Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, are not signed, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).

For older requests, see Wikipedia:Peer review#Archive_links.

The most recent topics appear on top.

Sydney Riot of 1879[edit]

I'd like to bring this article up to FA status. Any advice/assistance would be appreciated, jguk 15:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Some issues I noticed:
1. First two sentences don't make much sense - perhaps they should be expanded to a larger paragraph with more information about the "early riots" and what the England-Australia tours were.
2. Perhaps a "pitch invasion" could be explained a little bit.
3. A N Hornby should be more formally introduced; we don't hear about him at all before he is dropped into the middle of the story.
4. "Nearly one hundred and thirty years later, bad umpiring decisions and betting continue to scandalise the sport." 3rd paragraph of "the game" - doesn't make sense, doesn't seem to fit in here. Talk more about the allegations against the bookmakers. More reponses from other newspapers and others involved would be helpful too.
5. remove "as we shall see", not encyclopedic language, 4th paragraph "the game"
6. I'm not sure about keeping those two letters intact - could they be summarized and quoted instead?
7. More info on the aftermath, if possible
8. In general, more images would be helpful (any team photos anywhere? photos of the field where the game was played?)

That's what I can see for now... I'll take another look after you make some headway... --Spangineer 20:44, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for not looking at these earlier. I'm now working my way through them, and this response will, shortly, cover all 8 points:
1. I've expanded the first paragraph and tweaked the sentences.
2. I think this phrase has now been removed.
3. I've added a subordinate clause offering a factoid about Hornby, who has his own article for those who want to know more.
4. I have removed the offending sentence.
5. This is no longer in the article.
6. I've put them onto Wikisource. However, the letters are very interesting and add a lot to the tale. Wisden at the time felt it was worth devoting the space to them despite space being at a premium. I'm getting a new book that's a diary of one of the English players who played in the match, and Ianbrown's checking his library for what should be a good Australian source - we'll have to see afterwards whether the full text of the letters can be dispensed with, but at the moment I'm loath to lose them.
7. I've slightly expanded this. Of course, the letters themselves are part of the aftermath and these are quoted above. In the end, money won out - English clubs were missing out on cash by not playing the Australians, so they had to back down somehow.
8. Put simply, I haven't been able to find any photos. I have a number of books that cover the era and have searched on the internet - I can't see any team photos and none of what the SCG looked like at that time.

jguk 21:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge[edit]

I have intensely formated this article and have added some more information. I am _considering_ (not will) of turning the article into a Featured article. I want to know what can be improved. Squash 04:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Firstly, while I respect your work on Cambodia, I strongly doubt that anyone could turn this into a featured article, as it's a persistent target for edit wars in the same vein as Gdanszig. In addition, just about every section needs expansion. Good luck, though - it'd be nice to see a better treatment of the topic. Ambi 06:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Ambi. I can see no reason why this can't be resolved. It might take a while, but it should be resolvable with properly referenced material and careful NPOV wording. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Regarding the edit wars, you are correct, that if we were talking about months ago. The article used to be a target for edit wars but over recent time it has become stable; edit wars are now not as common. Squash 10:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Two Babylons[edit]

Can I get some help verifying what I wrote? I also need some help expanding it and summarising the relevant points (help cutting down the text and summarising more would be helpful also!) The full text is online at [1]. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was removed yesterday. Please give it another day on peer review (in other words make it one month + one day). - Ta bu shi da yu 23:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pacific Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line station)[edit]

This isn't a standard peer review candidate; I'm looking for more comments on the infobox. Comments can go here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway#We need a decision on the infobox, and soon!. --SPUI 20:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be in the Template: namespace? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Depending on what your question means (shouldn't the infobox be using a template, and shouldn't the peer review be for the template), here are my answers:
  1. It would be if templates could be nested. The service templates are needed to make service changes propagate by just changing a handful of templates (like I did earlier today to reflect restoration of C service tomorrow). These cannot be inside another template, so I have to use subst; that's why I'm putting it through peer review, since it can't be changed once it's decided on.
  2. If the peer review was for the template, none of the subtleties of use would be apparent, as can be seen by viewing an example. For all practical purposes, the peer review is for the template, but it seems better to have the actual link on the station page (which is linked from the wikiproject discussion as an example, rather than the template itself). --SPUI 01:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad[edit]

As I add details to this article, it's starting to look like a featured article candidate. At this point, I'd like others to take a look at it to see what else should be added beyond what I've already got on the to do list in order to get it up to featured quality. I've found a mix of paper, governmental and website references (listed in the article), but there have got to be others out there. Thanks! slambo 19:56, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing what major commodities the railway currently ships and/or who its major customers are. Also, are you interested in some pictures of DM&E hoppers? If so, I may have some. JYolkowski 22:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I remember seeing something about the railroad's major customers and commodities hauled on their website. I'll see if I can find it again. As to the photos, yeah, that'd be great. I'd been thinking of renaming the "Locomotives" section to "Rolling stock" and describing more than just the motive power. slambo 14:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Cool, I uploaded one this afternoon. Two other minor things I noticed about the article: I noticed that the map was "as of 2002". Has the DM&E's route changed significantly since then? If not, would it make more sense to say "as of 2004/2005" (or if it has, to update the map, although that might be more work)? Also I've noticed that "Class 1/2/3" is used in the article. Personally, I tend to think that using "Class I/II/III" is somewhat more correct, as that's what the AAR uses (although I have seen both formats in other places, so you probably could make an argument either way). As for the references, I think they look great as they are. JYolkowski 02:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the photo upload and copyedit. The map is one that I transcribed from the 2002 Trains Magazine article in the references. I'll have to check a couple other references to see if there are any changes since then. I have no strong preference for 1/2/3 vs I/II/III, it's just easier for me to hit the 2 key once than it is for the Shift and I key combination twice; maybe this is something that we should bring up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains as part of the standardization discussion? slambo 15:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, here isn't the place for an in-depth discussion of the merits of each format. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Class 1/2/3 vs. Class I/II/III. JYolkowski 02:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Two things: to be honest, the lead section just doesn't grab me. It needs something to make things more interesting to regular readers. Secondly, I notice that Trains magazine was referenced. It doesn't seem to be in the references section. Could we put that in there? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll work on the lead, but I'm curious why these two references weren't noticed:
  • Gilchinski, Steve (February 2002), Coming: A third Powder River Basin player, Trains Magazine, p. 10-11.
  • Gilchinski, Steve (May 2002), DM&E begomes "a significant national player", Trains Magazine, p. 14.
slambo 11:55, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal[edit]

I am the main contributer to this article. I want to submit it for featured status, but would like to know what the article needs to reach featured. Also, another set of eyes would be great! Thanks --[jon] [talk] 16:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The lead section needs to be expanded. It needs to summarize all of the most important points about the issue and ease in a reader that has never heard of it before. A tall order, yes, but important. Also contentious facts need to be cited directly to a reputable source. For ex "Millions were spent on all-expense-paid ski trips, thirteen scholarships, Superbowl trips, plastic surgery. IOC members were given deals on real estate, and their family members were given jobs." needs citations to reliable sources that such actually occurred. Otherwise it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to claim it did. - Taxman 19:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Taxman about all his points above. I'm a Sydneysider, and I object to the statement "Although Salt Lake was not the first city to use creative bid tactics, it was the first to get caught. There was also evidence that Atlanta, Nagano and Sydney had used similar tactics." That's the first I've heard of this, and we would have devoured them in a flash had we found out about tactics like this one. Provide proof and I'll eat my hat. As for Sydney holding the Winter olympics: I don't think so. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and same issue as with the main Salt Lake City, Utah: "Romney helped the Olympics back on their feet. The games were so successful that they were one of the few in recent history to turn a profit, thanks in part to heavy marketing and a built-in American audience." - define success! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Piccadilly Circus[edit]

I am not sure if the balance is right since I am not extremely familiar with London's history and only worked on this because I liked the area. Please take a look. JuntungWu 05:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • It looks pretty good. I corrected a few grammar errors, I would look over it again, but from what I read it was well-written and no grammar/spelling errors. I specifically like the amount of photos. There are a lot compared to the article length, but that is a good thing. --Lan56 02:34, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)


I have recently put up some of my own pictures in addition to the ones already on this page and added to the text. I hope that under greater scrutiny a variety of viewpoints and opinions can be added. Plymouthguy 20:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The page could probably use a Business section about the local economy. Otherwise it looks fairly good. — RJH 20:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Section on 'Economy' added.

Immune system[edit]

This page undergone an extensive rewrite since it's last peer review, mostly by myself, and I could really use some feedback on issues such as layout, flow, understandability, length, ect...

Thanks so much to anyone willing to read this article--DO11.10 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The lead of this article is too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • The lists, especially under "Surface Barriers and Mucosal Immunity", make the article harder to read; please convert these to prose (paragraph form).
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[1]
  • 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.[2]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 22 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • 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]
  • For an article about a very important system, I think more different references can be placed into the article; this is the first time I've seen notes for a single reference reach up to bb.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. (Ignore the <ref> tags above, this was generated mostly by JavaScript) Thanks, AZ t 00:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read the article, and for your insightful comments. Your suggestions will definitely improve this article. It just goes to show that one's mind rarely surprises itself. Thanks again--DO11.10 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the major limitation of this article is its massive length. There are already a lot of subarticles, but you could make the TOC a bit more manageable by not having quite so many subsections - four layers deep is just too many. The subsections of "phagocytes", for example, could all be merged up into a few paragraphs in a single section; just because something has a main article doesn't mean it needs its own header and main template. Also, I'd strongly suggest creating intermediate-level articles on adaptive and innate immunity, which would shorten this article and make it more readable.

Other than the length, the content is good, though it could use some organization. The early sections are very listy and need prosifying (this will lengthen them, which strengthens the argument for splitting the article). There's also a couple of images that could be improved - for example, the image of a dendritic cell is too cartoony; a more detailed drawing or an image of a real cell would be more illustrative.

The references also need work. The extensive reliance on textbooks isn't so bad (though all those little notes to Immunobiology might better be formatted as citations of pages/chapters in a notes section, with the text listed in a separate reference section). But referencing other Wikipedia articles is generally bad; importing the relevant references makes them easier for a reader to track down. There are also a few uncited statements floating around; "B-cells may be named for the bursa of Fabricius, an organ unique to birds, where the cells were first found to develop" stood out. Opabinia regalis 01:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello, DO11.10. I comment you on taking on such a broad subject. A good deal has been mentioned on formatting, so I'll focus a bit on content. Here are some suggestions:
    1. Innate immune system : There isn't much more than the briefest mention of the complement system. A thorough article on the immune system isn't complete without at least a small section describing it. Plus, the desciption of the innate immune system focuses almost entirely on its cellular aspects, giving an incomplete picture to the process (did you know, for exmaple, that there is mounting evidence that SLE is caused by a deficiency in c1q?)
    2. Autoimmunity and Hypersensitivity are two entirely different things. To lump them together in one section is not something I advise.

There is alot more work to be done, and I'll be happy to help when I get the chance. Unfortunately I sort of have my hands full at the moment. Hope these help; expect more in the near furture. – ClockworkSoul 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so many great suggestions! Thank you both for your very helpful ideas. I have been reading up on WP:SS for a while, I as guessing that this would be the best way to split out Innate and acquired, do you agree?

It is funny that you mention the Bursa part... there was apparently a (somewhat) nasty discussion about that before I began editing this article, which is why I hesitantly left it in.

Great idea about the refs, although I also own Janeway 6th edition and Kuby, which basically has much of the same content, and I could include those as references also, I just really like the idea of pointing to online textbooks.

I actually did have a section about the complement system in the article, but I felt that a)it was difficult to find the right "place" in the innate system and b) that the article was getting too long, which I can see, other agree with. It appears that I will need to split the article. I think that then I can really give the complement system and hypersensitivity/allergy the attention they deserve.

How do you find the original piece on the complement system? Any suggestions, however small, would be appreciated. The complement system is is really not my forte.

Complement System

The complement system is a biochemical cascade of the immune system that helps clear pathogens or mark them for destruction by other cells. The cascade is composed of many small plasma proteins, synthesized in the liver, primarily by hepatocytes, which work together to:

  • trigger the recruitment of inflammatory cells.
  • "tag" pathogens for destruction by other cells by opsonizing, or coating, the surface of the pathogen.
  • disrupt the plasma membrane of an infected cell, resulting in cytolysis, and causing the death of the pathogen.
I agree that we need to make the complement system a more substantial part of this article. It really is one of the most effective and important mechanisms of the immunological response. I will try and sift through my 3rd year immunology notes for some useful information. --|T 20:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elements of the complement cascade can be found in many species evolutionarily older than earlier than mammals including plants, birds, fish and some species of invertebrates.

Thanks again for the great comments--DO11.10 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

French grammar[edit]

accurate and precise translation needed at Talk:French grammar, and collaboration needed/wanted at French grammar. Request posted by Lysdexia 21:38, 18 February 2005 (UTC). (Bishonen | Talk)

Some comments:

  1. General — The article lacks references. This could well be one of the reasons for the confusion in the debate at the Talk page.
  2. General — Take leave of the idea that there is only one 'accurate and precise translation'. Languages simply don't map accurately and precisely onto each other, so it's hardly a surprise if there are various possible translations of a given construction.
  3. General — There is nothing on question formation. What are the different ways to ask questions? What question words are there? What syntactical and intonational devices?
  4. Verbs > tenses — This section is in desperate need of simple sample sentences. In general, it needs more structure and more didactics; the reader should be taken by the hand and led along the different tenses, every single of them supplied with a sample sentence. The main distinction (simple vs compound) should be explained before the reader starts to worry about it. Sample sentences help to intuitively visualize this distinction. And so on. Incidentally, I have found the neat format used at Nafaanra_language#Tense_and_aspect (bulleted sentences, bolded morphemes) to be handy.
  5. Verbs > tenses — 'Aside from these tenses, there is an imperative, a participle, and the infinitive, each of which can be inflected for tense (present and past), although the past imperative is quite rare.' :) But that's not a peculiarity of French; I'd say that's for obvious semantic reasons.
  6. Verbs > Compound tense auxiliary verbs — I count only the sixteen motion verbs, but the text says that 'Those sixteen verbs, plus three common compounds, are: (...)'. Where are the compounds? What's the meaning of 'compound' in this context?
  7. Verbs > The Past Participle — It reads that participle-as-an-adjective '...follows all the regular agreement rules of the language...', but the reader has not yet come across those regular agreement rules; clarify expressions on first use.
  8. Verbs > Conjugation — Contains no text.
  9. Nouns — What morphosyntactical consequences has the gender of a noun? Does the conjugation of the verb change? Does the form of the adjective have to agree with it?
  10. Adjectives — I miss the 'agreement rules' previously referred to. What determines the form of an adjective? Examples of this agreement would be nice.
  11. Word order — Could do with an example sentence.

Quite a list... but that's it for now. mark 11:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silverpit crater[edit]

I started this article on the UK's only known impact crater a few weeks ago. I'd like to nominate it for featured status eventually, but I think it's a bit on the short side at the moment and would appreciate thoughts on what more could be included. Worldtraveller 12:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • A map and some (seismic) images would be nice, I think. Another thought: the "crater" was discovered only two years ago (note that the date of discovery isn't mentioned in the article: something to add, obviously). That's a very short time for scientific consensus to develop. I would therefore alot more attention to the alternative explanations and not dismiss them outright, as is more-or-less the case in the current article. Make it a more balanced discussion of the various hypotheses. It wouldn't be the first time that scientists and the media choose to believe something they really want to be true. Shades of Piltdown Man, anyone? Also, "Questions about impact origin" is a bit of a misnomer, as the Underhill theory does not involve an impact at all. Good luck! --Plek 22:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for some very helpful comments! I've added a couple of images, showing the location and seismic map of the crater, and also tried to give a more balanced appraisal of the competing origin theories. I may just be a sucker for a good story, but my impression is that impact is still generally the favoured theory, so the article still has a bit of an impact slant to it - you may feel it's not neutral enough still? Worldtraveller 22:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's much better. And I don't think it the "slant" is a problem. You have defined the two hypotheses and indicated that the impact one is favoured by consensus. After that, it's seems natural to explore that one theory further, as happens in the article.
Some other suggestions: you have provided references (A Good Thing), but they are not cited in the main body of the article. Now, this isn't strictly necessary, but it may help to check if all the facts in the article can be traced to one or more of the referenced works. See Wikipedia:Cite sources for more details.
Also, at the moment there is only one other article linking to this one. You might want to expand the web a bit by adding links to other articles (where appropriate, of course).
The "Age" section is a bit short-ish. I haven't read the source articles, so I don't know if there's more to tell, but you may want to expand it a bit. At least try to explain some more about the techniques and jargon, for the benefit of people who don't know their Cretaceous from their Jurassic. Add some more wikilinks as well to provide some background information. Cheers. --Plek 01:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again - very useful comments! I've added cite points to the references, and expanded the age section a little bit (don't think there's too much more that can be said though). Have linked to the article from a few other places and will try to do more of that. Worldtraveller 12:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cannabis rescheduling[edit]

Interesting piece, that I would like to revise so it can become a Featured Article. Thc420 07:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • A topical comment: The sidebar is huge. I would suggest either restyling it so it's less obtrustive (I can do that if you want me to) or making it a separate article. I haven't found any other major issues with the article on my first read. – flamurai (t) 07:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Some pictures would help. Also, IMHO you might consider restructuring the article. What I would want to see if I opened the page, would be 1)background 2)Arguements for and against rescheduling 3)Process needed for resceduling 4)History of attempts to reschedule in chronological order (not split to legislative and administrative). Sayeth 16:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, interesting idea. I have seen timelines before like what you are talking about. See The History of Medical Marijuana, timeline, History of Medical Marijuana Research. The latter seems to be the most relevant to this article. It shouldn't be too hard to merge the Administrative and Legislative aspects into one timeline. 21:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I reorganized it. Radracer 16:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • In response to your question regarding what pictures to use, if you can't find pictures of Congressional hearings, protesters marching for medicinal marijuana or legalization would make an easily findable illustration - use search terms on Google like "Prop. 215 California protest" or do a search on for "marijuana legalization". I was able to find several pics on the website, but I couldn't find their copyright policy. Sayeth 22:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I've gotten burned by copyright issues in the past. Prop. 215 might not be too relevant to rescheduling, since rescheduling is a federal issue. Hmm, what do you think? 15:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I wonder whether there is too much overlap between:
    • I found some pics: [2], of a lady getting arrested for barricading the doors of the DEA, and then there's one here [3] of a joint and Marinol pill side by side; unfortunately, the resolution is poor. Let me know if you find anything better, thanks, Rad Racer 19:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is all about the situation in the United States. Various other countries have tried different approaches to the classification of cannabis. Therefore, the article suffers from limited geographical bias. The big fix would be to make the US information one part in a larger, more comprehensive article. The quick fix would be an honest renaming to Cannabis rescheduling (US). Gareth Hughes 11:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aramaic language[edit]

This article is mostly my own work with support from a few dedicated Wikipedians. It was briefly a FAC, but I was not quite finished editing at that point. As the article is officially long it would be good to have suggestions on how to make it slightly more compact. However, I am aware that all sorts of rubbish is popularly spouted about Aramaic, and I would hope to keep this article thorough. Gareth Hughes 18:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoa.. learned a lot of new stuff there ;) Good article, but as you say, a bit long. One option might be to spin off 'Old Arameic' and 'Middle Arameic' as seperate articles, linkto them in the appropriate sections and just give a resume in the main article.
The {{neo-aramaic}} box should perhaps be placed at the bottom of the article? I realise that by context it is in the right spot, but visually I feel it's in the wrong spot... I decided not to be bold today thought, since I'm not sure it would be the best thing to move it - I rather leave that to someone more familiar with the subject.
Overall, excelent. Looks - and reads in my opinion - better than most articles I've seen so far on WP:PR. WegianWarrior 10:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. I take your point about {{neo-aramaic}}: I think I might sort out the Related topics section to give it a little structure, and include the template in there. I am a little reticent about breaking up the History sections, but I think they do need a good bit of pruning back. Thanks. Gareth Hughes 11:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the template, given some structure to the list of internal links (where the template now resides), pruned the external links and updated the sounds section to use IPA. I'm going to move on to the sections on the history of the language to see if they can be cut back too. Any other comments? Gareth Hughes 18:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Superb. I don't mind the length at all — Wikipedia is not paper. Spinning of Old and Middle Aramaic (like WegianWarrior said) would be the best way to shorten it, IF it needs to be shortened.
I'm missing graphics. One or more maps accompanying the 'Geographic distribution' section would really illuminate the topic. A timeline could be of use too. The reader needs something to go by (more than pretty images) when confronted with so much text. mark 11:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Mark. I'll have a play around with the timeline idea: I think I can manage that. I don't how to go about adding maps to the article though. Any suggestions? Gareth Hughes 11:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ideally, the history would be accompanied by a series of maps, one for each main section, showing the approximate geographical distribution of the language (and, if possible, some other important languages of the area) at that time. But there are some obvious difficulties — which period to choose, how to fix the borders, etc. At the very least, a map showing the present distribution would be cool, just to visualize the dispersed nature of the various dialects. Refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Cartographers for a list of Wikipedians who could help with maps (I'm listed there also, but I'm desperately trying to limit my contributions to Africa at the moment).
As for the timeline, be sure to check out m:EasyTimeline . mark 15:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've put the timeline into the article. It is rather big, and I've spent so long looking at it that I no longer know whether it works or not. I notice that some areas are crammed, while others are looking rather bald! I'm sure there are other events that can go in there. I'll ask around for another cartographer, thanks. Gareth Hughes 16:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a good start. A few comments:
  • It needs a (light) background color to distinguish is more clearly from the text body.
  • Is it possible to make it a little less wide?
  • Is it possible to reverse the order of events? At present the order is quite the reverse of the text flow, which is a little disorientating. mark 19:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll try a light canvas for the timeline. Narrowing it may be tricky, but I'll have a go. As for direction: I wanted the timeline to start at the top rather than the bottom, but I couldn't find anything in the syntax guide that would make the timeline flow in other direction. Any suggestions on that? Sorted the direction with order:reverse, not shown in the syntax help. Gareth Hughes 12:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hah, great! I've given it a little left margin. I'd add the order:reverse to the talk page of m:EasyTimeline fur future reference if I were you. Or thank Erik Zachte (the author) for the feature :).
O, one thing: I think that the New Testament didn't record Aramaic around the year one AD, but at least ca. fourty years later. mark 21:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • From what I see, this is very close to being FA worthy. For all language and music related FAC listings, the standard comment now is that they should include sound samples. Ideally they should be in a free compressed format such as Ogg. - Taxman 20:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was expecting someone to mention sound files! I don't think that I've got the equipment to record sound on my computer. In the grammar section I used a quite artificial mix of Biblical Aramaic and Classical Syriac to show grammar at different stages of development. The question with sound recordings is which dialect to use. Perhaps a few recordings of different dialects might work. Gareth Hughes 12:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you may be surprised to find your sound card will record at least passable sound. The only needed thing would be a cheap microphone perhaps. You could otherwise borrow time on someone else's machine or see if your local library has decent recording ability. You may also want to look at Audacity it has good basic sound processing functions and can clean the static from recordings. I think any dialect would be a good start, simply tell which one it is. Then later if it is possible add more in order to show some of the differences. - Taxman 20:47, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the timeline is looking nicer now: thanks for the help with it. I cannot remember what the input value for the NT was, but I do think it also got a shift so that everything would fit nicely: I'll check to see what's up there. I'm looking for a few other events to fill in the gaps, and scouring my textbooks for them. One style question: do you think that the timeline would look better with a title (either as a heading or footer), saying something like Timeline of the Aramaic language?

I've got hold of a microphone, and found that I can make rather short, scratchy recordings in WAV format. I'll have a look at Audacity and getting my system set for OGG format. I've had no luck as of yet with cartographers; I'm not entirely sure what to put on a map anyway. Gareth Hughes 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second look there is no problem with the dating. I had mistaken the '1st c' (first century) for the first year AD — my fault. First century is of course just fine. mark 14:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've sung a little bit of Syriac for you (image:aboun.ogg) and inserted it at an appropriate place in the text (Aramaic language#Middle Syriac). What do you think? Gareth Hughes 22:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's fantastic. A really great addition to the article. While map(s) showing the current and/or past distribution of the language would be great, I think this article has improved so much it is worthy of being a FA now, even without them. The maps aren't worth holding it up I'd think since the trouble of defining the areas where it is spoken is pretty difficult. How many people in an area would it take to count, and is that kind of data even available? Anyway, great job. - Taxman 15:41, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! I think there are some vague maps of the Middle East here and on Commons, but I'm not sure they would help at all. I just managed to contact a couple of cartographers before the wikicrash, but haven't heard back. To be honest, I'm really not sure what I'd be asking for. I'm quite happy with how it looks now. I'll try and do a read through soon to check facts and readability. If you would like to nominate this as a FAC (looks better than a self-nomination), then please go ahead (just be aware of the previous application that stalled, i.e. archive it). Gareth Hughes 18:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nah, a self nom doesn't hurt anything. But in any case I have gone ahead and nominated it. I guess I'll leave this here for a day or so before archiving so people can see that it was nominated at FAC. - Taxman 17:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Taxman for putting the nomination through to FAC, and thanks everyone else for their comments, thoughts and help. Gareth Hughes 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stanislaw Koniecpolski[edit]

Note: I have resubmitted this for a very short period of time. The article is nearly ready (or is in fact ready) for FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This historical bio has lots of contents. What it needs is a read through a native English person and some minor - I hope - language fixes. Of course, all other comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Have added this to my User:Ta bu shi da yu/copyedit page. Just started! When I get a chance I'll sneak a peak. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry this took such a long time to copyedit... I have finally done this! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • One last question: the table at the start. Is this a template somewhere? If not, can you convert it to a template so we can standardise the way we present info on people? If you need help with this I'm happy to assist. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Much tnx for the ce. Good idea about a template, but I have never done one before. FYI, we have been unsing this type of biobox on almost everybody from the list of szlachta, and there is similar one for the people in the list of Polish rulers. I wonder if we could use some kind of a bot to easily convert them all into a template? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Cantos[edit]

The most complex, and longest, article I've worked on. I've done as much as I can with it and would welcome suggestions for improving. Filiocht 12:31, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you have a cup of tea or coffee and a sit down, anyway. Charles Matthews 12:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that Charles started this article, created the structure into which I poured content, and has corrected a number of my errors along the way. I have tea now and am sitting down. Filiocht 13:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not knowledgeable about the subject so I might be a good one to help with observations that could help the article be more approachable for people in a similar situation. The intro still requires being fairly familiar with the subject in a few spots. What does "and the early Cantos as finally published date from 1922 onwards." mean? That seems to imply Canto is a thing we should know what it is. Also this could use some copyediting: "It is of a piece with Pound's prose writing". What does that mean? I tried copyediting the formidable sentence to make it easier to read, but I'm not sure I helped. That sentence and some others in the intro, if made simpler to parse, would help make the intro more accessible. I'm not really qualified to comment on the rest of it, but it looks well researched and FAC worthy to me. - Taxman 19:36, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is so complete it should be on the main page rather than here. Wikipedia should feel privileged to have such a detailed and succinct analysis of this important work. Giano 21:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Magnificent, Filiocht, fascinating to read. A real showpiece for Wikipedia. Rather a difficult subject to illustrate, therefore I'm struck by the perspective added by the images, and especially the captions with their quotes and counterpoints. But of course you're aware that it could become a test case for article length on WP:FAC, at 80 kb? Still, only one person objected seriously to the length of History of Russia recently, which was then 66 kb, and it must surely be clear to everybody that subdivision of an article on one literary work would take a lot more violence than of the History of a nation, which does have a number of seams that could be unpicked. And that subdividing *this* article in particular would be wanton destruction. I believe people will see that.
I note it is 121 on Special:Longpages. My own view is that the article should be kept whole, and if that means it cannot be an FA, so be it. It is better to have the best possible article than to meet the FA technical requirements, and comprehensiveness and factual accuracy are the things that really matter, IMHO. Filiocht 11:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Trying to figger something constructively critical to say. OK, how about a Wikiquote Cantos page? With some longer quotes than in the captions. With a vulgarly obvious choice like famous bits from the Pisan Cantos?
Copyright problems? Filiocht 11:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Fair use? Note especially the weight given to length of quote in relation to the whole work, and how that would work in your favour. If you were to type quotes all day for a week, you probably still wouldn't have one millionth of the whole work. (Whereas if you were six monkeys you might have the whole.) Bishonen | Talk 18:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a lot about criticism in the article. The section "Controversy" gives a bit the impression that *all* criticism of Pound was one of two things: either condemnation for his politics and antisemitism, or defence against these charges, of the "Yes, but" type. I understand how this would dominate, especially in the U.S., but hasn't there been any other kind of critical engagement with the Cantos? How about Kenner? Any academics writing dissertations today? Bishonen | Talk 23:53, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is one of the most comprehensive wikipedia articles I've seen. I'm trying to figure out something constructive to say too, how about a table of contents with links to different chapters of the article?Dinopup 05:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks to one and all for the improvements. The hope is that between this and List of cultural references in The Cantos (as it grows), Wikipedia will have the best available online introduction to this important literary monument. Filiocht 08:52, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • A fascinating article, which merits its length. I have rearranged the first paragraph to ease comprehension (as I see it). I feel rather proud to have been able to contribute to something so remarkable. --Theo (Talk) 23:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What does "It is of a piece with Pound's prose writing, in that his major themes on economics, governance and culture are integral to its content." mean? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • As you are the second person to ask this, of a piece with is, for this writer at least, a perfectly ordinary English phrase meaning (to quote the American Heritage dictionary) Belonging to the same class or kind; in other words, his poetry and prose are continuations of each other, reading one will help make sense of each other, because the same themes and concerns run accros both. Filiocht 08:38, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I just want to say that I am deeply impressed. This is excellent, wonderful, magnificent, and fascinating. mark 12:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've now posted this article on WP:FAC. Filiocht 11:19, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


I have been working on this article for about two weeks. I am hoping to nominate it to be a Featured Article, but I know that it can be improved. As I envision it, the article is 95 percent complete. I'll let you all be the judges of how comprehensive and well written it is, but this article contains much more information than is available on Britannica. Hopefully, after a few days here this article will be in good enough shape to move to the FAC page. I welcome your advice.Dinopup 04:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Definitely a good start. So a few observations: 1) I moved the picture to the right so as not to break the page and the table of contents. 2) The lead section should be expanded. It should summarize all of the important features of the topic and ease the reader in. That is generally considered to be 2-3 paragraphs for an article this size. It should tell a little more about the role it says they play in Israeli society. If you expand the lead section enough, maybe the picture could go back to the left, but that is very nonstandard. 3) Eliminate one sentence paragraphs. They make the prose flow badly and highlight areas that should either be expanded into a full idea or merged with neighboring paragraphs. 4) A little more context on the 'Pioneers' section is needed. Someone shouldn't have to already know the exact dates and history of initial Iraeli settlement to know what is going on and when, as the article currently requires. When did the first Jewish settlers come in? When was the British mandate? - Taxman 21:51, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Per your suggestions I eliminated all the one sentence paragraphs and added information about the ideological background of the earliest kibbutzniks. I'm not 100% satisfied with the beginnings of the ideology section. I hate to do anything that isn't "prosical," but I'm thinking of explaining the kibbutz ideology with bullet points. Rather than have unheaded paragraphs explaining the Zionist kibbutz ideology I could do bullet points on kibbutz motivation like this
  • 1. redeem the Jewish nation through physical work
  • 2. Improve the land of Palestine - i.e. "make the desert bloom."
  • 3. pure communism.
I'll do kibbutz ideology with headings like that if you think the ideology section isn't clear enough.Dinopup 17:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good fixes so far. Some more observations for you then. 1) The two sentence paragraphs are often nearly as choppy as the one, same basic problem, but eliminating the one sentence ones is a good start. 2) The context in the 'Pioneers' section is way better, it just makes the section too long. See what can either be summarized or separated out as a distinct section if it makes sense. 3) The lead section still needs expanding, but maybe it would be better to improve that once you have the article as fleshed out as you think it can be/needs to be. Then when the article is reasonably stable, it may be easier to write the best summary of the subject. 4) Now there are a number of copyedits that need to be made, either from unfinished sentences or those that aren't very clear. Here are some examples: "and decided to take part in the (Silver-Brody, 33,36)..." What finishes that sentence? The sentence "If the settled Arabs were not violent, sabotage of irrigation canals or burning of fields occurred." has a lot of problems. What settled Arabs? who sabatoged the irrigation canals? Also POV concerns about that claim. 5) There is some POV that has crept in. Any statement that is not obviously true on the face of it could use citation to a good source. You have started along that path, just keep it up. Also the risk is that if you use all Jewish author sources (just my impression so far), you have nothing about what the other groups felt about it. Try to get some sources from or representing the Ottomans/Arabs/Muslims in the area and their characterization of the facts. 6) Finally the whole thing needs careful attention to cohesiveness. Similar topics are scattered in different places and claims in one section only partly support those in others. Hope that helps. - Taxman 18:40, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Taxman, thank you very much for your help. I have implemented many of your suggestions. I've added more of the Arab POV, I've expanded the Pioneers section, I've made copyedits. I might be making a few copy edits from here on out, but I think in terms of content we're good. It is difficult to isolate information in single sections -describing the history of the kibbutz movement, it's impossible not to talk about things that could be included in daily life and economics. If it appears that there are contradictions, that is probably the result of the age and diversity of the kibbutz movement itself. Kibbutzim were founded to be places of Jewish labor, now that kibbutzniks are less enthusiastic about labor, there are hired workers. Unless you have more advice (and your advice has been great), I'm going to let this stabilize, and then promote the article to FAC.Dinopup 02:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Torah reading[edit]

Needs references; needs more inclusion of non-Orthodox practices; needs a section on history and origin of the practice; can doubtless use some fixes throughout. —msh210 02:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well thats the kind of observations you are expected to help implement fixes for, not list it and expect others to. See the guidelines above. - Taxman 19:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
So should I try adding {{POV check}} to the article, adding {{Attention}} to the Origins/History section, and adding the article to PNA — instead of listing the article here?msh210 20:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes basically. Or better yet, just commit to implimenting fixes of problems you see and ask for advice and observations from other editors, and implement those as best you can. Not that many people are familiar with the subject enough to fix all the issues, so if you are, please do so. What I have described is what PR is for. - Taxman 15:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

What kind of references are we looking for - it seems that this article was written based on personal experience, not based on sources. Once history and origins are included, references will probably be required. I think there is a midrash that Moshe/Moses instituted Monday and Thursday Torah reading, but I'm not sure of a source - if someone can verify, it can be included in the article. chaitov 05:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even personal experience of halacha-based events can have sources in halachic works. —msh210 14:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All articles on Wikipedia should be based on research of the most reliable resources on a given subject. We are a reference work, not a catologue of personal opinion. - Taxman 15:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Genghis Khan[edit]

I think this article is quite comprehensive, and tries to clear many elusive understanding of Genghis Khan. It contains variety of cultural viewpoints and covers major ideas and understandings about the man. There are certain areas need to be improved like "Values of Genghis Khan" should be extensively sourced and the last 4 references should follow the cite resources aspect of Wikipedia. Besides that, we can review it and suggest any changes so this article can reach featured article of Wikipedia. Any suggestions are welcome. 01:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but this is not the way to use peer review. The article was already on FAC when it was posted here, and it should not be on both. Please remove it either from PR or from FAC. (If I don't hear from you within 24 hours, I'll assume your posting here was a mistake and remove it from here myself.) If peer review is where you want it to be listed (which I think would be the best), it's very welcome here, and please consider moving the useful comments you've already received on FAC to this page, so peer reviewers aren't left to pointlessly discover and write about the same things. Also, please sign your listing above (with four tildes). Best wishes, Bishonen | Talk 00:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok I removed this article from the FAC. I can't really exactly remember what a user suggested on the FAC. But he/she pointed out the following suggestions: 1) Fix the last 4 references to fit the Wikipedia citing resources guidelines. 2) Fix the weird structure of sections, and make it easy to follow 3) He/she would like to see this copy-edited. The first 2 are basically done from my standpoint and we really need copy-edit on this article. Thanks. 01:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You can't? Right, well, to show the specific objections made to the present structure, I paste in the FAC comments of Phils below. I actually don't agree with you that the merging of "Legacy" and "Perceptions" that Phils recommends has been taken care of. While the sections have been moved into a joint section "Genghis Kahn today", which is a good idea as far as it goes, they're still separate, which doesn't work. They need a rewrite/merge into one single internally coherent text (it would by no means be enough to remove their separate headings). I can't see that the references have been formatted any, they look exactly the same as before, and the third web-based reference is absolutely terrible (it leads to a Google search!). Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources. Bishonen | Talk 09:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Object.: Good article, but: 1) The four web-based references should be formatted according to the formatting guidelines found here: Wikipedia:Cite sources. 2) The article is pretty long and exhibits a strange structure: it begins with an account of his early life, followed by Values of Genghis Kahn, a moral portrait that should be more extensively sourced because it contains a lot of strong statements about his personal beliefs. Next is a section called Mongols before Genghis Kahn, a section I think could be disposed of. There is already a separate article, and the information in it is only remotely related to Genghis Kahn himself. Uniting the tribes and the two next sections continue Gengis Kahn's biography started 2 sections before, this time concentrating on military achievements. The structure then completely spins out of control with Political achievements, a rather shallow section with some overlap with the self-confessed stub subsection Politics in the Organization section. Perceptions of Genghis Kahn and Legacy should be merged somehow and moved to the end, as the perceptions covers modern-day perceptions more than contemporary ones. 3) I would like to see this article copy-edited. The tone and language is acceptable, but it could easily be made more fitting for an encyclopedia article if someone was willing to spend some time on it. Phils 18:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tamil language[edit]

It is to a certain extent self nomination. I did a major rewrite and formatting. The current article has good content, but needs copyediting and evaluation by "third party" readers. Someone who has good knowledge of linguistics-related topics would be of help. This can potentially become a Featured article. -- Sundar 06:37, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I like it! Well written and interesting. I'm certainly no linguist, though, I have no way of knowing about correctness or comprehensiveness. But a point worth noting is this: User:Dbachmann recently had to withdraw Runic alphabet from FAC because many people were complaining they couldn't see the runes. Apparently the coding issues for special characters are quite intricate, and I strongly recommend you try to find out before FAC whether the special characters display all right in different browsers. (I use Mozilla 1.6 for mac OSX, and I get question marks for the Tamil characters :-(.) It won't help to tell people that they ought to be able to see them, that their browser is faulty, or that all they have to do is download a special font (nobody wants to do that, and often it doesn't even turn out to help): if the characters don't show up in at least the most common browsers, without the reader having to take special measures for it, I don't think a language article has any chance on FAC.
Just a detail about the infobox: what is the "region" heading for? In the articles on Swedish, German, English, Dutch, it's used for the larger, supra-national unit (Northern Europe, etc). Here, the "Region" box contains instead the smaller unit, the Indian state Tamil Nadu. Do you know which is correct? Finnish language does it the same way as here, but I kind of suspect a big-ass language article like English language would have it right. Bishonen | Talk 21:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Bishonen. Tamil speakers are now concentrated in pockets across the world. I'll remove the region box. As for the display of characters, even I'm not able to see them on my Konqueror browser. One way is to move the actual table of alphabet to the main article, Tamil alphabet. Let me try that. Thanks again. -- Sundar 04:25, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
I've made the two changes: 1) changed region to TN + pockets across the world 2) replaced tables with images. Feel free to refine it further. -- Sundar 08:41, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Penda of Mercia[edit]

I'd love to hear someone's thoughts about this. I'm continuing to work on it and I like to imagine a day when it can be a featured article, but the article is about 95% my work and I'd like to have someone else's input. One thing about the subject is that there aren't too many solid facts, but there are a lot of questions and a lot of historical speculation. I'm uncertain to what extent I should report such speculation, and whether it's OK for the article to be as short as it is when the available facts are relatively scarce. Another thing: have I overdone the sourcing? I like to attribute as much as possible, but in the past I've been criticized for citing too much. Everyking 18:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cool article, Everyking! Sourcing: I don't think you've overdone the sourcing, and it's good to have most of it tucked away inconspicuously yet accessibly in footnotes, freeing up the text, which can occasionally be confusing from all the referencing of primary sources as it is (see below). But the footnotes don't work right: they're supposed to take you to the bottom of the page when you click on them. You need to have them encode the actual name of the section referred to; look at Philetaerus for an example. Also look at that article for an example of separating "References" from "Footnotes". If you do a more standard footnote system (well explained here by Paul August), you could actually have fewer superscribed footnotes in the text, a Good Thing. E. g. the little swarm of notes in the paragraph beginning "The victor of Heavenfield, Oswald of Bernicia" might be consolidated into one long note mentioning several sources, which is impossible with your present system. It's not a lot of sourcing information that's distracting to the reader, it's the gnat-like presence of a lot of superscribed note numbers.
Having said that, I do think the info in note 1 should be more summary, considering how small the difference is between the alternatives. Did Penda die in 654, 655, or 656? You don't make a case in the article for why we care. Also, while this may not be a rockribbed rule, it's a matter of good rhetoric to preferably avoid footnotes in the Lead, especially having a note after just a few words. If it was me, I'd mention the 654—656 conundrum further down, and footnote that instead.
Text: ("The battle was known as Cogwy to the Welsh"—so? Is that nugget meant to be just dropped in there, or is it connected with the rest?) From a position of ignorance, I find the "Early activities and beginning of reign" section very confusing, I think it's something to do with the way it keeps coming back to disagreement in the sources about dates, and partly subordinates everything else to that, and at the same time other things are trying to get out from under, like the description of Penda as most warlike. And the agreement after the battle of Cirencester seems somehow linked with the doubts about how old Penda was (surely not? but it says "also"—I can't figure it). I think you need to restructure this section quite radically, and to signpost as much as possible what the focus/foci of it is/are. Perhaps more, rather than less, of source disagreement could go in the notes, making it possible to keep a cleaner line of argument in the text? Or, you could try to highlight the few things that aren't in doubt (are there any?) The next section, "Hatfield Chase and the reign of Oswald", is a lot easier to follow, and I think it has to do with the way all three paragraphs there open with a sentence about something simple that is simply the case—oh sweet relief—and only then go on to all the doubtfulnesses. In relation to the complexities and doubts, the rest of the article reads altogether extremely well, congratulations! Length of sections and of paragraphs is just right, helpful for flow and easy on the eye. And sure the article's long enough—it's comprehensive, isn't it?
Images: I realize you'll have to manage without a portrait, but what about a few nice pics of illuminated manuscripts or something? Best,--Bishonen | Talk 10:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC). Comment was apparently deleted by El C, I assume accidentally, after 7 minutes; I'm reinserting it now.--Bishonen | Talk 12:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that. El_C 12:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments; I was unable to reply to them initially because my friend RickK thought he could make an exception to Wikipedia policy for me, because I'm so special. Well, I've fixed the link style; they were that way before, too, but then someone changed them, I don't know why. You're probably right about "Cogwy"; it should just be in the Battle of Maserfield article. I think you're also right about the first section, but I've thought about that and I'm not really sure how to improve that. I'll keep thinking. Everyking 01:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I was aware that there might be a problem of replying and editing. :-( I'm sorry, that whole business must be shattering. The pedagogics of the first secion are tricky to fix, no doubt. The uncertainties in it ought not be simplified. I could have a go at moving bits of it about, if you like, from the disoriented reader's POV, and post a suggestion on the Talk page for your consideration. I'm only too likely to produce a version choc-a-bloc with misunderstandings, but at least that might point you to specific opportunities for a reader to get things wrong.--Bishonen | Talk 10:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Would it be possible to expand the lead section? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know...crafting a good lead section can be hard to do. I'll think on it; I've already reworked it a few times now, never quite to my satisfaction, though. Everyking 03:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very well done. My principal point of criticism is that you cite 2 articles without giving full references -- or are they articles from a collection of papers like a Festschrift? In either case, please add more bibliographical information. The rest of what I have to say I suspect you probably should leave to someone else though, Everyking:
  • Some points in this article could stand some copy editting -- I couldn't help myself & that's why made the changes in the wording of your footnotes. But this would be done best either after you've left this article alone for a few days, or asked someone else to do it. And this polishing really doesn't detract from the article.
  • Something that doesn't leap out right at the beginning, but it does linger with me after having read this once or twice is that there seems to be no attempt to explain Penda's actions. When one strips away all of the details on each battle, what is left is a rather bald narrative of "First Penda defeated the kings of Wessex, & then joined with the Welsh to defeat the Northumbrians, & then fought another battle, & then was killed by the Northumbrians." While it is risky to try to explain this king's motives (one would argue that doing so violates NPOV), making it clear that Penda started with a second-rate power (i.e. Wessex), then moved against Northumbria because it was the major power in Britain & so forth would help avoid the "& then" effect. However again, I don't know if you should do this, or leave it undone for a future editor. -- llywrch 23:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I cited them as best I could, I gave all the information I had, and since I was working off of direct copies I suppose I gave all the information that existed. Could you specify which references you're referring to? If you want to copyedit, go right ahead; I know people think my writing is too verbose, but I try to be as simple as I can while keeping the meaning as exact as it needs to be. So just be sure not to lose any of the meaning. As for your last point, that would be attributing some central design to Penda's ambitions—that he intentionally started with a smaller power, moved against Northumbria because it was the major power in Britain, etc. I doubt that when he fought the West Saxons in 628 (if that's indeed when it happened) he was envisioning some step by step process towards dominating his neighbors, although he may have envisioned such a process towards establishing or consolidating his power within Mercia. But in any case, all that seems much too speculative, whichever way you take it. We could perhaps cite references attributing to Penda some central design such as that. Anyway, why do you sound so leery of me editing the article myself? Everyking 12:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look in my library at home to see if I have an example of what I'm talking about that applies to this period: adding a sense narrative to a biographical overview. But as I wrote above, it's not an issue that would keep me from voting for this article as a Featured Candidate, just a suggested improvement.
I'm not implying that you shouldn't make the copyedits I suggested to the article yourself, Everyking -- or make any further edits to it. I'm sorry that it came over that way, because it was not my intent. My point was, based on my experience as a writer, is that often after working on a piece for so long & so intently (as you have done) you starts to overlooking small details that need fixing, or assume that because you know what you're talking about, so does everyone else. (Here I'm using the second person in a general sense, & not directed at Everyking; I've had this problem of literary myopia, & so have other writers.) That's why I suggested that you take abreak form the article, forget about it for a while so you can go back to it with a fresh take. Or, if you want to get it considered at WP:FAC immediately, ask someone you trust here on Wikipedia to copy edit it. That was all I was saying. -- llywrch 18:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, sure, I agree with that. That's why I listed it here on peer review. Last time I went straight to FAC things didn't, uh, go so good. Anyway, can you point out what references you were talking about that you thought were lacking? The Prestwich article about Aethelhere at the Winwaed? I truly don't believe there's any more reference info that I can give for that. I got the journal, the title, the author, the page numbers, the year and month of the issue. Everyking 18:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about not specifying which citations, Everyking; I got distracted & forgot to add that information. (I'm writing this from work, & for some reason my employer wants me to get some nonWikipedia stuff done.) The ones I was indicating are both in footnote 1:
  • 'S. Wood, 1983: "Bede's Northumbrian dates again"'
  • 'D.P. Kirby, "Bede and Northumbrian Chronology", 1963'
It's far more useful to have citations in the extensive manner as you did with J. O. Prestwich's article in footnote 16. -- llywrch 20:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh! Yeah, I see what you mean. Well, the reason it's like that is because those are basically references for the notes, not for anything in the article proper. I could fully cite those articles, but it seemed like it might be too much if it wasn't directly referring to something in the article. I figured if it's a footnote, I better keep it short. Everyking 20:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well your citation of Kirby picqued my interest, & I was curious to see whether I could track down his article. If you mention a source in an article, please provide sufficient information so an interested reader can locate it. You did that nicely with Prestwich's article. -- llywrch 05:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll add the information into the article, but I'll comment it out so it doesn't weigh down the text too heavily. If you believe it should be visible to the reader, feel free to make it that way. Everyking 11:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting article. Some of the sections seem a little unnaturally combined ("Descent, beginning of reign, and battle with the West Saxons" isn't exactly snappy), and a picture would be great - are there any coins with an image? Otherwise, a conventional depiction would add a little colour to the article. Warofdreams 15:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, they're combined because otherwise the sections would be really short. They are all loosely linked by chronology. There are no pictures to use that I know of. Everyking 16:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could there be some mention of the widely held belief that the penny was named after Penda? Dsmdgold 01:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I will. I hadn't done so yet because I'm unsure of the respective merits of the arguments—I've never read anything except "some people think..." Maybe you could do better than me? Hopefully I can eventually find a good source for the issue. Everyking 02:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Steve Dalkowski[edit]

Steve Dalkowski was a minor league pitcher for the various Baltimore affiliates, he was as much known for his 100mph+ fastball as his inability to control it. I've been working on this article since last week and it's slowly starting to come together. What it really needs is more baseball buffs to have a good look over it (and hopefully some minor league experts as well, since this is not my forte) and iron out the rough edges. It also needs a good copyedit and the structure improving. Also, does anyone have a better picture? He's a fascinating character and this could easily become a great featured article with some TLC. Thanks for your attention. :) Zerbey 18:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Update: Article has been largely rewritten to address all concerns, feedback would be greatly appreciated. Zerbey 17:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Zerbey, you've certainly picked an interesting topic to work on! I found the article fascinating. However, I do have several concerns.
  • I read your sources, and comparing them back to the article, it is apparent that much of the material in the wikipedia article would definitely be considered plagiarism, if not an outright copyright violation. This material needs to be rewritten, where it matches the language and phrasing of the source article too closely.

:*Agreed, and this is my primary focus right now. Zerbey 19:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Dalkowski's claim to fame was his fast pitches -- however (as I'm sure you are aware), even today there is dispute over the measuring of pitch speeds (what with "fast" and "slow" guns), making radar gun measurements best used for relative, not absolute, speed comparisons. Earlier technologies were likely even less reliable. I think that this article needs to discuss more thoroughly that the purported speeds of 105 to 110 mph were never verified. This doesn't make the article non-notable; it just shouldn't be reported as fact that his fastballs "on a good day" reached the 105-110 range.

:*Noted, will work on this. He was officially clocked at 95mph in the 60s but the results were controversial, this will be included soon Zerbey 19:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Testimonials of other players are very interesting and good sources, but it is known that some pitches "look faster" than they actually are, due to various factors including the pitcher's arm motion and release point. Some discussion on how pitchers in general can make pitches appear faster than they are, any information on whether Dalkowski used those techniques (although I realize that info might not exist), and the inherent unreliability of batter's testimonials due to these effects, should be included.
  • A parallel project could be the history of radar guns and other technologies for measuring pitch speed; lots of information on that is scattered through the Dalkowski article, but would be a good read by itself if collected in a new article. It would also shed lots of light on the whole question of "how fast were Dalkowski's pitches, really?".
Again, fascinating topic, I'll try to keep up with changes and help the article along where I can... it'd be a fun FAC, but not yet. Bantman 19:35, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Zerbey 19:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not an American, and don't really understand baseball, so a few baseball terms should probably be explained. For instance, what does "walked" and "strike out" mean? I would also redistribute those external links in the lead section to the text, and reference them properly in the reference section. The trivia section is evil :-) that needs to be incorporated into the text as it's all interesting and good information! I must say, this has been a valiant stab at writing about a sports star. Usually I find it pretty dull, this article was actually interesting and informative! I'd love to see this on FAC and onto the featured articles page. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind comments. Trivia: I am looking into making this better without turning the page into a list of anecdotes (see above). Strikeout/Walk: I will link to the already excellent wikipedia articles on these subjects. Links: OK, will do. Any other comments welcome. Zerbey 02:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have just started merging it. I'm thinking that some of the trivia can be incorporated into the history section into the relevant section. I just processed the first item (check the diffs), maybe that would give you some idea of how to procede! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge is done! Someone might want to look at this to see how well I've done this. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Zerbey 20:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have found an image at and have emailed the owner of the site to see if we can use it under the GFDL or Creative Commons license. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How would a picture of a different ball player be relevant to this article? Zerbey 01:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It couldn't! I made a silly mistake, and the owner of the picture (a fellow Wikipedian, User:Rastro) also asked me the question... Rastro says that he might be able to help out if we can give him some focussed questions on stuff about this player. Do we have any? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We need to know:
  1. More on what happened after he retired. What little we do know is already in the article, I'd really like to have some more on his life as a migrant worker and how it affected him.
  2. I'm not actually sure if he's still alive (hopefully he is!) as the last information we have on him has him sick, but active in 2003. So, more on what's going on with him now, he has a family and he still attends ball games. What else does he do with his time? Any recent pictures? Zerbey 04:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Updates on the picture issue:

  1. Steve Dalkowski either hated his photograph being taken, or people just didn't like taking photographs of him!
  2. Wrote to the Orioles about a month ago asking for help but haven't got a reply yet.
  3. As far as baseball trading cards are concerned the image we have is the only one he ever appeared on. Am waiting for a reply from Topps to see if we can use it (they're not very forthcoming)
  4. Wrote to the Assoc. of Professional Ball Players asking for help this week, no reply yet.
  5. Last resort: SI did an article on Dalkowski in their July, 2003 issue - I'm hoping that there was an image and that they will let us use it. To this end, I'm ordering a copy.
  6. As always, any help Wikipedians can provide would be appreciated!

Zerbey 01:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Ta bu shi da yu emailed me yesterday, thinking that a picture he had found on my website was that of Dalkowski. It wasn't, it was of Bo Belinsky. The reason why TBSDY's google image search came up with the image was that on the same page as the image, I mention that Belinsky (who believe me is worth an article himself) was a teammate of Dalkowski's for the 1958 Aberdeen Pheasants. They were also rivals the following year in the long-defunct Alabama-Florida League. is also posted at this site, and for this reason I have always thought that the picture portrays him pitching for the '59 Pensacola Dons, though I have no proof of this., who posted the same picture at might know this for a fact (or not)

This highly recommended book (link to Amazon) introduced me to Dalkowski. Its first chapter is on Dalkowski, by Shelton. Also stories on Moe Berg, Manny Mota, Karl Spooner, Bill Lee, and other fascinating if not always so famous players. . . .

It also has this picture, from when Dalkowski pitched for the Rochester Red Wings. The original belongs to the Hall of Fame.

The following is a post by Society of American Baseball Research member Kit Krieger on Dalkowski. He is wrong about Etchebarren, who is very much alive:

Dave Baldwin write about the legendary speed and wildness of Steve

Dalkowski. Many of the stories derive from Pat Jordan's writings more than 30 years ago. I never had the privilege to see Dalkowski pitch but remember that his arm was a frequent topic of conversation in my clubhouse when I was the visiting clubhouse attendant for the Vancouver Mounties of the Pacific Coast League from 1967-69. I remember a conversation about ten years later with Andy Etchebarren, who caught Dalkowski when they both played with Elmira in the Eastern League in 1962. I started the conversation and repeated some of the stories I had read, including the one that Dalkowski had once hit a batter in the on-deck circle. Etchebarren said that Dalkowski was not tough to catch. He described his fastball as "light". He also remarked that Dalkowski's wildness was high and low (mostly high) and not inside an outside. He said that Dalkowski had trouble because his ball had so much upward movement and not because he couldn't come within range of home plate. I know that the question of whether a fastball can rise en route from the pitchers hand to home plate is of some dispute among people with more knowledge of physics than this teachers' union president. The new biography of Koufax has some commentary on this possibility. I distinctly remember Etchebarren saying that Dalkowski would throw a fastball that looked like it was coming in a knee level, only to see it said past the batter's eyes.

I think that Etchebarren died a couple of years ago. Harry Dunlop, one time Oriole coach and catcher in Ron Necchai's 27-strikeout performance in Bristol, VA is still alive. He caught Dalkowski and should be contacted.

Kit Krieger

Cubaball Tours 4772 Narvaez Drive Vancouver, BC Canada V6L 2J2

tel: 604-266-4664 e-mail:

I'd definitely email Mr. Krieger if you wanted to use excerpts from the above.

"Lost Phenom Finds His Way," a story in the February 16, 2003 Baltimore Sun is a good pre-Camden story on Dalkowski

Found that in the web archive and several others, I'll see what information they yield! :-) Zerbey 23:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm certain I would have heard through SABR if he had passed.

Rastro 03:27, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Lots of food for thought, and some more letters to write! Many thanks for the information :-) Zerbey 04:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also tightened some of the article up, improved the look of the table, etc.

Rastro 04:55, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, collaboration at its finest! And to think I found you via a google image search :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, the APBA wrote back to me confirming that they provided support for him between 1974-1992, which is useful to know. Unfortunately, they where not able to give any more information for confidentiality reasons but that little titbit is useful :). Zerbey 23:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Letters have been sent to the Baseball Hall of Fame and to Mr Krieger, I will post here if there is any response. Zerbey 18:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Success! Kit Krieger was kind enough to allow us to use text from his post. :) Zerbey 21:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Success 2! The Baseball Hall of Fame where kind enough to send us a free picture. :) Zerbey 18:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I would like to submit this article to FAC. I was waiting to get pictures, which I now have. In the meantime, I also went back and verified the factual correctness of the information against the references I listed (i.e., I didn't just stick some references at the bottom so I could meet the FAC criteria) since I wrote this before references were a "thing" on Wikipedia.

I feel this article really demonstrates the advantages Wikipedia has on a traditional encyclopedia. It gives information that is interesting to all different types of people. There's a history section, that's a given, but there's also a lot of more practical information that would be of great interest to the musically inclined.

– flamuraiTM 22:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

A specific question: Do you think the TOC is too long? I am thinking of converting most of the last level of headings into HTML headings instead of Wiki headings so they don't show up in the TOC. – flamuraiTM 16:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I do. Not only is the ToC too long, making it look unappealing at the beginning of the article, but many of the sections are very short, and this also looks unappealing. It makes it look like those topics have been covered too briefly, when in fact that is not the case. I think if you join some of them together under broader headings, the look and feel of the article will improve dramatically. Rossrs 09:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions on how to fix it? The only think I can think of is changing the "special effects" section into more of a list. I think that's the worst offender. – flamurai (t) 21:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Whoa there, sailor. We don't use HTML headings. HTML is seriously deprecated around here, used only when it's unavoidable. If the TOC is too long, then (as suggested above), maybe you have too many short sections. The wiki headings are semantic markup. Don't chuck them in favor of unstructured HTML. grendel|khan 20:24, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
I swear I remember some tutorial or MoS section somewhere saying, "when you don't want a section to show up in the TOC, use equivalent HTML headings." – flamurai (t) 21:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

How do you guys feel about the sectioning now? I removed the third-level subsections from "special effects" and "tuning", but left them under "machine timpani" since it helps to clarify the distinct types of machine timpani. – flamurai (t) 02:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for not answering your earlier question. I think you've made a huge improvement. I don't know much about the subject, but to my untrained eye, you've now got a very good balance. Rossrs 13:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful article, very comprehensive, and I especially like the pictures. One thing you might want to consider, though, is moving the "History" section all the way to the top of the article. Right now the article begins with everything about modern-day timpani and only at the end describes their history. The sudden jump backwards in time in the "History" section felt like a discontinuity to me. Wouldn't it be better to follow the development through time of the instrument first, and only then describe the contemporary aspects? Cheers. --Plek 17:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. My reason for putting the history section at the end is that I feel it's more relevant to describe their modern use first. I think that's what most people would be interested in who are coming to the article. This order is more like, "here's what timpani are, and here's where they came from". It'd work either way, though. I've considered putting the history section up front before. – flamurai (t) 05:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Solar neutrino problem[edit]

Comprehensive, well-written article on an interesting problem in physics and astronomy. Would make a great featured article. — Brim 07:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Good stuff. I remember reading about this in the 90's and did not reallize it had been solved. A few things. 1) The intro needs a bit more about how the problem was resolved. I attempted to do that, but found it harder to make clear than expected. 2) The table at the right says "Neutrinos with mass change type" which leaves the option open that some neutrinos have mass and some don't. Is that correct? If not the wording needs to be more clear on that. 3) This article is deficient from meeting the criteria to become a featured article in a few ways: it needs a representative image or diagram, it needs to have references and cite them, and is short enough that it makes it hard to believe it is fully comprehensive on its topic. I myself can't see anything else it needs to cover as it is fairly understandable as it is, but maybe others will have some ideas. - Taxman 22:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a nice article, but I would suggest some improvements:
The stuff in the information box should form the basis of what's in the introduction. I think that the second para of the current intro should be moved into the 'history of the problem' section.
For such a long standing problem, perhaps more could be added about the various theories advanced to explain it, and how they were disproved. I recall theories about exotic particles deep within the sun absorbing the neutrino flux, and various mechanisms for lowering the temperature of the centre of the sun.
An image would be nice - perhaps of a neutrino detector, or the sun, or both.
The sentence starting 'As one researcher put it' doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me, and its source should certainly be quoted if it's to remain in the article.
References from the scientific literature are really essential for an article like this, I think.

Worldtraveller 17:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emma Goldman[edit]

This article seemed to have reached a fairly stable and mature state. It's informative and interesting and would probably make a good feature article (especially since there are so few feature articles about women). I would like to get other people's opinion of the article and how it can be improved. Also, extra fact checking and copyediting would be helpful. Mostly though, I want to know if the organization and content of the article are appropriate for a feature article, and what could be added or changed to make it better. Kaldari 17:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Overall, a good basis, but I find it to be laregly too light on details (some sections acutely so); and on that note, more emphasis could be placed on her body of works and theory which could certainly be expanded further.
Best of luck with the article,
El_C 20:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with El C, this is a mere outline of Goldmann's life, rather than a comprehensive article. The life and especially the works need to be treated more fully. Also, you might possibly want to think about re-organizing the material, as well as expanding it. The text contains a collection of short summaries of Goldmann's discussions/agitation/writings wrt many different topics, and these summaries have been carefully formulated to fit into a chronological account of her life. I do see the advantages of such a structure: for instance, it allows a harmonious melding of each particular view with its consequences (like prison sentences or deportations). That's fine, and there certainly is a close and interesting relationship between life and works in this case. But isn't a structure like that also a bit of a straightjacket for the presentation of her writings? I get the feeling that squeezing Goldman's works and theories into a chronological framework makes it harder to do them justice. An example of a first-the-life then-the-works-and-ideas structure you may care to take a look at is Max Weber, I don't know if you think something like that might suit your material, which is of course different: Weber is a more academic and influential writer, and Goldman's life was a thousand times more eventful than his, but those differences don't necessarily mean that Goldman's writings should be given less weight, in the context of an article about her. But I suggest this reorganisation with some hesitation, as something for you to ponder, more than something necessarily better.

(If the text is going to stay this short—but I hope it isn't—you need to merge these much too short sections together into perhaps 3 or 4 longer ones.)

Sources: there is a lot of good material about Goldmann on the web, and I think your selection of external links is excellent. But the reader needs more information about the relationship between these websites and your text. To this end, you need to divide the links into a References section (=material used for the article) and an External links section (=further reading). (I don't know if maybe the second category would be empty, I should think you've used most or all of the websites.) Anyway, I think it would lift the encyclopedic quality of the text if you also engaged with your sources in the text itself. Bishonen | Talk 21:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent suggestions. Per your advice I'm thinking about reorganizing it into three sections - her life, her politics, and her writing. The current content could mostly go into the section about her life and the 2 other sections will need to be further developed. I added a References section per your advice as well and will try to use more citations in the article text. Kaldari 06:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nafaanra language[edit]

Learn more about an obscure language today! I've been working on this one for some time now, and it would be good to get some input from other editors. I would like to take this one to WP:FAC eventually, and any help in moving in that direction would be appreciated. Please check this article for EAL-related issues (I'm not a native speaker) and take some time to comment, criticize, and suggest improvements. Thanks in advance! mark 13:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit confused by what "Westermann (1970 [1952]:56), apparently based on Rapp (1933), places Nafaanra ('Nafana') in the Senufo group." means. Is Rapp a person? Why are they significant? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Both are persons. Rapp (1933), a word list by Eugen Ludwig Rapp, is significant for being the first linguistic publication on Nafaanra (see References). Rapp is mentioned here because it is significant that Westermann most probably relied on his (Rapp's) word list in classifying Nafaanra. When dealing with somewhat obscure languages like this one, it is important to know the background of the linguistic classification because usually only a handful of people have really looked into it. As a matter of fact, the classification is often amended when new data comes to light (something which has not been the case for Nafaanra by the way, an indication that Rapp's data was very accurate). But, I agree that the wording is a bit obscure; I'll try to improve that but you're welcome to play with it too (this applies to the whole article of course). mark 12:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Super cool article! The sample sentences are great. I'm not used to reading this kind of material, so I don't know if you set them up according to some well-known standard, but I found them wonderfully illuminating. The whole is really excellent. I'd like to do a light EAL edit tomorrow, if nobody else gets in there first, but I can't think of anything else, it's totally FAC-ready right now. I was going to ask if somebody like maybe Mustafaa might give it a more professional review, but I see from the talk page that that's been taken care of. :-) (Visually, on the other hand: I suppose the table needs to be that big, and too wide for the map? And that orange color... ?) Bishonen | Talk 00:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the nice words. Most sample sentences are based on sentences from the Jordan 1978 article; I'm glad to hear that I succeeded in arranging the matter in an illuminating way. As for the table, the size and colors come from WikiProject Languages; nothing to do about that indeed. mark 12:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great Lakes Storm of 1913[edit]

I started this article from scratch a week ago, and would like some input on its progress. This is my first attempt at putting together an entire article, and I'm not very sure of my encyclopedic-writing abilities. It was featured on the main page in the Did you know section a couple days ago. --brian0918&#153; 02:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very nice! Not much left to improve on. However, a longer Wikipedia:lead section would be good to have. Can't think of anything else right now. --mav 07:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've made it a little longer, but am not sure what else could be put in the lead section. --brian0918&#153; 18:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Culture defines politics[edit]

I work from a public library far from any university library. Does anybody out there have anything to comment, add, criticize, or suggest or happily, you have done some studing on the subject or know someone who has. Please comment. Thanks for your time.WHEELER 23:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article is up for a vote on VfD. Early results appear to be leaning towards keep. VfD votes often have excellent suggestions for improving articles, and it looks like this one will be no exception -- there are already two good suggestions for improvement. I would advise that those who wish to continue work on the article pay attention to the VfD vote first (since unfortunately it generates a lot more substantive suggestions, and quicker, than this list does), and only once those have been digested and integrated into the article, relist it here. Bantman 03:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

A. E. J. Collins[edit]

(moved from AEJ Collins)

AEJ Collins holds the record for the highest-ever recorded batting score in cricket. Additional information about this person would lead to an excellent article. - Talrias 05:27, 1 Feb 2005

I have expanded the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An interesting article. If you put it on FAC send me a note and I'll support. Can I also invite you (and any other cricket fans out there) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket - a forum for cricket-loving Wikipedians everywhere:) jguk 23:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Michel Foucault[edit]

I think this article is about ready to be considered for featured article status. Would like someone to look it over and see if they concur.--XmarkX 10:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The biography section could be broken up a bit. I hate seeing humungous sections with no outline organization. Joshuaschroeder 02:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Done--XmarkX 04:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We still need a references section. Where are you getting this information from? Once you've done this though: I highly recommend that this goes on WP:FAC as it is an excellent article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Done, will do as you suggest. Cheers - --XmarkX 02:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Book of Kells[edit]

I would like to nominate this article for FA status, but thought it could be looked at here first. One issue that needs to be addressed is spelling. This is a British topic and ought not use American spellings. But I am an American and probably missed many Americanisms.

The article is also long, but I am uncertain about how to cut it. I know that at least on FA violates the 32K limit. Dsmdgold 14:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Recent voting examples have passed articles well over the 32k limit. Enough people thought the limit silly and would unreasonably ruin the given articles. YMMV. Other items: 1.) The lead section should, to the greatest extent possible use only terms that nearly every single reader would be aware of or define them inline. Examples needing that are the Vulgate and Gospel Book. A great lead section shouldn't require reading of any other article to get a good idea of what this one is about. Also make it clear this book is written in Latin, not a translation from Latin as one could read that sentence. Also, is it vulgur latin like the Vulgate? 2.) The lead image caption should follow the same advice as for the lead section. It should make sense to someone not already familiar with the subject. I don't really know what a carpet page is or for sure what a folio is. 3.) What is MS 58 at the end of the lead section? A citation? Which leads to 4.) The articles biggest problem is the lack of inline citations. Fact should be cited to their source, such as with (Alexander, 1988, pg 23). That leads to the next point, that 5.) the article as it stands has no legitimate references. 'Further reading' is not the same thing, as that title is ambiguous as to whether the listed resources have actually been used for information by the page author(s) or if they are just available for more information. Assuming you have used some of them properly as references, please split those into a 'references' section, and leave the rest in further reading. I know that is a lot of suggestions, but it will help make it a great article. What is there that I read so far seems very good and well written. Keep up the god work. - Taxman 10:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. To address your issues: 1) I have done a minor rewrite of the intro that I think addresses your concerns. 2) Rather than try to explain what a Carpet Page is, I have changed the image. I like this page better as full pages of decorated text is much more representative of Kells than the Carpet page. 3) The rewrite should explain what the "MS 58" is. My actual preference is to have the manuscript identifies in the standard manner, which would be to have the catalog reference follow immediately behind the name of the manuscript thus: The Book of Kells (Dublin, Trinity College Library, MS 58)... However, I have written it thus in the past and it gets changed. 5) I have split my references from the more complete bibliography. 4) I have not addressed. Is this really a standard, and, if it is, should it be? Of the last four articles featured on the front page Bahá'í Faith, Gold standard, Eifel Aqueduct, and Bernard Williams, only the Williams article has in-line references, and then only for direct quotes. Additionally, I am not sure that this SHOULD be a standard. No other Encyclopedia does in text citations. For that matter, the only venue where it is done in the form you recommend is in academic journals, which Wikipedia is not. Dsmdgold
      • No, this is not a standard and frankly it shouldn't be. Wikipedia is not an academic journal. Filiocht 13:53, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Great work overall. This is a great article, and you have fixed every concern I had but #4, the one you mentioned. As to that, no that is not standard, even though the featured article criteria clearly call for it. Just because other encyclopedia's don't do it, why should Wikipedia be limited by that? Why should Wikipedia strive for anything less than being the most authoritative source of information that is available? That is the ideal, but basically Wikipedia's only serious legitimate criticism left is that it is not reliable or trustworthy because it can be edited by random anonymous users. The easiest (only?) way to truly disarm that is to research and cite references properly. - Taxman 20:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would suggest cutting the image of the page from the Lindisfarne Gospel. It is unnecesary in this article and the image you are supposed to compare it to is not clearly labeled and five screens down the page making comparison impractical. Perhaps a link to a separate article comparing the illustration styles of several manuscripts would be a better method. Rmhermen 13:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. I included the Lindisfarne image because I want to make the point that Kells did not come as a bolt out of the blue. But, your point about the difficulty of finding the comparison image is valid. I have included a link to the image from the caption of the Lindisfarne illustration so that the comparison is only a click away. Dsmdgold 19:20, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • On the wider point, I've been meaning for some time to add a section on the Book of Kells in modern Irish culture, but just haven't gotten round to it. For anyone who is interest, this would extend over coinage and stamp design, the artist Jim Fitzpatrick, album covers from Thin Lizzie and other Irish bands, calendars and posters, leatherwork, New Age hippy--dippy stuff and the myth of "Celtic" mysticism, the development of the BoK visitors' centre at Trinity since 1988, tourism, and how this development tied in with the pseudo-millenium Dublin bash of that year, linen weaving, bodhrán designs, Irish dancing costumes (and, by implication, Riverdance for dropping Celtic interlacing from dancers' costumes), fashion design, signpainting, Finnegans Wake and so on. This would, if added, really flesh out the article. Filiocht 14:45, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • This, I think,would be a very good addition, and something I have thought of myself. I would have added it, but being an American who, sadly, has never been to Ireland, I can rewally only say, "It seems to me that the Book of Kells is really important to the Irish." Not very useful, Dsmdgold 02:34, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I converted the article to British spelling. I hope I got everything. -- Haukurth 23:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you.Dsmdgold 23:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Anne Frank[edit]

Leading up to the 60th anniversary of her death, I think this article is a good one to try to raise to featured status. I have done a complete rewrite, and have sourced everthing I've written. One comment - I specifically tried to make the article biographical, and not a study of the diary, because I believe that if further discussion of the diary is required, it should be within its own article. (I don't think it's required though). I now hope that some new eyes will go over what I've written, and comment/edit appropriately. Rossrs 01:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please remove the bolded names. It is out of convention and looks ugly. Nichalp 20:07, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed them. I agree it looks better. thanks. Rossrs 02:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some more suggestions
  • The page size is 30kb. I would prefer to see some unnecessary text pruned so that the warning does not popup.
  • Consider putting a photo of Anne right on top instead of the statuette. If an image is not found, then put the diary's image.
  • The ToC is too long. Can you remove some headings?
  • Lastly, although I have not read the article in detail, I find that it lacks a definative flow; it seems more like a novel rather than an encyclopedia.

Nichalp 19:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that you took the time to look at this again, thanks. I have moved the diary image to the top & moved the statue picture further down. Works better that way, I agree. There will always be problems with photos - as far as I know public domain images of her are virtually nonexistent.
Now - not to start an argument, but I honestly disagree with everything else you've suggested. I disagree that 30kb is too long. Featured article Duran Duran (who will be well and truly forgotten many years before they're dead) is sitting at 43kb, so in terms of relative importance in world history, Anne Frank should be at least 900kb, but I'm not proposing it be stretched ;-)
Reducing the length of the article just for the sake of removing a warning message does not make sense to me either. It should only be done to improve the quality of the article.
Removing ToC headings is going to make individual sections longer. Note that Albert Einstein has 25 headings, Anne Frank has 15. The viewer has the option of not selecting them. The appropriateness of headings as they appear within the article, should be more of a determining factor than the admittedly ugly ToC they create.
The other things I can't action because you haven't really given me anything to work with. The reason I put this on peer review was because after spending hours writing, rewriting, editing and reediting this, I was done with it. To suggest I remove "unnecessary text" is not helpful or constructive, without giving some clue as to what you consider "unnecessary" because I've already gone through the process of editing to the best of my ability. Also I just don't understand what you mean by "I find that it lacks a definative flow; it seems more like a novel rather than an encyclopedia." You would need to explain what you mean. To me the sequence is logical, and flows appropriately. Comparing it to other biographical articles, which I have read through with considerable care, I can't see anything jarring that makes it more like a novel than an encyclopedia. I don't think it's perfect or I wouldn't have listed it here, but I do think its style is at least equal to quite a few articles I've read here, and also better than some. I'm not dismissing what you say, I've thought about what I could do to improve it, but your comments are vague and unactionable. Rossrs 10:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
have been thinking further about the ToC. Have gone back and reworked it to reduce it. Now has 13 headings only, with no subheadings. Another improvement. Rossrs 12:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We are all here (PR) to improve on the quality of this encyclopedia rather than pick arguments with other editors ;). I know some reviewers really put you through the grind (I've gone through it unfortunately) so I only quoted from what I had to go through. I don't want to be "arguing" with you, so that why I aim to clarify my points here.
  • See the phrases She made her last diary entry on August 1, 1944. and The camp was liberated by British troops on April 15, 1945. The single sentence would seem to be a climax or anti-climax of some novel rather than a more subdued paragraph in an encyclopedia. The three line paragraphs also seem to have abrupt endings. (I'll try and paraphrase a few lines on the talk page)
  • "Unnecessary Text", that I would leave it to you as I haven't read the article in detail. You could also precis it, which would shorten the length of the article. I still would prefer a <30 kb page. You wouldn't have to to too much of a job on pruning text I assure you as it is marginally over the limit. If major clipping is needed you can move 'fate of Anne's friends' to a dedicated article. The heading is just an ancillary topic.
  • The first and the third image could also do with a more descriptive caption.
  • The Toc is now OK, definately an improvement. Its not only the topics in the ToC that count, its also the overall asthetics of the page that scores as a FA.

Nichalp 19:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is really good. I understand what you're saying now. I've also had a look at what you've written on the talk page. This is exactly the sort of clear advice I was hoping someone would provide, so thank you. I'm not going to have a chance to look at this again for maybe a couple of days, but when I get time, I'll go back over it all. thanks again. Rossrs 21:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've gone back over it. Tried to make the style more uniformly encyclopedic. Moved "Trivia" to the talk page. It's still sitting at 30kb though. I'd be interested to know if it's going in the right direction. Rossrs 09:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Much better, though I am hard pressed for time online to review it as I have prior commitments later this week. As of now I have no objections although it would be better on the eye if you could fragment a few long paragraphs. Also consider shortening the heading to "Fate of Anne's friends". Nichalp 18:46, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Wow! Fantastic article! However, could we please state for the record which holocaust deniers say that Anne Frank did not write the book? A reference to that would be good.


  • The Soviet writer Ilya Ehrenburg later said of her: "one voice speaks for six million - the voice not of a sage or a poet but of an ordinary little girl" - source? (Add to references)
  • "As Anne Frank's stature as both a writer and humanist has been elevated over time, leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Elie Wiesel have noted her importance as a symbol of the Holocaust and more broadly as a representative of persecution in general." Source? Again add to references.
  • "Commenting on Frank's particular writing style, dramatist Meyer Levin praised it for "sustaining the tension of a well-constructed novel",
  • while the poet John Berryman wrote that it was a unique depiction, not merely of adolescence, but of "the mysterious, fundamental process of a child becoming an adult as it is actually happening"."
Anyway, great job and almost ready for FAC! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thanks for looking at this, and for the positive feedback, which I appreciate. I've now rewritten the "Criticism and authentication section".
Have sourced Ilya Ehrenburg, John Berryman, and Meyer Levin. Could not source the Elie Wiesel comment, so removed it, replaced it with a Hillary Rodham Clinton quote which I have sourced, also expanded and sourced the Nelson Mandela remark. Holocaust deniers - I found a couple of names of people sued in "Roses from the Earth" which I already had listed as source. Also a quote and a bit more on that topic regarding David Irving, which I have sourced. In terms of naming and sourcing the deniers, that's the best I've been able to come up with. Do you think it suffices? Finally, the bit about the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation's forensic study - is from "Roses from the Earth". I'm not sure with quoting sources, how to do it. ie. The bit about the forensics comes from the book, I've listed it in the source references, but how is anyone to know? If you get the opportunity, would appreciate your comment in view of the changes I've made. thanks again.. Rossrs 09:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Heya, I think the changes are very good. May I make the suggestion that you move this to FAC? If you do, let me know so I can archive this... - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Old Peer Review

Intelligent design[edit]

A controversial topic, and one, more than most, where WP:NPOV needs intelligence and care to apply - Undue Weight seems to be key: This is not an accepted scientific theory, and is not even a scientific theory, as numerous sources show. Despite this, I think we've managaed pretty well, and this deserves FA, I think, so what more needs done? Adam Cuerden talk 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam - Overall it looks like a very good and fair coverage of a controversial topic. It is obviously well sourced, and clearly a lot of work has gone into it. I have several comments, but they are all just reactions I had reading through. Feel free to ignore any of them if you have even the slightest reason to do so. Thanks.

  • Would it be possible to switch to a different referencing scheme, or make multiple references in a single footnote. I find the 7 footnotes after a sentence in the lead a bit distracting.
  • I find this sentence a little odd "It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection." In particular, I think may advocates of intelligent design would not take kindly to the suggestion that they aren't using the scientific method. Also, the "observable" tag seems a bit odd, since the biological explanation for the evolution of life relies on large scale speciation which (as I understand it) we have never observed
  • "Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology which seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory." Its not clear what you mean by "basis of science" here. Could this sentence be made more clear?
  • There is inconsistent capitalization of "god".
  • "Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design." I find the wording "genuine feature of the concept" a bit awkward. Could the sentence say something like "whether Christianity can be separated from ID..."?
  • "Critics of both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle argue that they are essentially a tautology; in their view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the universe is able to support life." I found this statement a bit jarring. The explication of the argument in the previous paragraph isn't on face a tautology. Perhaps another sentence explaining why the argument is a tautology?
  • While I thought the paragraph was helpful, I found the second paragraph in the Intelligent designer section a bit out of place. That section is meant, I presume, to explicate the concept of the intelligent designer, while the second paragraph is more of an objection to the view as a whole (not just this one part). Could it be moved somewhere else?
  • "Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept." This sentence seems out of place with respect to the rest of that paragraph.
  • The separation (or lack thereof) between ID and Christianity reoccurs in several places. It seemed repetitive. Would there be a way to put it all in one place? (This might not be possible, I understand if not.)
  • "Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science)." My complaint here is with the word "alone". This sounds like empiricism which has largely been abandoned because of apparently non-empirical standards being widely used in science. For instance, preference for unification or simplicity in scientific theories doesn't appear to have an empirical grounding. Methodological naturalism isn't the same as saying only use observation. It means something akin to: don't postulate supernatural entities.
  • "Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability." This is a bit inexact. "Intelligent design isn't repeatable or observable" is a bit weird. Of course its not repeatable or observable, it's a theory. The general theory of relativity isn't observable or repeatable either. I think what you mean to say is that ID doesn't entail an observable predictions and no repeatable experiments can verify it.
  • "This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science." This sentence is awkward, can it be made more clear?
  • The way you present the list of features of science makes it sound uncontroversial. I suspect it's not. Perhaps you could be more specific where it comes from, and say that this list includes the commonly cited features of scientific method.
  • "The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated." This sentence is a bit awkward too.

Again, a great article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

Adam - Well done overall, though the introduction seems a little biased, i appreciate that your sources are equalized later on. You've obviously put a lot of effort into this. This is how i would re-word the second paragraph to smooth things over a little bit, and to remain as journalistic as possible:

The majority of scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[13] as pseudoscience[14] or as junk science.[17] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[19] Theistic scientists who are members of the Intelligent Design Network argue that this too is a subjective stance for, "The assumption is inconsistent with evidence collected per the scientific method that the biological information processing systems and networks of life may be the product of intelligence." (

peace, maegan


What do other think on the issue of whether this article should contain a detailed list of, arguably non-notable, products produced by the company? TigerShark 02:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not? The company made them, and the company is notable enough to have an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But shouldn't all of the information that is included in an encyclopedia be of encyclopedic value itself, not just related to something of encyclopedic value? I wonder what rules we should use to draw the line.
There is also the issue of duplication of information and keeping one source in sync with the other. With the issue of Products, there is already a link on the page that will take the reader to iRiver's product page. Do we need to duplicate this information on the page? TigerShark 13:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say ditch the products. The list is already out-of-date and would require constant updating by Wikipedians. The company is much better equipped to handle that on their own website, so a link to the product page would suffice. Second thought: OR, rewrite the products section so it doesn't read as one big advertisement: try to pick out some notable products and describe what's special about them.--Plek 20:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Now that I've had a look at it, I'd suggest the same thing. What about a company history section? That would be good also. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I realise that this is not the main issue, but the article states that iRiver's products have "more features than others on the market". Can we have some clarification of this? This sounds pretty dubious to me! Oh, we need references. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bolt Thrower[edit]

I'd appreciate comments and constructive criticism. Esp on the biography section. Spearhead 16:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've only given it a cursory glance, but the lead section needs to be at least a paragraph long. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have done a large copyedit, expanded the lead section to make it more interesting and shifted one of the images to a more appropriate place. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake[edit]

After this page is protected, all of the contact information in the article must be verified. ᓛᖁ♀ 16:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue[edit]

What have we got to do to get this to featured article status? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Some criticality. It's not as grossly hagiographic as Mariah Carey, but it's not far off - David Gerard 22:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Also some discussion of, as they say, "the music" would be great. Hyacinth 23:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • What an odd comment. The sixteen paragraphs under the heading "Recording career" discuss specifically, and almost exclusively, "the music" (as they say). Rossrs 09:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd love to see it get there one day. I've done quite a bit on that article too, including a rewrite to try to make it less like a Fanzine, which was a fair comment then, but I think a less fair comment now. I also think the music itself is discussed sufficiently and with a degree of criticism - plus there are links to every album. I don't know what else needs to be said there. Perhaps critical comments that can actually be sourced (critical comments by definition being both positive and negative) My suggestion is to go back over previous featured articles such as Johnny Cash (in my opinion a good article to use as a template), and Duran Duran (which I don't think is a good article but that's my opinion), and even some other biographical ones such as Lottie Dod. Examine the type of language used, sources cited, criticisms etc. If you can come up with something that looks related to one of the other successful candidates, any future nomination may have a better chance. Rossrs 02:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • just to clarify. I think the Duran Duran article is good, what I meant to say is that it's not helpful in trying to fix Kylie Minogue, because it's really similar in its style and content - and yet it got to be a Featured Article - how, I don't know. Only thing different is that it's got a bunch of sources listed, but KM doesn't..... Rossrs 03:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Have now done a fairly extensive rewrite. Have added quite a few quotes from reviews from each phase of her career. God help me, the article is replete with criticality. It also has even more discussion of "the music". And I've also listed references. I'm not totally happy with it, for one thing I think it's now very long, but I think it's heading in the right direction. Anybody, please look at it, comment ... whatever. I'm sure it can be whipped into shape. thanks Rossrs 18:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I haven't had much of a chance to rereview this. I'll try to do this soon! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, I've read through it. I personally think that it talks about the music in some depth, and I think it would be good enough to go on FAC :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Military history of the Soviet Union[edit]

This article was last week's Collaboration of the Week, but I don't have time to get it ready for FAC myself, so I'm placing it here. 172 08:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote