jpg and Image:Tampere war victims 1918.jpg are obsolete and needs to be replaced.
In the section Background the line "Hence, the country was already divided many years before the Civil War" and the rest of the paragraph sounds very "essayish" in contrast to Encyclopedic (especially with the absence of an in-line cite to a source with such a summary). My recommendation would be to re-write and merge the content of that paragraph into the paragraph right above it.
I would be aware of "POV Buzzwords" like the "unfortunately" in the line "Unfortunately, the social divisions and the heritage of the old regime led to a severe power struggle between the Social Democrats and Conservatives.". Fortunately (no pun intended) these can easily be reworded or removed without radically altering the content. Similar is the "merciless" in "The battle in burning Tampere was the first "city war" in Finland, merciless fighting, the Whites advancing house by house and the Reds retreating street by street.".
Also with POV is the "assessment" of point of views being included in the article with lines like "However, this view is one-sided, an even more relevant cause being that since autumn 1917 there was no politically sound government which could use these means of control in the country."
There are a couple areas that would be served well with an in-line cite. I've added a few tags to help out.
I would work on the red links with at least stub article creation. Pertinent topics like the massacres mentioned in the section Red and White terror should have a little more context because of how much they relate and support understanding in this article.
Overall, I agree that it is a great article. I would be very aware of POV which I think will be scrutinized in FAC because of the sensitive subject matter. Agne12:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead now seems too long (I notice above it used to be too short). The first paragraph (quite long) summarizes the whole article nicely, but then the next paragraph goes into the background leading up to the war and stops, instead of succinctly summarizing whole article from background, through war, to the result. Perhaps work on that first paragraph, splitting it up into 2 or 3 paragraphs and adding to it just a tad, and cutting out the rest and merging anything it had with the main article below.
In the lead: "both as troops and weapons" is a tad confusing. Do you mean both countries contributed both of these? Also "as" should probably be "with" and should be switched around thus: "with both troops and weapons"
"The Civil War is the only conflict in the history of Finland that has caused a major dispute even on the name of the war" -- assuming this is saying that this is the only conflict to have a major dispute in naming the war? If so, perhaps re-word to "The Civil War is the only conflict in the history of Finland that has caused a major dispute with the name of the war"
"Finland had been a northwestern part of the Russian Empire since 1809, autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, led by the Russian tsar and priviliged, Finnish estates with no democratic rights for the common people" seems like it has some incomplete clauses in there.
This sentence is a little confusing "The general strike of 1905 (due to defeat of Russia in the Russian-Japanese war) did not solve the problems as the Tsar could still regain his power and withdraw the power of the new Finnish parliament, established in 1906, based on broad universal suffrage." It doesn't really establish cause and effect and seems to start saying one thing, and then finishing off with explaining the Finnish parliment. Did the strike cause the establishment of the parliment? If so, state that first, and then say how this didn't solve the problems as the Tsar could, etc., etc.
Not really sure what this sentence is trying to say: "The Russian Empire faced heavy pressure from the other European mights, the power policy resulting finally in the First World War in 1914." pressure to do what? and do you mean power struggle instead of power policy?
"Economic problems such as unemployment and lack of food increased the fewer among the Finns." "increased the fewer" doesn't make sense
"By the beginning of the year 1918, a "dual power" and "multiple sovereignty" had been formed in Finland and the Guards had become independent means of power even within their own policies" part in bold doesn't make sense to me.
"As a result, the social conditions, standard of living and self-confidence of the workers rose slowly, but consistently between 1880-1914, socialism, nationalism and liberalism as the political tools" doesn't really make sense; seems to include partial clauses
Which English spelling style is the article choosing? It seemed mostly American, so I corrected spellings with that in mind, but I also noticed a few UK spellings...
"In 1917, the Finnish people stood at the crossroads where the old regime of the estates was slowly changing to a more democratic society accepting the power of the common people also, but the direction of the development was still uncertain and became a matter of heavy political dispute and fighting" is rather awkwardly worded.
"Conservatives aimed at keeping power endangered by the new revolution in Russia" doesn't quite make sense. Do you mean "Conservatives aimed at keeping power that was endangered by the new revolution in Russia"?
"Furthermore, the Battle of Tampere was the ultimate example of a civil war with "brother rising against brother", Finn against Finn" this declaration seems a little strange, since that is the definition of a civil war
"The Germans initiated the attack on February 18 having demanded "requests for help" from the smaller countries west of Russia beforehand in order to provide an excuse" attack on whom? Russia? Might want to make that clearer.
"At the same time, a moderate non-socialist, the eventual first president of Finland, K.J. Ståhlberg, elected July 25, 1919, struggling for parliamentarism, wrote" I know what you're trying to say here, but it's an awfully long list of qualifiers before we get to what he wrote. Not sure how to rewrite that....
Also, might want to mention that the universal suffrage was not limited to men-- it was the first European country to grant suffrage to women, if I remember correctly.
Thank you --plange for the great comments and a special apology for forgetting you ladies with suffrage to women in 1906. I'm glad you noticed it, if you had not, I would be soon attacked by a female "flying detachment" of my own tribe at home :):) --Ilummeen14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Are you Finnish? I lived in Kerava for about 10 months back in the 80s :-) I was an exchange student (from America). I remember while there several things the Finns were proud of (and rightly so) about their history, and one was female suffrage, and the other was gaining their independence (and keeping it through the second world war). I thought I remembered something about soldiers on skiis but couldn't remember which war... This was an interesting read for me as I didn't realize there'd been a civil war. Moi moi! --plange15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very excellent article : links that I followed are good & layout is fantastic ! one of the first things I noticed is how that the coat of arms looks to me like it could be more of a public monument. Is this perhaps part of its history ? Dharp6619:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]
Since a couple of days, I have made a revamp of this article. It was full of misleading images and unsourced statements and very long quotes. I have put well-defined references and removed some unverified statements. Here, I would like other opinions from reviewers about this article. Any suggestions, critics, corrections and direct copy-editing are very welcome. Thanks in advance. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 12:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into the introduction, and I think it is very good (links all work, refs are good). Also, really like the birds eye view graphic. Only question from intro is “explosion sound was heard until Sumatra” - perhaps you meant in Sumatra, suggestion would be to “explosion sound could be heard in Sumatra”… ... ? just a suggestion Dharp6619:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]
Response: Thanks a lot, Dharp66. I have changed the intro as you suggested. I'm going to ask some people to help copyediting the article. — Indon (reply) — 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks great. Could the one lonely bit of trivia be incorporated into the text somewhere? User:Wayward might accept a request for copyediting if you ask him. --Peta01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Thanks, Peta. Yes, the only trivia is a bit lonely. It was put by someone. At first, (s)he put it in the main text and I put it later at the end, because I think that it is a non-notable information. I was going to remove it, but I don't want to get into an edit war with him/her. I'm going to wait for other contributors/reviewers to copyedit that information. Perhaps, I'm going to put it in the footnotes. Oh, and thanks for pointing me to Wayward. I'm going to ask him. — Indon (reply) — 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have added notable quotes at the end of the article. Could somebody please make a review of the article? Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read it. It's a cool program. I have fixed the unit of measurement, a heading started with "The", and some redudancies. The only things left, when I ran again the script, are wikilinks of months and days, and wikilinks of full dates. I don't think if I put all dates from chronological history of the eruption into wikilink, then it would be wise and makes a better readability to the article. Also that the year 1815 is repeated over the entire article and it wouldn't be good to have all wikilinked. Or am I wrong about wikilink of dates? Is this issue harmful for submitting this article to FAC? — Indon (reply) — 14:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you only wikilink dates if they are month day and year. Also, you only need to wikilink the first time something is in the article (so I would not link 1815 and even if I did, I would only link it once or at most once per section). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that what I meant. So wikinlinked only the first appearance important years (1815 and 1816), the date of the eruption 10 April 1815 and some years in the table of selected vulcanic eruptions. — Indon (reply) — 16:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me - you can link just years if they are important, of course. DIdn't mean to say otherwise above. Take care, Ruhrfisch03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about volcanos, but are inactive volcanos "extinct," as written in the first line of the 1815 section, or are they "dormant" as I've come to understand the term? --badlydrawnjefftalk12:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An "exinct" volcano is one that will never be active again, a dormant volcano is not active but could be - whether one can be sure an inactive volcano is one or the other I don't know. however I just recently changed "thought to be non-volcanic" to "thought to be extinct". (i have presumed it was known to be of volcanic origin - all mountains in the Sunda arc are) Ie, the statement has more to do with its perceived state at the time rather than its actual state (which hindsight was indeed "dormant"!). THe other point is, did the locals at the time no about a distinction between "extinct" and "dormant"? Maybe the article needs to say "for long a time dormant,..." if we can find a good reference. --Merbabu12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but to nit-pick, in technical terms, non-active volcanoes are described as either "dormant" or "extinct", depending on their state. Thus i suggested "For a long time dormant,..." lol - maybe it is not that important. --Merbabu13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it's all right to replace the word, as long as it has the same meaning. I was just to reply your remark: "if we can find a good reference". Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In section #2 History, I'd suggest that the year 1927 be referenced in the first sentence so that users don't have to click on the 7ref. Dharp6620:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]
I don't know when the company was chartered, which means I need someone in Virginia to check the laws; I only have a reference that says that it was chartered by the GA. --NE220:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most crucially, I think, the article needs to reorient its focus away from generally unencyclopedic content such as plot and character descriptions - which are all inordinately long and threaten to violate WP:NOT - and towards encyclopedic subjects such as real-world factors that have influenced the work, its reception by critics, the influence of the work on later creators and their projects, etc. The key guideline here is WP:WAF, which is highly recommended reading for anyone working on TV show articles. Of course, all the plot synopses could just as well be deleted as WP:OR, as they're unsourced. Also, per WP:TRIVIA, long trivia sections are bad practice. Sandstein22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Thanks for the information about the plot Synopsis. Most of this information can be reffered to TV Guide. I believe though then all of it should just be exported into new articles and citations added? -- TLW00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations added, certainly. I'm of the opinion - though others might disagree - that, since Wikipedia is not a TV guide, TV show plot synopses that are longer than one or two sentences are unencyclopedic and do not belong on Wikipedia at all. See WP:WAF in this regard, too.
Advice on structuring the article (it is rather unweildy with chronological organisation) and advice as to use of quotes and other structural elements would be very useful. Vanished usertalk05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead-in is very short in comparison to overall size of the article, and reworking the in-line citations will also help tremendously to make it FAC (assuming that this is your eventual target). - Mailer Diablo04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, last month might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Quite nice, but (i) I don't see the need for a list of "selected" works when there is already a separate List of W. S. Gilbert dramatic works, (ii) it is rather odd that the whole of his life is in the first section! I would promote some of the 2nd level headings to 1st level, (iii) it seems rather short - surely there is more to say, given the number of good references you have used? -- ALoan(Talk)14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed point i - the list of selected works was, in fact, everything he wrote (!), due to renaming the section but not actually replacing the contents. Point ii... I don't follow, to be honest - it only covers his life up to when he was 31 or so, which is around when he started his career as a playwright. The rest of it continues his history, with the last section covering his later life. Point iii is valid, and it could use an expansion drive - but it's a somewhat slow process as there's only three people really active in the project at moment (that I know of - it may be that there's other people in aspects I'm not as involved with - so we do what we can. Hoping that a push towards FA will pull in more editors. Vanished usertalk16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On (ii), what I meant was that pretty much the entire article is under ==Life and career== (from ===Beginnings=== to ===Later years===). On (i), the "selected" bullet-point list is, to my eyes, worse than the original full one - ones worth mentioning surely are already? But, anyway, good luck! -- ALoan(Talk)16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me your opinions on the content of the article, and any improvements I can make. If you are going to edit the article yourself, please list what change(s) you made below. Thanks very much.
This article reached the GA status about a month ago and now I'd like to know how it could be improved. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. No-Bullet20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading the Article, this is what I found that should be changed:
Per WP:DATE the only time a date should be hyperlinked is if it is one of significant importance, or if the full date is used
2 of the smallest sections are influences and discography, the Influences should talk about who influenced them, and possibly who they influenced. In a Band article, the influence section should be one of the biggest sections. see Pink Floyd for an example of this. The discography should have the album covers for all major albums, as for what qualifies major is up to you.
Consider copyediting the article. I diddn't look for spelling or grammar, but a copy edit is a good thing to do.
Consider expanding the history section into it's own article with a good couple of paragraphs that gives the reader a good understanding of the general history.
Some things to reference:
From Early years "...was sacked after passing out on stage (reportedly because someone spiked his drink)..."
From Continued Success "It was their sixth album, Highway To Hell...that propelled them into the top ranks of hard rock acts..."
Any observations on the band's success/lack of, their legacy etc. would need inline citations also. If they weren't inline cited, this'd be accused of original research (when I believe the nominator wants this as FA). LuciferMorgan17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on any improvements that should/could be made to this article to make it featured class. Also, comment on whether you think it could pass an FA nomination... Any other creative criticsm would also help! Trampikey(talk to me)(contribs)19:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article recently became a Good Article. I'm looking for feedback that would make this a featured article candidate. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there's much, if anything, that needs to be edited before going after FA nomination. The article is concise, very well-referenced, and is devoid of any fancruft. The article is currently a GA; I think it deserves A-Class status after this peer review if the future FA nomination fails. —Cliff smith02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that there's one thing that could be significantly improved—the references. There's plenty of them, but their appearance can be improved by using the notes and refs technique employed by other articles like Red vs. Blue, which is a FA. Check it out and you'll see what I mean. —Cliff smith05:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very comprehensive article, in fact, I was looking for who to thank for writing it. I guess it's just an example of the positive side of Wikipedia (collaboration). :) 67.181.63.24501:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after getting The Fray to GA status, I decided to take it upon myself to give one of my other favorite artists that same distinction. I beefed up the article with sources galore (btw, if "References" appears blank, that's a bug with the gallery tag that will hopefully be resolved soon) and some more information about his life, but prose is still my weak spot. If you have any suggestions for how to expand the article, I'll gladly listen to them as well. Basically, I need someone with great English skills to do a copyedit of the article. Thanks in advance :) Teemu0806:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking for some feedback. I've added a ton of pictures and added info about the major exhibits. I'd also be interested in any other good zoo articles on WP. The best I've found is National Zoological Park (United States).
I am familiar with the Zoo, and I like the images alot. If you're shooting for a Featured Article level, the galleries will have to be trimmed and I suggest they all be placed in Commons, if they aren't already, and linked with a {{commons|Henry Doorly Zoo}} link to a category page where all the images can be seen there. This link goes into the top of the cited references section usually. I would expand the history and especially the genetics research sections...I do know the Zoo is heavily vested in work in species preservation related to animals from Madagascar so that can be expanded. I would ditch the admission section...seems too much like advertising. The main thing the article needs, however, is to incorporate all the lists into paragraph style texts as much as possible. Don't forget to mention the efforts to get Pandas there at the zoo and convert the references into cited references using the templates from here. I'll go ahead and make sure all the images are in Commons and provide a link for you in the refs.--MONGO04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only two pics are not on commons and those were there prior to me "going to town" on it. I'll have to look into the genetics research more Ideally, I'd like to expand those species lists much further. Best case, I guess, would be a separate article List of species at the Henry Doorly Zoo with the notable species in paragraph form like you suggest. Thanks for the ideas. Cburnett05:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dug into archive.org and pulled out admission prices back to 1999. Maybe I'm weird and find that historical trend interesting. How about you? Cburnett06:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a lot of enhancements over the past 5 years that probably still make it a great value for the buck...but no doubt an almost doubling of the single person adult entrance fee in 7 years is a lot. Can we use cite.php for the references as the only way anyone can check most of them is to hit the edit this page link and cut and paste them into a new window. You have the makings of a potential FA here with some reorganization I believe.--MONGO06:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me on the cite.php bit. I can click the "[6]" next to the year and it jumps me to the references section which has the exact link I used to pull the prices from. I'm not sure where having to edit the page to copy a url to a new window is necessary... In short: I'm confused. :) Cburnett06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first ref that links me to an external link i can then go to is ref #1 in the section beginning in Scott Kingdom of the Seas Aquarium. The ones above, I click them and nothing happens.--MONGO06:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. At home I get a list of 17 references but at work I only see 5 starting with the aquarium and nothing changed between viewings so I'm apt to believe it's a wikipedia issue not a how-I-did-it issue. Open to suggestions though... Cburnett 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC) I now see all 17 at work so I dunno what's going on... Cburnett16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I replied there but the jist here: yeah, I was a bit liberal in internal linking of units and I agree that admission prices are probably for wikitravel but I changed it to a historical look at admission prices instead which I think makes it more encyclopedic (draw any trends or conclusions you wish from the data) since the 1999 price does nothing to get you in the zoo now. Cburnett06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like a list and picture gallery. The article seems to be useful for lookign up facts but the prose is so far broken apart by lists and galleries of animals as to be unreadable. Also you may want to re-check the facts "the Desert Dome's geodesic dome is also the world's largest". In fact it isn't even half as big as the worlds largest. -Ravedave(help name my baby)20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's the world's largest glazed geodesic dome according to the zoo. I have fixed it. As for prose: agreed like I've said above. Cburnett22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's at featured status yet, but Good Article quality perhaps. WikiProject Biography rates it B-class, obviously the assessment was before our changes, so GA-class isn't that much of a stretch. The issue of stability does come in here, though... it was subject to a more or less constant flood of vandalism before I semi-protected it, and of course it has, inevitably, been drastically altered recently – Gurch02:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be unpopular with my Spotlight friends... I can't see GA yet, because I'm not fond of the references list. I'm picky, I'm allowed to be here. Feel free to disagree. I want to see all cite.php based references. *nod* Other than that, go ahead. Oh, can we stuff an infobox in there? I like infoboxes...pretty... :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We considered an infobox at one point, but didn't think it would be particularly useful, so we didn't add one. But we could be wrong... if you can make one, then by all means go ahead – Gurch15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks like we have an infobox, and the Spotlight will work on those cite.php, we have all the websites in the proper format, but we don't have the books formatted yet. Give the channel a day or two! Also, I have done copyediting up to section 3 (on the voyages), I will finish copyediting in 2 days. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read the article Russian language that is a FA. I was thinking of improving this article to a similar quality, I am open for suggestions what to do. Thank you in advance. --Tone11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is uncited; the first thing it needs is inline citations. Be careful of comparisons to other FA articles, as they may no longer be currently at FA standard. Good luck, Sandy14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian language article was made FA in 2004! After a brief look I think it would fail on inline citations if nominated in 2006. With your Slovenian one you should cite more diligently if you want it to be FA. (Some random suggestions follow.)
It seems that there are a lot of sections that are stubs that reference other articles, you should expand those.
The map of distribution is not perfectly clear - the scale is too large and it is colour coded in 3 shades of green but with no explanation. Perhaps you should make the map smaller scale and explain the colour coding.
The last paragraph says: "Examples of the language in use are given at every topic in the Slovenian grammar article" - you should avoid referring to other articles so directly, instead give some examples and maybe do a {{seealso}}.--Konst.able06:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the content is bad so much as extremely lopsided. There's way too much poorly sourced or unsourced nutritional stuff and not enough about antioxidants in cell biology (but I'm sure you knew that already). Most of what's currently in the "nutritional antioxidants" section should probably be devolved to the corresponding list and cleaned out of the main article, and the lead should correspondingly be fixed so it doesn't spend twice as much time on nutrition as on anything else. The current biology section should be expanded so that the individual examples can sustain their own separate paragraphs/sections. Also, currently the nonbiological roles of antioxidants are not well covered. Opabinia regalis00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second ORs comments. Pictures to show how they work in the cell would be a good addition, mabye someone could make a diagram like this. --Peta01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since the last peer review, the article has undergone a little change since then, I've added one image (still yet to trawl through the photos taken this year to see if there's anything usable), and I'd like to see this article moved as close to Good Article (at least) as possible. Besides the lack of images, the only main concern was a lack of pages linking in, and unfortunately without spamming I'm not sure how many articles I could validly add a link in.
In particular, I'd like to know which GA criterion the article currently passes, and which it fails (I appreciate that there's a lack of reliable sources, although I wouldn't mind being told where I might look for more). Confusing Manifestation01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make Way For Ducklings is a children's book set in Boston, Massachusetts. As little as a month ago, the article looked like this. With a little bit of research, ample information was found about the book, its sales, its history, and critical and cultural reaction. I believe this article would make a great FA, but of course, I would love a peer review. A review is especially important, as there are not currently any featured articles on children's books. Thank you so much for taking the time! — Scm83xhook 'em20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the use of page breaks in the book needs references. I added one {{fact}} tag for one statement, but probably another 2-3 are needed besides that one. Good work with this article though -- that a children's book article even has a section on such a technical aspect of literary criticism is great. -Fsotrain0921:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section is from one source, which is cited at the bottom of the section. I will add another ref in the top paragraph to make it more explicit. — Scm83xhook 'em21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very, very good, and I'll be glad to pay close attention and pitch in to help with any featured issues it might have in the future. A few suggestions:
For sales, perhaps some approximate sales numbers would be more useful than Amazon/B&N ones that change daily, if not more. I'll see what I can track down for you on it, but if you beat me to it, that might be useful.
I'm not confused by them, but to kind of tag along with the thought above, the footnote style is a little odd if you're not expecting it. I'm not sure how to fix it, but while you're properly sourcing whole sections, some people might not understand it.
Thanks very much for the input. I've used that sourcing style in the past with no issues in all of my previous featured articles, so I don't think this should be an issue. I certainly agree that hard sales numbers would be better, but given that the book has been around for so long and its genre, actual dollar figures don't seem to exist. I figured B&N and Amazon were the next best thing. Thanks so much for the input, and I appreciate your offer of further aid. — Scm83xhook 'em21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you've had no further issues, then I don't see it as a roadblock. I'm used to political articles in that regard, honestly. As for sales figures, I bet we could probably get an approximate idea of how many printings, what edition it's in, and some approximate sales figures as opposed to an actual dollar value. I'll see what I can do and replace it if I find anything. --badlydrawnjefftalk23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Silent Hill film page has been GA for a few months now. The editors all did a great job and I'm looking to push its quality up higher, possibly to a higher rating or FA. I'm looking for any and all feedback and comments regarding the article.
Hi. Someone nominated this to be a featured article, but I don't think it's ready yet. However, I think with some more work, it can get there. This is a band with a long history who should have a good article to represent them.
From what I can tell, the intro paragraph needs some fleshing out, and I have some ideas as to how to do that, although any takers would be great. The biggest problem is that the article lacks references. Where can we get them besides BR fan sites? I don't think that they're any more reliable than anything else out there, so anyone with previous experience working on another band's wikipedia page would be most helpful. I'm going to start looking, but if I find something that's deemed unworthy, it'll be an exercise in frustration.
I reshaped the Influence and Tributes section out of a cluster of small paragraphs, but now I'm not sure if people will balk at it because it's so "listy".
There needs to be stuff on who influenced them as well as who they influenced. On the dvd jay bentley cites Adolescents as an influence anyone know of any others?86.138.164.20710:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually found an article this morning quoting Bentley about the Adolescents, as well as other influences. :) m13b14:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. Took a shot at it. Kinda wish I had more references though, I hate reusing that same page. Then again, it is an excellent article, so I really shouldn't complain. m13b18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken but it appears that the article will require a complete rewrite. The intro gives the impression that the article is about the character. If this is what is intended, then the storyline and gameplay sections are overly detailed, and should only be found in detail in the article about the indivdual games. There also should be a section on the creation and developement of the character, as well as critical reaction to the character. There need to be a lot more references with inline citations, outside sources required for the critical reaction and the creation. Make sure the characterists section about Ecco follow the guidelines at WP:WAF. Jay3218319:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will look for some more photos and expand the earlier part of his life. Concerning bias, the sources on him tend to paint him as either a saint who saved the WCG or a demon who brought down the WCG. I tried to keep the article down the middle course. If you see a bias somewhere, please let me know where and I will try to fix it. Is it the part concerning his legacy (the message there is pretty negative)? RelHistBuff08:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the section that caught my eye as being negative. Maybe there is a different section title that could be used, or in some way, could the positive aspects (if any) be presented first?
I added two more photos and more details on his early life, in particular his family's interest in the WCG and his conversion. As for the final section, detailling the collapse of the church would at first appear to be a negative assessment of Tkach to most people's eyes. But interestingly, the details of the collapse are from sources that are supporters of Tkach. I have tried to show this dichotomy of views on the collapse so that this section will be appear more neutral. RelHistBuff11:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the renaming and rewording of the last section. IMHO is is balanced. Is there a way to add a graph of church membership by year, or church income? I think may add to the article. For the lead photo at the top, is a color photo available? I'll try to think of a few other ideas that would help get the article to FA. It looks well researched. Mfields121:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a color photo which is taken from the same source as the b&w one in the lead section. Unfortunately, the resolution isn't very good so I think it's better to stay with the b&w one for the moment at least until I can find a better one in color.
I have taken a look at the sources for data in order to make a chart. Unfortunately membership data is inconsistent. For example, concerning membership, sometimes the numbers refer to US membership, sometimes to worldwide membership, and sometimes it is unclear. The revenue numbers are better though as the articles refer to audited financial reports. I have uploaded a chart, but unfortunately the data for 1995 is missing (due to late publication). However, one can easily see the fall starting from 1990 and continuing through 1997. RelHistBuff15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove some of the duplicate wiki-links for items like "Herbert W. Armstrong" and "Worldwide Church of God". They really only need to be wiki-linked on their first appearance in the article.
A pronunciation guide to the last name Tkach would be helpful.
A link or wiki-source to the full text of the Christmas Eve Sermon would be a plus.
Considering the importance of the doctrinal changes implemented by Tkach, it seems like the section Changes brought by Joseph Tkach should be expanded with more details. A couple questions that crossed my mind was if these changes were made unilateral or did Tkach consult the elders, conduct a study, etc? In particular, I'm curious about details of what maybe provoke these changes. A somewhat related question on the section title, instead of listing these as "changes" wouldn't "Reforms" better describe them?
Overall I think this is an excellent article on a difficult subject. I think with more details to flesh out the subject it could be well on its way to FA status. Agne11:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I implemented the first two. For the third, the link was there already in a footnote at the end of the paragraph, but it could be easily missed, so I footnoted it directly on the first reference to the Christmas Eve Sermon. As for the fourth, I will expand it over the next day or two. RelHistBuff12:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I didn't realize that link was to the full text. It just appeared to be an excerpt. Thanks for clarifying. Agne12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an explanation of what triggered the reforms and some details of the decision-making process. The feedback has definitely helped to improve the article and I am open to more suggestions and criticisms. RelHistBuff10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found some covers, but unfortunately they aren't really relevant to Tkach (most are on prophecy and current events). More improvements in the article have been made recently. Additional suggestions on how to get this to FA are welcome. RelHistBuff10:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said in a previous PR, Big Brother Australia articles don't get as much attention as other Big Brother articles, so any opinions or suggestions would be much appreciated. jd || talk || 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is a decent bodied article, that now needs a review to perhaps check on its writing style and what further information could be given. Is it possible for it to reach featured status (i.e. how close is it and is the subject notable enough to have enough relevant info?) --Robdurbar08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts on what I'd personally like to see in the article
First of all the article needs a spell check, I corrected a few errors in the opening paragraph and there are more throughout.
I also didn't like some of the use of commas. Some of the sentences/clauses come across as very clunky.
In the 1st paragraph is it correct to say that University College is in the Castle when not all of its buildings actually are?
Comparison of this college with the other Durham colleges (academic & sporting maybe?)
More/better pictures of inside the college buildings
A map/plan showing where the castle and other buildings are in Durham in relation to the other colleges
Explanation of the origin of the crest and motto
'Formal' in the picture caption needs replacing with 'Formal Meal'
Can there be more about what makes this college different from any other one, maybe college clubs, sports teams etc.?
The part about the buildings could be expanded, maybe taking some info from the Castle article. Is the inside mostly still castely or has it mainly been converted to look like more modern buildings?
Thank's for that. I've given it a thorough spell check and addressed one or two of the other issues bought up. I think it's fair to say that it is located 'in' the Castle - that's where its offices and reception are, for example - but I've clarified in the intro anyway.
The grammar/structure could probably do with going over; I tend to overuse commas/semi-colons and as I have written the vast majority of the text, it will have suffered from a lack of proof-reading etc. from other editors.
Listing nomination nominator didn't complete fully, and notifying him. I think, generally, any comments would be appreciated. How the article could be improved, or if there is something that might need explaining in simpler terms. – Chacor04:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Is there anything missing that needs to be covered? Is everything described in enough detail? Is there enough wikification? Thegreatdr07:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At points, the text needs a bit of clarification. For example, in the Warm waters, instability, and mid-level moisture section, it talks about "Average ambient atmospheric conditions" A description of what is "average" would be beneficial to the non-expert reader. On the Coriolis force section, it talks about "gradient wind balance" - while I get the idea of what the article is saying, a reader not familiar with the text won't grasp it. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to read the rest of the article as it stands, as I haven't had the time, but that's what I've seen so far. Titoxd(?!?)03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've accounted for the wind forces mentioned in the article, which should be stated simply enough to be understood. I also introduced a couple "Main article" lines to lead the reader to the wikipedia article which has a more in depth explanation. Will have to do more searching for average atmospheric conditions aloft...all I could find initially was tropical tropopause temperature. We really need the average 500 mb/hPa temperature for this article, or a tropical sounding profile. Thegreatdr04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the opposite was needed. The tropical cyclone article was in error by saying tropical waves are the main focus for tropical cyclogenesis. Tropical waves are only important in Atlantic and some northeast Pacific tropical cyclogenesis, according to the references found in this article. Tropical waves forming from Africa are not known to survive very far into the central Pacific, let alone the western Pacific ocean. The articles should now be more similar. Thegreatdr19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changes have been made to remove the title of the article from section headers, correct the one case where the reference at the end of the sentence was not immediately after a period, and removing the articles "a" and "the" from the lead of the headers. Also, the citation needed for Vamei was added. Thegreatdr14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Ziff Davis article has been on clean-up for about a year, and they are a pretty big company in the internet technology news field. I've tried to make some improvements in the past hour or so, and I'd like tips on how my fellow editors and I can improve it further. - CaptainAmerica02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall more graphics that are not so busy, at the top of the article. You might have to look for better cover examples with different colors. They don't look good.
The article could benefit from some additional sources (non web-based).
The article leaves me wondering, what did Ziff Davis do from 1927 until 1938? That's a big gap. Then it seems a large gap exists until 1952. In the history section, it is subtitled 'Fiction and Hobbyist Magazines" but the last paragraph discusses broadcasting. Maybe that should be a separate subheading? If the company has split into two or more divisions (e.g. publishing and web-based) maybe there's a way to show this differently. It might be possible to discuss the changes by decades. Mfields101:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: [1] 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.
archived discussion
I'm trying to get the article featured. I'm going to fix all {{fact}}'s, and copyedit any sloppy sections. What is the article missing? What needs to go? Are there any stubbish sections to address? Thanks. -- Selmo(talk)19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving this article an overhaul (yes, I know that this article contains many full stops after footnotes, but I am taking this one step at a time) but am having trouble figuring out the right balance between "in-universe" and "out-universe" description. Would appreciate links to any GA or FA level articles on fictional creatures for inspiration. Thank you. Serendipodous12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great article. What I would like to see is a shot of the 6 cars waiting in grid position before the start of the race. Is it possible? CG19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of points - consistency is required. Is it pitstops or pit stops? (pit stops is what's been recommended) Some of the prose needs working on "At the banked Turn 13, the entrance to the pit lane (and the turn that is the centre of the controversy), all teams that ran Michelin tyres returned to their pits, leaving just six cars to take the grid for the start of the race, from Ferrari, Jordan, and Minardi." isn't clear for example. In the lead: "The race proved to be a highly controversial monumental disaster because only six cars competed;" needs to be worked on as well. Suggest one adjective is used and if controversial be backed up with a source (should be plenty available). I'm not sure this is clear either: "Out of all of the main stations who broadcasted the grand prix, only ITV decided to screen the race and at the end of broadcast, the channel's anchorman Jim Rosenthal apologised for what viewers saw." Firstly what is a main station and also the grand prix is the race in many people's minds so the sentence doesn't make sense. All terms such as pit lane need to be wikilinked at their first occurance and some wikilinks need to be removed (there are two for Charlie Whiting, only the first occurance should be wikilinked). Finally a point to bear in mind - for an article to meet FA standards, it will need to be understood by people who don't follow F1. All technical terms must be wikilinked or explained properly. Finally a copyedit once all changes have been made to catch all those little mistakes will be needed. Hope that'll help you improve the article. Alexj200208:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grouping these togther because they are all very similar in format and content, and so any comment which applies to one almost certainly applies to them all. Their peer-review sub-pages should re-direct here. I'm seeking general comments and sugegstions for improvements, in particular answers to questions like:
Could / should there be more prose to accompany the list, or wuld this full outside the scope of the article?
Is there any related information that is worth including on the page?
Each list has a graph of seats per party for each election.
Should this be full-size (like in the SK list) or a thumbnail (like in the others)?
Should the bars indicate number of seats won (so the overall height varies according to the number of seats in the leglisaltive body, like this), or should they indicate the proportion of seats won (so the overall height is constant, like this)?
Should the lists have most recent or oldest results at the top?
Given most of the points are the same, I shall reply by point raised:
Infobox: Nope, none exsist
Length/comprehensiveness: As they are lists, relevant criteria are at WP:WIAFL... "the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set" - which is the case for all except the Manitoba one (which lacks only 19th century details). So, the Manitoba list needs completeing.
Footnotes/references: Added a specific references section, depsite there being only one reference used/needed. (Namely, the provinical election authorities)
Copyediting: I would say the prose in the lists is well-written, but it is hard to judge ones own writing. I would welcome someone elses comments on this one.
Length of lead paragraph: Oddly, AB and MB have this, but not BC or SK. I personally feel that the lead paragraph is of an apropriate length.
Section ordering: made sure "references" section was after "see also".
I would wait until the event gets going or even finished for expansion. A current event will definetely bring on alot of constant edits and also I'm sure nothing is yet available except possibly notable predictions about the final outcome. Once the event is finished you would want the reader to know: scores obviously and who, when and where, media coverage, public reception, anything special that happened during this event, any controversies. All I can think of right now, good luck. - Tutmosis13:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing is, what is it about? The article name doesn't tell you, and the first paragraph mentions "Rockerball" but it isn't linked - is this a sport, a game, the sponsor? The first thing to do would be to explain what the event is (ie. what game/sport, what league, what division). Is it a major event that even necessitates an article for each season? In it's present state it may be nominated for deletion. -- Chuq04:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New article, still draft status. Please review grammar and spelling, as well as style and make any necessary corrections. If possible, organize text into sections properly, as the article is still somewhat unorganized. Also, please add any information as well as references you have. (Patrick00:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Do a grammar check. First sentence in the lead has subject/verb disagreement for example ("A and B has not existed..."). -Amatulic22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to get this ready to be featured article on Oct. 23, the anniversary of the revolution. We've made progress but would appreciate any comments and suggestions for how to make it even better. Thanks! K. Lastochka16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice start:
I don't like the dates in the section headings: any way to change that?
Further reading - make it alphabetical.
Expand all footnotes to full bibliographic entry: example, "US State Department Commemorates the 1956 Hungarian Revolution" is one big blue link.
Current ref # 11 is missing.
Referencing is uneven: there are still large chunks of text with no inline citations.
I'll look at prose in the morning: haven't yet read the article, but wanted to give you that to start on. Don't get your hopes up for a certain date on FA: it rarely happens, and you're cutting it really close :-)) Sandy02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New section headings are much better. Looking now at some of the prose:
"The Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a spontaneous revolt from 23 October to 10 November, began as a student demonstration which quickly attracted thousands of eager participants." Spontaneous revolt against what or whom should be spelled out, right there. "Eager" sounds like editorializing.
"This crowd swelled as they walked across the Danube to the Parliament building. A handful of demonstrators who attempted to air their demands by radio were arrested." Ugh - this is mundane, and not very compelling detail, rather than the summary of the entire article that is supposed to be in the lead. If this is how the prose is in the lead, it's going to need a lot of polishing.
"As protesters called for their release, members of the State Police (ÁVH) shot into the unarmed crowd. At that point, the population rose against the dictatorship and State Police (ÁVH)." At that very point, the entire population rose up? The lead needs some work on brilliant and compelling.
Does this paragraph intend to be saying something along the lines of: "The Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a spontaneous revolt from 23 October to 10 November, began as a student demonstration against censorship, economic stagnation, and poor working conditions under the communist dictatorship installed in Hungary after World War II. The student protest progressed quickly to a general uprising against the Hungarian dictatorship and State Police (ÁVH) after members of the State Police arrested demonstrators and shot into the unarmed crowd."
Skipping further into the article to look at the prose:
The State Protection Authority (ÁVH)
Above, the reader is told that AVH is the State Police. Don't confuse people who don't know anything about this subject material (like me :-) Which is it?
addressed, its all "state police" now - this is the clearest reference, as the literal Hungarian translation is muddled, ambiguous, and changed in 1950 anyway. Istvan06:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire paragraph from which I took that snippet (in Repression and Decline) is unreferenced. "Thousands of Hungarians were arrested, tortured, tried, and imprisoned in concentration camps or were executed (ironically among them ÁVH founder László Rajk)." Why is the founder a parenthetical, ironic insert? Should be better worded.
"At this point, the crowd swelled to at least 100,000 and had no clear leader."
This an example of numerous statements throughout that should be sourced.
This sentence doesn't have a constant tense - it switches several times, and I don't know how to sort it out: "The written demands of the demonstrators were at first relatively peaceful: requesting that reformist Imre Nagy return as Prime Minister, a national policy independent of the Soviet Union, greater pluralism in political life, ending forced collectivisation, free elections, and that factories be run by workers and specialists instead of bureaucrats.
Skipping further down (to another uncited paragraph):
At the Melbourne Olympics, the Soviet handling of the Hungarian uprising led to a boycott by Spain, the Netherlands and Switzerland. A confrontation between Soviet and Hungarian teams occurred in the semi-final game ("the Blood In The Water match") of the water polo tournament; the play was extremely violent. The match was called off in the final minute to quell fighting amongst spectators. Some members of the Hungarian Olympic delegation defected after the games. The match became the subject of a Quentin Tarantino documentary called Freedom's Fury.
Spain, the Netherlands and Switzerland boycotted the Melbourne Olympics over the Soviet handling of the uprising. The semi-finals of the water polo tournament pitted the Soviets against Hungary, in what became known as "the Blood In The Water match" and was the subject of a Quentin Tarantino documentary, Freedom's Fury. Play was extremely violent, and the match was called off in the final minute to quell fighting among spectators. Some members of the Hungarian Olympic delegation defected after the games.[citation needed]
If you all are seriously aiming for featured status by October 23rd, you will need to quickly source every statement in the article, and an independent copyedit by someone who knows the territory, but is a new and fresh set of eyes, is needed. Possibly someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history can help copy edit the article once it is thoroughly cited. I'm not a great copy editor, but am adding comments here because Paul asked me to help, and I can see some prose polishing will be in order after the article is referenced. Sandy01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you all understand that my examples above were only examples, suggestive of changes needed throughout the text. Sandy20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from being rated A-class for WP:V0.5 this article hasn't received any reviews at all it seems. I think it is fairly decent but it would be beneficial to see what non-Aucklanders think of it.--Konst.able12:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that statement since I couldn't readily find a source for it. The funding options for that motorway can be better explained in the Transport in Auckland article than in the general article.-gadfium22:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the suggestion about examining the list guidelines is primarily directed at the Auckland#Attractions_and_landmarks section. This section has previously been split off into its own article but an Afd recommended re-merging it. Would it be better merged into the Leisure section as text?-gadfium22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the contents of the "Attractions and landmarks" into the rest of the article, mostly into "Leisure" and "Sports" sections.-gadfium01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in my comment on gadfiums discussion page, I disagree with that move. I think that section was way more than 'just a list'. It was well written, succinct info collected under a good theme '(physical) landmarks and attractions'. MadMaxDog04:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted on the talk page more care needs to be taken in differenciating between Auckland City (which has a different page) and this Auckland region - facts that are about "Auckland City" (eg crime rates) need to be replaced with figures for the region instead.
More references needed.
I found some compound sentences a bit strained and had to re-read them to make sense (eg second paragraph of Growth of Auckland), --AGoon02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few more inline page citations would be nice. If it's not a hassle, try converting to <ref> tags, as with the current system in the article, I can't click the reference number in the main article to read the reference body in the reference section. CloudNine18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking for. More citations would always be nice, but all existing citations are already in <ref> format. I've added <ref name=subject> to those that didn't have names.-gadfium04:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, my bad. I just saw the superscript 1 by the population fact (in the infobox) and immediately assumed you were using an old system :) CloudNine11:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than allow more edit warring, AND as I'm still learning, I'm asking for feedback and help in the recent edits. I understand I may be in error on my efforts, but I think I've made factual and proper good faith edits. I seem to have a problem with this user (WLU) owning every page she edits. Which may well be fine, but in asking several people on the IRC channel as well as a few Admin’s I was referred to this format to best deal with a "page owner".
I'm seeking input that will help me be a better editor and to better understand the proper protocols and policies.
Thanx --Mystar04:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mystar has made incorrect edits, which I have corrected and provided justification for in the talk pages. I have pointed out where Mystar was incorrect and provided references and quotations to back up my edits. Mystar does not seem to read the actual links, which is why I have moved from just the link, to the actual quotations I am using to support my changes. I do not own the pages I edit, many people have edited pages I have altered as well. WLU13:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the instructions (above): "Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment." Sandy00:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to follow proper protocols and procedure. I would like some additional outside input.
I feel the edits were of good quality and well made, as well as factually and accurately stated. I eliminated information of no relevance "Iliana", and added content that speak to the encyclopedic nature of the plant as well as that of Wikipedia policy. I know a great deal abou tthis plant as I haev taken it for a long time and done a grate deal of reasearch on it and other simalar plants with healing powers.
Understand I'm still very new at this and have been in an edit war with this user. I wish to separate any conflict and improve my editing skills and knowledge. A user did weigh in with his thoughts, but as WLU seems to own each and every pages she edits it made no difference at all.
The Cat's Claw is classified as a liana, a woody vine. Mystar added plagiarised information which I removed and replaced with a more generalized geographic category, which I justified in the talk page. He does not seem to have done any research. He reverted edits in which I had added a scientific, peer-reviewed article, specifically a review article. WLU13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the instructions above, "Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment." Sandy00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, we should probably hold off on seeking GA/FA until the season 5 DVD comes out. Perhaps Rooster Teeth will have some out-of-universe commentary on this. We need to find out who the voice actors for Delta and York are. Other than that:
We should probably follow the convention of recent video game FAs, in which Synopsis is divded into "Setting and characters" and "Plot" subsections.
It seems that we might be assuming a little too much background knowledge about the main Red vs. Blue series. More context would help to make this a better standalone article.
Screenshot(s) of the main characters would be good.
I agree with TKD. However, I don't see why we couldn't move for just GA after this peer review. More information that will probably be on the season 5 DVD set can be added after its release, and then we can go for FA.
Also, OoM is currently listed as Start-class; I think it should be B-class since it doesn't need substantial editing, though screenshots and voice credits are considerable elements that are yet to be added. —Cliff smith17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, excellent points, especially about third-party sources. I've found a couple: [2], [3]. Not much, but then again the mini-series has only been finished for a couple of months. Depending on how many more sources come in, it may be better to disperse the content here to the other Red vs. Blue articles. But a wait-and-see approach is probably best for now, especially since the mini-series was really meant as an interlude into season 5, which is still in progress. — TKD::Talk06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main area I imagine this article needs work on is the general prose of the career sections. If there's a paragraph link or a sentence which doesn't flow very well, please let me know which one. I've worked on and re-read the article so many times, it has lost virtually all meaning to me. I think that some fresh eyes could really improve it. If there's anything else which a biography/football article normally has, and this one is missing, please let me know what that is.
In general, I'd love as much criticism as possible on this article; I am willing to spend however long it takes to make it an absolute top-notch article. So please be ruthless, this is a chance to be as critical as you possibly can without worrying about offending the article's author in the slightest. I want to improve anything which would stop this article reaching FA status. Thanks, GilbertoSilvaFan13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
Rather than saying 'he played over 160 games and scored over 10 goals' why not just say the exact number of games and goals.
I'd replace 'make ends meet' with something less colloquial and generally rewrite this sentence, maybe merging it with the previous one.
'Water carrier' needs linking or explaining also the 'cement' sentence reads oddly - could you use 'establish' or something else instead.
If the information is available it would be good to know why having thought that he would never play football again he managed to make such a quick (and presumably full) recovery.
The 1st reference that I checked [28] does not support the sentence that you have put it against - 'whereas critics of Gilberto usually prefer attacking midfielders to defensive midfielders'. All this reference shows is that one person who doesn't like Gilberto does like Juninho more. The earlier part of the sentence needs a reference too.
'While the case was never going to have negative repurcussions for Gilberto' - why not? implications of dodginess in transfer dealings could potentially have negative repercussions on a player.
'As Arsenal and Brazil are both notoriously attack minded' - citation for this? Arsenal at the moment are probably most notorious for passing well and trying to walk the ball into the net, not for a particularly gung-ho attacking mentality.
'Gilberto is considered a useful tool in the defending of long-ball oppositions.' - this is not good english and could do with a citation (unless 42 applies to this too)
Overall it is a good article but I'd be very tempted to check all the references really support the things they are next to, change the style so it is less less personal, more encyclopedic i.e. all the 'this was good, this was a disaster' stuff and try to get some references that are books not just websites. JMiall18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JMiall, thanks for all your comments. It's going to take me some time to address all your suggestions - so I'll get started straight away. The only thing I'm uncertain of now is this: how many book references do you think are needed in an article of this size? At the moment there are only two, but I'm pretty sure this isn't enough (especially as there are over forty web references). Guidelines which I've read have only ever said "include print references" - but never how many. What do you think?
Anyway - just that question for now. I'm sure that once I've implemented your suggestions, the article will be much better; so thank you!
I don't know how many you should put in, if you look at a lot of the other featured articles & candidates for youngish people then a lot of them actually have very few print references. In general though I'd suggest that most sport books are probably better researched than the average newspaper/website sports article which often seem to have a lot of speculation.
For someone who plays for Arsenal I'd suggest that there should be quite a lot of books around that you could look at. Arsene Wenger must have a biography or 2, Ashley Cole has one out at the moment, probably some more of the current or recent Arsenal players will have them too. There must also be yearbooks about recent Arsenal seasons. Any of these could be good sources for Gilberto Silva info. Try your local library! JMiall23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to the peer reviewers: I've completed most of JMiall's suggestions - all that's left to do from his comments now is to make the article less 'sensationalist'. It's a difficult balance to try and write like I know Gilberto and yet try not to sound like I'm his fan. Also, I'm going to find some more book references by looking through a few Arsenal books for info. -GilbertoSilvaFan11:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Ruhrfisch. I've gone through the suggestions the bot made, and ticked all the points which were flagged. If anyone wishes to see the ticked list, it's here. Some suggestions still come up when the article is automatically reviewed, but that's just the bot being crazy. Anyway; thanks! -GilbertoSilvaFan23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC) PS. good job with all those automated peer reviews, it gives a lot of good suggestions.[reply]
You are welcome and thanks for the kind words - I found it very helpful when I went through peer review and since AndyZ is on wikibreak, thought I would try to help out. Take care, Ruhrfisch00:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has just been upgraded from stub class to B class with comment that more work needs to be done (Not bad for a days work on the part of mainly user:Thegreatdr, and also myself to a lesser extent). It seems silly now to not try to make it that much better, and so essentially, a general review of what needs to be done in the article to get it further upgraded is all that's being requested here. --Crimsone12:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article assumes a lot from the reader. It assumes the reader has all the background and just looking to get some random facts. The first sentence doesn't even explain what this is, it just says its the same thing as "baroclinic systems" (what ever that is...), what its usually nicknamed by the scientific community and that the public calls it "depressions". But I still have no clue what the hell this article except its about cyclones. If I recently learned english and didnt know what "cyclone" is commonly referred to, Ill be completely lost (well not lost but loose interest because the lead is suppose to draw me in). So in conclusion what is "Extratropical"? Moving on, any way "Characteristics" can be converted into paragraph form versus bullets? The first paragraph of "Formation" section reads like a novel. Instead of "In the begginning this happens..." approach I would take the "Common conditions for the formation of Extratropical cyclone are..." approach. "Cyclone models" seems a bit short with stubby paragraphs, any possibility of expansion? "developed around 1990" was that written in a published source or were you just going off memory there? Any region of the world they tend to form at most? notable storms? Anyway, Good luck with the article and hope to see it at fac soon. - Tutmosis23:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind comments! Many of your suggestions were taken on board For instance, the opening summary paragraph has now been heavily edited. The Formation section has been split into two subsections, however, as extratropical cyclones are everyday phenomena making up part of the ebb and flow of the planets weather, the "in the beginning" element of the (now) sub-section seems most appropriate for the subject.
The Charateristics section was converted from paragraph form to a bulletpoint list purely because it lists a number of different characteristics in quite some depth (for the reasonable space available to each point). A "Structure" section was added to better explain what these cyclones are in atmospheric terms.
The Cyclone Models section has been renamed (and subsectioned) to "Cyclone structure and evolution" The paragraphs on each subsection are still a little stubby, but without getting overly technical for the unknowing reader, I doubt much more can be said - Ideally each model should have its own article (or maybe one Cyclone models article). There is still some sourcing to be done on these subsections though.
Being as they are part and parcel of everyday weather and nothing particularly special or spectacular in their own right/as a whole, they pretty much form anywhere in the central lattitudes of the northern and southern hemispheres of the planet (which is now mentioned in the article), and so I'm not sure that a "Notable storms" section would be entirely appropriate, as storms can form as part of an extratropical cyclone, but such depressions are seldom ever called "Extratropical storms" (which might be an entirely different subject anyway). The article is still being worked on though, and so I'm wondering what you think of it now, and if anybody else has any further suggestions? --Crimsone10:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking much better. I have a couple request for the lead; can the lead mention average speed, which parts of the world they occur in, How long they usually last (is that even in the article?), usual effects on surrounding area. Thanks. - Tutmosis14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article already mentions the location (within 30 to 60 degrees lattitude of the equator), and I'm afraid it really can't get any more specific, being a run of the mill global phenomenon tha occurs pretty much everywhere within the given area. How long they last is not yet in the article - though it would be hard to define as they can last anywhere between a day or two and months (at either extremes of the spectrum). It really depends on the environmental conditions they are steered into. In theory, they could last almost forever in the right conditions (which obviously aren't lightly to occur). The life of an extratropical cyclone depends on what happens both within and around it.
The usual effects of a cyclone likely to be seen by your average person are pretty much precipitation, cloudiness, and sometimes notable wind (ie, a breeze or more). Basically, any weather other than sunshine is most usually down to an extratropical cyclone.
Adding any of the above will take some thinking about (from me at least!). Some of it is already said (as above) as best as it really can be without the article starting to sound pedantic. Some of your other sugestions may be able to be fitted in though. --Crimsone15:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. Well I guess my suggestions have reach the end of the line. Too bad there doesn't seem to be people familiar with the subject to comment since I can only point out things from a view point of a ignorant reader. - Tutmosis16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lot's and lots of further work has been done, and there's still some to do :) Thanks to Tutmosis, for the suggestions, most of which have been followed up, and any more comments would be welcome from anybody :) --Crimsone17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"History of Editions" reads somewhat like a list and could probably flow better -- but that's a fairly vague criticism.
You might want to rework the treatment of systemic bias; the language as it's written now is wishy-washy. Instead of using terms like "seems" and "presumably", I would mention the critic by name -- "Kister identifies a systemic bias..." or something. (Unless it's original research, in which case it should be removed.)
"Staff" contains another "presumably".
Whether Britannica does or does not contain an entry on Wikipedia seems irrelevant, especially under the "Competition" section.
I would like to get this article up to Featured Article status by the end of the year. I know references and such will be needed soon, but I'm more interested in obtaining feedback on how the article might be improved in terms of things like clarity, layout, consistency, WP:MOS, etc. Feedback (positive or negative) appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove "This would come back to haunt DuMont later." doesnt seem encyclopedic, leave foreshadowing for fiction novels.
Words you use I do not understand: "signed on" and "signed off", "hookups", "experimental" when referring to a station, "station-to-station link", "sign on", "coaxial cable", "radio network", "five-station cap", "go dark", "distressed" when referring to a station, "call letters". Search for these using CTRL + F
I suppose most of those should receive wikilinks. They're common terminology in "broadcast speak"; I'm glad you were able to point out areas that wouldn't seem clear to the "average" reader. I will certainly try to provide better explanations for their meaning, either in the article or by wikilinking.
Added {{fact}} templates, please replace with footnotes.
I will certainly do so.
"received a network license" what is a network license, and who gives them out? experimental stations dont need a license?
The FCC awards licences, but only awarded three for DuMont, five for each of the other networks. Part of this article tries to explain why this helped lead to the company's downfall, so it's really, really important.
Why through out the article is CBS and NBC constantly mentioned as comparison? Seems kind of pov to point thing out so much about whose better/faster/richer than who when?
I'll try to remove any POV, but it's not point of view to state NBC and CBS were companies with deep pockets: that's a fact. DuMont had no money, which, again, led to the end of the company.
"DuMont was an innovative and creative network" How?
The very next sentence explains how: "DuMont programmers had to rely on their wits and on connections in Broadway to provide original programs still remembered [today]."
"DuMont also holds another important place in American television history." again not encyclopedic but essay-like.
Some words that start a sentence bring down the encyclopedic tone: Instead, before then, Nevertheless, Also, In any case, etc.
I dont like when facts are crammed into brakets = " (including a fully-functioning theater)" please make them part of the sentence.
Easily done, thanks for pointing that out.
"Among some of DuMont's better-remembered programs:" Better remembered by who?
By the few people who remember the network at all.
Whats "Big Town"? no description for that program.
Will fix.
"so their programs got clearance only if the primary network" clearence for what? dont each network have its own channel?
No. As the article states, there weren't enough TV stations for four networks. In these earliest days of US television, the four networks had to compete for air time on local channels: whoever had the best-looking shows, and whoever had the most money to throw around, got the most air time. Most cities only had two or three television stations, which is why it's so important to note the wealth of NBC and CBS (see above).
The section titles seem very essay-like. Also i would put Programming, Halted at the start, The end in a "History" section. I would Put "Halted at the start" first. I would rename "Halted at the start" to "Beginning" or something less descriptive. I would also rename "The end" to "Closure"
Very good suggestions. I'll try to impliment them.
Very random sentence even though I undestand its ment to give an overal description of why it closed but still something you would put into an essay. "The FCC's Dr. Hyman Goldin said in 1960, "If there had been four VHF outlets in the top markets, there's no question DuMont would have lived and would have eventually turned the corner in terms of profitability. I have no doubt in my mind of that at all."
I think the article suffers from no path. The company time periods are scaterred around. Also a lot of analysis. Encyclopedic articles arent about analysis but about stating facts. Example most of "The end" section.
"What about the DuMont stations?" should be merged into a new or "The end" section.
"List of DuMont affiliates" better off as a wikilink in "See Also" or merged into existing section.
There is absolutely no way the list of affiliates will fit into this existing article: it would make it far too large. I can certainly change it to a See Also section.
No, I appreciate all of these suggestions. Thank you, Tutmosis. I'll try to impliment your suggestions into the existing article. Thanks for also adding the fact templates where you feel further references are needed. I'll work on all of this. I've commented more above. Again, thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome - I am not a bot, but AndyZ used to do this with a bot and the suggestions are javascript generated so I use "semi automated". Anyway, hope it is helpful and of use, Ruhrfisch03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great article! Lead section could use a little more information about the network apart from its history - perhaps a notable show or personality associated with the network. If nothing else, note the network's innovation and creativity in the lead section. Recommend that you rewrite the informal/folksy portions of the lead section ("never found itself on solid ground financially","signed off for good") with clearer descriptions. Did they declare bankruptcy? Sell their assets? If unknown, perhaps "ceased broadcasting" Be on the lookout for representatives of the ASPCS (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Semicolons). Every one of your semicolons should be replaced with a colon or a period. dpotter21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, Dpotter. I appreciate your suggestions for expanding and improving the lead. Your suggestions have been very helpful, because I already knew the lead was short, but lacked ideas on how to expand it. I did an automated search for semicolons, and found it used in only threesentences. The first one, DuMont began with one basic disadvantage; unlike NBC and CBS, it did not have a radio network from which to draw revenue and talent. can certainly be changed from a semicolon to a colon. The second one, DuMont aspired to grow beyond its three stations, applying for licenses in Boston (or Philadelphia, depending on the source) and Cincinnati; this would have given the network five stations, the maximum allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the time. doesn't make sense to replace with a colon, although I suppose it could be split into two sentences. WABD became WNEW-TV and later WNYW; WTTG still broadcasts under its original call letters. also would be strange with a colon. Anyway, thanks for the helpful advice. I'm working tonight to incorporate these suggestion into the article. Firsfron of Ronchester03:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the lead needs to be expanded in order to fit in with guidelines at WP:LEAD. Titles such as "What about the DuMont stations?" seem a little chatty to me, and more inline cites would be nice. Interestingly enough, if the article was to get to FA status, it would be the first article about a television network to do so - but crib some tips from other GA network articles. CloudNine20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions. I will work to expand the lead. I can change the title of the heading to something like "Fate of the DuMont stations" or something like that. There are already 43 in-line citations in this article. At some point, the footnotes become intrusive, and I'm not sure how many more reliable sources I can find for a forgotten network that has been dead for more than 50 years. Anyway, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would be quite cool in theory to make all the parsha readings FA. To start with this one as a template for the others, what would be good to do to this to make it FA? Dev920 (Tory?) 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has been much less development of fungi pages than of many other collaborations i have been involved with. I figured Amanita muscaria was a page that could one day be a FAC though needs alot of polishing! I figured placing it here was a good starting points for ideas as I felt a bit at a loss at where to continue.Cas Liber05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, fungus just isn't a sexy content area to work in :)
There's a lot of images here for a relatively small amount of text, and most of them are just "another mushroom" - consider putting them in a gallery maybe? A side-by-side comparison of this mushroom with the edible one it's mistaken for would also be useful.
(tricky this. I would rather link to other mushroom pages than have images of related species on this page as there are other desirable images to have - odd colour forms/art/etc. I do agree about highlighting differencesCas Liber00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The lead needs expansion, especially with where it's found geographically and where it originated - it implies Europe and North America but later suggests Siberia. Also, this is minor, but the phrase "easily exported" implies that it's done on purpose, which is probably not the intention.
Citations are needed for the locations of the varieties. A cladogram or some sort of evolutionary information would be nice if the research exists.
"Distribution and habitat" could use expansion.
The toxicity section needs references and some rewriting ("high rage"? that whole sentence sounds strange and possibly copied from somewhere?). In particular, only muscarine gets any mention of its chemical mechanism, but the claim is that other substances are responsible for the psychoactive properties. More on their mechanisms would be useful.
Popular culture is listcrufty and disorganized. The Santa thing sounds like a fringe theory and a lot of the other references are rather tangential without references (ie, Mario having similar-looking mushrooms isn't really worth mentioning unless it's known somewhere that this mushroom was the inspiration).
In lieu of the crufty stuff, more on the verified use of this mushroom in cultural or religious rituals would be a sensible expansion.
Thanks for the input started to reorganise images as there are lot of the same thing (an adult red-and-white mushroom) without adding anything to the article.Cas Liber05:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I was thinking, though spores are white so not much to see (unless you use black paper!). There is one subadult one on the page in the pop cult bit. Will check out commons.It is spring here in Oz so can't take any photos of it till autumn. Cas Liber10:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a comprehensive and detailed article here. But I think I may not have integrated it well or just been too idiosyncratic in places - it hasn't been edited much by other people (or at all). It's a really important topic in history, so I think it deserves good solid coverage. --Gwern(contribs)01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some one sentence paragraphs which could be expanded or linked up. Conversely in the history section there are some uber-paragraphs that probably need breaking. It's 73kb and difficult to read all the way through - if the information is all worth keeping, create subpages and summarise them on the main page. I think it goes into too much background in general, I find it hard to understand what's going on. The diagram section is ugly as a long list, and probably not needed. The order of sections is also quite confusing, I would've thought the history section should go first. Referencing is fine. Could do with a decent clean-up, overall - probably from someone who hasn't edited it yet. Trebor23:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, cut down on the information by moving to daughter articles. Also, the founding and decline headings seem a bit overreaching; could you divide them up in subsections? Lead needs to be longer for an article of that length. Bank heads should be a seperate section rather than a subsection. Does the section 'Organization and type's first paragraph need to be in there? CloudNine11:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a strange article to peer review, since this is a episode article, but I want it to be GA-quality. Any thing I need to do(Which is probably alot)? --Jasonflare22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the lead is quite short but thats definetely is understandable. Things that would be good to include are: Why is it so good? (I'm sure if it won emmies notable tv critics made their opinion known), can you dig up any production information? (location of the set, who wrote it.. etc), Who received/took home the emmies? Does this episode hint at any historical occurance or a parody of something?
The above is intresting information to include but myself knowing the hardships of researching on google (unless you looking for a badly spelled information by a fan on geocities) I wish you good luck! - Tutmosis23:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought of adding a 'critical reception' section before, but never got around doing it. Production infomation is a good tip too. --Twlighter02:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The two statements explicitly tagged as needing citations, yes, and any other statements of either precise and/or controversial fact. -Fsotrain0922:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am too new to the scene to advise you on formatting and house style, but here are a few comments on content. You have done very fine job on the Synopsis, although arguably it is over-long. Conversely I was disappointed that the 'Influences and interpretations' section was so short. You note that 'The Matrix makes numerous references to recent films and literature, and to historical myths and philosophy including Messianism, Buddhism and Gnosticism'. I would have been interested either:
In a few sentences outlining the comparisons between the Matrix pantheon and these schools of thought, and including both Vedanta, and Advaita in the list. (Especially the latter: 'Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal'), or
At least pointing to some such discussions along these lines elsewhere. If The Matrix has a value which is more than mere entertainment it is surely in bringing these ideas to a mainstream western audience, even if they are largely unaware of the parallels. Its only an opinion of course, but this to me is more pertinent than your assertion that in the 'first metaphor is hidden the most profound meaning of the entire film.' Ben MacDui17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the plot synopsis can be thinned out; it seems overly detailed. The trivia section needs to go, merge relevant information in appropriate places and delete the rest. Jay3218302:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
Plot synopsis is too long - consider creating a child article and making the section shorter, and an image to illustrate a part of the plot may be useful.
The lead should be slightly longer; you may want to mention the film's impact briefly in the second paragraph.
Remove or move trivia. For example, this should really be in the Carrie-Anne Moss article:
In 1993, Carrie-Anne Moss appeared in a short-lived science fiction television series called Matrix.
With a little research and work, I'm sure that it can be expanded (with things like the date that the route was commissioned, some notable reconstruction projects along the road, etc). Thanks for the comment. --TMFT - C23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second peer review. (Archive1) The article has seen consistent improving since the last peer review; and I believe it meets Featured quality with the exception of references. Which at worst can be sprinkled into the article and refer to compilation books. - RoyBoy80015:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, WP:FOOTNOTEs will be needed. Outside of referencing, sections like "Other languages" need more information, or should be merged into other sections. About every single image in this article needs a fair use rationale- see WP:FUC- this is certainly pushing WP:FUC to the limit. See WP:DATE for date-linking issues, for example "May 7th, 2005" should be "May 7, 2005". Images (outside of those book covers in the tables) should have captions as per WP:WIAFA. The ToC is also pretty long, and should probably be cut down a bit. Thanks, AndyZt20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is a great example of a spacecraft article and I'd like to get it upto standards of a FA. It is also become mor relevant with the award of the nobel prize in physics to 2 of its principle investigators. I look forward to hearing any suggestions. - Ryjaz15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I thought that the historical information and the general information on the spacecraft was OK. However, the article's scientific information needs significant improvement, and the article lacks a crucial discussion of the instrumentation. Comments that I had as I read through this article:
No discussion is provided to explain the motivation for the COBE research in the first place. Some background information (on the detection of the CMBR, the effort to characterize its spectrum, and the search for anisotropies) is needed.
No discussion is provided about the instrumentation (DIRBE, FIRAS, and DMR). This is crucial to any description of a space telescope, especially COBE. These things are the most important part of the spacecraft, since they make the actual scientific measurements. This should be a large section of the article.
The "right ascension of ascending node" is in units of degrees. Is this standard for spacecraft? Most astronomers write right ascension in hours, minutes, and seconds. Later references to the ascending node are also confusing. What is an ascending node of 6 p.m.?
I do not think that the role of DIRBE was protrayed accurately. Was DIRBE designed for detecting infrared emission from galaxies? I know it did this, but I seem to recall that the results were more useful for mapping and studying dust emission within the Milky Way. (By the way, Sodroski et al. 1995 is about the Milky Way.) This should be researched further.
The article makes repeated references to "early galaxies". What is this supposed to mean? This is not a term used in extragalactic astronomy. (Maybe someone meant to say "early-type galaxies", which can refer to elliptical and S0 galaxies. However, this would not make sense; these galaxies are dust poor, and COBE would struggle as much as IRAS to detect such galaxies.)
I placed the blackbody section ahead of the anisotropy section. I believe the blackbody nature of the CMBR was discovered and published first, but I could be wrong. Logically, it makes more sense to talk about the general nature of the specrtum before describing the anisotropies.
The "Intrinsic anisotropy of CMB" is poorly written. Moreover, it fails to communicate the scientific significance of the results (unlike the blackbody section). This should be greatly expanded.
The "Early galaxies" section (which is misnamed) needs references. I would fix some of this information, but I don't even know where it came from (and I still don't know what it's talking about).
The references to scientific articles need to give the journal names. The Sodroski et al. reference is missing this. It may also be nicer to link references to the ADS abstract server.
"Extragalactic background light" is not a common astronomy term. The reference in the Wikipedia article uses "cosmic infrared background", which is a common term. I suggest using that instead.
An "Epilogue" section describing WMAP and Planck (in terms of CMBR science) and ISO, Spitzer, and Herschel (in terms of infrared astronomy) would be useful.
Thank you for your insightful comments. I agree with you on the instruments and I'll try to update that section. I've debated how in depth to get into the science findings. Looking at something like the Hubble Telescope science section, this puts forth an argument for a brief talk only about the scientific findings. As for the right ascension, I come from an orbital mechanics background and that is what we use. Ryjaz15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Different approaches should be taken for describing the scientific results of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and COBE. COBE was specialized and therefore produced mainly a few key observations of the CMBR and galactic/extragalactic dust emission. Hence, it is possible to discuss the results from COBE (especially the measurements of the CMBR spectrum and anisotropies) in detail. HST is a general purpose telescope that has been used in many different applications. It is impossible to sumamrize all results from Hubble in a single article; only a few specific results may be highlighted. George J. Bendo03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's about time this article had another peer review - it's almost up to FA status, and it would be good to determine what is needed so it can become a Featured Article. (JROBBO09:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I've added fact tags for text that should be cited: some of them are to specific facts; others are at the end of paragraphs where one cite might cover the entire paragraph.
The very first text the reader encounters contains weasle words: "It has been speculated that the Sydney region ..." Eliminate weasle words: who speculates this?
Ibid isn't effective in Wikipedia, because if you stop monitoring the article and someone else inserts text in between your original note and the ibid, the ibid could become invalid. You can handle ibids thusly:
Kohen, J. L. 2000. First and last people: Aboriginal Sydney. In J. Connell (Ed.). Sydney the emergence of a global city. pp 76-95. Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-550748-7, pp 76-78
Kohen, J. L. 2000, pp 81-82
I don't know if this is common, but for someone who speaks Spanish, it's very awkward to see "the" followed by "the". Is it common to say the followed by el when describing the weather phenomenon? "the El Niño Southern Oscillation plays an important role in determining Sydney's weather patterns:"
Some of the references are URL links: please expand all refs to a consistent bibliographic style.
Please eliminate the external jump to an external website at Current Sydney Weather in the section Climate: external jumps should be external links.
While I'm not keen on this particular link, I have to disagree in general. It is often appropriate to have external links in tables and infoboxes. JPD (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Economy has choppy, short, one-sentence paragraphs, and needs to be expanded and smoothed out.
Be sure to check your text for redundancy before coming to FAC: you can find several good sets of tips at the bottom of the page, WP:WIAFA. "The extensive area covered by urban Sydney ... "
Weasle words: The City of Sydney itself covers a fairly small area comprising the central business district and its neighbouring inner-city suburbs.
In an encyclopedia, it's not good to tell readers what they should note: "In addition, there are a number of regional descriptions which are used informally to conveniently describe large sections of the urban area, although However it should be noted that there are many suburbs which are not conveniently covered by any of the following informal regional categories. The regions are:
How are "early days" defined? "Although the CBD dominated the city's business and cultural life in the early days, ..."
The first sentence here left me dumbstruck, until I encountered the second sentence. Combining the sentences might help. "Today there is no overall governing body for the Sydney metropolitan area. Local affairs for the metropolitan area are run by bodies known as local government areas (LGAs)." Today there is no overall governing body for the Sydney metropolitan area; instead, local affairs for the metropolitan area are run by bodies known as local government areas (LGAs).
I don't like instead. It seems to imply that the LGAs replaced the County Council, when they actually coexisted. JPD (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy: "These areas all have elected councils and are responsible for a range of functions delegated to them by the New South Wales State Government."
Vague, better to provide a number and an inline citation to validate the number: "Because a large proportion of New South Wales' population lives in Sydney,"
I stopped after Economy: you're well on the way here, but this should give you an idea of the work needed to prepare for FAC. Sandy23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The next two sections are probably the ones that need the most work. Demographics is a mess, and Education could do with expanding. JPD (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't complain if you do, but it probably isn't necessary. Education is simply a bit short, and the problem in Demographics is fairly obvious: the mainly unsourced list of "associations" between ethnic groups and suburbs, which could do with being replaced with sourced info on regional demographic variations in general. JPD (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your images are becoming a bit over-crowded in places. And the three large panoramic ones at the bottom are practically of the same thing from three different angles.--Konst.able12:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A university in Bangladesh, one of its largest. A lot more work clearly needed, but some input on specifics would be greatly appreciated. Specially would like input on what the ideal size of the article should be--ppm00:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Size is not really a criteria, though you can feel safe if it exceeds 32kb. You need to have a comprehensive section dealing with administration, university policy, student government, finances, admission process and academic programs. The data and sections presently in place are good but not comprehensive. Good example FAs to emulate include Cornell University, Indian Institutes of Technology. Rama's arrow15:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems pretty comprehensive to me and failed its fac nomination primarily due to the fact that it had not undergone a peer review. I've never nominated an article before, so I'm not exactly sure what to ask for, other than for comments on how any part of the article might be improved. -Orayzio22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This actually looks like a great article - nice use of pictures, good use of sections. Could perhaps use some more images of the other recurring characters. Otherwise, a pretty good article! --Alex (Talk) 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is without dobut the most common and familiar definition of "Tom and Jerry". It should occupy the title without the disambiguator since the other links at Tom and Jerry are so much more obscure. / PeterIsotalo08:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has two major problems: There are no inline citations, and there are far too many copyrighted fair-use images in the article. An article such as this should use no more than 3 or 4 copyrighted images. Each fair use rational must be unique, otherwise the fair use claim is significantly weakened. Both of these problems would prevent this article from achieving FA status. Kaldari05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No inline citations, problems with Fair Use images, section headings don't conform to WP:MOS. Review all of the criteria, and in particular the tips from other users at the bottom of WP:WIAFA, cite the article, and possibly reapproach peer review after you've done that work, before approaching FAC. Sandy23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the fair-use images, do you really think all of the title cards are necessary? The one in the lead is probably the only one you need. Jay3218319:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite good, in fact ... taking into consideration that this is about, basically, a run-of-the mill school. I'd just generally cut down on material that is not likely to be of interest to people not involved with the school, such as the "Notable Staff Events" section. Sandstein22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The prose in places is very choppy, with paragraphs that are only a sentence or two. You could try to expand choppy paragraphs, or merge the paragraphs into other content. There are quite a few areas that could be expanded to be more comprehensive. Sections about two particular teachers, who aren't really notable, aren't encyclopedic. (Remember what Wiki is not: WP:NOT).
"Interesting facts" is not encyclopedic: everything in Wiki should be an interesting fact.
Expand all of your refs to full bibliographic style so we can see where the info comes from without having to click on the links. Newspaper reports should include author (when there is one), title, paper, pub date, etc. If a lot of your references are to the school website, that raises a red flag: you should strive for independent sources to the extent possible. Don't show a lot of blue links: say what the source is with the most complete bibliographic info possible.
You have a section called "Other" with one sentence, and another, Gold Performance Acknowledgements, with one sentence. A better organization of your material will result in a cleaner Table of Contents and better flow in the prose.
Problems is another unencyclopedic section heading: aim for encyclopedic content, rather than a website feel. Problems and Additions can probably be eliminated as section sub-headings. All of the section sub-headings in Faculty can be eliminated.
In general, you have a very good start, but you can work on the organization which has resulted in short, stubby sections; expand some of the content; and remove content that isn't encyclopedic. Sandy00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Sandstein and Sandy said, a lot of the issues with the article relate to the "who cares?" factor. X computers and Y phone lines: who cares? I went to Jasper, so I know there is nothing so important about it to warrant an article this long. As the author of Plano Senior High School, I see major flaws with the importance of almost everything presented in this article on a global or even city scale. It is time for large sections of this article to face the chopping block in order to improve it. — Scm83xhook 'em03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first article from scratch and so I'd like to see what I can do better in creating new articles. General comments and suggestions for reaching GA status will be very appreciated. Thanks. ju66l3r18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks. I hadn't even thought to be aware for something like that in creating the article. If someone is skilled about out-of-universe conversion, I'd love some help on the section; otherwise, I'll take a crack at it myself. ju66l3r22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't appear to use any reliable sources, uses blogs as sources, and the first source listed - the Soxaholix website - appears to be a blatant copyvio (Wall Street Journal), which means the Soxaholix site shouldn't be listed anywhere on Wikipedia (it violates copyright). See WP:EL. Sandy13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source? If the article's reference was simply to the WSJ "buy this article now" because it is subscription access only, would that be better? Or better yet, the citation could be plaintext and simply reference the issue and page number and force someone to go find a copy themselves? It's also difficult to understand the copyvio since only a link to the article and not the text was used here. The only blog used as a source is Deadspin (notable in its own right to have a wiki-article); the remaining sources are all independent (and in most cases, notable) awards for online sites. As for your contention that WP:EL demands Soxaholix shouldn't be listed, I can not find that passage anywhere within EL, can you please help me find it? I have spoken with the author of the Soxaholix website and referenced the Wall Street Journal article in our discussions and it did not seem to be an issue for him to have it on his website, therefore according to WP:COPY, there should not be a problem since I can assume there is no copyright conflict. From WP:COPY: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright." I believe that to be the case, but as I said above, the link can be moved from the pdf to the WSJ "buy this article" page or simple reference to the article. ju66l3r14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the link to the WSJ.com site and added the original publication date and page number for someone to look it up for themselves in microfilm/archive if they can not view the subscription-required page. I believe that's in line with Wikipedia policy for not linking to what you deemed to be copyright violation. I have also renewed contact with the website's owner as per above. ju66l3r15:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My final comment on this matter unless there is discussion: I have an e-mail from the site owner stating that the author of the WSJ article gave him explicit permission to post the PDF for others to read from the Soxaholix website. He also told me that in an upcoming website redesign that is planned, he will be removing that PDF in any case (alleviating any concern that soxaholix.com is not allowed external linkage in your mind. ju66l3r16:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest further checking into the exact wording of WSJ's copyright. I don't believe an e-mail from the site owner does it: I think you may need an e-mail from the WSJ. But I'm in over my head on that. If you want the article to attain FA, you may need to figure out where/who to run this by on Wiki: I haven't been able to figure out all the various copyvio fora on Wiki, but the last time I looked for them, everything I found had outrageous backlogs. One thing you might to in the meantime is just link to the WSJ for a fee URL, and then include only the relevant text which validates your inline citation as part of the inline citation. Good luck ! Sandy18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add the relevant text from WP:EL: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. " Sandy18:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now taken care of the link problem and also taken care of the in/out-of-universe perspective problem in the Characters section. If there are any other thoughts on this article, they'll be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll be submitting a nomination for this article to receive GA status soon. ju66l3r18:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small contribution to this page a year or so ago and I have recently checked the article. Because the subject matter is familiar to many people, and yet there is a lot of interesting information that is not generally known, I think it would make a good Wikipedia:Featured Article. I have never nominated an article for FA status before, and so I am unsure whether this article is worthy. I think it is, but I am interested in input from others. The only deficiencies I noticed is some inconsistency regarding headlamp styling versus aerodynamics in the different desings. --Lenehey15:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's incredible. Two gripes, regarding pictures: one, it seems a bit Saab-heavy; and two, the flip-up headlamp pictures should be swapped, to give a better sense of motion. Other than that, I'm shocked that something so (seemingly) trivial can have so much work and research done on it. Bravo! Seegoon17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My gripe: the intro talks a tiny bit about personal headlamps used in mining and caving. The rest of the article doesn't really tlak about them. It's a bit too car-heavy. A picture of a mining headlamp would do wonders. --198.185.18.20721:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without inline citations, the article has no chance of FA. I suggest you thoroughly cite the article (see Sandstein's comment) to reliable sources, and then reapproach peer review. Sandy23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's not ready for FA yet—I have on my desk the immense stack of sources which for various not-very good reasons did not get cited when I was posting swaths of this article. I will add citations as rapidly as I am able. Good comment on the Saab-heaviness of the photos. I think non-automotive headlamp information would be a distraction in this already-large article; they should have their own article. --Scheinwerfermann03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment. Nb. there are 2 more images coming (one of the nuclear pore, and one (hopefully) of a stained cell). Also re. the to do list on the talk page, these are nitty gritty things, and in truth not vital to the article, even (dare I say) a FA.ShaiM13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at this in more detail later, but a first impression is that the organisation of the article is not as clear as it could be. I suggest dividing the existing sections into major categories (bolded). And then into sub-categories i.e.
Structure
Structural sub-categories. Good as it is. But include organisation of chromosomes hetero/euchromatin into this section.
I've been thinking about doing this for a while, and I know it's hell unlikely that the article is able to pass an FA nomination. I'm not aiming for that, but the Big Brother Australia articles don't get as much attention as the other articles and it would be great if more editors could comment on this one, so that it can be improved. jd || talk || 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on the prior peer review for potential reviewers. Since the last review, this article has undergone a split into separate articles for each series. The previous review covered all series rolled into one article. -- Longhair\talk10:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. First problem is the first heading looks a bit odd in between the TOC and the infobox - I suggest get rid off it, and cut down the leading section a little. There are quite a lot of small sections which could probably be merged, and also more pictures culd help separate the large chunks of text. There are quite a few lists, which create whitespace, so perhaps they could be organised differently. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 14:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the article very good, but it could be improved in terms of language both in usage and in clarity.
e.g. "The war started with Philip of Macedon having Spartan and Aetolian pirates raid Rhodian ships". Was this the cause for the war or was it the first stage of the war, which was caused by something else? Either way, the wording could be changed to reflect more clearly the intended meaning.
In time, I will proof read the article to find other points, and either will correct them myself when I can, or write about them here, so you can attend to it.--Atavi08:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes, of which I hope you will approve.
Regarding
"The Athenians were so pleased by the rescue that replaced the recently abolished pro-Macedonian tribes, the Demetrias and Antigonis tribes with the Attalid tribe in honour of Attalus."
myself being unfamiliar with the subject matter, I don't quite understand the background of the tribes, how they were abolioshed, how they were pro-Macedonian etc. Maybe you could expand a little, or write a separate article and link to it.
Thanks for the cody-edit the article needed it and thank you for all the other work you've done for the article. Do you think it could make it to A class or FA? Kyriakos09:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome.
Again based on my comprehension of the text, perhaps this paragraph could be rewritten so that they are more clear:
In response to these complaints the Romans sent three ambassadors, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, Gaius Claudius Nero and Publius Sempronius Tuditanus to Egypt with the orders to go to Rhodes after speaking with Ptolemy
Was it the ambassadors who spoke to Ptolemy and then went to Rhode, or was it Rome that spoke with Ptolemy and then sent the ambassadors to Rhode?
Regarding, A class and FA, I must say that I'm not really qualified to speculate on the judgement. The article is very informative and exemplary sourced, but this is as much as I can say with certainty. You'd be better off asking someone else.
My opinion is that you did great work on the article.
I would check each redlink (the concern is that there are quite a few) to see if either a)at least a stub or longer article can be written for it, or b) if there is little chance an article of any length will ever be written for it, black it. -Fsotrain0922:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
During the nomination for FA status, reviewers noted the following:
that the article needed copyediting to improve in quality
that the article's prose was in low quality or in otherwise written inaccurately
that more citations were needed
I'm unsure of how to broach the article on the first two points however I would only need reference in regards to the third point as to what sentences specifically are in the need of citations. Thanks. --MarshallBagramyan05:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good so far, though I'm not sure if we could re-nominate it for FA status just yet, we'll have to see what others think first. -- Clevelander02:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the prose is very poor. For example "Relif maps of the United States partially shows why they've come to exist." doesn't make much sense to me. Go for a copy edit, or at least run the prose through a spell-checker at the very least.
Fix the citations (and add more). They should be in numbered order and after all punctuation.
Only the first word of a title should be capitalized (see WP:MOS).
More images as North America is such a beautiful region! There should be larger images as well (Wikimedia Commons must have plenty).
The Bibliography and Reference sections should be merged
Clean up the lead. I'm not sure why the peoples of North America are mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead.
The layout of this article is all rather messy, as is the extensive list of Pop Culture references. I'd like to see other's view on this. I think if this article was worked on enough, it could gain Featured Article Status. NauticaShades(talk)16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"References in popular culture" really *really* needs to be trimmed down. Bulletpoints such as "One of the fake loading messages in the MMORPG Auto Assault is "Adding More Cowbell" add little to the article. Also, inline web-page citations should be converted to the Template:cite web format. CloudNine21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Please try to follow the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. There should not be sections like "Places to See" (can be incorporated in Culture, History etc), "Hotels".
Also, the article lacks inline citations. The article won't survive an FAC without those. Anyway, a really commendable effort for a town that does not probably have good number of web resource to work on. Keep it up. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More citations would be useful. I know this is a work in progress but that would make it better. I also think that if you could add some pictures that would make it better. This is from a first glance, but I will tell you more once I read the article properly. Thanks. --Antorjal13:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a great effort. A few photographs would make it more valuable. The red dots give an impression of unfinished work. Can these be removed? -- P.K.Niyogi02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Good work so far. I recommend a copyedit as some of the prose is awkward (Sport for example). Phrases such as "In course of time, Cooch Behar has been transformed from a kingdom to a State and from a State to the present status of a district, and Cooch Behar its district headquarters." feel awkward. Lead needs a little cleaning up as well. Some of the redlink subjects may already have articles; for example:
Territory I know: I'll spend some serious time in there, NCurse. Organization looks good per WP:MEDMOS, and Table of Contents initially reassures me that you've likely covered the controversy from all sides, and sources used look good. On first glance, I don't like the listiness of symptoms: listiness so early in an article can be off-putting, but that could be just my personal style. I'll spend detailed time in the article, and be back :-) Sandy17:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back with detail:
The article is quite long: Controversy is worthy of its own article, and is the best candidate for Summary style. In fact, I strongly suggest you move Controversy to its own article, with a very careful summary back to the main article, as it's a POV magnet, which could result in deterioration of your article over time.
No, not just the first paragraph: I suggest very careful attention to how to best summarize the contoversy in a way that will attract less POV, speculative editing, and long-term deterioration of the article, while still covering the controversy. I had a similar problem with the summary of Notable cases into Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, and the balance *seems* to have helped minimize the speculative edits which occurred at a high rate. Aim to make it say enough that it is comprehensive, and all sides will be satisfied so they won't vandalize your article :-) 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Further reading needed, there are some good books on Lyme.
External links - remember that Wiki should not attempt to be a "support group" - have a look at how we addressed the problem at Tourette syndrome by linking to DMOZ. There must be a DMOZ category for Lyme disease associations, so that you don't have to link to all of them. Since Lyme is so controversial, many of those organizations have a POV, and I'd rather not see Wiki become a repository of various viewpoints - let DMOZ do that.
Can you follow WP:MEDMOS more closely, or is that not possible?
History, Epidemiology, a large patch in Ecology, and several other areas are completely unreferenced. I find a number of random sentences throughout the article which need cites, considering the controversy (example, "For early cases, prompt treatment is usually curative." All too often, this is not true.) The article may appear overcited, but moving Controversy to its own article will leave a much more manageably sized article, revealing that more inline citations are needed.
The long strings of citations which occur in numerous places suggest that the author is not necessarily citing the most seminal research on the topic. It concerns me. It should take one or at most in extreme case four cites to cover the seminal research, and the concern with a long string of cites is that the "good" research hasn't been sorted out from the "bad". If extremely long citations are needed, can you summarize the issues and cites into one ref tag, which explains why they are all needed? (See how this technique was used effectively in the recently-promoted Daniel Boone.)
Mixed referencing styles (see Transmission by ticks).
Since the article relies (or should, since Lyme doesn't always travel alone, and that is a big treatment complication) on Tick-borne disease, I'm wondering if the list there is thorough? It doesn't appear to be.
What is in the lead so far looks good, but it should be expanded to three or four paragraphs to thoroughly summarize the article.
Problematic prose, and needs to be cited: "The longer the duration of tick attachment, the greater the risk of disease transmission, but, typically, for the spirochete to be transferred, the tick must be attached for a minimum of 12 hours, although, only the first part of this statement can be said to be strictly correct. (see Proper Removal of Ticks)."
Stubby section: Congenital Lyme disease. If it's worthy of its own section, it should be expanded; if not, merged to another section.
Microbiology is another good candidate for Summary style.
Yikes. Numerous studies have demonstrated persistence of infection despite antibiotic therapy.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] We know this is true: can seminal research be cited, or this combined into one ref tag discussing why all citations are needed, and covering the various seminal conclusions from each?
A lot of my concerns have already been covered by Sandy, especially regarding the uneven referencing. (You could check out photon for a solution to the many-cites-for-one-fact problem that puts all the citaions under a single footnote, which is less distracting - I didn't read the cited papers specifically, but on points that misunderstood by the public, I can see the utility of referencing multiple studies even if they come to the same conclusion.)
If the evidence for sexual transmission is only "anecdotal and largely unconfirmed", then it's not really evidence. This definitely needs a citation, but I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned at all.
These sound like interesting bacteria; splitting and summarizing the microbiology section could make this more accessible to the general reader.
Some of the "supplemental" treatments sound very suspicious to me. The effects of melittin were apparently shown only in vitro; the text implies that these results have been dismissed or not pursued as a potential treatment, but instinctively, an active component of bee venom doesn't sound to me like a promising treatment candidate. The vitamin C stuff is even worse, since there are already so many urban myths about all the marvelous things vitamin C can do - the statement about it here is uncited and sounds very biochemically unlikely. How exactly is ascorbate supposed to kill bacteria (and viruses, cancer cells, parasites....)?
The large table under standards of care is another good candidate for splitting and summarizing - possibly into Sandy's proposed controvery article. The whole section is likely to be a POV magnet and will fill up with pseudoscientific nonsense if it isn't watched, which is easier if most of the controversial stuff is sequestered in its own article. There's already some POV stuff floating around, eg "When taking it off the market, the manufacturer cited poor sales, though some people believe that the actual reason was that the vaccine was not safe or effective at all." (there's one cite, but is it to the manufacturer's claim or the "some people"? do they have any reason to believe that or is it just the usual nonsense?)
The "proper removal of ticks" section is a) uncited, and b) giving medical advice. It should be rewritten as a neutral report of the recommended technique, not as a tick-removal tutorial.
Should the Races+Locations info be removed to separate article(s) or not?
Are there major structural changes/reorderings you think would improve it?
Are there enough pictures, or can you think of a better arrangement of the existing pictures?
Are the references sufficient (or even correctly done)?
I know the Development section is dead skinny. There's barely any data on the game in that respect. I can't find any remotely clear account of the bugs it released with.
The article is already very long, and a lot of the material suffers from WP:WAF problems, in particular sections 4 to 8, in that it describes the gameworld from an in-universe perspective, which is to be avoided. Also, the sheer length and detail of the gameworld descriptions threatens to violate the policy that WP:NOT a game guide. For these reasons, I'd favor cutting down on gameworld descriptions radically, instead of spinning them off to other articles. Section 8 ("Half-ogre Island conspiracy") in particular is one egregious WP:NOT problem. I've added cleanup tags to that effect.
Trivia sections tend to be frowned upon (see WP:TRIVIA).
We should try to use only as much non-free (ie fair use) images as is absolutely necessary, so I'd not add any more screenshots, concept art etc.
Okay, sections 6 and 7 have been taken care of for now. But I don't see how section 4 is in-universe. I mean, this is the core of the entire game; it's the nucleus of whatever will eventually satisfy the 'compelling prose' clause of WP:FAC.
As for section 5, I suppose I could write a more generalised summary of the mechanics, and CP the existing stuff to another 'adjunct' article.
As for images, I don't yet think we have enough, actually. I don't just want screenshots, but at the moment the article could use perhaps two or three more. Hide&Reason03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs expansion, so it may better summarize the topic. See computer and video game featured articles for ideas on how this may be done. Gameplay is necessary, so the entire section shouldn't be moved to a gaming wiki. Try moving the "Steamworks" and "Magickal obscura" sections, and make brief mention of them in the rest of the gameplay section. "Half-ogre Island conspiracy" should be moved or cut, your call. General practice with computer and video game article layout involves placement of the gameplay and story sections first, and then following with the more real-world details. That's all for now. I may give it another look later. JimmyBlackwing05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright:
Races/Locations/Conspiracy removed
Lead expanded to three paras
More references
Gamplay section rewritten (I'm fairly sure) as out-of-universe
Development section marginally expanded + transferred after the game stuff
Something along those lines. I think the lead spends a little too much time talking about critical reaction and sales, when it should also give a brief, spoiler-free idea of what the game is about. The article was a mess before, but things are a little better now. It still needs huge amounts of work before it's even GA-class, though. It's an interesting subject, so it would be great to see this article improve to GA or FA status. Good job on your work so far. JimmyBlackwing11:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get this to featured article status, or at least a good article, and any suggestions would be great. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "chronology" section is revolting. It needs to be cut by at least half, if not a quarter. Perhaps a paragraph for each week would be ok. Otherwise, it's a good article, and has the potential for good article status. Regards, —Celestianpowerháblame20:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, chronology has got to be chopped up a bit. Just keep the basics: a task, a twist, the nominees, major events, and eviction. I'd like to see some more images if possible, but that doesn't seem likely. Other minor things: "This series ended up being the third most watched, along with the first series." What was the other series in there, we know first and seventh, but what was next? Third, Sixth, Fourth? I don't have many qualms with this article and have worked a bit with it over the course of the Summer, and would like to see WP:BIGBRO finally have a large accomplishment. FireSpike20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few criticisms originating from the (premature) FAC. These aren't comprehensive; I can't face reading the article in it's entirety as it's simply bad from the start and (sorry, but opinion was invited) dull.
FAs should be brilliantly written. That means compelling prose and a great read. I find this piece dull and it doesn't captivate me. It doesn't really even answer the question "why should I care?". Remember that an FA is an example of our very best work; it has to reach out to a wide audience not just fans of the subject.
Sloppy writing and bad structure abounds:
This series saw the largest number of housemates to leave without eviction, with three exiting the House. This beat series 3, where there were a total of fourteen housemates and two people walked;" Is is a contest for how many leave without "eviction"? "Walked"??
"This series ended up being the third most watched, along with the first series." Huh?
"Pete Bennett was the successful housemate, and won the prize money of £100,000." At the end of the 3rd paragraph of the lead. Aren't these two unrelated facts (the prize money was 100k, Bennett won) a tad more important than that?
"Fourteen housemates entered on launch night, but over the whole series there were a total of twenty-two, more than in any previous series." This isn't FA class writing.
"should move into the 'House Next Door', a separate smaller secret House" seperate smaller secret??
"This year, Big Brother was criticised in the media for both its choice of housemates and its practice once the housemates were inside."
FAs and GAs should provide context, either explaining "technical terms" or linking to relevant articles. You need to add a "Format" or "Background" section to explain to readers what the show is about, how this particular series was structured, what the contestants are actually trying to achieve, and to map out to the reader what you're about to tell them.
The first occurence of the word "task", for example, is "Sam and Aisleyne, were introduced[2] as part of the Meal or No Meal task (see Week 2)", and then (Week 1) "The first task was "The Big Brotherhood"". I know the BB format, but assume your readers don't. A high quality article doesn't start talking about it's subject matter without at least introducing the basics and setting the scene.
"All the housemates (with the exception of Bonnie, Dawn and Glyn) became members of "The Big Brotherhood"." (what the hell's that?)
"On Day 23, Susie entered the House as Big Brother's lucky Golden Ticket winner." What Golden Ticket?! You haven't mentioned any stinking Golden Ticket! (Again, I know about this but a reader from another country or who didn't watch the show won't have the slightest idea what you're on about.
The article is sourced almost entirely from the Channel 4 website, which is hardly a fair selection of sources given the huge media coverage this show generates.
The Chronology section is like a list quickly converted to prose, replete with stubby paragraphs. Replace each paragraph with an asterisk and it would be clear that what we have here is a list. It's this section in particular that is also mind numbingly dull. As somebody stated above (not the "positive reviews" you claimed on FA), this section is horrible. Vile. Trim it mercilessly or get somebody else to help with the writing so the reader doesn't fall asleep.
The lead contains facts not mentioned in the body (such as, grabbing the first likely offender and yep, it's not in the body) Big Brother's Big Mouth. The lead is poorly structured and doesn't act as an adequate summary of the article (see WP:LEAD).
I was reticent at first to go into such detail at the risk of causing offence, but since you insisted on a detailed review and seem convinced this is FA material, here we are. I hope this helps. I suggest restructuring, copyediting, severe trimming, finding more sources, improving the lead. Then try your hand at GA. FAC is some way off.
If I can perhaps put the above points more in an alternative fashion, more succinctly. This article is obsessed with chronological narrative. It would be a better read and more helpful if it had a greater focus on themes. What is the BB series about and what are the contestants aiming for? What was BB7 all about? What was special about it? (the extra house, the golden ticket, the high number of contestants, the media controversy). How did the contestants get picked? Why will this series be remembered? Right now you have a chronology and a detailed media piece (the media piece should stay, by the way, it's essential, although I haven't actually read it yet). You're expecting the reader to understand the show and it's significance by giving them a rehash of what happened. It's like sitting through the whole show but on Wikipedia. Do more of the work for them; compile the available sources into thematic sections packed with fascinating and brilliant prose, don't leave us to read through a wrist-slashingly dull blow by blow account of what happened on every single day. --kingboyk11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed this page, and have decided to pass it. It is well sourced, sectioned & over all, well done to all the editors of this page, you've done a fine job.--Hiltonhampton19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Few things: 1)The section about Mom and Dad never actual explains what the movie is about. The section would not make sense to someone who has never seen the film. 2)The lead is fairly short. Does it summarise the entire article? 3)Is the lead photo really a promo photo? That is a fine specification. --198.185.18.20721:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) I should probably spend some time fleshing out the Mom and Dad article a bit, too, now that you mention it. A paragraph expansion would be very useful, though, you're absolutely right. 2) I'm horrid at leads, I admit. Any help here would be great. 3) It is indeed a promotional photo, it went out with his promotional materials for his flicks. --badlydrawnjefftalk23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second 'sourced' claim on the page deals with a local state chapter. There could be more clarification on the relationship between state and national ACLU, and I think the term 'political activism' is somewhat loaded without clarification. Also, on an unrelated note, which I put on A. Romero's talk page, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the conflict over Romero's memo suggesting less dissention from within the organization.
Yes, I agree about the sourced claim and the political activism suggestions you have left. I am just startingt to get around to things like that. As for the Romero note, this page isnt half enough organized to have a place to put that yet. Once the organization part of the article gets fleshed out it certainly deserves a spot. Feel free to put it in at your discretion. Thanks. Jasper2317:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism and Controversial Stances Sections
This is also posted at the bottom of the talk page...please respond there. Thanks
Hey everyone, I would like to makes some structural changes to the page and want some feedback from the community. I would like to pretty much merge most of the critic section into the newly expanded section on controversial stances. I think this would make the page much more encyclopedic and a much more informative read. This would also tie the whole article together (history, position sections) and give the article more of a narrative feel. How do people feel about this? Jasper2317:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
End Section
The whole 'critics of the ACLU' section needs attention. The article is on the ACLU, not every half baked and farfetched objection to the ACLU. These can be condensed into summaries, and some will need to be deleted.
Many of the criticisms are factually incorrect and not supported by documentation, and anti ACLU editors keep adding them back in.
Examples:
One estimate of the ACLU's total collection of court awarded damages, made by the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, is approximately $9.5 million. [6]. The article makes no claim of 9.5 Million dollars, and 6 Million of it is not documented but is the hazy claim $6,000,000 = American taxpayers.The ACLU, along with other pro-abortion organizations, have shared in court awards estimated to be worth roughly six million dollars following the Supreme Court’s decision in which they declared the Nebraska partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Reportedly, these lawsuits affected thirty states.
No documentation to support this claim.
The 1980 Polovchak v. Meese case is also sometimes considered evidence of liberal sympathies on the part of the ACLU. Walter Polovchak was a 12-year-old from Ukraine (at that time part of the Soviet Union) visiting the United States with his parents. When his parents were returning to Ukraine, he tried to stay in the U.S. and claim political asylum against the wishes of his parents. The ACLU attempted to block him from doing so. In 1999 the Florida chapter of the ACLU referred to the ACLU's role in the Polovchak case in their brief for the Elián González case.
The is urban legend. I asked for documentation, and none was provided. What some anti ACLU zealots consider to be 'evidence of liberal sympathies' deserves no place in the article if it can't be documented and sourced. NBGPWS20:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added into the body of the article (after 'separation of church and state'):
Religious Liberty: Defends the individual right of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public and in the workplace. [7][8][9][10]
with 4 sources documenting it. Anti ACLU editors - specifically Scribner - keep deleting it.
All changes with the exception of the Polovchak v. Meese have been discussed at length and will be reverted, as always see the talk page(s).--Scribner20:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor on an archived talk page concluded:
"I'm concerned that an article that is supposed to be about the aclu it is more or less dominated by what its criticis think. this in itself does not seem fair to me. I want there to be a solid criticism section, but i don't understand why over half of the article is about things people how disagree with the aclu say."
The NRA and ACLU are both polarizing NGO's with almost the exact same approval / disapproval ratings:
"The main findings of (this) survey include:
The National Rifle Association (NRA) - 48% trust the NRA while 52 percent do not trust them.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - 49 percent trust the ACLU compared to 51 percent who do not trust them.
The Harris Poll #91, December 16, 2005'"'
The following is the extent of criticism from 'the Left' in the Wiki NRA article:
-Criticism-
From the Gun-prohibition Camp.
The NRA is criticized by gun control groups such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, and Americans for Gun Safety. A variety of newspaper editorial boards, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, frequently disagree with the NRA's policies, such as in September of 2004, when they called for the extension of the assault weapons ban; in general, criticism of the NRA is higher in urban areas than rural areas. These groups tend to point to instances of gun violence, claiming that they could have been prevented through legislation.
One could find dozens of anti-NRA quotes and claims from prominent Liberals, politicians, and groups opposed to the NRA. Michael Moore's quotes, claims and opinions could form an entire section of several paragraphs - but the article is about the NRA, not those opposed to the NRA. The next section on criticism from the Right should be pared down.
The section of criticism of the NRA from 'the Left' should be the model for the ACLU article. What Michael Medved, Bill O'Reilly or any other windbag thinks about the NRA is not germaine to the article. What Samuel Alito thinks might be. NBGPWS22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a peer review request not intended to ready the article for featured status but rather to validate my notations to the image of the spectrum of a deuterium arc lamp included with this article. I would specifically like to know if my marking of the location of the "fulcher band" is correct. I am pretty sure of the locations of the molecular continuum and balmer lines but not really sure of the emission band at 560 to 640nm and would very much like to hear from a physicist or chemist familliar with this phenomenon. I have posted the question to the science refrence desk but nobody there seems to know.--Deglr632818:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is in no way my specialty, so don't take my word for it, but AFAIK the Fulcher-alpha band should be about 600nm, so it looks like you're in the right place. I wasn't aware it would be so spread out - for example, here are some data on H2 that are all in the 600-630 range for the various transitions (table II). But their "expansion" figure (fig 3) showing the Fulcher region is 590-650nm, which is more consistent with your annotation (though not performed under remotely similar conditions). Opabinia regalis06:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for both of your inputs! Yes I have seen that paper and I remember seeing that spectrum (if I recall it was the lowest reaching spectrum of the band that I found anywhere) but looking at where it appears to slope down to 0 at about 590nm (though obviously I can't be certain that's where it really ends) that would mean the isotopic shift for deuterium would have to be in excess of ~30nm since in my spectrum it cuts off at around 560nm! I just don't know if that's even possible. --Deglr632806:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a physician with MPD/DID having done a lot of research on this, I find this article inaccurate. I am new and don't have experience in Wikipedia editing so I need help with this. I don't want to step on any toes here but I don't want someone looking for information to come here and find this. Thanks for your help. P L Logan16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well welcome to Wikipedia P L Logan. I'm not really sure what you are asking but I think you asking for permission to significantly improve this article which in no way do you have acquire permission since this article is merely a stub. I would also like to point out wikipedian policy of being bold. If you wish to see how a good medical article looks then I would direct you to Biology and medicine section of Wikipedia:Featured articles. A quick glance at that list I would say that Asperger syndrome comes the closest in subject.
Basically all you need to know when improving an article is you should write in a neutral point of view and not side with any opinion even if you writing about Hitler. Provide information that is already been published (per Verifiability page) and do not do any original research. Remember also to always provide references and inline citations. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a good article to learn about this. Assuming you have finished college/university to become a physician you should be quite familiar with a Bibliography. Inline citations are basically a link to a source after a statement that might be challenged (Example:15 percent of the world buy canadian produced chocolate.) Wikipedia:Footnotes is a good place to familiarize yourself with this. The last and least important in my opinion is Wikipedia:Manual of Style page (since its all things that take little time to fix unlike researching) where you can learn different page style/code preferences of wikipedia.
Anyway that's about it and I hope you can make this article into a fine piece of work. Good luck and if you need anything I'm sure anyone would be willing to help including myself. - Tutmosis18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MPD was a disambiguation page with many possible meanings of this three-letter acronym. An editor changed it about a week ago to show her interpretation of Multiple Personality Disorder, but we have a much better developed article at Dissociative identity disorder. I've reverted MPD to the original content.-gadfium00:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Failed another FAC for neither here nor there reasons, mostly minor cleanup, and I'd liked some good editors to help with the problems, without mentioning reliable referencing. Cheers, HighwayDaytrippers12:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to misrepresent the situation? This has failed four FAC's. How do you think you are going to get different answers here? People have already pointed out the article's problems, why should they do so again? WP:V is non negotiable policy. What value is a peer review where you don't want people to mention the article's biggest problem, and one of the major reasons it failed the last FAC? Why not work on articles that do have reliable sources instead of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? - TaxmanTalk14:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to help the improve on the other issues with the prose, which is what Raul failed the article on. Are you going to be constructive, or keep Charizard-bashing? HighwayDaytrippers22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the exact reason for why Raul failed the latest nomination? Has he made any comments about it?
For those who haven't clicked the link, Raul said "So, to put it bluntly - I'm not sure." and called it a corner case. I would be more careful about using such an open-ended statement as an argument...
And I agree completely with Taxman's description of the dispute. The objections are being misrepresented and the nominator is doing his best to make this more personal than it is. The objectors have been trying to voice serious concerns about important interpretations of WP:V and most of the replies have been generally just been "You just hate Pokémon!" instead of any honest attempts to take the objections seriously. Not even attempts to compromise... I can't stress enough that getting so emotionally involved is unlikely to be beneficial to anyone.
Well, I tried suggesting two minor and rather reasonable improvements[12], but as with referencing, you don't seem to be to eager on receiving advice that differs with your personal opinion. Good luck loving this thing to death... / PeterIsotalo10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compensating the lack of academic citations with irrelevant trivia references will not solve the problem.[13] The dictionary definitions have nothing to do with the statement. It's pure footnote padding. It's like saying we have to have a citation for the statement that Charizard is a fictional character or, in fact, a Pokémon. And does he really look like a European dragon...? Why, that's just your opinion. Citation! (See what I'm getting at?)
The insistance of keeping a "fictional stance" is also inexplicable and seems more protective than rational. Comparing one piece of fiction with another is not a problem. You don't need to weasel out of anything by adding an awkward "style" after a cultural reference. / PeterIsotalo14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am determined to bring this up to FA status, and so any kind of contributions about what needs/should be done are apreciated. If you want me to expand, thats fine, but please tell me what information the article is lacking. Blood red sandman11:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the recent featured candidate comments the article lacks brilliant prose and more references should be provided along with footnotes. Please convert embedded citations into Wikipedia:Footnotes. Article also seems quite short which is usually an indication of missing information but I can't really think of anything to add since I'm not familiar with the crash. Try to dig up anything you can. - Tutmosis19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't relise there was a preference for using footnotes. Tomorrow (it is getting late here now, I live in the United Kingdom) I will convert to footnotes and tackle research again with a different search engine and see if I can uncover anything new. - Blood red sandman20:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other commitments getting in the way - damn. Will get round to it.
Peer review is for reviewing articles that have undergone extensive work and not for requesting "fact checks, clean up, and neutralty." If you wish to ask other people to do "fact checks, clean up, and neutralty." then place following tag codes {{not verified|article}}, {{cleanup}} and {{POV-check}} into the article which will request exactly those things. - Tutmosis19:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review is for article that have undergone extensive work and not for requesting "fact checks, clean up, and neutralty." If you wish to ask other people to do "fact checks, clean up, and neutralty." then place following tag codes {{not verified|article}}, {{cleanup}} and {{POV-check}} into the article which will request exactly those things. - Tutmosis19:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to be peer reviewed by other Wikipedian editors. Please give me any feedback you have for this article to improve. -AMK15200:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please rewrite article with an Out-of-universe perspective if you wish to see it featured. It contains alot of trivial information which goes against Plot summaries under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page. It also has no references except the actual show. When improving an article I would recommend seeing how it stacks up to Wikipedia:What is a featured article? and improve it based on that criteria as much as possible. Not trying to be rude but the article needs alot of work if you wish to push it up; meeting featured criteria. - Tutmosis19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a peer review to try to improve this article greatly. It needs considerable work that should be specifically identified. CrazyC8319:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my observations and thoughts after a quick read over.History should be written out as an article rather then a timeline list. Save that for the main article Timeline of meteorology. I think the templates for links to other pages should go at the bottom of the page before the category listing. Institutions could be split from this article and placed on its own page. --Pinkkeith19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Table should be right aligned. A pi chart of the data can be shown
Copyedit required. low content of phosphorus is puzzling , is by no means rare
Astrophysics and Space Science should be in italics
4.1 and 6.1 sections are bad style. Merge with parent or promote to a higher level.
References should be preferably formatted using the citation templates available.
Dr. - remove
Populating red links should give the article a more professional touch
Remove low value linking (eg wells, rainwater, milligrams etc)
Gallery should go, merge images with text
What was the reaction of the local people? I'm sure such an unusual phenomena should cause some sort of consternation among the local populace, even giving rise to superstitions.
The following domains can also be combed for more information: gov.in, nic.in, ernet.in, gov ; and so too google news.
The "In popular culture" section needs to go. It is already adequately covered with a few links in the "See also" section. We don't need to list every time an elephant appeared in a TV show or movie. Encyclopedic elephant articles that are much longer than this one don't include such coverage. Andrew Levine12:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion, but I think the article would be better served with a different picture in the info box. The current image is too highly contrasted, and the pose is a *little* cheesy. - Coil0001:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some current photos, a longer history, and make the lists into prose, along with much better inline references please. Are there any famous events or people from Miami? A "geography" section might also help - are there any rivers/creeks/canals/hills/lakes? What kind of soil? I've done a quick format-and-spelling pass. --Scott DavisTalk14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nathan. Thank for your interest in Miami. A good start would be to have a look at Gold Coast, Queensland. See what you can contribute there and get a feel about were we are at with the Gold Coast articles. The Gold Coast article is nowhere near being ready for a peer review for FA. Have a look at Suburbs of the Gold Coast, Queensland. Miami is not even formatted in the way we are developing for our suburbs and the links were in a shocking state till Scott sorted them out. The only other advise would be to go through the guidelines. --WikiCats06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recent GA article that I'd like to see what it needs to reach FA -- any and all comments/criticisms welcome! --plange02:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that bothers me with this article is that the image in the infobox 'looks away' from the body of the text, drawing my attention to my kitchen (which is located to my right from where I sit, FWIW) rather than the article's body of content. Perhaps flip the image? -- Longhair\talk10:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know... I like the picture that way. Would we flip a more famous portrait just to have it face the article? Pretty good article, though. The reference section is pretty long with only few different sources, but there's not much we can do there. It just looks odd Ambler (or whatever it was) all the way down with a one or two page differential between the two. For some of those (where there are say [sentence](Cooper 21, 22) [sentence](Cooper 25-27), would it not be better to skip the first reference, and just say [sentence][sentence](Cooper 21-27)? Make any sense? --198.185.18.20713:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I submit this article to your attention after some revisions. I need your advice and criticism in making this a featured article. All input is most welcome, Rama's arrow21:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nirav, I have no idea where messages for you should be left, so I'm just leaving this here for now, please replace it wherever you would like after reading: Thanks for working on the Nehru article. I have a few points, but most importantly, could you please cite the 11 state working committee - central working committee split between Nehru and Patel? I remember looking for a ref for that some months ago and not finding it. Also, while he was criticised for naivete in foreign affairs and his socialism domestically, as well as a personality cult - which he himself deplored, as should be stated - was he criticised for nepotism during his lifetime? I find that hard to believe, as he made no secret of his disapproval of Indira's election to the Congress Presidency, and I havent found any citations for that either, at least in Sarvepalli Gopal's bio of him. Hornplease22:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing this article needs is more citations. FAC reviewers will demand at least one per section. One per paragraph is better. Also, at the risk of adding a tabloid element, it was my understanding that his affair with Lady Mountbatten was an open secret. Seems worth at least a mention considering when it (probably) happened. Durova06:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, U'll work on that. The article as it stands doesnt have enough information about the post-1950 period; even the 1940-1950 period focuses primarily on his relationship with Patel, a minor aspect in terms of his entire life. This may be because Nirav, who's been a major and tireless contributor to this and other article, knows his copy of Rajmohan Gandhi's bio of Patel backwards and forwards, and finds it easiest to cite from there. I'll try and balance the citing a trifle over the next few weeks. Hornplease17:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Hehehehe...) I understand your point, but lemme give you my reasons (1) the section is more of Gandhi-Nehru-Patel, with emphasis on Nehru. As Patel enjoyed immense influence in the Congress and government, it is important to highlight how Nehru as PM in 47-50 was so different from post-Patel years. I agree that post-1950 data is weak - there's still a lot work to do. Rama's arrow17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right I'm resubmitting this for a second review. I've done some work recently collecting references and starting a rivalries section. Also I shortern down the managers list and started a new article with the full list. The takeover section is a mess at the moment but as it is due to go through today (12/02/07) or tomorrow I will clean then, whilst it's all still up in the air I can't see much point. Jimmmmmmmmm13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad article. What it does need is more references.
Comments like: "is regarded as one of Leicester's worst managers", "many supporters refer to the ground as Filbert Way", "This change was unpopular" and "a strong feeling that the naming rights had been underpriced", to name a few, are uncited.
A few emotive and pov terms like "would break the clubs heart", "more playoff heartbreak" and "easily the best manager of recent years" don't really need to be there.
The links to external websites in the colours section should be converted into inline citations.
The records and statistics section needs citations.
Why are the listed managers significant? Some criteria should be established for this, such as all managers who won a trophy, or took charge of 200+ games, for instance.
The last decade of Leicester's history gets almost as much coverage as the previous 100 years. Perhaps more could be trimmed?
Can some of Leicester's older crests be uploaded and added to the page?
As well as SteveO's comments, I'd like to highlight a few things:
I don't think you need to say what the club hasn't won in the lead. The lead also needs expanding a bit
"Under the new name the club enjoyed moderate success in the 1920s." Perhaps needs rephrasing. If they reached their highest ever placing then I'd say that was more than moderate, although losing that word might make the sentence a bit POV.
"City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949,[1]captained by Norman Plummer, losing 3-1 to Wolves." I suggest changing that to "City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949.[1] Captained by Norman Plummer, they lost 3-1 to Wolves."
"emerged into the first team" is a bit clunky. Can't think of a viable alternative right now.
"After the Premiership was founded in 1992 Leicester tried desperately to gain promotion to it." Doesn't everyone? I'd suggest merging that into the next sentence. "Were close to joining the newly formed Premiership when they reached the play-offs" or something better worded than that!
"First Division clubs for TV rights), the large wage bill, lower than expected fees for players transferred to other clubs and the £37 million cost of the new stadium. =[4]" Rogue =!
What colours did Leicester wear before 1910/between 1910-1940?
"have been used every season since the mid 1940s" Well, they haven't, seeing as the next sentence details a 1-season colour change.
"In 2004, the current kit also features white pinstripes, which have previously featured in kits from the 1980s." Lose the odd "in 2004".
"this led manager Martin O'Neill to say he used to "lead new signings out backwards" so they only saw the Carling Stand.[7]" Why the Carling stand? Surely the whole ground was undeveloped?
You need a full list of managers in a sub article.
What SteveO or HornetMike said. Some additional thoughts of my own:
Intro could be little longer.
Recent history could be a little shorter.
What exactly caused Leicester Fosse to fold? "Financial difficulties" is a little vague.
Singular/plural should be used consistently.
Some sentences are little short, making the prose quite abrupt.
Years should be unwikified, and seasons used rather than years.
Citations needed for unpopularity of the new white kit, the fact the naming rights are underpriced, fans disregarding the Walkers Stadium official name.
"a new jazzed up version" is unencyclopaedic and vague
Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference, as the M69 derby reference does - and to be honest it's such an innocuous claim I don't think it needs referencing anyway.
This diff on the first two paras of the History section shows some of the changes in style I recommend - cutting out unnecessary repetition of certain terms, and tidying the prose (e.g. two sentences in a row starting with "Under") a little. Qwghlm00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been ill since I submitted this so I'll go through whats been said in the next week or so. Did notice one thing, someone said about an sub artcle of managers, I already did that, strange it wasn't spotted.Jimmmmmmmmm13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some fairly significant changes, and now that it's well into it's mission, I'd like to try and do a FA push again. So, here's the nomination again for a peer review Tuvas16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
footnote 30 is no longer working! The other footnotes are nearly all from webpages, a view references from peer reviewed journals are no harm. They are available not so easy but for a longer time. --Stone18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, removed the link as it's redundant anyways. There aren't a whole lot of peer-reviewed journals at the time on MRO, but I'll dig up what I can. Tuvas20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ACTA ASTRONAUTICA 57 (2-8): 566-578 JUL-OCT 2005
PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE 52 (1-3): 157-166 JAN-MAR 2004
SAMPE JOURNAL 40 (5): 22-29 SEP-OCT 2004
SPIE, Volume 5167, pp. 63-71 (2004)
(MARCI on Mars Climate Orbiter) JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS 106 (E8): 17651-17672 AUG 25 2001
This article is a lengthy mess. It appears that in the past no consensus was formed but instead each side of the debate merely dumped its material into the article. It could use some dedicated editors to assist in forging consensus, eliminating some of the material, and disproving some of the wilder assertions presented as fact. Gamaliel 01:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll have a go at refactoring it into a main article with a number of subpages. Expect to see something drop in soon. jguk 08:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since the prior peer review there have been an almost complete overhaul of the article. If anyone has some ideas for improving the article in its current condition, please assist. Ramsquire19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all you need to get rid of the neutral tag. Secondly, the "president's motorcade" section contains too many red links. If those people are notable enough for an article, at least make a stub. If not, don't wikilink them. Borisblue05:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After many contentious debates, this page has reached its current form. However, there may still be room for improvement with regards to the article structure, grammar and whether it is sufficiently NPOV. Please adde comments for improvement's you'd like to see. Ramsquire18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General prose needs a little improvement; resusing words like 'ardent' and 'resulting' gets a little dry. Run on sentences need to be broken down. I noticed that this is one helluve a long article, so details like 'he shot himself in the elbow with a small, unauthorized handgun' should drop details like 'small', or even simplfied to a 'he shot himself accidently with a handgun'. i lended myself to the first section for a copy edit to show sorta what i mean, but maybe a copyedit template could get more eyes on this thing for that purpose. JoeSmackTalk(p-review!) 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like some feedback about the organisation of the article on this alleged Australian serial killer, mostly whether it contains too much detail, too little, or if the general flow is a little awkward. Any other feedback or suggestions on improving the article are most welcomed also. Currently listed for consideration at Good articles. -- Longhair\talk14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a glance, the intro is a bit confusing: he's said to be an "alleged" killer, but then the lead paragraphs seem to assume that he indeed is one, and mention his convictions. Can "alleged" be removed here? Otherwise, looks very good, but maybe GA/FA should wait until the judicial proceedings are over and the article is stable. Sandstein22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. After I requested an outside opinion on the article from another editor, they added the "alleged" wording, and I somewhat agree with their reasoning. Whilst it's widely believed and reported in the media that Dupas *is* a serial killer, the Wikipedia article on serial killers states serial killers "are people who kill on at least three occasions". Dupas has only been convicted of two murders thus far but is a suspect in a further three. I guess it's open to debate how we label him for now. Time will tell once the current judicial process has run its course. -- Longhair\talk22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like some feedback about the organization of the article, as well as the History section. The article is already Good, I'd like to see it featured some day. As such, any feedback would be appreciated. --Cryptic C62 · Talk02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On first glance, it seems very list heavy. Like a bunch of random facts thrown on the article. Perhaps some of it can be put into prose? I'll look deeper and see what else I can see. --198.185.18.20713:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it is list heavy. The problem is that much of the information is best presented in list format, namely the notable artists and some of the technical information. I'll try prose-izing some of the lists and we'll see what looks good. Rmrfstar has also suggested moving the list of notable artists into a separate article. Do you agree with this? --Cryptic C62 · Talk22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I really see with that is that we lose a lot of information that way. Without the lists, the article becomes much more encyclopedic. Without the information from the lists, the article becomes much less informative. Perhaps someone with more experience can come up with ways that make the information easy to digest, but less list-like. --198.185.18.20713:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From SG
I did what I could to clean up the article, but as yet, there is little actual content about the Playhouse to work with: the main article about the actual Playhouse has not yet been written, while the article focuses heavily on minor details and content of lesser importance. I also removed the external jumps: please don't link to outside websites for basic definitions - if a definition is needed, the term should be wikified. I also dealt with the hanging footnotes: please review WP:FN. I removed the 2006 season (unencylopedic, Wiki is not for advertising and is not a website, and that info was old anyway). There is SO much that can be said about the Playhouse, that info isn't needed. Focus on telling the story of the Playhouse, using the Somerset-Ward book, and augmenting it with local press.
The significance and importance of the Playhouse in American theatre is not yet covered. To elevate an article to FA status requires a committed and passionate involvement with the topic: Cryptic, I'm wondering if you have read the Somerset-Ward book cover to cover, or if you are summarizing from lesser sources? There is a rich and thorough story of the Playhouse in that book; the article needs to cover that material, rather than including a lot of lists about technical specs, the season, non-notables on staff, etc. Several months of involvement with the material in the Somerset-Ward book should yield a high-quality FA, as there is excellent material to work with, but the content work needs to be done still.
It troubles me that GA status is conferred to articles without a serious review of the criteria: the article is very listy, although the criteria for GA specifically refer to listiness, the article headings did not conform to WP:MOS (I changed some of them), and it appears to me, more seriously, that the article is a copyvio. This needs to be addressed ASAP, or I'll tag and speedy delete some portions. The lead also needs work: once the article is thoroughly written (and the prose will need polishing), the lead should be an enticing and compelling two or three sentence summary of the article. It should not cover details of minor importance (for example, the mention of Annie Keefe, who has resigned anyway).
In terms of sources, some questions: did Rabinovitz *really* write a book about the Apprenticeship program? It is cited as a book, which I've never seen. Is that a pamphlet or a book? If it's a book, a publisher should be listed. Similar for the Smith technical information.
I see from the Playhouse website that the apprentice and intern info comes from their brochures - perhaps it would be better not to cite it as a book, and to source it to the information download on their website, again, taking care that you don't violate copyright by using too much of their exact text. Sandy05:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio here is a serious problem: please address it immediately. I have reworked/reworded several sections to eliminate possible copyvio, but the list of notable performers is a big problem. In its current form, it appears as an egregious copyvio (and, besides, it has some errors in relation to the Somerset-Ward book). I have separated that info to a daughter article (where it belongs), but I believe that entire article is a copyvio. If it isn't fixed soon, I'll speedy delete it. I suggest fixing it by summarizing important performances and performers, rather than verbatim copying the entire history of performances at the Playhouse.
Reviewing more closely the Playhouse website, this appears to come from their site: "In order to more easily transfer Playhouse productions to Broadway, the stage was built to match the specifications of Broadway’s Times Square Theatre on 42nd Street. The idea proved immediately useful when the playhouse's first production, The Streets of New York (starring Dorothy Gish), transferred to Broadway. Dozens of new works followed suit over the years." Text from the brief history on the Playhouse website should be rewritten to avoid copyvio problems: a number of other sources are available, including local press and the Somerset-Ward book.
The content of the article needs to be expanded to begin to tell the story of the Playhouse. It can certainly be FA some day. If you ping me in a month or so, I'll have another look. For now, please deal with the copyvio ASAP. Great start on an article which has great potential !! Sandy14:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did not replace the phrase "back of the house", but try to avoid theatre lingo that might confuse the non-theatre, average reader. Sandy03:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the offspring and relatives of notable performers who have interned at the Playhouse isn't really encyclopedic content: the Somerset-Ward book has plenty to say about the various educational programs, and I left more on the article talk page, so that you should be able to easily fill up those sections with relevant material. Sandy03:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that the images should be upgraded in order to make FA quality: two of them are superb, but several of them are very dark, and of equipment only, not adding anything anything meaningful, and yet, there is no picture of the old Playhouse or the construction, and a strange picture of the new rehearsal room. A current FA is Abbey Theatre; it provides an example in terms of content, although it's a bad example of referencing, since it was passed FA before the current inline citation requirements. If you look at Abbey, you'll see that a lot of the current content can be replaced with the kind of information you can find in Somerset-Ward and other local sources. I hope I've given you enough to get your arms around for a few months! Sandy03:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has taken a beating lately, but it's definitely shaping up to be providing valuable information, and Twintone requested that it be put up for pier review. I would like to request comments regarding the completeness, formatting, and audience appeal of this article. I'm particularly looking for "what have we missed" perspective, "this is really meaningless to me", "this isn't explained very well", and possibly input on a "common misconceptions" section, if appropriate. Robert Rapplean21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is undercited, and doesn't appear to refer to the highest quality medical sources. I suggest a thorough read of WP:RS focusing on the guidelines for medical articls.WP:MEDMOS might help orient your work, and a look at Cystic fibrosis will give you an idea of how references should look. Don't forget to include PMID cites for all medical studies, which are in short supply as references on the article now. It's also missing a medical info box (see AIDS, Tourette syndrome, cystic fibrosis.) Sandy22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i've finally finished peer reviewing/copyediting. Some overall comments:
This article needs forked articles; identification/diagnosis, effects and treatment are all too long & multifacited to not do so. I meant, this article is big, like 30k, and it gets a little tough to stick with the article when it's this daunting. It took me like a week to get through it myself for Peer Review/Copyedit.
More cites. It isn't usually an NPOV thing, but alcoholism is a very studied condition, and there just isn't any excuse not to have a shit-ton of sources to this baby. Someone might also look around userpages for a substance abuse counselor or something to help with these.
A lot of the sections seem sort of disconnected; i even caught a few repeats of something that had been said in a previous part of the article. Like a good essay, each needs to lead into each other to make a better flow.
Stop using that damn word 'result'. ;) Getting 'results' is one thing, but having everything 'the result of this' and 'resulting in that' makes this article seem like a robot.
As previously mentioned, more diagrams and images would better this article. Also, i know there is a ton of statistics out there, and it'd be great to have this article peppered in them.
This is only my second article and I know there are problems with it, I would greatly appreciate if someone would be willing to take a look at it and set me on the right path in terms of form and links, etc. Many thanks, --grendelsmother14:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your second article then I think you'll have a fine future as a Wikipedia editor. In order to lift the cleanup tag, I have two suggestions:
Neutralize the wording. One example of purple prose is ...where his conceptions adorn everything from the walls to the head-rests he invented for urinals. There's a tone of praise in the use of adorn that doesn't fit very well in an encyclopedic article. It would be fine to quote a source that praises him.
Cite sources and name examples. Per WP:WEASEL it's much better to put a statement about critical acclaim into the active voice and name the critic or publication.
If you'd like to raise this to good article status:
Create line citations.
Eliminate redlinks by creating stub articles.
Expand the coverage. Exactly what awards has he won? What artists are his influences? Create subheadings for his different media or his most important works. Is there some notable aspect to his life other than art? (For example, Vladimir Nabokov was an avid butterfly collector).
This is a fine start for a new editor. Have a look at some of the biographies that are already FA or GA and use them as models. Best wishes, Durova06:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely no inline citations at all. The external links at the bottom of the article are set out weirdly(see an FA for examples). The lead section needs to be two or three paragraphs. However, there is a hell of a lot of info here, just needs fiddling with. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to make this a quality article. I'd like it to be a featured candidate someday, but I don't think it's remotely there yet. Looking for general comments on how it could be improved. Sahasrahla08:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
You might want to add a bit of information about the climate.
Article could use more info about geography and topography. What cities/geographic features is it near? What is the altitude? etc.
The government section has too many lists. First of all, it isn't necessary to list every politician that represents the area at every level of government. You can remove some of those lists entirely (probably state and fedaral should go). Most of the others should probably be converted to prose.
The culture section has no references.
Article needs information about the town's economy. What are the major industries, if any?
Just seeing this now for some reason (must have missed it on the Watchlist before).
I agree a climate section would be useful. I know the article on Boston has a decent one, but I've no idea where to find that type of information. Someone out there with a better weather background will have to surface!
On geography, again, agreed, and again, no background here. Hopefully others will step up.
Disagree with removing government information. Not against prose-ing it; will need to look at how other articles are handling it.
As for culture, it's hard to try reference things you simply know from living somewhere for 20 years. An outsider's perspective would be needed here.
I'd have to check, but if the article mentions Stop & Shop and Samuel Adams (beer) then it lists the whole of the economy. It's a bedroom community still recovering from the late-80s recession.
See Also; true.
Proprietary settlements don't exist in Massachusetts anymore, and I've yet to find a clear-cut definition on what they were. It just happens to be that that's how the town started.
There is a few editors that is working in the article lately, and I really want to get this featured soon. It failed FAC around April here. I would work on the reasons why it failed the FAC tommorrow, I would also work on whatever helpful comments can be made. Thanks Jarandawat's sup04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
References should be put after punctuation signs. In the leading, it is used between the word and the comma worldwide[2], while it should come immediately after the comma. Don't leave a space between the word and the reference, as in the third reference.
The Legal issues section, especially the third paragraph, has too many short sentences, which may not be good for the flow. In example,
According to the complaint, Shakur sodomized the woman and then encouraged his friends to sexually abuse her. Shakur vehemently denied the charges. He had prior relations days earlier with the woman who was pressing the charges against him. She performed oral sex on him on a club dance floor and the two had later had sex in his hotel room.
Don't use $2000, use another notation like US$2000, or another way indicated here.
When using mdashes, don't put a space before or after it. If you want the space, use a ndash, per dash guidelines. In example, instead of shooting — of setting use shooting—of setting or shooting – of setting
The prose could get some polishing to remove unnecessary wording. In example, Family and friends plan to spread the remaining ashes during a ceremony in Soweto, South Africa. The ceremony has been delayed from September 13, 2006, to June 16, 2007, which is Shakur's 36th birthday could be rephrased as Family and friends plan to spread the remaining ashes during a ceremony in Soweto, South Africa, on June 16, 2007. Or, In one interview that appears on the documentary Tupac: Resurrection could be better as In an interview appearing on the documentary Tupac: Resurrection.
Weasel stuff, like Many supporters of these theories and It was believed by many listeners that in the first few seconds of the album The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory, one could hear a voice saying "Suge shot me", or "Suge shot 'em". This voice was of Kadafi. Who were those "many listeners"? Do we have a reference? Also, the "This voice was of Kadafi" is typical of a mystery book, not an encyclopedia. In example, It was believed by many listeners that in the first few seconds of the album The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory, Kadafi's voice could be heard saying "suge shot me", or "Suge shot 'em". The "one could hear" is of inappropriate tone too.
I suggest rephrasing this sentence:
This, along with reports of Knight's strong-arm tactics with artists and other illegal/unethical business tactics including involvement with the Mob Piru Bloods street gang gave rise to a theory that Knight was complicit in Shakur's murder, as it was reported that Suge Knight owed Tupac up to seventeen million dollars in back royalties, but no evidence has been provided to support this theory.
Derek Ross must be given a lot of credit for expanding the history section of the original Monopoly (game) article. In doing some research of my own, I also expanded the section to the point where I thought it best to fork off the section into its own article, and thus reduce the size of the main article. History of the board game Monopoly has recently reached 30K in size, which is, I think, a testament to the amount of material available on the game. I have acquired many of the sources myself, to use as proper references (including three books by Philip Orbanes, one of which I've owned since it was first published in the 1980s, and even a self-published book on the game's early history, which can be purchased by contacting its author, or finding it on eBay). I have also added four images to the page (the patent reproduction image "came with the move"), all of which have proper fair use rationale. I am awaiting publication of Phil Orbanes's Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game-And How it Got that Way to finish polishing some of the sections. For instance, I know the 2000 World Tournament was held in Toronto, but can't find the winner. Any help and advice is welcome. --JohnDBuell03:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, the article is pretty good. Here are some comments (note that, since the article is pretty well written, personal comments are just that, and is not necessary to listen to them):
Some cosmetic changes would be good (in example, moving the image found at Monopoly as a brand to the right to prevent clashing the See also title at 1024x768 or lower).
No instruction, advice or ideas per Wikipedia is not (however, one can most likely avoid violation by producing a board and rules that are functionally identical while using different words and graphics.)
Follow the dash guideline, instead of -- use mdash, and instead of - use ndash with spaces around it. In example, instead of money--with, use either money—with or money – with.
References should follow immediately after the word or punctuation mark. In example, number 40 has a space. (1950s. [40]) There are others that need to be cleaned.
Decide whether put punctuation marks inside quotes or outside it. In example, without "Rich Uncle Pennybags," and the car on "Free Parking",
I will let someone else check the prose, I found it very well except in a few situations (like the previously mentioned one can most likely avoid...). Congratulations, you may have a winner here :) -- ReyBrujo04:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent and very quick responses, thanks! To the specific points: #1 - done. #2, that "came with the move" and has been removed (also added that the game is protected by copyright and trademark laws, not just one). #3-#5 I'll look at later, as a lot of that requires my eyes not to be so tired! :) #6 Done. #7 For this I might copy the disclaimer currently at the start of Monopoly (game) about currency marks, as it's really play money. #8 I'll think about - I've always been pro-red links, but I know there's a considerable anti-red link faction. #9 So noted; I've always used ibid. #10 - The photographs are mine, and original, but they depict items protected by law, so I'm going to leave them as fair use. I'm going to err on the side of not getting sued :) Thanks again! --JohnDBuell04:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After having another look, it seems that only two uses of $ had to do with play money, which was still US Dollars at the time (no editions had been published outside the USA yet). All other references had to do with "real" money, so I changed them all to US$. --JohnDBuell04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't misunderstand me (I stroke something I should not have written, must be the hour). I don't really care about red links, but if those links are notable enough to become articles in Wikipedia, it is better to have them as stubs rather than red links for several reasons: anonymous users can't create articles, but they can expand; new users can create articles, but rarely stub or categorize them, while you should be able to do both (and indirectly help me having one less article I need to discover while browsing linkless articles); and a casual user searching for information about a determined article can at least read the stub without having to first find the Monopoly article and then going to the History of the board game Monopoly one. -- ReyBrujo05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A minor comment, but one that concerns accessability: using "ibid." is not a good idea in an encyclopedia that is intended for the general public. Most people aren't used to footnotes nor the standard shorthand notation of academics. Simply writing out the source isn't going to bother anyone even if it's repeated a few times.
I'll have a look at changing some of the "Ibid." statements. The <ref> system IS the current de facto footnoting standard, but the current WP:MOS doesn't seem to state one way or the other about using Ibid. I do note that it says page ranges should be indicated with an ndash, though, and not a hyphen. Peter, I did the article naming per WP:TITLE, specifically: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Because even the main game article itself is Monopoly (game) (due to the existence of economic monopolies), I felt from the moment I forked off the article that "History of Monopoly" would be asking for trouble as it's too ambiguous. --JohnDBuell11:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to appeal to academics, use "ibid.", but not if you want make it accessible to a wider audience. But using dashes instead of a hyphens...? It sounds like a very subjective and overly detailed recommendation to me.
The title issue doesn't seem all that irrelevant to the PR, so I've responded over there.
I thought the ndash request was odd, it's the first I've seen it, and would mean I've been "incorrect" in a lot of ref tags. Still, with a proper text substitution, I don't see that it or the spacing/punctuation issues that ReyBrujo mentioned would be difficult to do, it's just not something I really had the spare time to do during the day. Same would apply to ibid. tags - looking through recent FAs, there's no real usage of it. --JohnDBuell21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's been a while. I've been ill and haven't spent any time on Wikipedia in a couple of weeks. I took care of ReyBrujo's #3 and #9 points. I still need to do #4 and #5. --JohnDBuell00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered all of ReyBrujo's points now. I've also received a copy of the Anspach book, which I've started to read. --JohnDBuell01:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Son Goten is nearly a decent article; the article contains decent images, describes his appearance, and the like. But, I think the article has a lack of organization, verifiability, and information, if possible. SGFF01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the most obvious to the less obvious:
The article is mainly written from an in-uinverse perspective (as if he were alive), while it should be from an out-universe perspective (talking as a character). See the guideline for fictional characters.
Without references or sources, most can be considered weasel and peacock terms, in example, Goten is famous for his mispronunciation, In Dragon Ball GT (which most fans consider non-canon), etc.
Too much original research: It is possible that Goten had the potiental to become the strongest Saiyan., The ease at which he does so has been a matter of fan controversy, Another theory is that the strength of a child, It is unknown who won the bout but it is safe to assume that Goten won, etc.
In the Power section, there is a bold Super Saiyan. There is no sense having a subtitle there.
The movies and videogames sections are lists, which are usually frowned upon. Try expanding the character's participation there.
That is all I can say after a quick glance. Overall, it would be nice if you could find references, and rewrite the article from an out-of-universe perspective (authors' comments, why he was named in that way, why Toriyama decided to make him similar in appearance as Goku, while Gohan was so different, when he first appeared in the manga and in the anime, etc). If you need more comments, I can do that sometime later. -- ReyBrujo02:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Japanese Wiki would be a good source (or other languages). We would need a translator for that, though. However, you can use Google as a translator. SGFF03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appeared as a request in the mathematics portal. It was created primarily by P.L.A.R. and the main source was Carl Boyer's A History of Mathematics. It obviously needs more information, but the beginning is there. Any comments at all are appreciated.P.L.A.R.00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting article. This reads more like "Types of mathematical notation" rather than "History of . . ." I don't understand how the different notations interacted with each other. What caused old notations become insufficient and require the the delveopment of more advanced models? How did they spread to different areas and who is responsible for one type becoming standard instead of another? Why do clocks still use roman numerals? :) Seriously it is a good start but the sections do not flow together and I am unsure of the reasoning for the current order. Obviously there is much missing. The entire New World for one. Also I wonder if historically there was any connection between "math" and "astronomy" notations? One nitpick you say For example, the four vertical lines used to represent four were replaced by a single horizontal line. This was first introduced in the Rhind papyrus Do we really know this is where it is first introduced, or is it rather the earliest example we are aware of?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How did π come to symbolize the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter?
There are some sections that are devoid of references. What reference, for example, would I consult to confirm the claim that arabic numerals actually started in India?
Pre-calculus could also cover × and ÷.
How did we get the square root symbol?
Calculus can also cover the use of the ′ (prime) for derivatives, such as .
Thank you; all this advice is very helpful, especially the point on the article being more "Types of mathematical notation". Once the basic research is done, the entire article should be gone through and made to flow together, not only in terms of prose, but in how the information in each section goes into the others. There are two books I think would be very helpful, A History of Mathematics mentioned above and A History of Mathematical Notation, by Florian Cajori. Both of these are in nearby libraries, I hope to get them as soon as possible. The order is a bit arbitrary, it is based more on the information at hand than actual history. And the notation outside of Europe should certainly be mentioned too, thank you for bringing it up.P.L.A.R.00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be a bit broad in scope. History of numeral systems is worth its own article. Some materal duplicates other articles. Personally I find the name Pre-calculus rather jaring as we don't use it this side of the water, algebraic symbols might be nicer. To × and ÷ I'd add the equals sign. Also important is the notation for functions f(x). Modern computer typesetting LaTeX, MathML etc, might be worth a mention.
The first sentence suggests it's all about symbols. But it is also about how these symbols are put together (syntax).
A reader who knows absolutely nothing about the topic might think from the second sentence that these symbols are all letters.
Worth mentioning: the introduction of letters to stand for arithmetic quantities, the start of algebraic notation. Vieta is credited with making the custom popular. In older mathematical discourses, everything was expressed in natural language, as in: If the number of things is augmented with the part that was taken away from ...
The origin of the square root symbol, a lower-case r for radix.
The < and > symbols (if found in Cajori).
For the integral symbol ∫, refer to Long s. (See also the article Integral.)
Thank you for the new comments. There should be a link from this article to Mathematical notation; I think the converse is true but it doesn't make sense to have only one. I agree that Pre-calculus is a poor title. Algebraic symbols would work, or maybe Renaissance (although as more material is added, that title may become a misnomer). I think the biggest problem is still lack of content, which will hopefully change soon. Also, I recently discovered something about Benjamin Peirce's idea for notation, that would fit in with whatever the section Pre-calculus will become or the section on Euler. The section on Euler is connected with a question I have: should he have his own section? He was very important in notation, but it doesn't fit well with the chronological order of the other sections.P.L.A.R.02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just completed a three month overhaul of the article, and (IMHO) have drastically improved the article Fort Bliss. I would like to take this all the way to Featured Status, but I now need imput from the community about what needs improved. I can not spell to save my life, so if someone could check that and the grammar I would be much obliged. More importantly though I need to know what could be better cited. Aside from those two points specifically I am open to any suggestions for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following a note that 32K is too big, I had a quick look.
Compared to others, this is too precise; on the other hand most items are interesting.
So looking for repeat patterns
End of very top is repeated in history.
Fort Bliss has seen three major military composition changes and one territorial change since its creation. Originally a United States military base with an infrantry garrison, the facility was occupied by Confederate forces at the outbreak of the United States Civil War. Following the defeat of the Confederacy the infantry units gradually gave way to calvary units. During the time of two World Wars the post shifted from calvalry to anti-aircraft artillery, and then to its present role of air defense artillery, which incorporates guided missiles into the air defense arena.
This is my take for the intro
Fort Bliss is United States Army post in El Paso County, Texas, United States. The Fort is named for Lieutenant Colonel William Wallace Smith Bliss.
Fort Bliss, with 1.1 Million Acres, is the largest installation in TRADOC (U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.
Within the Army it is second only to White Sands Missile Range, which is adjacent to Fort Bliss.
Unsurprisingly, Fort Bliss is the largest Maneuver Area in the Army, at 550 square miles and also provides the largest contiguous tract of virtually unrestricted airspace in the Continental United States (1500 Square Miles).[5]
...... need clever referencing what happened to [1] [2] [3] [4]?
...... need info somewhere on the fort being also a place; this seems to be a touchy subject .
I will look over the introduction again and see if it can be tweaked in a manner more befitting the article. As for the page length, Wikipedia:Article size states that an article can go as high as 50 kilobytes before any serious consideration should be made to split up the article. The number 32 is displayed to to old techinical considerations. Numbers 1-4 are present in the article, 1 and 2 are in the infobox next to the titles "built" and "in use"; 3 and 4 are at the end of the first two sentences in the second paragraph. I am not entirely sure what you mean by the fort being a place, so if you could maybe elaborate a little on that point so I can see what you mean I would be most apreciative :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and soon might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
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 5ft, use 5 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 ft.[2]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
arguably
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[5]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), armour (B) (American: armor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), organise (B) (American: organize), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), program (A) (British: programme).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 44 additive terms, a bit too much.
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Hi, I thought I would put this on peer-review to get some ideas about what needs to be done to further improve the article. Thanks! Davey412:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandstein, thanks for the help. I think I have improved the sections enough to remove the notes: Plot ([14]), Cast ([15]) Any other help would be great. Let me know if I can improve those sections anymore. Thanks. Davey405:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is by most considerations a good biography. I have some issues, though:
He is considered one of the best dribblers in football history, and the best Brazilian player ever after Pelé. - by whom? For a statement as bold as that it is worth putting in whose opinion that is so that the reader can make up their own mind about the reliability of that statement.
...yet he still became one of the greatest players in football history - peacock term; tone it down, consider changing it to something more objective like ...a Brazilian twice World Cup-winning international or something like that.
...would often end on an accurate pass to a teammate in position to score. - Needs some sort of statistic to back it up, or at the very least examples of when he did so.
...became a symbol of the history of the club. - this sounds a little awkward. Maybe instead say he was one of the club's greatest or most well-known players, with a citation to back it up.
The club career is quite short, considering he played 12 seasons for Botafogo, I'm sure more can be said about it. Did he have any particular standout seasons or games for the club? It doesn't quite match the quality of the international section.
The article is not clear - did Garrincha play in his own farewell match in 1973? If not, consider moving it out of that section and into a Trivia section, or even a separate section entitled "Recognition and tributes" with other similar cases (e.g. his funeral and epitaph)
Consider transwikiing the quotes over to Wikiquote.
I think the article is close to FA status, but IMO, as a general guideline, an article should go through the peer review process before the FA process. I would like to know in advance why the article may fail a FA nomination. -- Selmo(talk)02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some points (feel free to address the ones you think are necessary, and to strike them from this list if you feel comfortable doing so):
Only four inline reference for the whole article. Could more be added?
Some parts could be considered inappropriate tone, like See Wikibooks - Chess/The Endgame for a demonstration of how the king and queen versus king mate is achieved., Again, see Wikibooks - Chess/The Endgame for a demonstration of how the king and rook versus king mate is achieved. and (see Troitzky line).
Most sections read like an instruction manual (Here are the two basic checkmate positions, This diagram shows the basic checkmate position, These diagrams show representatives , etc).
Make wikilinks more direct. In example, opposition in the Queen section is wikilinked against Chess terminology, when it should be wikilinked at Chess terminology#O or Opposition (chess). Another example is rank, pointing at Chess terminology as well.
Checkmate#Basic checkmates has checkmates bolded in the body. However, it is not necessary to bold it in that section. You can use italics in the word after the leading, although that is not necessary as the term is pretty well known.
Without references, some sections can be considered original research, weasel words or peacock terms (This checkmate is the most difficult to force,, With white to move, checkmate can be forced in at most sixteen moves from any starting position., checkmate can be forced in at most nineteen moves., etc.
The article is mixing two types of inline references (see Checkmate#Origin of the word, in example, both {{ref}} and m:Cite/Cite.php). That is pretty confusing (for a minute I thought there was just one inline reference). Try consolidating both styles.
There are some red links. Some frown upon them when going for a featured article.Redlinks in the references templates have been removed.
When using mdashes (like in captured — the) there should be no space between the dash and the surrounding words. If you want to add a space, use a ndash (in other words, either captured—the or captured – the). The dash guidelines explain this in deeper detail.
I would add to ReyBrujo and recommend some sort of different formatting for the explanations of the moves in the "Quick checkmates" section. I don't know what's traditional for chess articles on Wikipedia, but listing them as they are now (like they are words, with spaces in between them) is rather painful to read and seems unorganized. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that, after the etymology, you dive straight into a list of the basic checkmate combinations. You might want to start by explaining that checkmate occurs when (a) all squares around the king are either occupied by a non-capturable piece or under threat themselves, and (2) the piece which threatens the king is neither capturable nor blockable. This is described in the article Check (board game), but is just as applicable if not more so to your article.
Also, on the diagrams you might want to use either highlighting or sweeping arrows to indicate which of the above mentioned squares the threatening pieces influence - it makes more sense for those who don't see that instinctively.
In conjunction with my first suggestion, you might want to include a few examples of things that are NOT checkmate, and explain why not.
An article about a fictional character in the Dragonlance series. The article has been rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective, and would like some more tips before sending it to a Good article nomination. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo02:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has recently been through a degree of upheaval. Large quantities of unsourced material have been removed and most sections have been rewritten. While the regular editors catch their breath, we would like to invite comments and suggestions for any further improvements.
Comments regarding both substance and style are sought, including (but not limited to):
readability of prose,
effectiveness of the tables as an alternative to prose in the Great power listings sections,
sufficiency/reliability of current sources,
comments re. substance of article from those with an academic background in the subject are keenly sought,
You forgot Poland. --zippedmartin04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Kidding, obviously. Sources are a bit all over the place, but that's at least partly not editors' trough (hi cite.php!!!) 6, 9 and 29 are currently nowikied, but I dare not press the edit button to try and find them. Article is quite readable, though not polished. The quote 'an empirical one, and common sense can answer it' appears in the lead and later too (it's not *that* thrilling)... Formatting of second table is bothered by the image float. India and Italy? Hey maybe Poland wasn't so funny after all.[reply]
Hoping to get this article up to GA and, eventually, FA status. I recently merged two articles to get this one, and the shakiest part of the move was the History section. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the article deals with strict canon — the seven books — but in the beginning maps created for the movie are used. Did Disney strictly follow the books creating them? Perhaps they took some freedoms? The article says nothing about that. // Duccio16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about those images, and that's something I need to look into. However, the caption of the second image reads, "Traditional map of Narnia (top); map released to promote the 2005 Narnia film (bottom)." They are slightly different; thus, I would assume that the filmmakers took some liberties. I suppose there should be a section on the accuracy of artwork/maps. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some stuff is a bit too in-universe: present tense would be better, as is a bit more context to elements of history: why is the land often under siege and evil? Referencing too: what were some of Lewis' inspiration is something I'd like to know too. Wiki-newbie19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)] - Read this carefully, this article has a long way to go, starting with a major restructuring. Also, take a look at something like this Palpatine or Spira. Judgesurreal77703:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I was going to say was mentioned already, but here is some more:
The introduction seems rather short for such a long article.
A section on history of the acutal development of this world by CS Lewis.
There's not a whole lot of information on this subject. All but one source I found was from the nineteenth century. Does anyone have any idea how I can improve this article? --Scottandrewhutchins19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this Pamela Allardice, and why should I trust what she has to say on the subject?
The article could do with a picture (a drawing or painting, obviously), given the grotesque description of the monster given, it's only natural that one would want to actually see it.
I helped get this article up to GA status a little while back, and I made the decision that I would try to get it up to FA status. I already had this article peer reviewed on the CVG peer review, and I I think the review really helped improve it. However, I think that adding it to the standard peer review will give it the final push of improving whatever's necessary to make it a featured article. Any help would be appreciated.--Clyde Miller15:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a solid article, but one that needs quite a bit of improvement before an attempt at FAC. In the lead:
Exact release dates are nice to have, and are standard procedure in computer and video game-related featured articles.
"In many ways, it is a spiritual sequel to Empire Earth, Stainless Steel Studios' previous game." - This sentence is original research. To remove this, simply merge it into the following sentence, with something like "The game has been referred to by the press as an un-official sequel to Empire Earth".
"Although a slightly compressed version, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is based on world history, spanning 5 epochs from the Medieval Age to World War II." - Clumsy wording causes this sentence to be unclear. Try something like "Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is based on a slightly compressed version of world history, spanning five epochs from the Medieval Age to World War II".
Gameplay needs some work, but like the rest of the article, it's mostly solid stuff. Some suggestions:
As big of a pain as they can be, a few more citations could probably be used.
Needs some copyediting to remove a bit of the clumsiness, with things like "Empires is based around gathering resources and using those resources to construct buildings and an army" being changed to "Central to Empires is the gathering of resources, which are used to build structures and armies." Another one that stuck out to me was "Resources are gathered by citizens, who bring it back to Town Centers." Try "Citizens gather resources, placing them in Town Center structures," or somesuch. If you want, I'll give it a once-over a bit later.
The bolded list needs to be integrated into the main text body. For starters, I recommend placing "Resources" after the "Resources are continually gathered..." sentence. However, it contains some original research with "The resources of Empires are not unlike those in many other RTS games." The best way to get rid of this is cutting it entirely, reducing the part to "The resources of Empires break down into food, wood, gold, stone. Each is used in a variety of ways, and must be totally utilized to achieve victory." The rest could be similarly integrated.
"...are only the center of attention at the beginning of it." Original research. Please find a citation for this.
"After the beginning of the game, the construction of an army takes top priority for the player, as an enemy cannot be defeated by anything other then an enemy army (or if they resign). Resignation is used if a player is going to give up, and usually coincides with imminent defeat." - As with the above, this is original research. In addition, "then" should be "than", and the last bit could be rewritten into something like "as enemies are defeated through military conflict. Players may also resign from the game."
"To be victorious, players must raise a balanced and organized army. To be balanced, micromanagement is important. Micromanagement is breaking down an army into groups, whether it is by unit or several different types of units put together to make several smaller divisions of the main army. Micromanagement is important because it helps a player command quickly when they are attacking an opponent." - Original research, and needless discussion of micromanagement that could be left to the micromanagement article. Try "To be victorious, players must raise balanced and organized armies, utilizing micromanagement by breaking armies into groups," and adding a citations at the end.
For Campaigns, the main issue is the... rather odd use of spoiler tags. I do not believe discussing world history counts as "spoiling".
Development needs an overhaul, particularly with its strange want to discuss the company instead of the actual game. The details about its development company could probably be cut and the rest editing, leaving something like "Empires was developed by the now-defunct Stainless Steel Studios. The game was developed on an upgraded version the "Titan" engine, which was used in the company's previous title, Empire Earth. A demo of Empires was available before the game's release[14] and news was released about it in E3 2003." If applicable, include information about all of the game's appearances at E3, Games Convention, Consumer Electronics Show and the like, along with dates and citations for each appearance. In addition, include information from "designer diaries" and announcements made about the game's development.
I've worked on most of the article suggestions you gave me, and I usually used your ideas for the sentences. Your ability with word choice, prose, and grammer structure far excedes mine. However, finding citations may be a bit harder, so I'm working on that. On a different note, any copyediting you would like to do would be greatly appreciated.--Clyde Miller20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit and the advice. I've fixed pretty much everything, with the exception of finding news about the game at the Games Convention and Consumer Electronics Show. I'm still looking into those. Is there anything else I need, didn't correct, or missed? Thanks.--Clyde Miller03:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General citations are usually not accepted in FAC. I recommend you switch the bulleted items in "references" to inline citations, and cite the necessary prose with them. Also, while the reception section is pretty good, I note two problems:
I have a hard time believing that the game only received multiple criticisms for its lack of a good tutorial, so you should dig up some more info there.
While there are plenty of different sources used, I think it would be best to include some magazine reviews. Sources like Gamezone aren't as notable as GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy and the other big players. I think you should try tracking down reviews from PC Gamer, Computer Gaming World, and Computer Games Magazine. According to Metacritic, these are the Jan 2004, Feb 2004 and Feb 2004 issues, respectively. I can't offer much more help than that, but I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Magazines if you don't have access to those sources.
Well the CVG review has this on it's peer review page, and it's only one of six games there (pretty low at the moment). I was hoping maybe some of the people on the CVG review would add something, but all I can do until someone helps out is wait. I don't think that Empires appeared in the CES (it was all speakers and the like), and the GC info is buried so deep I'm buying a shovel, if the info about it actually exists. If there wasn't any news about Empires at the GC or CES, I'll at least add more E3 news. I'm still looking though.--Clyde Miller13:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally exhausted every source I know regarding the game conventions, so I added a little bit more about the E3 annoucement instead. Is this Okay?--Clyde Miller22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely better. I'll give the subject a look and see if I can't find anything that could help. Game conventions aren't the only thing that may be used in development sections, after all. JimmyBlackwing22:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool. You probably have more places to look, and thanks. I also never got a chance to thank you for the help with the reception section, which I'm currently working on. I have the reviews for Computer Gaming World, PC Gamer, I got a little tidbit from Gamepro, but I couldn't find Computer Games Magazine other than the quote on Metacritic. I'll find a place to put them in, whether it is in the first reception paragraph or in the section about what the critics didn't like. I also may put more in from some of the other reviews I have already used, and include more of the gripes of the critics.--Clyde Miller00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I only managed to find a little bit on the game's development, but it was a nice touch, I think. With the addition of the magazine reviews, this article will really come together. Drop me a line when you decide to try for FAC and I'll help you out. FAC can be pretty harsh, but I've gone through the process a few times, so I can give you a hand with whatever gets requested. JimmyBlackwing14:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everything, and the development section looks excellent. I'm gonna add my part about the reception, then I'll drop a note on your talk page or here when it's put on FAC.--Clyde Miller21:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting to peer review before going through GA nomination process. Please advise about style, content value, general interest, and any other criteria you should find relevant (GA or not). Many thnaks in advance.--SidiLemine12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article need to be expanded to be less "in-universe". Try adding a criticisims section and a section about how the show was developed to bring it out of this perspective. Tarret13:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism section is included in the "reception" section. Do you think there should be more? I'll try to find stuff about the origins of the show, althought that would probably fall in "Influences".--SidiLemine14:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm focusing on organizational and format issues here. The list of episodes link should be linked to under the Plot heading, with the empty section of that name being deleted. The spoiler tag should preceed the text of "Plot." The "Influences" section needs more citations. As it is, most of "Research" risks being cut per WP:NOR. Also, the subsections for writing and character design in should probably be titled "Writing" and "Character design," with the people discussed in the text. On that note, use the manual of style for Abe's name. The PS game should probably be given an infobox. And a brief reading of the article suggests that most of the "See also" section should be cut. I understand how the topics might relate to Lain but the article's text doesn't really establish the connection. (The way I see it, is that See Also should be used for other anime/manga/games or relevant people. Things like "theodicy" should be linked to in the text as they are warranted.)--Monocrat05:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Monocrat. That's appreciated. Do you mean there shouldn't be a "List of episodes" section, but just a link under "Plot"? For the influences section, all is referenced; precisely, for Konaka, all info comes from the same interview. Should I put several inline citations pointing to the same intetrview? About Yoshitishi ABe's name, this is the way he states it is written in romaji, with the B capitalised. About the "See Also", I think you're not supposed to put things mentionned in the text there; so it would be hard to make a connection. I think most of it will go thought. I'll get an infobox for the PS game; but the manga (a few-pages doujinshi in an artbook) will do without ;)--SidiLemine09:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sidi (is that right?), you're correct that there should not be a separate section for the list of episodes link. The {{main article|List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes}} should go just above or below the spoiler warning in "Plot". (I personally would prefer above the spoiler warning for aesthetic reasons, but I'm unsure what is officially sanctioned.) You might want to, as you suggest, add a few more inline citations in "Influences" even if you don't add any more sources. I withdraw the comment about ABe—policy seems to have changed recently. :) What I meant about the "See also" section is that concepts like "Artificial intelligence" and "Theodicy," and their relations to Lain, need to be introduced in the text. Right now, no real link between Lain and these concepts is spelled out.--Monocrat03:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I speckled the articles with some {{fact}} tags, try to cite them.
Japanese names needed for all characters.
Lead is very poor. Polish it up.
List of episodes should be under "See also" section. Or, a template box should be made to include it. I don't think there are any other Lain related articles atm though, so that method should wait.
Yup, it's Sidi. I'm OK with not having a section with no text, and just a link. But on the other hand, it's a one-season-series, so I figure the episodes should be in the main article. On the third hand (make it a foot), the episode list looks really cool by now, so I was thinking about keeping it, and having a single line by episode in the article, with name, air date, and maybe a non-spoiler sentence. But I guess that's not the most urgent.
I'll add multiple refs to the same source in the same sentence. I sure understand the point, but I still feel funny about it.
About the "see also", I'm still puzzled... I mean, I wonder how you can introduce something in the text, and not mention it. I guess that'll leave only Kairo for now. And the relationship is a distant one at best. Or, is the "see also" for similar stuff (ie concepts for concepts, works for works, etc)?
About the lead, I thought it was good, being short, formal, and informative. By "polishing", do you mean going deeper in the substance of the anime? (example please!)
It doesn't have flow (i.e. jumps around too much). You've got 4 short paragraphs where you should have one or two medium/long ones. Also, technical details (who made it, when it played) generally come before the primise in the lead.--SeizureDog20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the Japanese names, I'd be glad, but I don't even have the japanese plug in (oh! the shame! the whips and scorns of time!).
Additional comment Lack of consistancy with the show's name. Is it Serial Experiments Lain or Serial Experiments: Lain (with colon)? --SeizureDog20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the audience. Maybe when I'll get time I'll try to get some sources to say that shows broadcasted at this hour generally don't get lots of attention :).
I'll look around for good leads and copy one.
Haï, haï! To tell you the truth, I can't configure this PC to see anything but big squares in place of japanese language. So it'll have to be someone else's doing.
About the colon, I'm pretty sure it is with colon, but didn't change the title as I don't have a copy of it, and the litterature on the subject is itself inconsistent (see "controversy" on talk page).--SidiLemine10:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I've rewrote the lead. Any better? I'll wait consensus about the colon before taking action. About the Episodes List, I thought it would be good to have a list with the titles, as they are quite evocative, and for anyone who remembers an episode but couldn't tell if it's in the beginning or the end (knowing Lain, it happens). I've managed all the {fact} tags except one: the one about the game. I think I know where it came from: a forum transcript from "thought experiments lain". Is that somthing I can cite? I don't think so, but it's the maximum I could get on the game, so I'm afraid the whole section would follow if I deleted it. And the article needs a section about the game. --SidiLemine16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a part of my general overhaul of Beowulf-related articles, I have expanded this article from stub status into an article that seems rather complete. I have worked on it in tandem with the Halga article. I would be very grateful for opinions on the article.--Berig09:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The research in general looks good, but I have a few problems with the structure. The several sections do not hang together well; they almost read as if several independent articles had been concatenated together. Also, how do we know that the Hroðgar of Beowulf is the same character as the Ro of the Chronicon Lethrense? Was there a scholar or philologist who first proposed this identification? -- llywrch20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for great additions to the Beowulf section! The sections were written to enable them to be read independently of each other, so that the reader would not have to read the Widsith section in order to proceed with the Chronicon Lethrense section. It should not be a big problem, and it may be solved with a few introductory lines. As for the identity of Hroðgar with Hróar/Ro, I am not familiar with any scholars who question it. Their names being identical, being contemporary with the Swedish king Eadgils, being Scyldungs, having the same family relations and being Danish royalty are pretty strong arguments. AFAIK, their identity is a given and what is debated is the connection between the character Beowulf and Böðvarr Bjarki, which is much less obvious.--Berig05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I believe that the alignment is simply taken for granted. Whenever I check the role of Halga vs Hrothulf, Beowulf ressources say that Halga was the father, or probably the father of Hrothulf (see this google search of +halga and +hrothulf). However, this information never appears in Beowulf itself. It is simply taken from the Scandinavian sources, where Helgi (i.e. Halga) and Hrolf (i.e. Hrothulf) are always defined as father and son.--Berig18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a part of my general overhaul of Beowulf-related articles, I have expanded this article from stub status into an article that seems rather complete. I have worked on it in tandem with the Hroðgar article. I would be very grateful for opinions on the article.--Berig09:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done an extensive rewrite on this article, creating a better lead and organization, and adding many references. I know that it needs more/better print and book references, but I don't have them handy just yet. Any other suggestions on improving structure, flow, prose? Anything that seems to be missing from the article? I'd appreciate any opinions you have to offer.
One suggestion for expansion is non-US information. The circulation of bootlegs is very popular in Europe (perhaps more so than in the US) and a lot of the high-quality production bootleggers are based in Japan. Not much is said about those countries. Also 1969 sounds like a rather late date for the first rock bootleg? Is that just for vinyl? There must have been bootleg reel-to-reel tapes circulating earlier (i.e., the Beatles). RelHistBuff13:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to have any information you can provide to help on this, especially historical details about the cases that led up to this very rare decision by the US Treasury. Would also like to hear thoughts on any appropriate graphics that could be used in this article and also any relevant trivia that may be out there. I would like to work this thing up to Wikipedia:Featured_articles by tax time. --Shortfuse02:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert from inline hyperlinks to footnotes (a lot of information about a reference can be found from looking at the footnote). The "Effective partial repeal" section is hard to read because of all technical numbering. Using a quote template would be better than :: in terms of readability. CloudNine09:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After the huge edit-war, the page may finally be getting somewhere if original research isn't added by the primary contributor to the edit war. Please give feedback, espcially in light of the discussion page. De Grummond tells me the material will be on pages 213-220 of her book, but since what she provided was a Word document, I can't transte that into specific pages yet. --Scottandrewhutchins22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just from a brief reading by someone without any foreknowledge, a few things come to mind. Lead section should be a bit more descriptive, as it uses some pretty technical vocabulary for the average reader. All inline citations should be outside of punctuation marks. The references section is an oddity. The writing there needs less pov and most red links are unecessary. Joshdboz22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Etruscan experts like Massimo Pallottino, Nancy de Grummond and Larissa Bonfante instead of authors of sci-fi and children's books (Jeff Rovin) or pornographic materials like Alice K Turner might help reduce POV significantly. --Glengordon0108:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry, did I say pornographic materials by Alice K Turner? Yes, my bad. Please ignore this link and don't consider how insufficient the references might be based on the fact that input from valid Etruscan experts are few and far between. --Glengordon0108:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Scott on Charun, Jeff Rovin, reknowned author of children's books and science-fiction but not a single academic resource in Etruscan studies says: "He is depicted with a hammer with which he is believed to have bashed the souls of the dead, after guiding them on horseback to the underworld."
As we all know, children's books are much better quality than university books and we should never go to university because we might get crazy ideas :)
Larissa Bonfante & Judith Swaddling. Etruscan Myths, University of Texas Press, 2006. p.33:
"Many scenes feature the two purely Etruscan underworld demons, Vanth and Charu, whose job is not to punish the dead but rather to escort them to their final destination. This is the only aspect of the Etruscan Charu, aside from his name, which connects Charu to the Greek Charon, the boatman of the dead."
The 3rd parties avoided offering any "finding" on Charun here, any more than there is a "finding" about your recent 24-hour block for accusations and abusive language by Doc glasgow. Let it go. --Glengordon0103:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just briefly looked over the list of references. Most of them appear respectable although I have never actually read any of them, although I would not use Jeff Rovin, as his book is a children's book and shouldn't be used as an encyclopedic reference for such an academic subject. Alice Turner's is more iffy, so I would say use your best judgement. Does she have a bibliography or notes section? If not, I would be careful using her book unless you can find a second verification for each statement of her's you include. Joshdboz11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rovin's book is not a children's book. It mak not be the best source, but it is a reference book from a respectable publisher. I know of no libraries the shelve it with the juvenile books. --Scottandrewhutchins17:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the citations. I haven't followed this disagreement over the hammer, but making it clear that debate surrounds it is definitely going in the right direction if that is the case. I would reiterate though that the Encyclopedia of Monsters is not a great source, especially seeing that it is relied on several times. Rovin obviously got the information in it from somewhere, so it might be better to retrace his steps if possible. Other than that, I would get rid of all the redlinks to authors' names and move the notes section above the reference section. Joshdboz19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, wait. Check out this irony. "I know of no libraries the[sic] shelve it with the juvenile books." Well I guess we're going to have to tell Amazon.com that they made a mistake of classifying your references from Jeff Rovin in the "children's books" category: [17]. (Look at the breadcrumb links to the left up top: "Books › Children's Books › Jeff Rovin") Hahaha, so cute. --Glengordon0103:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the place to leave Peer review comments? If so, I have two:
If two editors are still fighting over this article, I think it is premature to ask for input here; obviously the text is still in flux. Try WP:RFC first.
I'd say this article is long enough that the Stub notice at the bottom can be removed.
Bring this article back to Peer review when the editors involved have come to a consensus about the article's contents & its sources. -- llywrch21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is going to be mentioned, Durova, please explain the whole story, not the parts that suit you.
First, you were the one entering the request. So your mention of it here has bias, a kind of subtle personal attack in order to attempt to invalidate my points above by emotional rhetoric rather than logical considerations or knowledge of the subject in question.
Second, Scottandrewhutchins is in denial that certain books he cites are children's books (which at least two people here understand to be true). Certainly having showed what Scott has cited to my real-life contacts who are high school teachers by profession, all I can say is that Scott would have a tough time passing. It's not sufficient in high school so why is it acceptable amongst mature adults?
Third, if I should suggest that they be removed, Scott has continued to attack me as "incompetent" and the like (which is all explained in the Response section of the RFC filed against me. So at this point, I refuse to edit the subject because Scott clearly needs to boost his ego by "hijacking" the article for himself. As you can see in the history, it's Scott's page and if it should be replete with factual errors and low-grade references, the existing admins think that's okay.
This is a request for peer review on an article that Scottandrewhutchins has been working to build. The other disputant agreed to stop editing the article at RfC. Since he did not disclose that with his comments, I deemed it appropriate to add a link. Scottandrewhutchins appears to be making a sincere effort to improve the article and seek fresh input. I hope more editors will assist this effort with substantive feedback. Durova05:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what this needs to reach good article status. Should it be rewritten, should information be added/removed, and are there any formatting errors? If so, what are they? Tikallover02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any more information on what trends the different Skippers were created to take advantage of? A few more citations could be nice - as a rule of thumb, anything that's controversial, any quotes or dates need citing. Any less direct assertions need citing too - "some collectors say this", for example. The history of the doll's shape is quite complete, which is good, but it feels lacking in how the doll was recieved in the wider world. How popular was Skipper compared to Barbie? Some of the doll-collectors' terms such as Mint In Box could use a wiki link, or a Wiktionary link. -Malkinann13:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your referencing is bizarre. Some sections are littered with citations, and some don't have any. You might want to correct that. Also, maybe expand your lead section to give a little more background to the world in which your chracters live. Dev92020:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written all of this article and would appreciate some suggestions of how to improve it, please. I think it's reasonably comprehensive. I'd be particularly interested on what would need doing to reach GA. The JPStalk to me19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I don't know much about GA criteria: The lead needs expanding -- it should touch on all the major points addressed in the article. Tell us something about who these musicians are; we shouldn't need to click on the links to understand that, for instance, Meat Loaf performs in a very different genre than Dion. The description of the music videos is a little confusing. It needs to be more obvious to the reader that the article discusses three different music videos for the three separate covers. I would much rather see a fifteen-second side-by-side comparison of the Dion and Meat Loaf versions than the 30-second Dion sample. Are the videos at YouTube infringing copyright? Have we decided we don't care about linking to infringement (I cannot remember)? The article is rather obviously lacking in any discussion of the lyrics and music -- we seem to be assuming that the reader is familiar with the song. There is an editorial aside "and images of them together (presumably their "nights of endless pleasure")" that I'm guessing is a lyric quote, for instance. The strength of the article is the treatment of the three different releases, of course, and there's a good balance struck in that. Why is Meat Loaf's album the title of his section, when the others are named after the performers? I hope that this helps, and good work on the article. Jkelly20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your useful comments, Jkelly. I've corrected a couple of the (easiest) points you mention. I'm worried/confused/unsure about discussing the lyrics without stumbling into original research; there isn't an obvious narrative, or such. There doesn't seem to be guidance on the use of copyright material on the talk page on the YouTube template: however, there are comments that at least if the template is used then infringements can be found and removed quickly. What aspects of the video descriptions do you find confusing? My writing style has always left something to be desired, and I'm not always sure what doesn't make sense. I thought it was clear that each description belonged to each section...? The JPStalk to me21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely some reviewer has commented on the themes of the song -- right now we have Steinman's description of what the song is about, but I think some expansion with other commentary would be good, and I think we're safely outside of WP:NOR when we, for instance, provide a short quote directly from the chorus. If there's really nothing out there, however, there's not much we can do. As for the video thing, I suggest that we lead the reader along a little more gently. Instead of "The video was directed by Smith..." we can use "Smith directed the video for the Dion version, which also featured a motorcyclye." or something similar (note that I also avoided passive voice here). As a rule of thumb, avoid surprising the reader when moving from thought to thought; if there is nothing in the preceding sentence that clues the reader into what the next sentence will be about, throw in a few words or a clause to guide them along. All of that said, it wasn't really unclear, I just noticed that I had to check what section I was reading when in the video descriptions. Jkelly21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend changing the infobox setup. If I were to just glance at the infobox for info, I would think that this song is a collaboration performed by Pandora's Box, Celine Dion, and Meat Loaf as opposed to a song released as a single by each of three different acts. My recommendation, as I'm not very knowledgeable of other ways, would be to give each of the three versions a separate infobox, or to pick the two that most necessitate them (i.e., as of right now, I'm not sure Meat Loaf's would particularly require one to facilitate the presentation of information). I imagine this is a minor point within the context of the article but just thought I'd toss it out there. GassyGuy22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment, thanks -- and if I were being honest, I thought it looked odd when I first put it in. What's the convention about multiple infoboxes on a page? That would leave the very top of the page without an infobox... is that OK? The JPStalk to me23:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's okay as long as they appear at sensible parts of the article. You can see conventions about infoboxes at that section of WP:SONG. I'm pretty sure the general rule is that there shouldn't be more than three on any one page, which shouldn't be a problem in this case. If you look at my user page, I went ahead and started playing with the infoboxes. I would have placed them directly in the article except I'm not sure where the best placement of them is, so I'll leave that to another editor. On an unrelated note, I'm not sure if this info merits inclusion in the article or not, but one other version of this song was released (to much less success) by dance music performer Natalie Browne in either 1996 or 1997 after Celine Dion's version became popular. Thought that might be worth a sentence or two somewhere. GassyGuy10:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the only thing missing from Jkelly's suggestions, I think, is a description of the different styles. I'm stuck. I don't have the terminology to describe it, unfortunately: I'm not incredibly sure there's a big difference in these tracks. The JPStalk to me20:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this article to undergo peer review. It has received careful and substantial attention from a number of editors over an extended period. The topic is one of wide interest.
If I may suggest, with some further careful attention, the article may merit consideration as a Featured Article. I would request that reviewers assess the article and offer edits/comments/suggestions with an eye towards that goal. NorCalHistory06:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood the Peer Review tag instructions, the Peer Review tag was to appear at the top of the Discussion page. I do see it there. Here are the directions from wikipedia:peer review:
To add a nomination:
1. Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
2. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page.
If I misunderstood the directions, should it be in an additional/different place?
Regarding your comment about text citations and footnotes - footnotes will be easy enough, but I'm not sure what the difference would be with "text citations" - would the text citations appear as footnotes? Finally, the "what not" part! I'm interested to know any more solid suggestions.
Other than the (relatively easily) fixable footnotes and citations, are there other suggestions that you think would improve the article (such as writing style or content)? Thx! NorCalHistory22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tag looks fine to me. I've added an example in-line citation/footnote to the article. As for other advice, the lead/head section is too short. It should introduce the subject by summarizing the article. --Paul23:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What jumped out at me is that there is a section entitled "History" in an article that is about history! This section is really what the bulk of the article should be. If you start subdividing this section, you will probably discover where the gaps in the information are. The "Geology" section doesn't really belong here. While it's interesting information, the topic is a specific historical period, not the existence of gold in California generally. The section "Recovering the gold" has an awkward name and most of this information can be incorporated within the main section. The development of different technologies was central to how the Gold Rush progressed. Lagringa07:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observations - thank you! With all due respect, I do think how this specific gold got to these specific places in California is an interesting (and germane) topic. How economically-recoverable gold accumulated in other places in the world would also be interesting topics for those gold rush articles. Your point about renaming the sections, and incorporating the "recovery" section as part of the main narrative makes sense to me. Thank you! NorCalHistory15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per peer review suggestion, citations are being added - starting with Bancroft's canonical 1888 text. Additional refs to additional (more modern works) are on their way. NorCalHistory01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional citations and additional information on the negative as well as the positive effects of the Gold Rush have been added. Comments please! NorCalHistory00:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction ought to be longer than one paragraph for an article of this size. The geological history might work better at the start of the article. Referencing is spotty: I'd like to see more for the mining techniques and geology. Perhaps add a section about how California's economy adjusted after the gold rush itself ended. I'd also like to see something about the legal issues involved: gold prospecting claims, bank scrip, etc. A few words about ghost towns would be good. I understand that the largest gold rush fortunes were usually made by the people who sold supplies to prospectors - could we have something more explicit there? There's also the issue of transport: how did the people and supplies reach California, and how did the gold leave? I seem to remember at least one shipwreck of California gold off the East Coast. Also, how did this affect the national economy? Finally, while the far northern counties are discussed, I've seen abandoned mines as far south as the San Bernardino Mountains. Heck, I've even panned a few flakes out of SoCal streams (fun for an afternoon but not productive enough to be worth the effort). I don't think this meets GA standards yet, but keep working. Best wishes, Durova06:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this potpourri of interesting suggestions. These articles are always a trade-off between throwing in a ton of topics and trying to keep the length to manageable proportions! Each of these suggested topics sounds great, and many of them might even merit their own separate article! I'll start following up on these suggestions.
If the article starts to have real length problems you can always go to summary style with daughter articles for the individual topics. One more idea: the California gold rush as cultural myth - both in the sense of novels and films about the gold rush and in terms of metaphoric application of "gold rush" to other situations. Durova16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With an eye towards FAC, the lead is too short, not compelling, and doesn't entice the reader in (see WP:LEAD); the organization of the sections doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT; books used as references should have ISBNs; the article needs serious attention to inline citations. Also, shorten your ibids as follows:
Starr, Kevin (2005). California: a history. New York: The Modern Library, p. 99.
Starr, Kevin (2005), p. 85-86.
Starr, Kevin (2005), p. 84-87.
I don't have time to look at them, but make sure all of your images are in the clear in terms of copyright/Fair Use before approaching WP:FAC. In terms of prose, please check for redundancy in the text: there are several good information sources to help you prepare for FAC at the bottom of WP:WIAFA. I haven't read through the entire article, but a text search for "Columbia" tells me the article probably needs work in terms of comprehensiveness. The prose needs some polishing: make sure to get several good copy edits once you've beefed up the prose. Picking a completely random sentence from the middle of the article:
To meet the demands of all the new arrivals, ships bearing goods from around the world poured into San Francisco as well - porcelin <---TYPO and silk from China, ale from Scotland.
To meet the demands of new arrivals, ships from around the world poured into San Francisco, with goods such as porcelain and silk from China and ale from Scotland.
Very interesting and useful - a good amount of technical detail to improve the article. I'll certainly take a careful look at the information you've offered. If I may, I might have a follow-up question or two after I've reviewed your suggestions! NorCalHistory01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the follow up questions on my talk page, I was referring to the fact that the article is seriously undercited. For example, look at the Gold in California section (not a single cite), and Effects of the Gold Rush, where numerous instances of hard data are not cited. This problem is evident throughout; those are just samples. Also, there's a problem with your References section: examination of Notes shows that the text only relies on five of those sources (Bancroft, Wells, Heizer, and two Starr books). If the remaining References aren't actually used as References, they should be listed as Further reading. I'd like to see you seriously and passionately beef up the text/content before coming to FAC, as there is a rich history to be told about the Gold Rush. Work on compelling and brilliant :-) Should there be more discussion of the Chinese component? Sandy16:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again - brilliant and compelling is a tall order! More citations being added regularly, and reference works not yet cited will be moved to a Further reading section.
Per peer review suggestions, additional material has been added regarding transportation and Southern California, and the citations have been added to and re-formatted. Thanks, Sandy, your input is quite useful, and your suggestions will receive careful further attention! NorCalHistory16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few more thoughts: A section called "Effects of the Gold Rush" in an article called Gold Rush doesn't fit with WP:MOS. Maybe you want something like "Effects on California" or something else. Also, Gold rush is listed in See also, when it's a basic definition you might want to link into the text, rather than in See also. Please ping me after another month or whatever of work, and I'll have a look before you approach FAC. Sandy17:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per peer review suggestions, added more details regarding Chinese and other non-Americans, by adding a new section entitled "Who were the Forty-Niners." The intent is to add the refs shortly. NorCalHistory00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many refs added, and many more could be added. Suggestions/advice needed on how many refs are appropriate! Virtually every phrase could be the subject of multiple footnotes, but I starting to worry about basic readability! Any suggestions how to handle a plethora of potential cites? NorCalHistory19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what previous versions of this article looked like, but I think it would have more visual impact if one of the images could be moved to the top of the article. That "History of CA" box is certainly useful, but its placement at the very top tends to understate the importance of the event. Just a thought. --cholmes75 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Steamships
I noticed a mention of the SS Central America in the article. You could also incorporate a mention of the Winfield Scott, which sank off the CA coast in 1853. -- cholmes75 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, very useful suggestions, both - by "the top" you mean next to the intro section. I'll definitely add mention of the Winfield Scott. Thank you! NorCalHistory04:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per peer review suggestions, new sections on effect on economy, legal rights, how gold and people were transported, plus refs re same. More refs to follow. NorCalHistory02:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per peer review suggestions, more new material and refs have been added. In addition to the main text, there are now some 88 footnotes, and I'd like to get a reaction to that number of footnotes.NorCalHistory08:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per peer review suggestions, substantial copyedits to clarify, tighten, and focus. Intent is to begin to approach the outskirts of "compelling and brilliant"! Other editors, please continue to jump in . . . NorCalHistory08:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to everyone - GA/FA submission?
Many thanks to everyone who contributed suggestions and editorial comments during the recent peer review of this article.
I would like to repeat here the following comment from the Discussion page of the article:
Excellent improvements
I first read this article in the early stages of peer review. The editors here have done a fine job of improving it. In my opinion you're safely into good article territory and possibly featured article quality. I've recused myself from awarding GA because I participated in peer review, but since that's about to close I recommend you open a good article nomination. Warmly, Durova23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia sections are a big no-no. You can discard the non-notable or applicable information and work the rest of the text into the other sections. The Filmaker15:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intro should be expanded to summarize the article per WP:INTRO. Footnotes should be after punctuation with no spaces before or in between footnotes per WP:FOOT. Include triva into body of article in paragraph format per WP:AVTRIV. Group the hoaxes / controversies under another heading such as "Controversy". "See Also" goes before "References" that might be better named "Notes" per WP:GTL. On a personal question - Where is HD SciFi in the U.S.! Morphh(talk)17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. This is my first attempt at doing a featured article and have had assistance from various South Australian wikipedia editors. Suggestions as per the discussion page have been made and the best has been done to accommodate them. I'm not sure what else to ask for or suggest here... basically please review the page and see what you can suggest in my efforts to get it up to FA status! Thanks for your help! Timeshift05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to clarify a lot of things for people who aren't used to South/Australian politics. For example:
The Liberal Party is not a 'liberal' party in the 'normal' (yet incorrect) sense; it needs to be clarified as a classical liberal / liberal conservative party. In fact, both party's idelogies will have to be noted so as to not confuse readers.
There is no explanation of how the the electoral system works, or the differences between the two Houses.
In my view, too little attention is given to the fact that almost 40% of voters deserted the major parties in the Legislative Council.
Done, let me know what you think. By the way, if you can edit to make correct exactly what sort of quota system the LC uses (in electoral procedures), that would be much appreciated too. Timeshift16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but the 'party backgrounds' section, while reasonably neutral, is hopelessly point-of-view and smacks of hearsay. I've tidied the Libs and the ALP and may get around to doning the rest. michaeltalk02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying its not neutral; I'm just saying that its very point-of-view (the two things are not exclusive), very commentary, very tabloid editorial. I'll tidy them up. michaeltalk05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I would say the images of the candidates (at the top of the article) are much too big. There's no source for info on the Greens, Family First, or National Party. Not enough of the Results are sourced either. Good job at maintaining neutrality. Right now, some lone years are linked (e.g. 1945), and some are not (e.g. 1946). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates indicates that years shouldn't be linked unless they are part of a date (e.g. June 11947), although not everyone agrees. But randomly linking some and not others in not ideal. – Quadell(talk) (random)17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your comments. Much appreciated. In regards to the size of the party leaders, I was hoping to keep it consistent with the other leader tables (as can be seen through the templates at the bottom for other state and federal elections), as they are all 175px. Linked lone years (hopefully this is ok as you said it's debatable). All results can be referenced in the 'State Electoral Office - Official 2006 Election Results' link at the bottom - is this ok? I'm not sure how I can go about referencing each individual percentage and number or if it's feasible. Have now sourced info for Greens, FF and Nats, hopefully now they are sufficiently sourced. Thanks for the neutrality comment, and thanks for your review! Much appreciated! Timeshift17:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding footnoting of stats, if all the stats in a section come from one source, you can footnote just the first one, with a comment like "This and all vote totals in this section come from. . . ". Regarding the year links, there is disagreement about what's ideal, but I don't think there's any disagreement that what you have now is not ideal. Some (including me) would say that no lone years should be linked. Others would say only the most important years should be. Others would say all of them should be, but only in their first instance. But linking every instance of 2002, for instance, is clearly overlinking against guidelines. – Quadell(talk) (random)19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have now changed to ensure each year mentioned only gets linked once. Are you able to provide me with an example of a blanket footnoting of stats? I'm not sure how to go about it. Thanks again. Timeshift19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The party sections shouldn't be about factional battlegrounds; most of the information on the ALP was just taken from my Don Farrell article, with a bit of spin thrown on it. For an introduction into South Australian politics, there should be a general idea of what the party stands for and its history, not a quick story about recent factional shit-stirring. I'll be making changes. michaeltalk05:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding whether you did or not, it strongly followed the theme of the marginalisation of the left by the SDA. Elsewhere, you stated the ALP are 'libertarian'! I do agree that one is not SA-centered enough, so there is work to be done there. michaeltalk05:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed unrelated federal and added related SA info to the ALP section until we can work toward a compromise. I do wish other wikipedians got more involved with this though, it is hard to make a well written article with such few helpers. Timeshift14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else that anyone believes would hold this article back from getting the page to Featured Article status? All input welcome and appreciated. Timeshift16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the size of them, but surely you can find better pictures of Rob Kerin and Mike Rann? The ones you have there look like photoshop cutouts... Apart from that, I'd take into account that lots of people reading this page wouldn't necessarily be familiar with SA politics so some explanation of some terms might be helpful. Otherwise great. (JROBBO01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
They are the pictures from the official Parliament of SA website, therefore easier to upload to wikipedia with fair use rationale. Mike Rann has a decent picture on his wiki page but for Rob Kerin, unfortunately I can't just pick any old image from the net that looks good. I wish I could. Timeshift05:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for your assistance. I believe I have updated the article as appropriate. If you come across anything that you covered that the script still believes needs work, please let me know. Timeshift15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome - it is a semi-bot, so sometimes it finds things that are not there. I am trying to get caught up on automated peer reviews, but if you want me to run it again, drop me a line on my talk page. Ruhrfisch00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a well-sourced article that provides a NPOV about a colourful member of the Assembly who recently lost one of the most memorable local races in decades. MrPrada00:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed wikilinks, you generally shouldn't wikilink things more than once within the body of the article. There are alot of short stubby paragraphs, most should be merged into larger paragraphs or expanded. Also you should alphabatize the categories. Medvedenko04:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is nearly silent on Stephens's life to the year 2006. Where was he born? What jobs did he hold before he ran for office? What did he do as an assemblyman? NatusRoma | Talk04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This entry is comprised of information gleaned from the LA Times article series cited in the first external link. To comply with the copyright rules it is largely paraphrased, however certain short passages are employed verbatim (summaries of the contenst of the documents). I have attempted to contact both Deborah Nelson and Nick Turse to vet the entry for accuracy and hopefully clarification. Especially regarding the current status of the archive and its date of reclassification.
I would appreciate commentary on all aspects of this article from neutrality and copyright to style and punctuation, as this is my first contribution. I feel its a rather important discovery which warrants inclusion within the war crimes network of articles.
It's very good. Looks well researched. The biggest thing is the huge number of quote boxes seems to detract rather than add to the article; they're large and break up the text a lot. I've not seen them used in other biographies, especially not in that number. Second is the references in pop culture needs to be removed unless it can be referenced and the references show that the mentions are important enough to warrant coverage. - TaxmanTalk19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the quotes: It is not the only biography with quotes. You can check two featured biographies: Pericles and President Ford. Demosthenes was an orator and I believe that some monumental phrases of him would be nice to be available for the reader. I chose a different kind of quote box. Is it less detractive? Section "Refs in pop culture" is a small opening to a sub-page. I've also doubts about this section, but I thought not to remove it, since the way ancient personalities are treated by novel writers etc. is a quite interesting topic. Anyway, I'll check for references. Thanks!--Yannismarou07:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is there are just too many quotes. I'm not saying you have to cull them, but I'm predicting you're going to hear the same thing when you take this to FAC. Make sure they are relevant to the section they are in as much as possible. And the pop culture section should at minimum be demoted to a sub sub section, perhaps fit it in at the end of the previous section. It fits in with the legacy/importance idea covered there. But yeah, you bring up a good point, if the way he is treated is interesting it's worth covering. But it definitely needs to be replaced with sourced analysis about how he is covered, not listings of cartoons etc he is referred to in. - TaxmanTalk12:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of the "Refs in pop culture" and "See also" sections. I incorporated the first one in "Rhetorical Legacy". The links of the "See also" section have been incorporated in the prose. I replaced some of the quote boxes to be more relevant with the text, but I haven't yet cut any of them yet. But I'm still thinking about that!--Yannismarou15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. If there's any problems left in it, it would be in the content which is beyond me to judge. You may get people in FAC that will still think there needs to be less quote boxes, but that's an opinion, so you don't need to jump on it right away until a consensus developes that it needs to be done. I'd say you have a fair chance of successfully passing FAC, so send it up, I'm sure you can deal with anything that comes up there. - TaxmanTalk02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is overall a very nicely done article.
If you feel bound to act in the spirit of that dignity, whenever you come into court to give judgement on public causes, you must bethink yourselves that with his staff and his badge every one of you receives in trust the ancient pride of Athens.
Demosthenes (On the Crown, 210)
My suggestion with the quote boxes is to try to somehow tie them into the section of text more / better (like a caption on a picture will often explain its relation to that part of the article). While the source of the quote is listed, it was not always clear to me exactly why it was placed in that section of the article. So, could you add some sort of brief explanatory note / caption to make the relation between the quote and the article there clearer? For example (see box), if I read it right, the quote in the "Career as logographer" section is Deomsthenes defense of the serious nature of the courts in Athens, so after the identification could it say something like this (my quick sentence - more to show the idea of a caption than as a suggestion for one here). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch14:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions! You have a point. I'll try to figure out a solution, although I donot know if the system with the captions can work. Maybe more information would do the job. I just ask this peer-review not to be archived, until such issues are settled.--Yannismarou14:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made the quotes a bit more informative, following your suggestions. I also chose another type of quote boxes, which I think serves better this purpose. What do you think?--Yannismarou16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The boxes seem fine to me (I made a few minor copyedits to clean up the captions - please revert if I erred). Thanks for all of your work on this and the changes - I look forward to see this as a Featured Article someday soon. Ruhrfisch17:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One minor quibble - in the section Rhetorical Legacy, you quote Juvenal in Latin, but do not translate into English. Assuming this article is submitted for FAC, I would imagine they will want this translated. Ruhrfisch02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - sorry I did not mention this in my earlier comments. As I said before, it looks very good and I imagine will be Featured soon. Ruhrfisch14:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks for the nice words. And in case you find any syntactical or grammatical errors (since you are a native English speaker), just tell me to fix them.--Yannismarou15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might look at the Chicago article as a way to make it better. Think about fewer lists of things and more paragraphs. The Hosting stuff under Sports may need to be cut down a bit. Try looking into the history for elements that are of broad interest. For example, the United Way had its roots in the Denver church community. Climate seems a bit big--how about a graph that summarizes the climate instead of the 2 tables? Are there neighborhood articles for Denver? Hilltop? 5 Points? LoDo? Bonnie Brae? A paragraph about these might be good content. I also do not see anything about all the houses in Denver being brick after the fires in the 1920s. This is something that stands out, to me at least --Chrispounds13:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please punctuate your refs correctly. The lead is killing me: it's way too busy, and not enticing or compelling. The TOC is rambling and overwhelming, suggesting the article needs better organization. Some of the sections are short and stubby. Is all of that See also necessary, or can some of it be incorporated into the article? Sandy21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is, I feel, way too short to be a FA. It needs a photo, and the tone is a bit odd. On the plus side, it's exhaustively referenced. Lankiveil00:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Formatted to help, please expand the sections that seem weak or small. Also, this article is about this dolphin or its marriage? You should add tons of non-marriage information about the dolphin to the article. What does it look like? How is it treated? Judgesurreal77705:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A marriage is not just the wedding ceremony. In what sense was she married? Did she visit it, have sex with it, consider its children hers, what? Dev92019:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has some way to go. Provide some more details on the actual dolphin not just the marriage (its weight, personality and any distinctive marks it may have). Expand the one or two sentence sections and also expand the lead. Provide more quotes from Tendler. Provide the scientific name of the subspecies in brackets (T. truncatus ponticus, I believe). Provide a photo of the dolphin. Cedars00:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
it has been
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[5]
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
I've already put the article up for a Request for feedback and have done my best to implement the suggestions.
I'd like to request further comments on this article, as a further step to nominating it for Featured Article status. In particular, I'd like suggestions on:
Whether the article is too long. The article body (not including Intro and References) is currently less than 5,700 words long. This is just less than the 6,000 to 10,000 word length which Wikipedia:Article size notes as the limit at which readers may tire of reading a page. But the content of the article is somewhat meaty, and covers 16 constitutions and 70 years of turbulent Thai political history, so I'm concerned that the reader would just get lost.
Sufficiency of contextual information about Thai politics. You can't cover changes in the Thai constitutions without also explaining the context of Thai politics and Thai history. So I've tried to include what I consider essential details of how each constitution came to be and how and why each constiution influenced the nature of government. But I'm concerned about going overboard. Is the current balance OK for a reasonable reader who has no strong understanding of constitutional law, government, or Thai history?
Your timing, given recent events, is incredible. The article appears to be pretty comprehensive. However, the section on the 1959 Constitution doesn't give any information about the content of that document. That section, as well as the ones describing the 1946 Constitution and the 1977 Charter, have no references, and the ones on the 1968 and 1974 Constitutions have very few. The sections on the 1997 Constitution and the 2006 Interim Charter are much longer than any the sections on any of the other constitutions; cutting them down would preserve a sense of balance. However, the section on the 2006 Interim Charter should include the timetable for the proposed new charter. The vocabulary needs more variety throughout: in particular, "stipulated" and "promulgated" appear too frequently, even two or three times in a single paragraph. The image Image:Evolution of Thai constitutions 1932-2006 not bold.png is fairly illustrative, but it needs to be updated to include the 2006 Interim Charter. The references to Thai history generally seem justified, but often the importance of a statement in one section does not become clear until the next (e.g., the king's death in 1946, the results of the 1969 elections), which is a bit jarring for the reviewer, but perhaps less so for the reader. NatusRoma | Talk06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[9]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
allege
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[5]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 30 additive terms, a bit too much.
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
When I first found the article it was full of directory information: addresses, telephone numbers, links laying around EVERYWHERE. I'd just like general info about what needs to be done with the article, and help if you're willing to give it. --Daniel Olsen04:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a good article inside. It still needs some pruning, though you have made very substantial progress. I would recomend the following reordering: Intro, Geography, People and Culture, Infrastructure (tighten), History (tighten), Government, References.
Serious question: if the article is Chinatown, should it be highlighting Asians and Asian-Americans anywhere in Oakland? If not, the history could be considerably reduced, the subsection Other Asian-American Oaklanders (quite long) could go in its entirety.
40 websites seems a lot. (this is the first time I have responded to a request for peer review. if i am way off base, let me know) Jd271802:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article is about Asian-Americans in Oakland, rather than Chinatown. For example, there is discussion of Japanese in West Oakland, which really has nothing to do with Chinatown. I also agree that the list is notable Asian-Americans is far too long. (If they are so notable, why do so few warrant Wikipedia articles?) I would be tempted to cut it entirely. If their contributions are truly important, then they should be mentioned within the article. Lagringa07:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you need to rework the section of web references too. They don't appear to be in the proper format that FA standard demands off.
The Lead should summarize properly the article. The list of languages and communities is not mentioned in the article, and a history background is not included in the lead. CG21:30, 17 September 2006 (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.
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.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
I think it's pretty well-written, and adequately sourced. The storm history is concise, and I'm in the process of adding nbsp's. Would appreciate any comments. – Chacor14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought that might be a problem. With storms it's not always possible to make long articles, depending on what information comes out. Look at it this way - it's certainly longer than Hurricane Irene (2005). :P – Chacor11:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[10]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 10 additive terms, a bit too much.
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Advice on structuring the article (it is rather unweildy with chronological organisation) and advice as to use of quotes and other structural elements would be very useful. Vanished usertalk05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead-in is very short in comparison to overall size of the article, and reworking the in-line citations will also help tremendously to make it FAC (assuming that this is your eventual target). - Mailer Diablo04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, last month might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Quite nice, but (i) I don't see the need for a list of "selected" works when there is already a separate List of W. S. Gilbert dramatic works, (ii) it is rather odd that the whole of his life is in the first section! I would promote some of the 2nd level headings to 1st level, (iii) it seems rather short - surely there is more to say, given the number of good references you have used? -- ALoan(Talk)14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed point i - the list of selected works was, in fact, everything he wrote (!), due to renaming the section but not actually replacing the contents. Point ii... I don't follow, to be honest - it only covers his life up to when he was 31 or so, which is around when he started his career as a playwright. The rest of it continues his history, with the last section covering his later life. Point iii is valid, and it could use an expansion drive - but it's a somewhat slow process as there's only three people really active in the project at moment (that I know of - it may be that there's other people in aspects I'm not as involved with - so we do what we can. Hoping that a push towards FA will pull in more editors. Vanished usertalk16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On (ii), what I meant was that pretty much the entire article is under ==Life and career== (from ===Beginnings=== to ===Later years===). On (i), the "selected" bullet-point list is, to my eyes, worse than the original full one - ones worth mentioning surely are already? But, anyway, good luck! -- ALoan(Talk)16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that there are two FAs on cricketers, but one was about a schoolboy cricketer and the other was a very historical cricketer, so I was wondering what kind of style was the best for a modern cricketers (with ODIs and whatnot). Also I should really do up the references etc properly, but I was mostly looking for suggestions about the style of the article. I do tend to be rather dry, trying to avoid anything which isn't statistically bulletproof, so I was wondering in particular whether I should permit myself a bit more of a newspapery/magazine style flourish - in particular to comments about Sehwag's playing style. I am a matehmatically oriented person and am always terrified of making any remotely vague comments in this sort of thing. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg04:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you need to "zoom out" a little bit - I think you've hit the nail pretty much on the head, it is rather dry and filled with stats, and there's little connection between each sentence, it's just result after result. Sam Vimes | Address me10:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sehwag made his international debut in the one-day arena, in a match against Pakistan in Mohali in April 2001, batting in the No. position. He made 1 [10], and did not play again until late 2000, in the home series against Zimbabwe [11]", did he travel back in time to play his second game? And where did he bat in his first game? Lankiveil00:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Sam Vimes is right. The article is a bit dry, and sounds like a fact book. More info on the cricketer's life outside of cricket would help. Many Indian cricketers are involved in the Mumbai "scene" or are part of charitable orgs, you may want to look into that.BakamanBakatalk01:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A biography by Vijay Lokappally came out last year. Taking a look may help to add more flesh to the article. (Not sure if it is worth buying, though). Re. too many numbers, pushing some statistics into the notes section sometime helps to make the main text more readable. Tintin (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Running out a batsman in the 50th over of the first innings notable enough to be added to the biography. I understand that it may be important when a batsman is run out in the second innings (with 3 runs to win) or (in the first innings) if a well set batsman is run out in the 35th or 40th over triggering a minor collapse or slow runrate. Running out in the 50th over of first innings in the present context may not be notable. Any comments please Doctor BrunoTalk14:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A number of points:
If you're going to go for featured article status you will need a photo and you will need to expand the introduction to at least two paragraphs. *#Early years: Joint family will need explaining in the article.
People only "hail" from somewhere in journalese. In normal English you come from somewhere.
The order in which points are raised is not the natural one - which is chronological. You're born first. Then describe the parents and what they do. Conditions in which someone is brought up in early childhood. Then schooling, etc.
Use "Under-19" not "U-19".
"He was seventh in the 2000-01 season with two centuries" - what does that mean?
"Leicestershire" not "Leicester"
ODI career: what position did he bat in?
I agree with the comment about this reading like a list of stats. It would be better to refer to fewer matches and to expand on the key moments of his career. Merging this with the "Test career" section so that his whole career can be considered chronologically would be better.
Test career: "The 2004 home Border Gavaskar Trophy" - ???? what does this mean?
He "earned" selection. Not "earnt".
Playing style: Leave out Tendulkar's middle name.
Outside cricket: Again, this reads like a series of one-off facts rather than as a coherent whole. Maybe expand the language so that one bit of info segues into the next, jguk17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few points which you may or may not take into account.
Add wikilinks when we're talking about common cricket phrases that may not be known to the rest of the world (eg. What would Americans think of part-time off-spin bowler?).
Do we really need all that stuff on his tooth getting broken and him not being academically gifted etc.
Sometimes, the significance of achievements need to be explained, again, for a non-cricketing audience (eg. During the 2006 West Indies tour, Sehwag narrowly missed out on scoring a century in the opening session of the Second Test in St Lucia, ending with 99 at the interval, a Mexican wouldn't know that its rare to score such a century).
References need major fixing, but that's pretty obvious, some of them don't even link.
Information on his inconsistency and his recent lack of form (if you can find a good source which analyses this).
After reading the article i feel it can be greatly improved if, instead putting links to his career stats in the references section, the statistics are directly put on to the article page and references removed.I feel that will make the article more informative without the reader having to go to external links.What do you feel? Doctor Evil17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 2(c) highly recommends.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
I'm refiling a peer review for this article. We started a sort of cleanup drive a few months ago in order to improve it, and the article has really come a long way. Many editors have done a lot of work on it. I'd like some response to how well the article shapes up, and what needs to be fixed (I'm already looking into the {{fact}} parts). Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the "For a treatment of the English language using the IPA..." paragraph from the lead. It's irrelevant to a general article on the International Phonetic Alphabet.
History section is too short. I think it should also adress a few of the most important revisions, for example the 1989 one. Also, the most recent addition (labiodental flap) could be mentioned (it is only alluded to in some footnotes).
I think this article would also need to cover the policy governing changes and additions to the IPA. It is my understanding that linguists can propose new symbols (on the basis of their own research), and that these proposals subsequently are voted on by the IPA Council. However, any details are unknown to me, and it would be nice if this article covered this procedure.
The section on Educational initiatives seems very vague to me. 'There is some interest' -- where? 'The rationales for such projects' -- it would be better to specifically name some of them. Also, there are some well-known projects based on rationales 1 and 2 (for example the UCLA Archive), but I would be curious to know a project based on the 3rd rationale given ('universal language acquisition').
The statement "The labiodental nasal [ɱ] is not known to exist as a phoneme in any language." is rightly marked with {{fact}}; in fact, I think Constance Kutsch-Lojenga has argued for its existence in some central African languages she worked on; I'll try to find a reference for that.
The section on "Unicode and tonal symbols" seems out of place to me. I would expect it in one of our articles on Unicode, but not in our most general article on the IPA. It's too specific.
In "Other phonetic notation" (shouldn't that be notations?), it might also be good to mention a few well-known historical phonetic alphabets, such as Lepsius' Standard Alphabet and Westermann's Africa Alphabet.
I must say don't really like the See also's for Dutch and English, especially because both currently are requested to be merged into their respective "X phonology" articles. Besides, why only these two languages?
Comments. I can't speak to the content, but the structure needs some improvement. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be 3-4 full paragraphs summarizing the most important facets of the topic. The prose overall is very choppy. Part of this is from the short paragraphs that should either be expanded into a full idea, merged with related material, or removed. Some of the problem is also from having so many lists. Convert lists and bullet points to prose wherever possible — I don't really see any that couldn't be done, the charts already summarize the material that isn't ideal to be in prose. - TaxmanTalk14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ikiroid had asked me for more detail on what the lead should cover, and I'm not sure I can help more specifically. That would have to be handled by those that know the subject well to prioritize what's most important to cover and to summarize the article. The current lead does seem to do that pretty well to me at least. The biggest thing left I can see, as I mentioned above is the flow of the prose throughout the article needs to be improved. - TaxmanTalk03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I think should be added to the lead is a sentence or two on the history, since the lead should function as a short summary of the article per WP:LEAD. — mark✎13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[9]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
it has been
correctly
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[5]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
I've been working on this article since January and it's currently at good article status. I think it's getting close to being a featured list but there are some issues I'd like cleared up before nominating. The primary things in my view holding this back is that there are a good amount of red links, which I am slowly getting rid of by making articles, and that it needs more images towards the top. Unfortunately this is going to be harder as I'd like to only use free images. Anyway, the formatting issues I had a question about is repeated wikilinking to the same article. The MOS says this shouldn't happen (at least in the same section) but I was under the impression lists were different, I asked a question about this here but didn't have it answered. Basically I want to know if:
We should only link the first instance of MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. or if the way it is now is good.
The "Please" in "Please note that the people listed may have only attended the university at one point and have not necessarily graduated" seems a little like we are asking the reader a favor, I was tempted to get rid of it but I originally copied that from another list of people by university, any thoughts on removing that?
After each baseball player I list the position they played, but ones that played multiple positions I left simply as player. Any ideas on what to do about that, or just leave it? I don't know which positions the unlabeled players were best known for.
The basketball player position of guard links to essentially a disambiguation page between the 2 types of guards, unfortunately I don't know which type each player was. I could guess but that would be original research, the source only states guard in general and not the specific type they were.
What do we do about people notable enough for the list, but not enough for their own article? (For example, noting that Bobby Henderson, the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an OSU alum seems appropriate for the list, but Bobby Henderson (FSM) redirects to Flying Spaghetti Monster, showing he isn't notable enough for an article). Do we remove a link alltogether? Right now clicking on his name brings you to Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it is repeated right after that.
Right now general references follow the inline references and notes. Is this correct? Also the first inline citation is a repeat of the first general reference, I didn't know what to do about that since it fits both as a general reference as as a citation for the statistic in the lead.
I wasn't sure about how to signify someone who is both an alumni and a former or current faculty member, so I simply added a note to each person that applied to, does this look good?
That's about it. Some other things worth noting is the football alumni isn't complete, there are still a lot of players I need to copy over from the football database, but they would all be redlinks so I figured I would do that after the current players listed all had articles (other than the free agents who I don't consider notable enough to have a page). VegaDark08:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i would only link the first instance, but like you i dont know how it is different for lists
The please thing could go either way. i would take it out as it is just one more word that does not have to be there.
baseball players without a usual position are often referred to as utility players.
just because there is no article for henderson doesnt mean he isnt notable enough, just that it hasnt been done. i would either delink him or redlink if he meets WP:BIO. either way there does not need to be two links to FSM.
A completely unreferenced article should not be GA, and would not make featured without inline citations: the notables need to be referenced. We can't ask readers to take our word for it. Sandy23:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I'm not sure if you looked at the bottom or not but there are plenty of references. Having an inline citation after each name all pointing to the same reference seems kind of...ludicrous. I haven't seen any such lists of people done that way, having general references at the bottom like it is now makes more sense. VegaDark23:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying they all come from one reference, then that can be noted. The problem with your logic is that articles on Wiki are not static: long after you stop tending the article, other editors will be inserting names that come from different sources. How do we know if future insertions are legitimate? Yes, every line should be sourced, and yes I've seen lists where they are. Featured articles require inline citations: of course, you're free to ignore the requirements. Sandy21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[7]
Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[10]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[9]
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
After editing this article into the current state, I would appreciate feedback on the things that could be improved, aiming for Good Article status (I'm humble). Wim van Dorst (Talk)20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Suggestions:
more refs
move one of the pics so that there is not a huge white space between the see also heading and the first item in the list
maybe a bit more on programs
It seems during WWII the Japanese let the Scouts continue; I thought they interred a lot of people. What affect did the occupation have on Scouting in Hong Kong
Re the return to Chinese control a few years ago...what affect did this have on the movement, if any? No mention is made of this. Rlevse14:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Randy. The most notable issue is indeed the dependance of this article on merely one major reference (history of HK Scouting). Pics have been moved (could do with some more), programmes are pretty standard in The Scout Association, so don't need elaboration here. And personally I'd rather not include too much political information, as it easily askews into non-NPOV. Given the stability of the response here, would a GAC already be reasonable? Wim van Dorst (Talk)19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think the WWII and return to Chinese control would skew it as long as it was factual and referenced. For example, did HK Scouting cease to exist under Japanese control? IF SO, that is fact and not POV. I'm asking, what if any affect was there during these times? Leaving them out leaves the reader wondering. Rlevse18:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
I have extened the article and added pictures (to once what have been a dull article) in a massive construction work on the article. I have nominated the article on the WikiProject Achitecture but no-one (apart from me) supported the article to be extened, therefore I extened the article by myself, added more information, merged some articles to the Islamic architecture, added a gallery and I have added sources. And now I want someone...anyone to read the article so it can become a featured article. Thank you!
Very nice work. Not heavily referenced enough for a good article, but well laid out. Policy wanks may object to the gallery. You've taken on a huge subject in effective summary form. Durova02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this article and think it has great potential. A few comments:-
The Lead needs expanding.
The first couple of paragraphs after the lead are a bit too list driven. I'd generally put lists at the end of the article and begin with prose summary style.
You'll need to thoroughly reference the article, preferably with in-line citations (This is the bit everyone hates, but it'll need to be done to get GA or FA status).--Mcginnly | Natter10:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to remove the gallery. Wikicommons is for image galleries. There are plenty of pictures already. You should expand inline refs throughout the article, and there is a problem with exiting inline citations. Medvedenko04:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very nice article. Please remove the gallery, as Medvedenko has said. Many of the sections (especially the lead) are too short. The templates and images alongside them create gaps in the text. The lead talks too much about Persian architecture; spend that space discussing what Islamic architecture is, not what it isn't. The last sentence of the section on Fatimid architecture doesn't make sense. The images are very nice. NatusRoma | Talk03:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text needs a bit of work to remove some heavy repitition of words that makes it seem to "labour the point". For example:
One of the first civilizations that Islam came into contact with during and after its birth was that of Persia. The eastern banks of the Tigris and Euphrates was where the capital of the Persian empire lay during the 7th century. Hence the proximity often led early Islamic architects to not just borrow, but adopt the traditions and ways of the fallen Persian empire. Islamic architecture borrows heavily from Persian architecture and in many ways can be called an extension and further evolution of Persian architecture
There is a repeating of "borrow from... Persian". Really, the last sentence is unnecessary. This pattern occurs in a number of places.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
arguably
correctly
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[5]
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 been working on this for quite a while now, 2 failed GA nominations, i am in the process of acquiring and citing some reviews but some other thoughts would be nice
In "Production", I wonder if its necessary to have that same citiation after so many different sentences.
About the original script: "...Rocky throw the fight after realizing he didn't want to be part of the world he'd entered." That could explained. What world did he enter?
The prose could still be improved, but it might be good enough for WP:GAC. The article somehow doesn't seem complete, though. In addition to a section on critical acclaim, maybe a section influence, legacy, etc? You could also include the video games there, which would take them out of the lead where they don't really belong. -- bcasterline • talk17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is missing info on critcal reception (both from 1976 and today) and box office reception (outside the intro paragraph). Also the article needs to go into the film's legacy. The film came out 30 years ago and people are still running up those steps. A statue was placed by the Museum of Art just this past weekend. Also it should have a brief paragraph on the sequels similar to Halloween (film). Medvedenko02:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone got some critical info, It's from a couple respected newspapers and a magazine as well as added a section oninfluence where it talks about the statue and the steps scene. The inline citations have been cleared up, I added a section on video games all that is left to be done is the box office takings which are difficult to cite and as for the sequels I'm a bit iffy on that one, there's little you can say without branching into info belonging in one of the sequels articles
I've been through the article, and there's a number of spelling and grammar errors (try to write less passively). However, I've corrected them :) Also, the fact about the inspiration for Rocky didn't really flow with the lead paragraph, so I removed it and moved the reference down to the Production section. CloudNine17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I have been thinking about that one for a while
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[10]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
