Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Edward VIII of the United Kingdom[edit]

Previously rated as good article. Now requesting peer feedback. Please note that the article is LONG. DrKiernan 12:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

  • Comment The 'Legacy' section is very listy and needs to be converted into prose which ties all the info together smoothly and cohesively throughout. LuciferMorgan 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten the section. DrKiernan 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He is said to have told an American diplomat.."

Said? By whom? LuciferMorgan 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The couple appeared on Edward R. Murrow's television interview show Person to Person, in which the Duchess repeatedly and loudly cut into the Duke's comments to correct his observations, and generally appeared to be the domineering personality her detractors had represented her to be."

This can be deemed one's own opinion, unless, this is the opinion of a critic or biographer. When people appear on TV, everyone has their own opinion - so it would be best to cite it, and say who feels that way. Be very wary of the word "generally" throughout the article. Here's an example;

1. He is generally said to have been a nice individual. (Wrong way) 2. Mr. X, Mr. Y. and Mrs. Z said he was a nice invididual. (Correct way)

Writing the info in this way avoids any accusations of POV as such. I hope this is being of help. LuciferMorgan 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it certainly is helpful. I've masked the two comments temporarily; I'll delete them if the sources aren't forthcoming. DrKiernan 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that all sounds fine. I'll see what else I can comment in this peer review and your other requested peer reviews. It's a shame that some take ages for comments, or don't garner any. LuciferMorgan 11:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked out the sources and amended the text accordingly. Thanks again for your comments. DrKiernan 10:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Powerful figures in the British government deemed this marriage unacceptable, largely because Edward had become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England which prohibited remarriage after divorce."
Which powerful figures? Can you find any specific names? Also, can you cite this sentence please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten this section, not only to introduce sources, but also to make the sequence of events clearer. DrKiernan 09:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other sources support the Duchess's contention that he favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany."
What other sources? Name them. LuciferMorgan 22:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit[edit]

Overall, I thought this was a very good article; the section on WWII was particularly well-written and easy to follow. Here are my suggestions.

  • The lead does not seem to summarize the article as a whole. It only summarizes Edward's life up until his abdication.
    • Yes, that's an omission. I've just added a single, simple sentence. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, the King, though a harsh disciplinarian, was demonstrably affectionate and Queen Mary displayed a frolicksome side when dealing with her children that belies her austere public image, having been greatly amused by the children making tadpoles on toast for their French master[2], and encouraged them to confide matters in her which it would have provoked the King to know.[3] - run-on sentence
    • Split in two, "harsh disciplinarian, demonstrably affectionate" needs a reference. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Added two references. DrKiernan 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you decide to go for FA at any point, the article will probably need more citations.
  • I agree with the previous reviewer that there are too many lists (although I consider lists internal to the prose as lists as well). For example, do we really need to know all of his godparents or all of the titles he gained when his father ascended the throne?
    • I've removed the lesser titles after Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved the godparents to a footnote. DrKiernan 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the First World War (1914–18) broke out Edward had reached the minimum age for active service and expressed keenness to participate. - awkward use of "keenness"
    • Yes, I've tried to simplify that sentence. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the 1920s the Prince of Wales represented his father, King George V, at home and abroad on many occasions. He took a particular interest in visiting the poverty stricken areas of the country. - did he do anything for the poor or did he just visit?
  • He made unedifying and often deeply racist comments about the Empire's subjects and various foreign peoples, both during his career as Prince of Wales and later as Duke of Windsor, particularly in Africa and India but also in Canada, the West Indies, Mexico and Australia (see wikiquotes). - might you give an example here?
    • Ah, I'll think about this one, or maybe mention it on the talk page. This issue was contentious in the past. See:Talk:Edward VIII of the United Kingdom#quotation and Talk:Edward VIII of the United Kingdom#Quotations. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. Well, I found the link to wikiquotes off-putting. Also, having a single quote to prove your claim isn't overloading the page or assassinating the man's character, in my opinion. I write about eighteenth-century figures; they often don't have opinions we wished they would have. That is just too bad. Besides, it wouldn't be interesting to read history if everyone agreed with us! Awadewit 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you've persuaded me. Coming out of the article to look at wikiquotes and then in again is distracting. I shall find representative quotes and insert. DrKiernan 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • By the way, I apologize. I'm afraid this comment sounded condescending. I only just now looked at your user page. I should have before I started reviewing your pages. I don't think that I needed to go into my little spiel about the value of history. Sorry about that. I hate when other editors do that sort of thing to me. Awadewit 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's quite alright. I didn't take it that way at all. You also have to remember that other people have contributed to the article, and it's impossible to know whether they are Professors at Harvard or 6-year children! DrKiernan 12:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the height of his popularity, he became the most photographed celebrity of his time and his dress sense emulated by those in fashion. - "dress sense" is odd diction
    • Really? DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps only to American ears. To me, it should be "fashion sense". Awadewit 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've simplified it to "set men's fashion." DrKiernan 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An enduring, albeit trivial, legacy is the fashion item of the Windsor knot, named for him after his fondness for large-knotted ties, though he did not necessarily wear the knot. - wordy sentence; also might you try to find a picture of the Windsor knot?
  • They hosted parties and shuttled between Paris and New York; many of those who met the Windsors socially reported on the vacuity of the Duke's conversation (see wikiquotes). - could you use examples instead?
    • See above. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a quote and two references. I should point out though that I've not read either Godfrey or Vidal, so I'm relying on wikiquotes being accurate. DrKiernan 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Titles, etc." and "Legacy" sections seem unnecessary to me. If you decide to keep the "Legacy" section, consider deleting some of the superfluous material, such as the Bugs Bunny example.
  • A small issue - not all of your notes are formatted the same way.

Awadewit 09:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

First of all, congratulations for your first FA.Thanks! It still needs some work though - the new paragraph structure has displaced sentences from their citations. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)I am even more happy, because it is a Greek-related article! Now, my remarks for this article:[reply]

  • From the lead: "When King, Edward ... " What is this , doing there?
  • An advice: try not to interrupt sentences with inline citations; do it only if it is necessary for emphasis reasons. Prefer to place citations at the end of the sentences.
    • Yes, the inline citations interrupting the sentence are for the clauses only, not for the entire sentence. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He automatically became ... " You understand a brand new section, and, therefore, "he" looks ugly to me here. "Edward automatically ... "
  • If you go for FA, try not to have uncited paragraphs. I see one in "Military career".
    • Yes, I shall go through carefully and check everything again. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He made unedifying and often deeply racist comments ... " I am not sure about the adjectives ("unedifying") here. We tend to avoid them. A mere "racist" or maybe "deeply racist" would be fine IMO.
  • "Edward's unorthodox approach to his role extended also to the currency which bore his image. He broke with tradition whereby on coinage each successive monarch faced in the opposite direction to his or her prececessor. Edward insisted his left side was superior to that of his right, and that he face left (as his father had done). Only a handful of coins were actually struck prior to the abdication, and when George VI succeeded he also faced left, in order to maintain the tradition by suggesting that had any coins been minted featuring Edward's portrait, they would have shown him facing right." Uncited paragraph. And I am also not sure about "unorthodox approach".
    • I think "unorthodox approach" is supported by the two paragraphs above it. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the harassed King". Harassed?! Isn't it a bit exaggerated.
    • I have added a citation. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September, 1939", "In February, 1940". We don't cite month-year per MoS; only date-month-year (e.g. February 2, 1940).
    • Yes, thanks for correcting that. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the arguments in "World War II" are that he was a pro-Nazi. Aren't there any counter-arguments?
    • Good point. I have added his own defence written in his memoirs. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer "Legacy" before "Titles". It is prose, and part of the main body of the article.
  • Why is "Fashion" part of Legacy? I don't get it. And why two extrernal links, and no prose? What does this mean exactly?
    • Yes, that's always struck me as odd, but for some reason I've never bothered to do anything about it. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article. They are a mess!
    • I think they are arranged in order of precedence. I'd prefer to leave them as they are. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Yannismarou 09:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado[edit]

General comments needed in preparation for Featured Article Nomination. Especially looking for comments from people unfamiliar with the subject to comment on its readability and comprehensiveness. -RunningOnBrains 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), grey (B) (American: gray).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Awadewit[edit]

While I grew up in tornado alley, I am no expert on tornadoes. As a lay reader, I found your page readable and informative; I had no trouble understanding your clear and cogent explanations. I also thought that your images were excellent. Here are my suggestions.

  • I think that you can probably find more reliable sources; most of your references are web-based sources and FAs aim for peer-reviewed, print sources. WP:RS Also, significant sections of the article, such as the "Definition," the "Shape" and the "Appearance" section, for example, lack citations for significant facts.
  • Perhaps replace "They" with "Tornados" at the beginning of the third lead paragraph so that the pronoun reference is clear.
  • I would integrate the etymology section into the definition section; the section doesn't really fit your scheme.
  • The article seems to me, anyway, to be a bit comma-happy. For example, there are too many commas in the second paragraph of the "Definition" section and in the fourth paragraph of the "Life style" section. Not every subordinate clause has to be set off with commas!
  • "in addition to tornados" seems tacked on to the last sentence in the third paragraph in the "Defition" section - perhaps you could reword the sentence?
  • "Multivortex structure" sentence in "Definition" section needs a semicolon or restructuring.
  • Perhaps you could remove some of the links, particularly in the "Definition" section; once you have linked a term in a section, you do not need to relink it (as I understand it, anyway).
  • Perhaps you could have a brief "Definition" section and then a more expansive "Types of Tornadoes" section to break up the large "Definition" section?
  • I thought the "prediction" section should be moved further down the article - later sections are better and more informative.
  • There are also some tiny formatting issues such odd spacing for footnotes in the text, but these can easily be cleaned up.
  • I would integrate the "Social implications of tornadoes" into the "Cultural significance" section and try to tighten it up a bit since the article is mainly a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon and is already rather long. I might even consider suggesting a deletion of the "Cultural significance" section or perhaps a separate page.
  • There must be more books on tornadoes that you can suggest to the interested reader in the "Further Reading" section!

Awadewit 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All very good suggestions! Nice to have an english specialist near with all these scientists flying around :) -RunningOnBrains 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plek's comments[edit]

A worthy challenge! I will give the article a thorough look later, but as a first suggestion, please remove the nonsense about "tornado taste". WP:RS and WP:BOLLOCKS would apply, I'd say. --Plek 17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was vandalism, user has been warned. -RunningOnBrains 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Log from the Sea of Cortez[edit]

Widely regarded as John Steinbeck's most important work of non-fiction, this was a stub until a few days ago. I started work on expanding it and there was a lot more info out there than I expected. I think it is a possible FA candidate, but would like some outside opinions on what is missing (and I'm sure it is full of the usual spelling/cut and paste/typo errors). Yomanganitalk 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What were the comments from critics of the day regarding the work? What are the comments from the critics of today regarding the work? How was it recieved by the public - did it sell well or not? How do past and present Steinbeck biographers regard this work in his canon of output? These are all things the article could answer. LuciferMorgan 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I've expanded the critical receptions section slightly. Yomanganitalk 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another interesting read (I've got to the start of "Book"), couple of points:
  • On 23 March, they moved on to San José Island, where the "Sea-Cow" again let them down - could this be expanded? How did it let them down, how did they fix it?
  • They accepted, wanting to see the interior - of what?

The prose occasionally suffers from too many commas for subclauses, so in some cases it may be clearer to split the sentences. Nice work so far. Trebor 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed those two points. I'll try to split some of the long sentences. I was trying to avoid too many stubby sentences, but I probably haven't got the balance right. Thanks again. Yomanganitalk 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another fascinating and valuable article. I've not read much Steinbeck, and I didn't realise he was a bit of a Hemingway, on the quiet. I also knew nothing about this part of Mexico. I love being introduced to stuff on Wikipedia, and now this makes me want to read the book.

I think this is on its way to FA; but I know from experience that anything to do with literature will be chivvied on the assessment and significance front, and so I'd recommend that a statement like "it is regarded as Steinbeck's most important work of non-fiction" is reffed (some might point to the dust-bowl articles), and that a summary of critical opinion is added at the end, assessing the book's quality, place in Steinbeck's work etc. This would complement the useful section on the immediate critical response. A dip into the main critical and biographical works on Steinbeck (and perhaps there's some stuff on Google Books), would turn up the appropriate material.

That is my only major suggestion about the article; but here are a few minor observations and queries:

  • The infobox classes the book as a novel but the lead calls it non-fiction. Later the article says it is to some extent a work of fiction. To me, it doesn't sound like a novel, but still.
    • That was due to cutting and pasting the infobox from another Steinbeck novel and not fully updating it. Changed to non-fiction now.
  • Although the article provides more detail of the specimens as it goes along, I felt I could have done with more information early on about what the specimen-collecting entailed: "Collecting biological specimens" was a bit vague, though the picture of the crab helped me out. Although I once went out with one, I'm a little unsure about what a marine biologist does. What does "preparing" involve? What "specimens" did Ricketts sell? Who to? Alive or dead? Was he planning to sell the ones collected on this trip?
    • I've expanded this slightly in various places, hopefully it gets the idea across now?
  • Perhaps I'm being a bit thick, but I'm not sure I quite grasp the meaning of the following quote:
Furthermore, they had taught us the best of all ways to go hunting, and we shall never use any other. We have, however, made one slight improvement on their method: we shall not take a gun, thereby obviating the last remote possibility of having the hunt cluttered up with game.
I'm presuming this is a joke. But it wasn't introduced as an example of Steinbeck's wit and I was mentally trying work out what the hunting trip with the Mexicans had taught them. I think, for plodders like me, the quote might need to be introduced as a quip, if that's what it is.
    • I've given it a little more introduction, hope that suffices.
  • "...allowing for a much more efficient collection at each station": I had to think for a moment to work out what was meant by "station" there, though for all I know it might be the correct term in marine biology.
    • It is the correct term, but I substituted "stop" which gives the same sense without any chance of confusion.
  • The following sentence doesn't quite work for me, and I didn't know how to copy-edit to convey the meaning intended: "In the cramped quarters of the boat, all the equipment and books had to be set up and stowed each time the boat moved to a new anchorage." I'm thinking that all the books and equipment had to be stowed when they were at sea and taken out again once they had stopped for collecting; but it could mean that the equipment had to be set up but the books stowed.
    • The books weren't really important (we'll assume they are equipment), so I dropped them rather than attempt to rework the sentence.
  • I'm not sure what "...focusing on his affirmation of humankind's place in the sphere of life" means. Perhaps this is from a source, but "sphere of life" is pretty vague, I think.
    • Reworded.
  • "Seri": It might be worth adding a phrase saying who they were. I checked the link (they're interesting), but not everyone will.
    • Done.
  • Where you have four note tags in a row, have you thought of combining them? It's a CMS condoned technique I sometimes use, because I dislike tag rows, but it's a matter of taste, of course.
    • Done - that grew over time.
  • I find the paragraph beginning "As well as being a travelogue" a mite clunky. This sort of potted analysis is always a bugger to write, but I suppose it can't be avoided in an encyclopedia.
    • Tried rewording it.
  • "He suggested a 15-20% share of the royalties..." Covici or Steinbeck (after Covici had pushed him)?
    • Covici. Fixed.
  • Should not Sea of Cortez: A Leisurely Journal of Travel and Research appear in the References section, as well as the later purely Steinbeck version?

qp10qp 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the detailed helpful comments, I'll work on those later today. I'd love to have Sea of Cortez in the references but copies are like gold dust. Yomanganitalk 07:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded the section on the reissue to try and encompass the modern views. Unfortunately most modern critics refer to it only tangentially in reference to Steinbeck's fiction or his relationship with Ricketts, so it is hard to pin down. Thanks again. Yomanganitalk 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now put it up at FAC so I have time to address any points before my looming wikibreak. Yomanganitalk 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 9835[edit]

Looking for comments, and/or edits to brings this article up to GA status, I will probably submit it for that after this review so please help out as much as possible. Thanks A mcmurray 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Those suggestions have been integrated into the article.A mcmurray 10:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned that the article is somewhat one-sided as is, particularly that the background section is almost reflexively cynical about the motives of conservatives of the era. I've added the Moynihan quote, but more should be done in that respect in order to keep the article from reading like an argument. MisfitToys 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just saw your comment on the peer review page. Well I am all about levelling it out. I think in hindsight, historically speaking, that a lot of the Communist hysteria during that period was whipped up by a combination of factors from both sides of the aisle. I certainly don't want it to sound reflexively cynical. Any ideas and or contributions would be most excellent. And I will continue to research. I have found some additional info about some of the Supreme Court Cases surrounding the order, do you think I should include a sub section in the outcome section?A mcmurray 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm simply saying that some of the phrasing suggests that conservatives were acting solely to gain an electoral advantage, and not out of any genuine concern; the article should treat their positions legitimately, and should include relevant quotes from them as well as from liberal figures such as Clifford. MisfitToys 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be searching several journal databases at the library either tonight or tomorrow for more sources and viewpoints. This article could really use some more input if anyone has time. Thanks.A mcmurray 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph F. Glidden House[edit]

Looking for comments and/or edits to bring this article up to good article status. A mcmurray 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review suggestions from WikiProject Architecture incorporated as relevant, major copy-edit.A mcmurray 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I skipped over the article since I saw it had already received a review at WP:ARCHPR. Here's an updated review (points 1, 3 are trivial, 2 is in error, and 4 is a default message):

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's all done, any other input? If not could someone archive this?A mcmurray 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermass II[edit]

I've recently done some work on bringing this article's standard up after having gone over its immediate predecessor and successor to deal with their citing problems and help keep them as FAs. Having done that successfully, I thought I'd try and get this one to Good Article standard (I don't think there's enough meat on its bones for an FA), and would like any comments about how I could improve it to GA standard.Angmering 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added the requested non-visible spaces where required, and also had a go at taking out the redundancies where I could spot them — obviously though it might help if an editor with a fresh pair of eyes could go through and try and spot some that I've missed. Angmering 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it could get to FA if you had the time to address other people's concerns (hypothetically speaking). LuciferMorgan 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a touch on the skinny side for that (it's only about 27kb), and frankly I think attempting to get a third Quatermass serial as an FA would be pushing it a bit as regards people's tolerance of science-fiction articles! But thanks for your kind comment. :-) Angmering 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's FAs smaller than 27kb. I reckon you should try getting it to FA anyway - people aren't bothered about the article subject, but its quality. This I think could get there. LuciferMorgan 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll see what — if any! — further comments come out of this peer review process and then maybe give it a go. Angmering 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request that Seegoon and Yannismarou to have a browse if they're not busy. They usually frequent here and give invaluable advice - I'm sure they'd review the article if you gave them a polite ping. LuciferMorgan 05:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, will do! Angmering 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

  • Could you include the composer where it mentions what the introuductory music is?
  • I'm not sure that I like the sentence construction in "The second in the Quatermass series by writer Nigel Kneale, it is the first of those serials to survive in its entirety in the BBC archives." It's built as if the second main clause is a result of the first, but logically it isn't and it makes the syntax feel a little... "amateur" - not to be harsh. I advise just changing it to "...Kneale, and is...". That's me being picky.
  • "to prevent the aliens from subjugating mankind." - is "subjugating" the perfect word? I don't know the story entirely, but I'm not sure.
  • It might be useful to work out just how much 7552 quid translates to in today's standards, because at the moment I have no concept of what that's really worth.
  • Maybe include plot warning templates?
  • "An experienced actor from a range of different films and television programmes since the 1930s,[13] Robinson was uncomfortable..." - you do the same thing I picked up on in my first criticism. It's just a matter of taste, but I think phrasing things using syntax like this detracts from otherwise very intelligible and logical prose. You do the same in the next paragraph with "An actor on stage and screen since the 1930s,[14] Griffith gained his highest...".
  • "Monica Grey played Paula Quatermass; she appeared in a variety of roles on British television up to the 1980s." - is this relevant? Likewise, is "Kneale went on to write feature film screenplays such as Look Back in Anger (1958) and The First Men in the Moon (1964), as well as continuing to write for television, including two further Quatermass serials, until 1997."? I honestly don't know what the movie article writing guidelines have to say about it, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention as some FAR reviewers might consider it extraneous.

To be honest I really can't find any great flaws, and most of the things I've highlighted have been matters of personal taste rather than any form of mistake. If you have any queries, fire away. All in all, great article, and props to you for building it up in what, three days? Great work. Seegoon 22:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I've changed the sentence structures you mentioned — I think you were right about them. I have also changed the detail about Monica Grey to something more relevant to the production, which I can't think why I didn't mention before in the article anyway. You have a good point I suppose about Kneale's extra credits not being specifically relevant, but I always feel with these things — especially where we have more detailed articles that can be linked to — that it's good to give just a quick flavour of what else people have done, so that if readers are interested they can then click onto the article on that person for more information. It's a personal stylistic view, I suppose, and one I'd be more than happy to remove if people just think it's pointless.
I've also found a rough currency conversion for the £7552, and added a footnote explaining that and giving a comparable BBC quoted figure for current Saturday night drama. Angmering 11:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good revisions - improved flow, clarification on ambiguous points - I personally feel that you've taken the article to its zenith. I'm no expert, but I recommend FAC, as I can't see anything remotely wrong with this. Seegoon 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Laetitia Barbauld[edit]

I would appreciate having this article peer-reviewed at this point; I am aiming for GA and eventually FA. I could use a copyeditor as really only I have looked at the prose (sometimes late at night) as well as some help with the pictures (see Barbauld talk page). Thanks. Awadewit 09:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some points:

  • "Furthermore, her poetry inspired many young Romantic writers..."—Can "furthermore" be removed here? Its presence is somewhat cumbersome.
Why? Are transitions frowned upon in leads?
There are many types of transitions; I can't answer every case succinctly. However, "furthermore" is a heavy transition; a more forceful, formal "and". It is best, I think, to use it sparingly, and to use the ordering of ideas for the connection and transition. It's up to you, though.
I have tried to improve the lead overall.
Inserting "moreover" in another position is better, but not necessary. Read the sentence without "moreover" and the writing flows. A word like "moreover" is more useful for asserting force; similarly, "however" and "therefore" assert the proper relation of ideas, and "furthermore" introduces a premise with force—often at the expense of flow. I found a good example of "furthermore" in Frog.
I know what all the words mean and how to use them - I teach people how to write. I intended the "forcefulness" you are describing.
Sorry. I didn't mean to be condescending. I don't think I'm helping; so I'll let others review the article.
  • "Although Barbauld was only remembered as a pedantic children's writer during the nineteenth century"—This is in apparent contradiction to "her poetry inspired many young Romantic writers"; can you be more specific about who only remembered her as a pedantic children's writer?
When you read the article, you will discover that the Romantic poets later turned against her. I do not think that it is necessary to say who remembered her - it was a general social memory. It was not only scholars, for example.
Ok. But I think the lead should be clearer, without any apparent contradictions. It should read like an essay in its own right, albeit a very short one.
I hope this is clearer now.
  • Can you provide references for the statements in the introduction? FAC reviewers look upon references favourably.
All of this information is referenced later in the article, but sure, I can do that.
  • "As both a teacher and a writer for the young"—"children" instead of "the young", perhaps? An earlier sentence calls her a "children's author".
Isn't it better to use a variety of words?
Generally, no; see elegant variation.
Well, I would have to say that I disagree with that. I understand a bit of what the page is saying but to never vary one's vocabulary is ridiculous - one's writing would sound repetitive and stilted.
You're partly right: variation of a different kind is essential. Avoidance of repetition, however, should occur through pronouns and the proper arrangement of ideas. If a noun has to be tediously repeated, with the added temptation for elegant variation, this should suggest reordering the prose for better flow; and, in some cases, radical revision. Variation of synonyms is useful for other purposes; it's not frowned upon, except when it's ostentatious. This is unnecessarily disgressive, so I'll stop here.
  • "for other women writers at the time."—wordy. "for contempory women writers."?
I think "contemporary women writers" sounds awkward in that context.
Ok. The two successive prepositional phrases suggest periphrases, though.
Your change makes the sentence less stilted. I withdraw my objection.

If you like, I can go through the subsequent sections later. The introduction, by the way, looks pretty good. Rintrah 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Awadewit 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to respond to the concerns calculated by the program - see responses.

RNA interference[edit]

This article, on the subject of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, was the MCB collaboration from December. It was recently elevated to GA status by TimVickers and is undergoing expansion by yours truly. I have two specific review requests in mind, in addition to general comments -

  • How's the balance between plants and animals? (NB: as of this writing, the history section still needs a bit of work.) A long-standing observation about this article, and many published RNAi reviews, is the relative lack of acknowledgement of work in plants.
  • While the article's subject is unlikely to be easily understood by anyone without a background in biology, RNAi is largely at the alphabet-soupy stage in the literature, making it easy to lapse into alphabet-soupiness in the article. Is it readable?

Opabinia regalis 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have time to check it all yet and will try and edit the aticle as well as give comments. Three things that jump out are the following from the history section:
"When the scientists had a closer look they discovered that both types of genes, the endogenous and the newly introduced transgenes, had been turned off"
The problem here is that turned off is quite a sloppy term and, for me at least, more descriptive of the transcriptional state. As written it sounds more like an example of TGS.
This section has been rewritten, with a bit more specifics on these papers. Opabinia regalis 05:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"After these initial observations in plants, many laboratories around the world searched for the occurrence of this phenomenon in other organisms."
Here Kemphues and Birchler should be cited with respect to their work in C. elegans and drosophila.
Do you have specific papers in mind? Opabinia regalis 05:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ones i was thinking of are Pal-Bhadra M et al. (1997) Cosuppression in Drosophila: gene silencing of Alcohol dehydrogenase by white-Adh transgenes is Polycomb dependent. Cell 90:479-90 PMID 9267028 and Guo S, and Kemphues KJ. (1995) par-1, a gene required for establishing polarity in C. elegans embryos, encodes a putative Ser/Thr kinase that is asymmetrically distributed. Cell. 81:611-20 PMID 7758115 The latter one is recognised as the first paper to note the cosuppression phenomena in C. elegans although it was no the topic of the paper. David D. (Talk) 02:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the famous Bhadras ;) Added. Opabinia regalis 05:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes them ;) David D. (Talk) 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and the University of Massachusetts"
Do their institutions need to be cited? I think this could be found by clicking their links. Currently it breaks the flow of the sentence causing it to lose some of its impact. David D. (Talk) 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I already remove this last night, or am I just blind? I don't see citations to the institutions anywhere. Opabinia regalis 05:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The example I am looking at is in the very last paragraph of the article. The sentence that ontroduces the work of the Fire and Mello. David D. (Talk) 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you said 'citation' and I was looking for footnotes. (As if there aren't enough of those already.) You're right, the institutions aren't important. Opabinia regalis 03:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a brief look, a key thing to balance plants and animals would be a diagram that compares the process in plants and animals - probably to replace the lead image; any recent review that compared the two will have a diagram showing the similarities and differences in the two kingdoms. The lead I doesn't give a good sense of when and why organisms use RNAi (during development and defense?). Gene knockdown and functional genomics talks exclusively about animal examples, the techniques are widely used in plants - the cyanide free cassava and gyssopol free cotton are good examples of biotech, there are heaps of basic plant science examples too - maybe the use in medicine could be expanded to use in biotech + medicine? The image stack syntax the article is using isn't working for me, Dicer is covering up everything. --Peta 05:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the above: I cleaned up the writing in the history section (no new content) and added a short description of the function of the RNAi pathway to the lead. I think the current "role in medicine" section may be demoted to a subsection of "applications" or somesuch, with biotechnology as the second subsection. The images are de-stacked - Peta, does that bunch the edit links for you? Opabinia regalis 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit links are bunched and argonaute is floating oddly and covering the text, since its a space issue I'd probably just give the ago/DNA complex image the chop - its pretty, but not that informative for the general reader. For other images, there's a pretty good fair use argument for a pic of the original petunias, and PLoS might have some good images too. I like the applications idea.--Peta 08:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a section on plant engineering, and some brief discussion of genomics work in plants. Can you think of any other major plant engineering projects?
I always like protein structures anyway, but I think the complex is a useful image (though maybe less so in thumbnail). I couldn't get the two argonautes to sit next to each other in a table, so I think I'll just re-render them and make a single composite image with both. I'll dig through PLoS to see if there are any variegated flowers - even if there is a fair-use claim for the petunias, they're not of very high quality in the online PDF. It would be nice to have an image for the lower half of the article besides "RNAi is used in fruit flies. Here's a fruit fly." Opabinia regalis 05:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the plant additions cover a good scope of the work that is being done. Biotech isn't just plants, wasn't the BSE free cow produced with RNAi? I could scan the petunias at higher res if you want, I'll also have a poke around for other images, the fly and worm are a bit dull.--Peta 06:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure offhand about the cow, but I'll flesh out the biotech stuff tomorrow - I wanted to hit the plant stuff in one go while I had some time. If you think the petunias are fair-use here, a better scan would be great, thanks - I'm not sure if they're "irreplaceable" though? Yes, they're first, but do they convey anything to the reader that a newer, free image wouldn't? (Big fat grain of salt: I don't like fair use, so I haven't become well-versed in the ins and outs of it here, and I could be talking nonsense.) Opabinia regalis 07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BSE cow uses a different technique. FU of the petunias has the historic thing on their side; and the advantage that the phenotype is visibly obvious and that they are already discussed in the article. Any kind of before and after phenotype shot would probably work.--Peta 07:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This pic from PLoS gives an idea of how rnai would work for medicine. --Peta 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a different note, should RNA Silencing (lowercase doesn't) really redirect to RNAi the term seems to be used to cover a wide variety of processes in plants - basically it seem to be used to describe any knockdown from a endogenous or external nucleic acid template (see Mol Cell. 2005 Aug 5;19(3):421-8 for a review). My main point is that RNAi is one of may RNA silencing processes.--Peta 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you saw the new PLoS images, I figure - there may be a derivative of the new top figure that's less busy and more colorful. Also, thanks for the pointer to the Flickr image; would be nice for Mello's article too. I also replaced the uncooperative argonaute images; does the new one fit? I'm thinking the RNA silencing redirect should be converted to a proper stub in the proper case; I'll put it on my mental list of supporting stubs to create.
I may be dense - I didn't get much time for poking around today - but I haven't found anything notable that is neither plant biotech nor preclinical application. It seems that there isn't yet substantial work on animal applications outside of models, which is perhaps not too surprising since it's such a pain in mammals. Do you know of any work in that area that I might've missed? I'll look more thoroughly tomorrow; it's been kind of busy with work this week. Opabinia regalis 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images are looking really good. This company seems to have one "RNAi drug" in clinical trials, so does this one. There are no commercially available plants that were specifically engineered to express hairpins to induce RNAi, however the ringspot resistant papaya (commercially available; there are probably other examples too -Flavr Sarv was also an antisense construct) was developed using antisense to the viral coat protein, resistance is mediated via RNAi.--Peta 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a quick mention, as you already noticed by now; thanks for the virus article ;) I don't want to go into too much detail, since they weren't explicitly developed with RNAi. The clinical trials were mentioned in the medicine section, but I linked the companies also. Opabinia regalis 05:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is moving on to FAC, so please continue any criticisms there ;) Thanks! Opabinia regalis 05:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Distortion[edit]

I just requested Social D to be part of the featured articles. It would be nice to see another great band featured on Wikipedia's main article as "today's featured article" in the future. I just thought all the work done in the Social D article has turned out to be OK.

Alex 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present, covers aren't recommended in discography sections of band pages. Also, it is not verified enough. You need more cites. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D[edit]

This article has been peer reviewed previously, and I feel I addressed the issues raised.

The article was recently rated good, and I would appreciate further suggestions in order for it to meet FA specifications.

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of California 1800s to mid 1900s[edit]

I have done major copyditing on the article. Many of the League of Copyeditors have worked on the article. I have added many pictures to the article so it nows looks goood. I added a large summary of the article. I plan to bump the article up to FA status? Any suggestions. Please share helpful comments to help the lead and other sections. Showmanship is the key 01:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is nowhere even close to Good Article status, much less Feature Article. For starters, just what is the article even about???? Its a mish-mash of California history, demographics, and a bunch of other California-related subjects, much of which doesn't even fall into the time period stated in the article. Most of the content is really material that belongs in different, already-existing articles. I seriously doubt this should be an article at all, much less a feature article. Sorry to be harsh, but that's my honest take on this article. Peter G Werner 08:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ===Jupiter===[reply]

This article was the ACID winner for the week of December 27. Since then, the article almost instantly became a GA, but failed horribly in the nomination for FA. I was wondering how to improve this article for FA status. You can see the FA nom at WP:FAC. Diez2 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll second the suggestion about working on the FAC issues first. The page is in good shape; take care of the FAC concerns and it will be ready for another nomination. Marskell 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I must add: Good Article is a rubber stamp. Passing there has little bearing on whether it will make it through FAC. Marskell 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't always found that to be the case. A number of the GA candidates end up going on hold due to issues that need to be addressed. — RJH (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see more detail on the radio emmissions. They are mentioned and you would expect to read more in Jupiter's magnetosphere - but no. GB 09:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC) It looks as if I may have to add it in myself![reply]
    • I added in a paragraph, but I would appreciate it if you could check for accuracy or improvements. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its looking much better now, the reference is good, but that refers to spaceweather.com that does not mention it.
      • Perhaps there could be more on the L-Waves sweeping rapidly from high frequency to low frequency (sounding like popping) and S-Waves (sounding like waves) and frequency in the HF band from 10 to 30 megahertz with concentration around 21 megahertz. GB 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll see what I can come up with. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FAC nomination is now at (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jupiter/archive1) for more comments. I can see a few missing ISSN and ISBN numbers, stray quote in reference 2, note 36 title does not match what it points to. ("NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Finds "Blue Straggler" Stars in the Core of a Globular Cluster). in Jupiter: The Giant Planet, Second, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press. should that be a second edition?
    • I tried to address this; fixing the link and correcting the cite book templates. — RJH (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the info box the surface pressure is listed 74kpa, but the pressure of the atmosphere goes up far more than that, and there may or may not be a surface. It may be better to dispence with this or reword to say that the composition was measured at this pressure. Instead have a pressure at the centre which will be many Gpa. Also the temperature would vary due to abiadatic heating as you go deeper in the planet.
    • I added a note that the pressure is for the cloud layer, then replaced it with a range. The template probably needs a fix. — RJH (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GB 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now I see that there is a box on the bottom with all the moon listed but the a hide/show button. This is not mentioned in the "moons" or natural satellites paragraph which does not ahve a complete list, but the box on the bottom does. (I am not sure how this is fixable)GB 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a main article link to Jupiter's natural satellites which covers the topic in much more detail. I think it's probably appropriate "summary style" usage to just link the Galilean moons in this article. — RJH (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chunchucmil[edit]

My colleague and I have been working on this page concerning the ancient Maya archaeological site of Chunchucmil. It is currently rated as a B leveled article, and were hoping to move it through the stages towards a Featured Article. Looking for a peer review to help us get the ball rolling. Thanks in advance! Oaxaca dan 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that could use some improvement is the images. The top one looks like it would be most appropriate for a guide on tourism because of the cropping and text. I notice there's also a fair use image there with no fair use rationale (see WP:FURG for more info); my guess is that it doesn't meet the first of the fair use criteria since it should be possible to get an overhead picture of the area. (If it isn't possible because say, the area's off-limits, then make sure to include that in the fair use rationale.) ShadowHalo 08:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the other contributor to that article. I think ShadowHalo's comment about the first image is a good one. I'm going to change it to something a little less "logo" like. However, all images within the article were created by me (original photographs, original artwork) or by my colleagues. I use the "ShareAlike 2.5" for most of the image releases, I don't think there is a Fair Use image. But if so, that was a mistake in uploading. We own the rights to every image on the page. Thanks for the comments!Chunchucmil 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just realized that ShadowHalo was referring to the GoogleEarth image. If a google earth screenshot is not appropriate, I can find other sources. I just thought it would be a valuable image to let readers know that the archaeological site can be seen from space using Google Earth. Again, let me know if this is not appropriate. My understanding (based upon the links available on [[1]]) is that one screenshot of such software is perfectly appropriate on a Wikipedia entry. Chunchucmil 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first image (that ShadowHalo found to be too much like a tourist logo) has been removed. I left the Google Earth image in there, pending further advice Chunchucmil 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, APR, these minor issues will prove useful to our revisions. We have already begun addressing the points raised by the Javascript bot. However, we would greatly appreciate advice from other (flesh and bone) editors who might provide insight on the content, layout, design, formatting, or other issues (rather than the automated response).Chunchucmil 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Eretria[edit]

A recently created article, I would like to see what can be done to improve it. Kyriakos 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Off to a good start. Some comments, in no particular order:

  • The heavy reliance on Herodotus is not necessarily unacceptable, but it would be better if additional (secondary) sources could be found. I don't know what might be available, but the Greco-Persian Wars are certainly a topic that modern historians have written something about.
  • The writing style is very simplistic, with almost no complex sentences. Whether this is a good or bad thing is quite subjective, I suppose; but I would suggest making at least some efforts in this regard.
  • I'm not a fan of having two separate footnote sections; but this is, again, likely quite subjective.
  • The images should probably be staggered along both margins.

More generally, this will likely need considerable copyediting in the future, regardless of how you decide to proceed with the other points. Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StudyAndBeWise[edit]

I just updated the article to use Harvard citations and references. However, I left the sources. In any event, the main suggestion I have is to cut back on the citations. For example, I saw one case where several consequtive sentences had the same citation to the same page. You might want to consider only citing the last sentence in such cases. I know citing each individual sentence might make others less likely to remove sentences, but I don't think this will be an issue for the Siege of Eretria article, unless it is controversial. I'll look through a history book and see if it is commented on, and add some more (just to get a larger variety of references). However, any history book is likely to have relied on the same primary source you did. Anyway, thanks for the good work.

If you have some time to review The Origin of Species, I would appreciate it.

StudyAndBeWise 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "In 490 BC, Darius organized a fleet of around 600 ships and an army of between 20,000 to 60,000 men." Important assessment and controversial estimation needing some citing.
  • ", the instigator of the revolt, went to mainland Greece to seek support for the Ionians' cause, and the Athenians gave him twenty ships and the Eretrians five." Stubby paragraph.
  • Kirill is correct when he says that the lack of complex sentences leads to a "simplistic" or "choppy" prose. Check for instance this half-paragraph, which IMO is an example of this choppy prose: "Also part of the fleet was Hippias, the former tyrant of Athens who had been overthrown in 508 BC. He had been promised Athens in return for assiting the Persians.[17] The fleet which consisted mainly of Phoenician and Ionian ships met the army in Cilicia and from there they sailed to Samos.[18] From Samos they sailed Icaria and from Icaria they attacked Naxos.[19] The Naxians were not prepared for the attack and when they saw the advancing Persians they fled to the hills.[20]" Another example:"They soon reached Euboea and they demanded soldiers from the city of Carystus.[23] The Carystians refused to supply soldiers as they didn't want to be involved in a campaign against their neighbours, Eretria and Athens.[24] The Persians after a brief siege eventually forced the Carystians to surrender and supply troops to the growing Persian army.[25] The next stop after Carystus was Eretria."
  • The heavy reliance on Herodotus could be a problem. I'd prefer a parallel use of secondary sources; they often offer interesting prespectives.
  • "The failed attack caused Aristagoras to lose his favor in the Persian court so he decided to stir up a revolution amongst the Ionian Greek cities." Doesn' this sentence need a , or a ; ?
  • Why do you mention the same references twice; once altogether and then divided in primary and secondary sources?--Yannismarou 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 95[edit]

Lots of people have been working on this article, particularly members of WP:IH. My fellow members of that WikiProject and myself would like to know where substantial improvements could be made to bring it up to GA-class, A-class, and or FA-class. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the history section moved up and some mention of it in the introduction, "I-95 consists largely of previously-existing toll roads constructed from 1900-1950" or something like that, "and received the designation I-95 in 1953 as part of the Eisenhower Administration's..." etc. etc. Kaisershatner 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but to adhere to WP:IH's standards, the history section must stay where it is, but we can make some mention of it in the intro. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why must it stay where it is? I remind you that WikiProject guidelines are exactly that, and if it would make the article better (which IMHO, it would), it's something to be considered. I wrote the article on I-295, also up for GA and peer review, using a different project's standards, and will open up discussion on WT:IH on the matter. -- NORTH talk 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But "External links" should move down according to WP:LAYOUT. Also, "History" probably would be best off in prose (and why is there a reference to a toll bridge in 2009?) It would be good to add more information to the footnotes; for example, see {{Cite web}}. APR t 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update to the article: Okay, I moved the history section to below the route description, I feel it is better in that order than with the history above the route description. I did not add anything related to the history (like suggested) into the introduction yet, but I'll work on that. I swapped External links and References. However, I do not feel that the Tolls section of history would be better written in prose. The subjects in the list work better as children of the section — an "indented list with content" (Wikipedia:Embedded list). Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but the toll bridge will happen. The first sentence of the link provided states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The toll bridge that will be on the highway in 2009 currently exists, and will continue to exist after the interchange currently under construction is completed (all sources are documented on all relevant pages). I'm not good with footnotes though, so someone else will need to take a look at that. --MPD T / C 02:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
V60, you might want to consider whether the WP:IH project standards conform to the broader standards for WP:FA if you want to get these articles featured. Just a suggestion. And to start with I would review WP:LEAD. "Some mention" of the history/origin of I95 in the intro is required if you are trying to bring this article in line with "what is a good article." Some additional suggestions would be to provide citations for the following assertions in the intro:
  • Interstate 95 is one of the best-known, most important, and most heavily traveled highways in the Interstate Highway System. [Best known by what measure and by whom? Most important in whose view? Most heavily traveled- have some stats on that?]
  • It is the longest north-south Interstate highway (five east-west routes are longer),
  • It passes through more states - fifteen - than any other Interstate.
  • I-95 is the only long-distance Interstate in the original plans that is not yet completed.

And answer the following:

  • What "original plans" are you referring to in the introduction?
  • If the highway parallels US1, why was it built?
  • and WHEN was it built?

Thanks, Kaisershatner 15:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated article: I can't really remember what I did. But the edit changes are here. I added sources for the "longest", and "original plans" (included a 1955 map, the 1957 one has numbering labels on it), but for the "most states", people will have to trust us or count them for themselves. I-90 passes through 12 (MA, NY, PA, OH, IN, IL, WI, MN, ND, MT, ID, WA). --MPD T / C 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. (Interstate System History is listed as one.) Removed here.-- NORTH talk 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo[edit]

This article has been changed significantly reasontly, I have strucutred the article after Seattle, Washington featured article. Needs to be peer reviewed. I want to know

  • whether it covers all the required sections?
  • Anything else that needs to be included?
  • Does it have enough images?
  • I have some great 19th century historcal images would it be too much?
  • I think grammar could be improved, could you help?

Thanks  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Peer review request
After the last peer review it seems this article has changed drastically what else could be improved to make it to he featured article status? Please respond ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 10:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps the old peer review should be archived (see instructions above, though it might require admin tools now)? Then again, it would not really be that necessary. APR t 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For featured article status, the article will need a lot more footnotes (nowadays, the bar seems to be at least 15, depending upon the subject of the article). Naturally, print references would be preferred.
    • Undoubtedly the most popular sport in Sri Lanka is cricket. Undoubtedly a footnote would be necessary.
    • Numbers generally need citations, like in "Geography and climate".
  • I would suggest expanding the two paragraphs of the WP:LEAD, neither of which extends beyond 2 sentences. In fact, they pretty much can be combined, and a separate paragraph can summarize other topics below.
  • "Official Vision and mission" is a stub section. Remove the two subheadings, unless you plan on expanding them. WP:MSH suggests that 'Vision' -> 'vision'. Btw, both quotes need citations.
  • Needs a spell-check: meanining, coast line, liase (?), south east, North-East, jewellery
  • Some odd comma usage which hampers readability. The north and the south parts of the city are hilly and the east, and south east areas are bordered by marshy land.
  • See WP:DASH; replace hyphens indicate ranges w/ endashes. (ex: March – April)
  • MOS:NUM : Missing conversions b/w the metric and US systems and   (non-breaking spaces). See Rainfall in the city averages around 2,400 mm a year.
  • Mistakes and typos regarding the position of the footnote in terms of the period. It should follow the period, w/o a space (not [1] . or .[2].). User:Gimmetrow's User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js fixes this w/ a click (it is also included in the PR script).
  • There are scattered grammatical problems.
    • Sri Lankan masterpieces at the Art Gallery wrong preposition
    • for two of the country's international cricket stadiums, Sinhalese Sports Club The club is not a stadium.
  • See WP:LAYOUT about the last couple of sections.
  • My overall suggestion would be to start by first resolving the simpler style problems (WP:MOS, WP:GTL), and then increasing the level of content (as there are several stubby sections, and the WP:LEAD is skimpy) while carefully citing sources. Finally work on fixing the grammar and making the prose brilliant. Best of luck, APR t 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In addition to the suggestions mentioned above, I would suggest expanding the history section. The Dutch and British eras are somewhat sparse, and don't really provide that much information that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the history of Colombo, like me, would benefit from reading. Oaxaca dan 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Queens and Empresses of France[edit]

I really like this list and am hoping that soon it'll be up to the standard of freatured list; I was just wanting to see what improvements people thought could be made, etc. Sotakeit 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Texas Longhorn football team[edit]

Numerous editors have contributed to this article to help it become one of the best and most thorough college-football related articles on Wikipedia. I believe it meets the criteria to be a Featured Article and I am requesting a peer review prior to submission for FA consideration.

This article previously had a peer reveiew for GA and some valid questions were raised. I believe I have addressed all of those by changes to the article or by explanation on the article's talk page. All other questions that have arisen on the Talk page have been addressed. I have also run the semi-automated peer review script to look for potential problems. I have decided to go for FA status rather than another attempt at GA status because the GA process does not seem as suitable for longer articles.

The article is very well referenced, with 121 in-line sources, all of them meeting WP:V and WP:RS. It has undergone a thorough copyedit to look for any spelling, punctuation, formatting, or other problems. Care has been taken to include links to football terms that may be confusing to the non-football fan.

In following the Oklahoma Sooners nomination, I see that there were some objections raised to what was perceived as an overly-positive tone of the article. I am not sure I agree with that comment about the OU article, but I have taken care to review this article to ensure that every positive claim made about the 2005 UT team is attributed to a reliable source.

Another thing that may arise is the question of length. It is difficult to be complete and still concise, especially while taking the time to provide background for a reader who may be less than familiar with the subject matter. Knowing that summary-style is favored for long articles, I did break out most of the content on the 2006 Rose Bowl into its own article. I look forward to further suggestions as to whether any other sections should be broken out or if the length is now appropriate for the subject matter.

I am eager to hear the opinions of other editors on these points, and any others that are raised. I look forward to your thoughts. Johntex\talk 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RockMFR[edit]

  • A few things I immediately noticed- the paragraph beginning with "The official website of UT football" is entirely useless trivia, should be cut out. In the Ohio State section, it says "two storied programs" - cut out "storied" as it is just fluff. That particular line also does not need three references. --- RockMFR 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review.
For the first comment, I included that paragraph because I believe it is interesting that the UT football program designed a logo specifically to commemorate the win. That is why the description of the logo is included. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the second comment, I am mindful that some people who read this article may not be that familiar with college football. Therefore, I felt is was important to point out that UT and OSU are often considered to be among the sports best programs. This knowledge is important to an understanding of why it was a big deal that the two teams faced off against each other. The references cited support the use of the term "storied" to describe the two programs. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

  • Why isn't this peer review linked from the talk page? That would make it easier for editors to find their way back here. I was well into typing out a very long list of things that needed to be addressed in your footnotes/references, when I hit an unmarked PDF in a footnote that killed my computer, so I lost everything - that's why you're supposed to identify PDFs :-) So, all I can say is that there are numerous errors in your footnotes - some of the links are dead (you can try to find them in the internet archive), some of them don't have publisher or publication date, some of them have no information at all (I recall something about ESPN that gave no other information and no article link), and some use inconsistent format (most have author last name first, some don't). There was more, but I can't remember it all - so, pls check all your references, and please identify PDFs. Readable prose size of your article is 27KB; there shouldn't be any size objections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SandyGeorgia, for your excellent proof-reading and for the improvements you have made to the article. I have now linked this peer review from the article talk page. I will go through the references again for consistency and completeness. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue is to figure out how to deal with the copyright violations on MackBrownFootball - they use PDF copies of copyrighted media stories, which is a no-no. You should attempt to locate the original sources, to avoid copyvio issues. Per WP:EL, Wikipedia shouldn't link to sites that violate copyright. A number of the sources I looked at on MackBrownFootball were PDF copies of newspaper articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this comment. There is no evidence that MackBrownFootball is violating any copyright. To the contrary, I think it is best to assume good faith and proceed on the understanding that they have permission to host these article reprints. It is very normal for athletic programs to seek and receive permission to host such articles. Therefore, they are not a copyright violation and there is no problem under Wikipedia policy to link to that website. I have no objection if someone wants to search for the original articles elsewhere, but my experience has been that the UT website tends to keep these articles available at the same URL for far longer than most newspapers. Therefore, I don't think it is very productive to look for alternate links. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph needs a copy edit - I didn't review the other prose - it has missing punctuation and sentence fragments:
    • Yince Young's departure set up a competition between Colt McCoy and Jevan Snead to see who would lead the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team. McCoy won the starting job and threw a freshman-record 27 touchdowns This touchdown pass was McCoy's 27th touchdown pass of the season. That tied the national record for touchdown passes by a freshman. in route to a 10-3 season for the Longhorns in 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I wrote this when I was up too late at night. I am not sure this paragraph belongs, since it is about the 2006 program. My initial thinking is that including something who replaced Vince Young and what the 2006 result was provides some longer-term view of the team. I will correct the paragraph and leave it in for now, pending other commetns. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CJC47[edit]

Nice article, here are my criticisms:

  1. Too many citations in some places. I realize the goal of being well sourced, but statements like "This meeting was also the first-ever match-up between the two storied programs" don't eally need 3 citations. Pick the most important one.
  2. The game capsules need to be more on point. The OSU capsule doesn't even talk about what happened in the game, the Rice capsule, has one line. Both have a paragraph or more of pregame notes. Baylor and Kansas need to be expanded, as does the Big 12.
  3. I think it is missing something about Mack Brown getting the big game monkey off his back against Oklahoma and by winnning the title.
  4. Preseason needs to be expanded... talk about what was going on in CFB at the time USC is the big dog, but was TX the favorite to be there? etc...
Thank you very much for reviewing the article and for your feedback.
I would like to disagree only with your first point. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and our goal is for each citable fact in Wikipedia to have multiple citations. This way, if one source becomes unavailable or is called into question, there is always another source to back it up. Even though that fact may seem simple, the phrase "storied programs" has been questioned so multiple sources seemed prudent. I wonder if other people might want to lend their opinion about this point?
I thank your other points are very fair and good. I will work on them.
Thank you again for your help. Johntex\talk 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've now put some work into addressing criticisms 3 and 4. (Please let me know if it still needs work) I'll be back to work on number 2. Johntex\talk 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now addressed all these points, excpet number 2. I am still working on expanding the game summaries. Johntex\talk 08:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have now made significant expansions to the first 3 game summaries (Louisiana Lafayette, Ohio State, and Rice). I will continue to work my way through each game section with expansions. Johntex\talk 05:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Missouri and OU now expanded. Johntex\talk 08:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I expanded the game summaries but that led to a long article. Consequently, I am splittong some of the informaiton off into sub-articles per WP:SUMMARY. Johntex\talk 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark[edit]

  • "With 5 rushing TDs scored in the Rose Bowl, Texas has 55 for the season, setting a new single-season record (52; 1969 and 1970)." School record or NCAA record?
  • "The 2005 Texas team set a new single-season total yards record with 6,657, passing the 2003 team (5,709)." Once again, school record or NCAA record?
  • Image:UT Longhorn logo with Texas.gif needs a fair use rationale. All of the current images used that have fair use rationales need to say "I believe this is fair use in the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article because..." it has to specifically say what article(s) it is believed to be fair use in.
  • It's scout.com, not scouts.com, for when you mention that the game is considered a classic in the opening few paragraphs
  • Is the Big 12 conference template really necessary at the bottom of the page? It is my understanding that if the page isn't linked in the template, then the template shouldn't be there. That template should really only be on the university and athletics pages for each school, aka 24 pages total. All facilities, individual teams, etc. can still be in the Big 12 conference category, but it doesn't need that template.
Hi VegaDark, these are all excellent points. I will put time into fixing them this weekend. Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. Best, Johntex\talk 06:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now addressed all these points. Johntex\talk 08:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caknuck[edit]

  1. The "List of accomplishments" section has several GLARING omissions... No mention of the four players who were named to the AP All-American team. No mention of Vince Young winning the Davey O'Brien Award or the Maxwell Award. No mention of Michael Huff winning the Jim Thorpe Award.
  2. The final paragraph of the intro lists the six Longhorns selected in the 2006 NFL Draft. They area again listed in "After the season" section. I'd suggest mentioning that six were picked in the intro, but waiting until the end to name them. After all, that's where the cites are.
  3. Devoting a whole paragraph to the UT Web site championship logo is WAY overboard and may be deem crufty. I doubt it will be viewed as "encyclopedic" during a FA review.
  4. The article mentions Young declaring for the draft, but fails to note that he had previously stated his intention to return for a senior year (most notably on The Tonight Show). Warrants mention.
  5. Further to what VegaDark mentioned about the images... We cannot use the magazine covers in this article. Per the copyright disclaimer, they can only be used in articles about the magazine, not about the person (or team) depicted thereon. Plus, the Texas Football cover image has the incorrect copyright tag.
  6. The Big 12 Championship section mentions the victory gave the Horns a "...fourth consensus national championship in football." This is wrong. The consensus championship wasn't awarded until after the BCS title game. After the Big 12 title game, Texas was still ranked second.
  7. Finally, I suggest amending the schedule table to indicate which games were conference games.
Let me know if you'd like additional feedback. Caknuck 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Caknuck, thank you very much for reviewing the article. I will be working to address all your points except your point number 5. Fair use images are not limited only to articles about the image. This is a common misconception. The policy states "...specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". They are therefore not limited exclusively to an article about the magazine. Instead, they are limited to articles OR sections of articles where the image is specifically discussed. The entire article does not have to be about the image or the magazine.
For an example of this, please see Battle of Iwo Jima. The whole article is not about the flag-raising picture. The whole article is not even about the flag raising event. Never-the-less, we can justify using the flag-raising image in the article. We also have fair-use justifications provided for using this one image on several other articles as well.
In the case of the UT article, all the images are specifically discussed in the article. Therefore, they can all qualify under fair use. Johntex\talk 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding point 3, I am listening for other comments on this. You are the second person to say it should go, but I still think it adds something to the article. Pehaps the use of the capitalization (which is found in the original) is making this paragraph stand out non-proporitonaly. I will edit that, but I am not deleting the paragraph at this time. If more people say they don't like it, it will be easy enough to delete later. Johntex\talk 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now addressed or spoken to all your points. Please let me know if you notice any other areas for improvement. Thanks, Johntex\talk 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e[edit]

I've already commented on the length of the article on the talk page, but I had one other semi-related point to make and this seems to be the best place to do it. I don't know that there's a guideline for this anywhere, but the article is seriously overreferenced. Which is a pleasant surprise in a way, and certainly better than being under-referenced, but brings its own problems.

To take an example, see the paragraph which begins: "Ohio State recovered three turnovers in Texas territory..." (in the Ohio State section). The second sentence "The five field goals by Josh Huston tied an Ohio State school and stadium record." has three references, only one of which (52) is needed to support the point being made. The next sentence "He now shares the record with Mike Nugent (at North Carolina State, September 19, 2004) and Bob Atha (vs. Indiana, 24 October 1981 in Ohio Stadium)" has two references (41 & 43), but can be covered entirely by 41 alone, already used in the previous sentence. I suggest the five references used for those two sentences can be replaced by using 52 at the end of sentence two and 41 at the end of sentence three. Ref 43 covers both sentence one and sentence four of the para, so why not just put it at the end to support the whole para? That way you still have three refs supporting the whole para, but using only three footnotes instead of the current seven. I don't think this would make the original information any less easy to find, in fact it might be easier because the direction to the most relevant reference is clearer.

In addition to more precise direction of readers to the most relevant reference, there is also a (minor) saving in overall article length (not relevant in terms of the guidelines, but it would help a little for those on dial up for whom a 150kb article can be slow to load). Finally, footnote numbers can be intrusive for some readers, and definitely more so where there are several in a row. I suggest this approach can usefully be applied throughout the article.

I note the point made above about each citable fact having multiple citations. What can I say? I think this is wrong. If your source is a reliable one and the fact is non-controversial, what is the value in doing this? The requirement for citations at present only actually requires that "Precise attribution is required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.". Of course if it is controversial, then multiple sources are needed to give the various views, but much of what is referenced in this article is not controversial.

It's a good, thorough article, but I feel it's (mildly) damaged by the referencing approach used. Please take this as constructively meant criticism, I know how much work goes into putting together such a comprehensive article. Cheers. 4u1e 05:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I thank you very much for reviewing the article and for discussing the references. I still believe mutliple references are useful and I would be very much opposed to removing any of them. I appreciate that they add a little length to the article. I think that is a small price to pay for good sourcing. I appreciate that some people may see multiple footnotes as ugly clutter (I do not - I see them as beautiful reminders that the article is well sourced). To me, the main points are:
  1. One source is not ideal. I have seen over and over again where someone questions a source, for whatever reason.
  2. A single source can be harder to verify. Web links change. Books go out of print. Etc. Having more than one source helps mitigate the risk of this.
  3. It is impossible to know ahead of time what might be challenged. There are so many different ways of looking at the world, someone can dispute almost anything. The easiest time to find and add sources is when working on the article in the first place. It is far harder to go and find them if a dispute comes up.
  4. Adding multiple sources gives the reader that many more places to go look if they want to learn more about the topic than what we have included.
  5. Wikipedia policies evolve. It used to be that articles existed quite happily with zero or few sources. Happily, this is changing. Articles now get challenged if the sourcing is too weak. This will probably continue to evolve. What may be adequate today may not pass muster tomorrow. Look at how many FA's get demoted not because the article got worse but because the standards got higher. I would like to know that an article can survive for 100 years and have us be proud of it the whole time.
  6. Also, 100 years from now - it may be that none of the original sources are still available. At least at that point the reader can know we once had 3 sources. Who knows, it could be useful informaiton for the archealogical/anthropologist/sociologist of the future just to see what sources we used.
  7. Serious research works, do use multiple footnotes, where mutliple sources support the same fact.
  8. One of the biggest complaints about Wikipedia is that it is under-referenced. Let's start changing that. If we somehow could get a reputation for being incredibly well referenced, wouldn't that be wonderful?
Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate your criticisms, even though I do not agree with them. Johntex\talk 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to consider my points seriously. My only response to your arguments is that my suggestions for that paragraph don't remove any of the sources used, they just place them more accurately in relation to what they are being used to support, beneficial in itself and with an incidental benefit in (slightly!) shorter articles and a less distracting reading experience. I think that defuses almost all of your points (perhaps not 8). Perhaps over-referenced was the wrong phrase - what I mean is over-footnoted. Cheers. 4u1e 06:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. If we combine multiple footnotes into one, how would we handle a footnote that is used more than one time? Would it get incorporated into multiple footnotes? For instance, what if we have:
Sentence 1.[1][2][4]
Sentence 2.[1]
Sentence 3.[2][5][6]
Sentence 4.[7]
Sentence 5.[6]
Sentence 6.[7]
Would we now change this to:
Sentence 1.[1]{incorporates the old [1][2][4]}
Sentence 2.[2]{incorpoares the old reference [1]}
Sentence 3.[3]{incorporates the old [2][5][6]}
Sentence 4.[4]{incorporates the old [7]}
Sentence 5.[5]{incorporates the old [6]}
Sentence 6.[4]
Is that the way it would work? Do you know if your suggested format is already in use and if it is already an accepted practice? Thanks! Johntex\talk 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the actual degree of footnoting is more of a personal preference. You're probably fairly familiar with my personal approach (which is obviously the best one!) after reviewing BT19, see Brabham for a longer article on the same lines (which probably need revising, cos I've re-written much of the text). I'm in a slightly different situation to you, in that working on older stuff I can usually work from books. What I try (nearly always fail) to do is find single reference (one or two pages) that covers all the facts in one paragraph in the article and just put one footnote at the end. If I can't find a page that covers the whole para, I'll add the smallest number of other footnotes to other refs at the appropriate points. Where there are several points of view, or I'm trying to establish a general belief, I may use several refs in one footnote, but I try to avoid it, because it's lengthy. See footnote 13 to Brabham. For the example para I picked through above, there don't seem to be many places where several references are needed - in most cases one of the several references given would cover the points being made, still sticking to one ref per footnote. When I said you wouldn't lose any footnotes, what I meant was that as it happens, to cover all of the points made in that sentence, you still need all the refs you currently use, but you probably only need to footnote each of them once. Does that make sense? Is my approach the right one? Dunno - like you I've gotten an article to FA, so it can't be that bad, but I wouldn't dream of pushing it on others! 4u1e 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article promoted to FA[edit]

The article was promoted to FA on September 8 2007. Therefore, I think we can close this peer review. If you have other suggestions for improving the article, please see: Talk:2005 Texas Longhorn football team. Thanks to everyone for your help with the article! Johntex\talk 05:40, September 9 2007 (UTC)

Keggy the Keg[edit]

Peer review was suggested by M3tal H3ad when this article failed its first nomination for Good Article status (I addressed the concerns, and renominated it). I guess the only real problem with the article is that it's rather short, but I would like to hear any suggestions. Thanks. Dylan 02:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Expand section #1 on context and creation extending the timeline and adding quotes from proponents and opponents of Keggy. May the opponents be washed forever away by the great flow valve of the sky. Dharp66 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]

Press Gang[edit]

Hi all. I've practically written all of this in its current state and would like to submit it for GA. I'd appreciate your suggestions for what could improve the article (including beyond GA). I don't always find vague comments like "some phrases are poorly constructed" helpful... if you have copyediting skills I'd find it much more helpful if you could correct such errors. The JPStalk to me 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I notice two of the three images don't have fair use rationales. Make sure to add those. ShadowHalo 13:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloody hell, very surprised at myself for missing those! Thanks for pointing it out -- now corrected. The JPStalk to me 15:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gardner[edit]

My goal for this project is to bring it up to GA, and if possible FA, status.

I am aware that the article could use a more NPOV. Perhaps my adjective choices are too dramatic? I tried my best to balance out the sources, but I find that most of the information that I find tends to focus on the movie The Pursuit of Happyness or the most recent twenty years of Gardner's life. Therefore, his autobiography provided most of the information I included about his early life.

Constructive suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Brinabina 21:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice job, but I do believe that there are some serious POV problems. This is my review:

  • In some cases the tone of the prose gets hagiographic. This is not our goal in Wikipedia. A I say somewhere else "The prose can be sentimental but not un-encyclopedic or POV. Sentimentalism is a great weapon, if you know how to use it. If you don't know this "art", don't try it!" These are some examples from the lead, which IMO are problematic: "Gardner owes the greater part of his current success to his mother's early encouragement and to the sense of responsibility and high expectations placed on him, then her only son." "Chris Gardner's childhood was fraught with discouraging circumstances and hardships. Despite enduring abuse at the hands of his mother's husband, Freddie Triplett, Gardner resolved that he would someday become a loving and dedicated father to his own children. This determination, in addition to his mother's early encouragement, motivated him to succeed at life and business even when the odds appeared to be stacked against him."
  • "Gardner's journey from a homeless single father to self-made millionaire is portrayed by the 2006 major motion picture .
Gardner's book of memoirs sharing the same title was published earlier the same year by Amistad, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers." Why do you break the paragraph here? And why do you break it with a <br />? And not with an empty line, as we do when we want to create a new paragraph in Wikipedia. IMO there is no opinion two have two stubby paragraphs in a row at the end of the lead.
  • "Gardner's journey from a homeless single father to self-made millionaire is portrayed by the 2006 major motion picture The Pursuit of Happyness, [4] starring actor Will Smith." Cite in the middle of a sentence only if it is absolutely necessary; otherwise at the end of the sentence. And do not leave a gap between the punctuation mark and the citation.
  • "Early years" is another example of problematic and potentially uncyclopedic writing. What abou his education? Why he was in foster care? First, we give the necessary infos; then we assess the info if necessary and again in an encyclopedic way. And I also think you should repeat infos of the lead enriched (when he was born? Where?). The article starts from scratch! The problem of uncyclopedic writing is not confined in this section.
  • "Then, just after the birth of Chris' first son". When? Was he married? You suddenly speak about his son, without having told us anything relevant previously.
  • "In 1983 and in four years succeeded in making a notable impact on their yearly revenues". Per MoS do not wikiling single years. Only full dates (May 8, 1978).
  • I was thinking that "Business ventures" is fine, and then I read that:"Gardner is currently working on an investment venture with South Africa that will create hundreds of jobs and introduce millions of much-needed foreign currency into the nation." Isn't it a bit ethnocentric?
  • "Adamantly determined to raise". I don't like "adamantly"; it looks like a verbalism and a bit POV.
  • I would like to have more infos about his personal life. I don't think I learnt everything I wanted. Does he also have a daughter? I thought I learnt that by accident.
  • I also think more infos could be added about his course towards success. As a reader I got the impression I was given just a short summary version of this interesting story.

--Yannismarou 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yannismarou,

User Brinabina and I have done a lot of work on re-editing the Chris Gardner article. Your comments were very helpful. Below I respond to each of the points you've raised and what we've done to correct it:

  • The lead is now more concise, condensed into two paragraphs. The sentences you highlighted as being problematic have either been deleted or reworded to be less sentimental and more factual.
  • 'Gardner's journey from homeless father to self-made millionaire is portrayed by the 2006 major motion picture" has been altered to Gardners personal journey is portrayed in the 2006..."
  • The footnote citations in the article have been altered, where possible, so that they appear at the end of the sentence.
  • I have rewritten and reordered 'Early years', adding in additional background info - hope this reads better now.
  • 'Then just after the birth of Chris' first son' has been changed to 'Then shortly after the birth of Chris Jr. in 1981'
  • I have removed the wikilink from 1983
  • I have removed 'much-needed' from the phrase :"Gardner is currently working on an investment venture with South Africa that will create hundreds of jobs and introduce millions of much-needed foreign currency into the nation." so that it has less enthocentric connotations
  • I don't like 'adamantly either - it has been removed!
  • Info on Gardner's daughter Jacintha has been added.
  • The whole article has been streamlined and various points have been enlarged upon.

We'd be grateful if you could re-read the article and give us your feedback. SJCharlton 09:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yannismarou

Thanks for your review. I have made several edits that preserve the changes made by SJCharleton, while improving clarity, flow and NPOV. Here are some of the major changes. Please give us your opinion on them:

  • The lead section has been restructured for clarity and better chronology, then a second paragraph has been added as a concise summary of the article.
  • I added information about his sisters.
  • The beginning of “early years” was modified to include his date of birth.
  • I added infos about his experience as a medic in the Navy and his clinical research in the field of cardiology.
  • I added a section called “marriage and fatherhood” where I included infos about his failed marriage and his decision to forego the pursuit of a medical career, as well as the chronology of the various challenges he faced in the pursuit of a position in a stock brokerage training program.

I hope that our changes will get the article to GA status. Brinabina 08:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia[edit]

This article has changed a lot since the last time it was reviewed. I'm aiming to get this to be a good article by the end of the year. --Jedravent (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse (squeak)[edit]

Amazing, I wouldn't have thought this subject could be written about so well.

  • also known as Chronarion[3], -> Chronarion,[3] move the reference tag after punctuation, not before
  • Add more "retrieved on" dates to the references. Some have them, some don't. "Uncyclopedia joins Wikia." for example. For a wiki, the date it said something is very important! Same for author, write that Angela Beesley wrote that one.
  • Were Chronarion and Stillwaters originally Wikipedia editors?
  • leading to the deletion of many new articles.[24][6] move the earlier ref before the later one -> [6][24]
  • There seems to be some overlap about the Chinese/Taiwanese encyclopedias and their blocks between Criticism and In other languages sections. Are there two different blocks, the Golden Shield and Great Firewall, or are these the same thing?

All in all, surprisingly good, I can't think of much that needs to be added. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done all except the Wikipedia editors part. They do have accounts (User:Chronarion and [[User:Euniana]) whose contributions started before Uncyclopedia's creation, but I'm not sure how to cite them properly. --Jedravent (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aang[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is needs a review because it is significantly improving and needs more help to get better before being reviewed for Good Article Status. I ask any editor who sees this to leave their opinion. Thank you! Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two fair use images that don't have fair use rationales for the Aang article. Make sure you add those. ShadowHalo 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a "Concept and creation" section discussing how the writers, animators, and voice actor created the character of Aang. There is also too much "in universe" detail, much of which is probably original research, especially in the "Relationships" section. Jay32183 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)[edit]

This article was recently expanded, and had a failed GA nomination (although it is currently under review). Any and all tips to make it a better article would be much appreciated. -- NORTH talk 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the use of template:scaps in the exit list. We're talking about the exit leading to Route 33 east, not trying to duplicate exactly what's on the exit sign. --NE2 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue with the exit list guide, not the article. -- NORTH talk 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although now that I look at the talk page for the exit list guide, there clearly wasn't any consensus to use {{scaps}}, and one of the examples on the guide doesn't use it. Gawrsh, am I embarrassed. (I still think that it would be best to have a full discussion on WT:IH/ELG rather than here or on the I-295 talk page.) -- NORTH talk 04:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the only suggestion I thought was applicable – the non-breaking space between units – putting the &nbsp; in for one; on the one that was just an approximation, I spelled out the number "five".
The only images that do not have captions are the shield images, which do have captions in the sense that the route is linked to immediately after the image. The article obviously does have an infobox, and the only date that isn't linked to (that I could find) is in the title of a reference.
There might be some issue with overlinkage in some editors' eyes, but I think all the links are relatively spaced out (with the exception of inside the exit list). Also, if there's any copyedits someone can catch, feel free to fix them – I might be somewhat inept since it's mostly my writing. -- NORTH talk 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on The Simpsons[edit]

Hi, I'm mainly interested in knowing how I can improve this article so that it can make another run at FL status. There is no complete official source, and it has been suggesting that I delete everyone off the list that is not mentioned at the official website, which would be about half the list, which is something I am unwilling to do. Anyway, any opinions on how to improve the article are welcome! -- Scorpion 04:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethbridge[edit]

old Peer Review

Rangers F.C.[edit]

Has the potential to be a featured article (or good article at least). Statistics and such are fine, but sections regarding things like history (as in we have none). could do with a review. Archibald99 15:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article requires major work before it is ready for FA or GA status. I think the main issue with the article is that it is written to give bits of information a fan of Scottish football might want to see, rather than a general reader. Put yourself in the place of someone who has no knowledge of Rangers, or even football. Would the article give them a decent general understanding of the subject? Look at existing football team FAs for ideas on how to do this. A few suggestions:

  • I disagree on statistics - they take up far to much of the article, which contains very little prose. Get rid of the UEFA ranking section, it adds little knowledge for the reader, the same goes for the list of minor club officials. The reserve/ youth team listing is unneccessary.
  • Why are the "notable players" on the list notable?
  • History - suffers from acute Recentism. The History section should be a concise version of History of Rangers F.C., see the guidelines for summary style.
  • Good to see that the article doesn't duck away from the issue of sectarianism, but the section currently says in effect "Sectarianism exists in Scotland. In the 1800s Rangers started as Protestants, Celtic as Catholics. Both clubs recently admitted sectarianism is a problem". Make it clear why it is a problem, and how it has come to be regarded as such. Bear in mind that with a such a controversial subject, nearly every sentence requires a citation.
  • No mention of Rangers having been Scottish champions more times than any other club in the lead?
  • Stadium section - Where did Rangers play before Ibrox? The lead says Ibrox is in south-west Glasgow, include this information here too. What do the front and rear bits mean? No mention of either Ibrox disaster?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead should summarise the clubs achievements - they are one of the most successful clubs in Scotland, so a count trophies won etc. would be informative.
  • Detailed discussion of the name could go in its own section.
  • Ugh, the history section is hideously biased to the present day. Trim the "Recent History" down to a single para, slinging the rest out to History of Rangers F.C. Another 4-6 paragraphs should be added dealing with the club's history before 2006.
  • The section on sectarianism starts strangely and reads like a school textbook; we don't need a dictionary definition as the first sentence. The whole section is written arse-backwards - it should explain the clubs' backgrounds and then the consequences. It needs a rewrite. Though I don't want to get embroiled in this too much, a suggested structure would be:
Rangers' most distinct rivalry is with Celtic FC, the other major football club based in Glasgow; the two clubs are collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant community, while Celtic's has come from the Roman Catholic community. Consequently, the rivalry between the two clubs has often been characterised along sectarian lines. Both Rangers and Celtic now accept that they have a problem with sectarianism, and both admit that a proportion of their supporters have been, and continue to be, guilty of perpetuating partisan, sectarian beliefs as well as cultural intolerance.
  • Further explanation of the sectarian situation should follow, especially on how it is expressed by the club's supporters (flags, songs etc.) - the article should not assume what the song Billy Boys is about. The 2006 case could be abridged slightly, and other past disciplinary cases (if any) should also be mentioned. Needless to say, citations for every assertion in the whole section are needed.
  • Stadium section - where did Rangers play between 1873 and 1899? Also things such as who designed Ibrox, the two disasters there, any major reconstruction work that went on, suitably summarised in 2-3 paras.
  • Notable players needs an objective and verifiable criterion for inclusion. It could maybe be merged with the 'Greatest team' detailed below.
  • List of managers could do with P/W/D/L stats.
  • Remove the reserve squad - the articles linked to from there should also be checked to see if they satisfy WP:BIO.
  • List of every last member of the staff should be trimmed - we don't need to know who the kit man is. Ideally I would have nothing there, but at the very most, only coaching staff associated with the first team should be included.
  • The trivia bulletpoints in the Honours should be merged into a main History section
  • Use of tables, as it stands, in the Honours section is sinfully ugly.
  • Records section could be split off into a separate article.
  • UEFA Ranking can be removed - WP:NOT a news service.

That'll do for a start. As so much rewritin is required I would suggest a second Peer Review once the article is redone, to stand a decent chance of GA/FA status. Qwghlm 15:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel there is no reason to duplicate comments here, so I'll just write that I agree with the reviews of Oldelpaso and Qwghlm. In short; more prose, less stats. – Elisson • T • C • 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998)[edit]

I would like to see some further development of this article. I think it could be a good or even featured article in the future as there is a lot of information regarding this incident on the web. I have focused on creating as many citation as possible but I think that has hurt my "flow". Your edits and suggestions regarding this article are appreciated! --Daysleeper47 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri[edit]

  • The lead section is too short, some information that could be added: why did this man attack the Capitol?, what happened with him afterwards?, some details from the event, etc
  • I personally dislike the order in which the information is currently presented in the article: I think a background section should detail the perpetrators mental illness and so on and that the information in the "the officer" section should be merged into the other ones. But this could all just be a personal preference of mine.--Carabinieri 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The see also section should be removed. The U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1954) could and probably should be mentioned in the background section I proposed as should Denis Lortie's actions if you think they are relevant. "If it's not worth mentioning in hte article it's not worth mentioning at all."--Carabinieri 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign history of the Roman military‎[edit]

I have been working on this article for the last few weeks after splitting the Military history of ancient Rome into the four componenets of Structural, Political, Campaign and Technological histories. Campaign is the first of the four I have been working on, but I intend to work on each of the others in turn.

I will be seeking featured article status for the article shortly and want to polish off any rough edges in a peer review first.

It was tough trying to stick to a straightforward campaign history without going into too many other areas on the one hand, or having a dry, soulless list of battles on the other. I hope that I have struck the right balance.

Any comments etc appreciated, but given scope of article factual checking from those with topic knowledge especially welcome - I have tried to cite as much as possible. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 10:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Quite nice, but a variety of things that still need work before this would be ready for FAC:

  • While I don't object to the {{href}} format in principle, I would avoid using it until the technical issues with it are worked out. In particular, anyone printing the article is currently out of luck as far as getting the citations is concerned.
Its not really that big an issue for me, if it needs doing, so be it, but I'm against the idea at present - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, footnotes need to be placed after punctuation, not before it.
See discussin below - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article might be a little campaignbox-heavy. More practically, please make sure that all of these new campaignboxes you've created are (a) listed at WP:CAMPAIGN and (b) comply with the standard formatting documented there. In particular:
    • The dates of battles should be omitted, with ordinals (1st, 2nd, etc.) used to disambiguate within a single campaignbox, where necessary.
Corrected now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles linked to should be actual battle articles (even if they don't exist) rather than merely the city articles themselves.
Corrected now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would see all or most campaign boxes as starting out with only one or two entries and then being expanded, just as most articles start as stubs and get expanded - i know there was more than one battle in all these campaigns and would hope someobody will expand them in future - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seems fine, then. One point: {{Campaignbox Crisis of the Third Century}} should really be broken into two templates, since the second half of it has nothing to do with the Third century. We ought to have a separate one for the fourth-century civil wars, possibly merging {{Campaignbox Constantine Wars}} into it as well. Kirill Lokshin 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I will get on it - PocklingtonDan 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of first-level headings ("History" and "Assessment") isn't permitted by the MoS; everything will need to be bumped down. Alternately, you could just eliminate the "History" heading entirely; as the article is titled "campaign history", there's not much else that a reader could be expecting.
Corrected now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sections seem rather short; I'd combine them into a single pre-Republican section.
Done now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding date ranges to the Early/Mid/Late headings may be useful.
Done now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a campaignbox and one of the left-floated blue pullboxes in the same place causes alignment problems; they should be spaced so as to stagger themselves.
Can you describe this a bit more? It doesn't seem to cause any alignement issued my browser so I don't quite see what needs doing - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example: at the start of the "Triumvirates, Caesarian ascension, and revolt (53-30 BC)" section, the text is squeezed between boxes on both sides; at lower resolutions, you get a one-word-wide column. Kirill Lokshin 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm with you now, hadn't considered lower resolutions, will fix this now - PocklingtonDan 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heavy use of parentheses in the text is somewhat distracting. I'd suggest copyediting into more natural list forms, where possible; for example, replace "incursions in 356 (Battle of Reims), 357 (Battle of Strasbourg), 367 (Battle of Solicinium) and 378 (Battle of Argentovaria)" with "incursions in 356 at the Battle of Reims, in 357 at the Battle of Strasbourg, in 367 at the Battle of Solicinium, and in 378 at the Battle of Argentovaria".
Agreed, copyedited out now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of battles in the "Usurpers (193-394)" section seems something of a cop-out. The period is complicated, but not so much that a narrative can't be written (particularly as the battles are not, except for one small group, ocurring at the same time); but, even if no narrative is given, the self-referential explanation of why none is present needs to go.
I know its a copout but I'm not sure how to move forward with it! I'll have a stab at writing a narrative for it later today - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: turned into prose now - PocklingtonDan 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ending (e.g. "eternal glory or damnation", etc.) seems a tad melodramatic for my taste. At the least, it ought to be cited to a historian, with quotes used if possible.
Melodrama removed! - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside: it's not necessary to double-list things onto the MILHIST PR and the central PR by hand; there's a bot that will replicate all the MILHIST requests onto the central list. ;-)

Doh! Now I know. Oops - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill, I will get working on everything you suggest. The only items I have issue with are:
  • "In any case, footnotes need to be placed after punctuation, not before it." - I believe this is just US convention, I am British and was always taught the opposite!!
  • not using "hnote" reference system - I agree it is not perfect, but the standard reference system both led to a ridiculously long list of footnotes that took up several screens worth, and also led to great distraction when reading the text - "N" is a lot less of a distraction than "123", espcially if two cites are provided in a row for one fact, ie "NN" versus "[123] [125]"
I'll get cracking on everything else - PocklingtonDan 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The placement does seem to vary—although I've certainly seen any number of British works using the footnote-after-punctuation system—but the Wikipedia convention is to place the notes after most punctuation; see WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE.
As far as the formatting of the notes themselves, I suspect this is largely an issue of personal preference. I tend to have no problems with very long sections of footnotes; but I also tend to add a lot of annotations to them, which wouldn't be possible with a more compact form. As I said, I have no problems with the principle here; my only concern is that these templates won't render correctly when the article is printed/accessed on a portable device/viewed through a text-only browser/etc. I suspect that you'll hear plenty of opinions on this topic once you take the article to FAC, though. Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, do you think if I reverted to plain footnotes it would then be possible to have them hidden by default by displayed by election, ie as the "More information" section int he MILHIST banner at eg Talk:Campaign history of the Roman military???? This would seem to address both your concerns and mine if possible... - PocklingtonDan 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a particularly clean solution; the collapsed-by-default section will prevent the actual hyperlinks in the note numbers from working. Whether that's better or worse than the current setup, I don't know; but, strictly speaking, both of them are "broken" in certain scenarios. Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer it to the current solution though - it solves the problem of being neat and hiding the footnotes until the time anyone elects to show them for printing or whatever. Do you know how to implement this? - PocklingtonDan 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add the following at the top of the "References" section, before the bibliographic listing:
{| class="collapsible collapsed" width="100%" style="border: 1px silver solid; background: transparent;"
|-
! style="text-align: left;" | Notes
|-
| <references/>
|}
One additional point you might want to think about: the article is quite long. I don't see that as a problem, personally; but it's almost certain that somebody will bring it up at FAC. Kirill Lokshin 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) thanks for the footnote code, I think I will use this. As for the article length, I do think it is too long in that it is not an easy on-screen read in a single sitting, but I don't think its too long in that its a good go-to summary of all of rome's military campaigns. I think it depends what you want to use the article for - PocklingtonDan 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just to say thanks for some really excellent input, I notice that at times it seems as if you are tackling all the MILHIST peer reviews etc single-handed and you still find the time to give useful, in-depth responses to each, so thanks - PocklingtonDan 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geography Cup[edit]

Any comments, suggestions, criticism is much appreciated. I have done most of the work on the article and would like some fresh eyes to look it over. Any help is much appreciated, especially with the introductory paragraph. Grhs126studenttalk 23:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/tenreas.PDF)

peace, maegan

Coca-Cola[edit]

I am requsting a peer review for Coca-Cola because it has been recently promoted to Good Article Status and I want to know what needs to be done to promote the article to Featured Article Status. Natl1 18:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most obvious thing the article needs are references. There are a few very well sourced sections and others, which barely have any references.


  • The lead section includes the phrase "well into the 21st cenury", which should be changed to "to the present day", because the current version implies that the drink stopped being popular after some time in the 21st century.



  • It would be cool, if the year Pemberton's French Wine Coca was invented was mentioned


  • "Coca-Cola did actually contain cocaine at one point per se, which is a highly refined extract of coca leaves and was always far too expensive to use in a mass-market beverage. However, as cocaine is one of numerous alkaloids present in the coca leaf, it was nevertheless present in the drink." These sentences need to be re-written.


  • There is no information on the period between 1891 and WWII or the period from WWII to 1985


  • A few senteces in the first paragraph of the New Coke section use present tense. If the studies that are mentioned are indeed recent, than they do not belong in that section, if not some kind of past tense should be used.


  • The sub-sections "Coca-Cola and local competitors" and "Coca-Cola and Islam" do not belong in the history section. The latter should probably be moved into the criticism section


  • The "Coca-Cola and local competitors" needs to be turned into prose.
Done--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • The prase "is seen as a competitor" should be clarified (by whom, are these brands really competitors)


  • The "Coca-Cola formula" section should be expanded


  • The phrase "is said" in the "Franchised production model" and "Bottle and logo design" sections should also be clarified or replaced
  • "Bottle and logo design" should cover all notable bottle and can designs
  • The infromation about the SINALTRAINAL lawsuit should probably be moved into the criticism section.
  • It would be nice to see some statistics on sales, popularity, brand recognition, etc.

Those are just the first things I noticed, but there are plenty more. All in all the article only seems to cover three parts of the drink's history (early history, WWII, and the New Coke incident), but I'm sure there is more to say.--Carabinieri 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case[edit]

In response to a request on my talk page, as a member of the soft drinks project I printed this out and went through it with a red pen.

To be brutally frank about this, I would not have passed this were I the GA reviewer, and I am strongly tempted to put it on GA review. There are some major problems here.

Here are just the general ones.

  • Lack of needed references, as noted here already. To give just one example: "In the United States, there is only one plant in New Jersey authorized by the Federal Government to grow the coca plant for Coca-Cola syrup manufacture." This cannot stand uncited.
  • Tendency to confuse history of the drink with the history of The Coca-Cola Company. The article wanders off-topic a lot as a result. This is evident right at the third graf of the intro, which goes off on a tangent dicussing the company's relationship with its bottlers. That deserves one sentence there at best. Stay focused on the sweet fizzy brown stuff.
  • Fragmentary presentation of information. There's a brief discussion of the bottles (which creates some confusion ... if the drink was first bottled in 1891, why wasn't it sold in bottles until 1894? This needs to be fixed or explained) in the history section, then a whole section "Bottle and logo design" several screens down in Production. Why not put all that history together in that latter section? And this isn't the only example.
  • Clunky prose."During the 1980s, Pepsi-Cola ran a series of television advertisements showing people participating in taste tests in which they expressed a preference for Pepsi over Coke" Even if we didn't already have an article on the Pepsi Challenge that could render most of this sentence unnecessary, it's still horribly wordy. "Although endorsed by the company, this version of events is not considered authoritative by many who cite its implausibility as difficult to believe". The implausibility is difficult to believe? Also, note the weasel words here.



And whatever the straw poll on the talk page said, the local competitors section is, to me, better off as a list (and probably a shorter one, as it's terribly crufty)

Not Done-Sorry alot of users put that they wanted the section as prose in their reviews/ or comments--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Coca-Cola has a policy of avoiding using children younger than the age of 12 in any of its advertising as a result of a lawsuit from the beginning of the 20th century that alleged that Coke's caffeine content was dangerous to children". I can't get through that classic run-on sentence without losing my breath.
Done--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • A veritable nest of weasels

It is possible that customers would not have noticed the change if it had been made secretly or gradually, and thus brand loyalty could have been maintained. Coca-Cola management was unprepared, however, for the nostalgic sentiments the drink aroused in the American public; some compared changing the Coke formula to rewriting the American Constitution.

These are all over the place.

  • Contradicts itself on a key point:

Although numerous court cases have been filed against The Coca-Cola Company since the 1920s, alleging that the acidity of the drink is dangerous, no evidence corroborating this claim has been found. Under normal conditions, scientific evidence indicates Coca-Cola's acidity causes no immediate harm.

Like most other colas, Coca-Cola contains phosphoric acid. One study has shown that this hastens bone loss, contributing to illnesses such as osteoporosis.

So first its acidity isn't a problem, then it is. This needs some explanation, to put it mildly.
  • The New Coke section. OK, I'm probably not the most impartial reviewer here because I've put so much time and effort into New Coke myself, but the article could use more than a nodding acquaintance with what's written there. Since they don't have much to say other than their connection to New Coke, I made the Mullins and Old Cola Drinkers' articles into redirects a long time ago. There are cited sources there aplenty for quite a few things in that section; feel free to borrow them for this article. The bit about Madagascar absolutely needs to be sourced; it sounds very UL-ish. And I don't see what semantic purpose is served by "volte-face" beyond confusing most readers.

    I can also say that reading the New Coke article closely would allow for writing some better history; you can't avoid mentioning Sergio Zyman's role in that.

  • Overall structural and organizational flaws. There are paragraphs within sections, and indeed sentences within some paragraphs, that I want to take by the hand and introduce to their neighbors, since they've obviously not yet met.

Enough. I would really love to see this article get back to featured status, but it's a very long way yet. It needs to be taken into the shop for a major overhaul. There is potential here, as there once was, but that's almost all there is right now.

Given the subject's overreaching importance within the WikiProject and indeed within the modern world, I think it needs a lot of daughter articles spun off. History of Coca-Cola should be made a real article instead of a redirect, and we could have Advertising of Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola Bottle as well. There's just way too much here for one article to embrace. But that doesn't mean the one article can't be a good or featured one.

For research, I heartily recommend not only the Prendergast book already cited a few times (probably the best history of Coke), but the Constance Hays and Tom Oliver volumes cited extensively at New Coke.

I'll see what I can do in the immediate future regarding the more specific and minor things on my printout. Daniel Case 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



==

Headline text[edit]

New Coke Section[edit]

Much of this is unreferenced - seeing as claims are made that one person told another person something, there should be a citable reference. People are quoted, a lawsuit is claimed to have been filed -- better cite references for all of this. Squamate 14:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ==[reply]

Sunderland[edit]

This article is large and full of detailed information, with quality images. Contributed to be mostly experienced users, little vandalism. The article I feel could have room for improvement, and I wish it to be a featured article. So we need to improve it. Rasillon 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally 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==.[?]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has undergone numerous positive changes since this peer review was initiated. Further feedback would be welcomed. John the mackem 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Notorious B.I.G.[edit]

This article has had problems with neutrality/weasel words, which I've tried to fix, and some debate over the amount of album information included. Has the article overcome enough of this to meet GA- or higher standards? Laalaaa 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice job. But it needs some further "polishing", in order to "shine". This is my review:

  • "Christopher George Latore Wallace (May 21, 1972 – March 9, 1997), also known as Biggie Smalls (after a gangster in the 1975 film Let's Do It Again), Big Poppa, Frank White (from the film King of New York), and The Notorious B.I.G. (Business Instead of Game[1])". From all these names, why do we choose "The Notorious B.I.G." as title of the article? Was it more often used than the other names? What makes it more special?
  • Note 1:"After he switched from dealing drugs to rap; see [1]". This is an external jump. These jumps are not nice. Prefer link containing text.
  • "Born in Brooklyn, New York, Biggie grew up during the peak years of the 1980s crack epidemic." What is your point here? What had the "crack epidemic" to do with his growing?
  • In general, my impression is that the flow of the lead is not so good. An X statement is not so well connected with the next V statement.
  • "Biggie was noted for his storytelling and freestyling abilities, and his easy to understand lyrics." His "easy" or his "ease"? And to understand what exactly; the meaning of the lyrics? Why is this notable? Don't other rappers understand lyrics?
  • "Christopher Wallace was born ... ", "Wallace had started ...", "In August 1995, Biggie's protegé group ...". Choose a name for him? I think you should only use the title's name "The Notorious B.I.G. ...".
  • "In March 1992, Biggie featured in The Source's Unsigned Hype column, dedicated to aspiring rappers and was invited to produce a recording with other unsigned artists, in a move that was apparently unusual at the time." Why was it unusual?
  • "Biggie's first child, T-Yanna, was born on August 10, 1992." Was he married or not?
  • "With his new daughter in immediate financial need ... ". Why was she sick?
  • "Once discovered by Combs, Biggie quit and became a full-time hip hop artist." Quit the drugs' dealing you mean? How did Combs convince him?
  • "This was his first remix to chart that featured solely hip hop artists." I asked for a citation here. Try to have at least one citation in each paragraph, and to cite all the important assessments.
  • "In August 1995, Biggie's protegé group, Junior M.A.F.I.A. (Junior Masters At Finding Intelligent Attitudes), released their debut album." Why hadn't you told us earlier that he had created a protegé group? When was it created?
  • "Biggie continued to collaborate with R&B artists, in 1995 appearing with Bad Boy groups 112 (on "Only You") and Total (on "Can't You See"), both charting in the top 20 of the Hot 100." Try to avoid one-sentence stubby paragraphs like this one.
  • "In the summer of 1996, he arrested at his home in Teaneck, New Jersey for drug and weapons possession charges.[6]" But you had told us that "once discovered by Combs, Biggie quit and became a full-time hip hop artist." Had he really stopped dealing drugs? Is your first assessment that "he quit" accurate or not? He did stopped, but then restarted?
  • "and that Biggie had adopted his persona". What do you mean here exactly?
  • In "Style" there is a tense mixture; present tense in one paragraph and past tense in another one.
  • "TIME magazine write Biggie raps with an ability to "make multi-syllabic rhymes sound... smooth".[32] Krims describes Biggie's rhythmic style as "effusive".[33] Before starting a verse, Biggie sometimes uses onomatopoeic vocables to "warm up"" The prose is a bit choppy here.
  • In "Lyrical content" I see the verb "describe" repeatedly used, and I also see once again a tense mixture.
  • "Before his death, Biggie created a hip-hop supergroup called The Commission, which consisted of himself, Jay-Z, Lil' Cease, P. Diddy and Charli Baltimore. " I think this should be a part of his biography.
  • Get rid of "Trivia"! Such sections are no longer esteemed. If the info there is useful, incorporate it in the main text.
  • Get also rid of "See also"! The links there are already linked in the main text, and, if one or two are not, you can easily link them (if you think they are necessary).
  • Notes 31 and 32 are empty.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 14:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. They're very helpful. Re: names, I was trying to refer to him as Wallace until he uses "Biggie" as his rap alias, but it does make more sense to use one name throughout the article. Laalaaa 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BFeen[edit]

"Since his death, a further two albums..."
→At the least, fix the grammar. At the most, "Biggie's presence over rap music and hip-hop culture continues to influence modern day artists, as many cite, both explicitly and implicitly, him as a seminal influence in their lyrics, styles, and videos.

Childhood and Youth section
"These experiences with crime, drugs, and violence would serve as inspiration for Biggie's lyrical content and persona. In the song "Sky's the Limit," he centers the story around his school-day drug-dealing.

Ted Kennedy[edit]

Article on an influential politician, is currently a GA, requesting general feedback to boost it to FA level. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 05:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

  • Not too necessary, but you may want to find a citation for the first line: "Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy (born February 22, 1932) is the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Democratic Party." Just find a list of democratic senators, it shouldn't be too hard. FA review will see the citation, and they'll like the article at the start.
  • "In office since November 1962, Kennedy is presently the second-longest serving member of the Senate, after Robert Byrd of West Virginia" This is a big claim, citation please. Again, it shouldn't be too hard to find.
  • "and is one of the most influential and enduring icons of his party." Watch out. Such large claims lead to WP:PEACOCK violations. For such a large claim, again a citation should be found.
  • P.S. I'm a big pain about citations.
  • "He is known for being a skillful backroom negotiator who occasionally works with Republican legislators and presidents to reach an acceptable compromise." This is rumour, remove it or verification/citation should be added.
  • on the first line of the new section, address him as "Ted Kennedy" Not just "Kennedy."
  • "he was caught cheating on his final examination in a Spanish class" Citation, please.
  • "Kennedy then entered the U.S. Army for two..." The 'then' interupts flow.
  • "(won by Yale 21 to 7)" Say "(Yale won, 21 to 7)."
  • "Kennedy caught Harvard's only touchdown pass." Big boast, citation please.
  • Upon the second paragraph in family and youth, you switch tenses.
  • In the career opening section, you may want to just cite something as an authoritive proof that these are the commities he's on.
  • "Kennedy's career in the Senate has frequently attracted national attention." Broad claim, citation please.

This is all I can do at this time, drop a line when you're ready for more. Remember, the reason that I'm asking for so many citations is that this article makes broad, swooping claims, which FA review hates when unsourced. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 00:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of Fraternities at Williams College[edit]

This article seems like it was cut 'N pasted from willipedia, the Williams College version of wikipedia. The format seems odd...I'd like a second opinion or two. Contributions would be appreciated as well! SERSeanCrane 08:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Gurs[edit]

This article was translated by several editors, including myself, from the Spanish Wikipedia version, which is featured. As a result of that, it doesn't have inline citations, and may not be as comprehensive as is the FA or even GA standard here on the English Wikipedia. Any other advice on improvement to this article would be very appreciated. --Fsotrain09 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori method[edit]

This poor article is in need of a lot of help. Unreferenced sources, POV language, and lots of fluff. Anything people could would be greatly appreciated.

Especially citations of actual criticisms from valid sources. Thunderbolt16 06:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King George V School[edit]

I would like an article assesment and importance rating on this article and ways of improvement.

After you made the assesment and importance rating could you please put it on the talk page in the template 

{{WPSchools
 |class=
 |importance=
 }}


Put the assement rating on the class bit and the importance rating on the imortance bit. It will on the top of the page.

It will look like this:

Thanks a lot KGV 05:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

I made the assessment at a B-class; I don't feel able to judge the importance. The main reason it won't get any higher at present is a lack of references. The whole article needs citing. It's also weak on history, and a bit too focused on more recent events. Trebor 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Rogers III[edit]

Improvements were made to the article in December 2006, I would like an article assessment and any notes to improve the article. Unfortunately I haven't found an image, but I think the basics of a biography are present. There is also a minor content issue involving the frequency of pipe bombings in San Diego in 1996, maybe someone could add their opinion on that issue as well. Thanks in advance for any comments. --Dual Freq 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed the citations as best I can, added some more biographical material and a couple of fairuse images, if there are anymore questions, I'd be happy to address them. Thanks. --Dual Freq 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Let's see:

  • The main issue with the article, at this point, is that it's unacceptably terse. The primary reason why Rogers is known is the IR655 incident; the article only devotes two sentences to it. The main Iran Air Flight 655 article is meant to have more detail on the incident as a whole, of course; but it has, at the moment, more material on Rogers' role in it specifically, which isn't a good thing.
  • The prose is quite choppy, with numerous one-sentence paragraphs. The text should really be coalesced into meatier blocks.
  • The section headings should be in sentence case.

Other than that, this looks to have the basics down. As far as an image goes, is there an official one available from the Navy? Kirill Lokshin 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I looked pretty hard through the DOD images site for an image, but I was unable to locate one. I suppose I could find his book and scan the dust cover photo, but I was trying to avoid fair use and hoping another editor might be able to locate one. The Iran Air section was removed from the article by another editor and pointed to the main article. I could try to re-add it, but I'm afraid it will revert back to it's previous condition describing the incident with quotes like:it "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago" I'll see if I can add a brief summary of the incident. --Dual Freq 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a pretty interesting quote, but obviously needs to be given with more context. Mainly, the article should devote some more space to describing the controversy, particularly insofar as it touches on Rogers' own role in the incident. The question of whether Rogers' actions were appropriate is one that's been one of the focal points of the incident and its historiography; at the moment, the article doesn't really even indicate that his actions were controversial. Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an overview of the downing incident, but I'm finding it difficult to summarize it in just a few paragraphs. Maybe you could skim through it once and let me know if it's overly POV one way or another. Also, I'm wondering about the need for the 1996 note that pipe bombs are a common occurrence as the bombing occurred in 1989. --Dual Freq 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The overview looks pretty good, at least as far as I can tell. The length and depth is something to play with; the article is quite short, so there's no problem with adding more material, but we don't want to go off on too many tangents that aren't related to Rogers himself.
As far as the pipe bombs are concerned: unless there's some reason to believe that the statement was related in some way to the Rogers case, I wouldn't include it, as it seems too tenuous a connection otherwise. Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor is rather insistent about keeping the 1996 pipe bomb statement, if I remove it again they will likely just re-add it. I think it's being used to refute Roger's book and the widespread assumptions from 1989 that the bombing was terrorism related as payback for the Iran Air downing. The source doesn't draw that conclusion and only mentions it as a notable bombing in San Diego's history so I wanted to remove it, but have been unable to. --Dual Freq 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "Early life and career prior to 1988" offers insufficient information for the first 50 years of his life. I think the section could be expanded and maybe split in two sections: 1) "Early life" and 2) "Career prior to 1988".
  • Some sentences in the same section look to me problematic: "He was commissioned December 1965, his first tour of duty was the aircraft carrier, USS Independence (CV-62)." "Captain Rogers married Sharon Rogers, also from Fort Worth, Texas, they had one son Will C. Rogers IV who was born around 1969." Maybe the punctuation is here the problem, but, in general, I think the prose of this section is a bit choppy.
  • "At the time, Vincennes was one of only five cruisers commissioned that carried the new Aegis weapons system and command of those cruisers was considered to be very prestigious." IMO you should devote a few more words to what is exactly "the new Aegis weapons system".
  • "Received with skepticism by some". "Some" who?! Too vague! CIte and explain, if there is available information.
  • "Storm Center: A Personal Account of Tragedy & Terrorism. Sharon Rogers, Will Rogers, Gene Gregston. Naval Institute Press, June 1992. ISBN 1-55750-727-9." When you cite a book, you should mention pages.
  • The formating of your online citations in not uniform. You can use Template:cite web and Template:cite news, sincr full citations are needed.--Yannismarou 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Unfortunately, I don't have any further information at this time about Rogers first 50 years. Since he is only notable for a single incident there isn't much out there. I'm trying to get a hold of his book to see if it include more biographical details, but it's not available at my local library. I've remove the skeptics part since that is addressed in the following paragraph and the Iran Air 655 article. As for the Aegis bit, perhaps I assumed people would find the Aegis info from the linked pages, I've tried to summarize it. I suppose it deserves even more treatment since some of the blame for the Iran Air downing has been directed towards the system. I'll rework the citations as soon as I can. Thanks again. --Dual Freq 17:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated[edit]

Freak Out![edit]

I did a lot of work on this article to bring it from its original state to its current level of quality. How did I do? (Ibaranoff24 11:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)) (To clarify, I am trying to get this article to FA status. - Ibaranoff24 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Trebor[edit]

I like it, good work. My main problem is the second paragraph of the lead because, while written in very attractive prose, it doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic. It's very POV - obviously written by a Zappa fan - and without citations, it's also original research. Added to that, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, yet most of the points raised aren't mentioned later on. Also, is there any more information on the inspiration for some of the songs on the album? Aside from that, I like it. Trebor 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response! Looking at it in more detail (it'd also be useful to know what you're aiming for with this - featured?):
  • Freak Out! was one of the earliest double albums, and also one of the earliest concept albums - too similar to the sentence in the lead without enough expansion. Perhaps just explain how it was a concept album and don't repeat that's it's a "double".
  • The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - wikilink
  • Is there any more information that could be added on people's opinions today (like the top 500 album of all time ranking)? Trebor 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute[edit]

I've been helping with some cleanup on this article, and I think it should eventually pass the GA nom. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Danski14 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

  • Tidy up the references, use the appropriate cite template to get them automatically formatted with source, title, reference date and so on.
  • There are a number of external links embedded in the article, which is a bit messy. Link to the Wikipedia page, or put them in External Links (or don't link at all if they're not very relevant).  Done(except campus links to maps, and still could use a little tweaking)
  • As ridiculous as this arrangement sound - very POV.  Done
  • The first couple of sections are good, but it becomes listy and unreferenced later on (particularly Campus) Done(references added}
  • The title of the last section should probably be Notable alumni  Done

Pretty good, but needs a bit of a tidy-up throughout. I haven't looked at the prose in any great detail either. Trebor 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I worked on the citations. I agree that campus is a little listy, but am unsure of what to do, if anything. Danski14 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the prose elaborates on the periods of expansion, the list at the start may be unnecessary. But I was mainly referring to the lack of citations for the whole of the Campus section. Trebor 22:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I will add one or two more. Danski14 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gurion International Airport[edit]

Wanting feedback as to whether this article in general is a 'good article' which could be put forward as an 'A' grade standard airport article. Flymeoutofhere 12:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 metres, use 500 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500&nbsp;metres.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 15 km.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • “In the year [of] 2000”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing at it, it doesn't appear to have any citations or sources, which will be an immediate barrier to A-class. Trebor 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Van de Kamp[edit]

Ok, I've been working on this for a while, and now I want to take it to FAC some time soon. I've tried to keep the biography as short as possible, though it proved trying. The characterization and reception sections are the result of my trawling through every single Google search result on Andrew, all 37 pages of it. I would welcome any tips to get it to FA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm "qualified" to review this, but most of this article deals with Andrew's character rather than Andrew himself. What kind of person is he like? What are his other accomplishments beyond Desperate Housewives ? How about his early life? Things like that. - Pandacomics 08:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Andrew isn't a real person. He doesn't exist outside of desperate housewives... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't suggest anything as it seems ready for FA already. Of course any more info is always welcome. LuciferMorgan 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main picture has been tagged for deletion in a week due to copyright crap. Apart from that, seems like an excellent article, no suggestions here. God he's so hot. :-) Mentality 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Van De Kamp[edit]

I have been working on and off on this article for a while now, and recently a user has come along and removed vast swathes of what I have written. As I was planning on making this FA eventually, I suppose it might be a good time to peer review Andrew. So, how do I make this article FA? Should I use the current version, or the previous version? Comments would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the automated suggestions, because they aren't in the slightest helpful (and never have been for any article I've ever peer reviewed). Some human input would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

It looks generally good. Thoughts:

  • I would aim for somewhere in-between the two leads, maybe two longer paragraphs than four short ones, since it's a fairly short article
  • Sentence beginning His manipulative tactics is long and snaky separating the main clause with a lot of subclauses
  • I'm not really sure whether the longer or shorter biography should be used; again, I might go for somewhere in-between. I think the cites should be included where possible, though, as there's no advantage to not having them. The problem with this article seems to be trying to keep it mostly out-of-universe (per WP:WAF). Is there anything more you could say about the character or critical development?
  • Are the two sentences starting from From Andrew's hurt cited? If not, it's original research, since you're working out what it implies.
  • Interestingly however - the "however" isn't contradicting anything so is redundant (the "despite" does it for you). Interestingly isn't really necessary either, and is ever-so-slightly POV.
  • However, Shawn - again, no contradiction, no need for it

I'm not sure if any similar articles (minor fictional characters) have become an FA; I'd be interested to see how this one goes down. It is fairly short, and about half of it is in-universe, which may be seen as problems. That said, you can only write with the information available and, presuming this is comprehensive, it seems pretty good. Trebor 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to work on your suggestions this weekend. Thank you for the peer review! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle[edit]

I'm reviewing this from a position of looking at the article with no knowledge of the topic.

Overall[edit]

A hypercritical proofread for syntax, etc, with the use of commas is needed. An example is Fed up Bree drove him to a gas station whcih shoudl read Fed up, Bree drove him to a gas station

The article seems written with regard to US TV audiences. The homosxuality issue is far less surprising in Europe, and homosexual kisses and embraces, while not the norm, are no longer surprising, certain in the UK. It may be possible to detail that in the article.

For me the style is a little too "narative" and not enough "encyclopaedic formal". I know we are not making this a "TV Review", I just feel a little more formality woudl be of benefit.

I just have a few specific comments below:

Prior to Season 1[edit]

This seems to me to be short to the point of being not worth including. Thus it requires expansion. Is it important?

Season 1[edit]

I'm not sure a diaresis is useful. If there is a never endling list of things he has done I feel it needs articulating

Season 2[edit]

Andrew, realizing he really is about to lose his mom, tells her that the only good thing is that he has won - won what? Fiddle Faddle 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This summary was not written by me, so I would be grateful if, like Trebor above, you could compare the current version, and the previous version, which I tried to reference and keep formal. I wasn't sure, as I have never written an article of this type before, which version would be preferable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. I can really only review the current article, because that is what appears to everyone. Comparing it with the prior version is an interesting academic exercise, but isn't really very usual, is it? Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Light dawns. You made that request at the top. Now I see what you were asking for. Still a little confusing, but I'll have a look when I can. Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This will get quite complex. I think you need to work forward form the version that is the current version, and incorporate the best bits of the prior version along with the various comments here. Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I must have forgotten to watchlist this, because I didn't see these comments. Thank you for your reviews, and I will try to address your concerns and criticisms this weekend. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to my version and cut out the more fancrufty bits. To be honest with you, this article now looks like a bit of a car crash in the Biography section. What tense should it be in? How do I make it "out-universe"? Anything else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fiddle Faddle after article reversion/rewrite[edit]

General[edit]

Good call to revert, unless, of course, that gets you into a revert war. I see what you mean about a car crash, but it's not too bad. However I still believe it looks like a review of the episode. I think it shoudl be more about the character. I would divide the bio from the plot. Now that is pretty tough to do since the plot is the bio in so many ways. What I mean is to make it more formal and less journalistic review.

references[edit]

My only real beef is the references. Have a look at Category:Citation templates especially at templates looking like Template:Cite web and others for episodes etc. Look also at the <ref>text</ref> structure and see how to re-use the same reference in multiple places. You do this with the syntax of <ref name="yourchosenname">Text which ideally includes the cite template that is relevant</ref> and then to re-use you insert <ref name="yourchosenname" /> (note the "/" character) where you re-use it. Obviously you use a different name each time. This will tidy the references section.

I don't use the muliple cites because the times provided in each reference are different. I felt the times were equivalent to page numbers. Should I remove them? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I read more closely that makes sense. I suggest you both leave them and add the "cite" template that is relevant for your needs. That way they leave a better impression. here you can also include quotations, for example. Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see more "stuff" I'll note it here for you. Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siemgi[edit]

I'm finally making my review to explain my stance a bit more

My ideas[edit]

While I respect all the work you have made (especially since quite a few of my articles have been harshly critised), I think that a profile must remain a profile and not become an exhaustive list of the character's actions. You go too far giving details that are not that important. I also do believe that you don't have to cite every moment of the show with notes as there is no doubt it's accurate. I think people come here to have an overview on the character not an extensive diary. I hope you won't take any offense from what I am writing as this is not my point. Secondly, I think the gay part is way to emphasized. Andrew is gay but not just gay if you see what I mean. And the introduction is a bit too long and redundant when you read the entire article, most of it belongs, at least I think so, to the character and criticism sections (which are great by the way). Actually your profile would be great on a fan site but maybe not on an encyclopedia. Look at all the bios on the other characters. they are way shorter still you get a could understanding of who the characters are. I'm open to any commentary on my review.

I am aware that my coverage of Andrew is too detailed, and I have started making moves to cut that down. Andrew is obviously a complex chracter (and don't I love him for it), but his sexuality has been his main storyline in Season 3, and the underlying cause of his behaviour in Season 2. I consider the biography section to need a great deal of work in terms of tone and tenses, and your criticisms of it are extremely valid. However, I would not compare this biography with that of other DH characters, as they are all written in a fancrufty in-universe type manner. I am trying to avoid and correct that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that while there perhaps is not a great need to cite his fictional actions with the appropriate episode, I consider it a useful thing to do and can't see the benefit in not including them. It just makes it slightly easier for someone to see where something happened (or, for that matter, someone to check the information is correct). Trebor 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the episode's title is fine. Saying on 13'40' ' is a bit too much. one source for everything that belongs to the episode would be enough. And maybe sum up the quotations so that it still shows the idea but doesn't look like a serie of quotes. Hope that helps Siemgi

Amenhotep I[edit]

I've been working on this article off and on for about six months, and since it just passed GA, I believe it time to expose it to greater scrutiny. Its major failing is that I alone have written most of the text, and accordingly it may read perfectly fine to me, since I have experience in the field, but it may not make a lot of sense to a layperson, and that is the kind of problem I want to flush out to fix. In general, confusing areas, styalistically awkward places, and big blank spots where you think somthing hasn't been covered enough would be good things to point out. Thanatosimii 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • could do with Prince-Governor being stubbed,
    • "certain scholars have argued that Amenhotep I may have done this as well." needs a cite after it.
    • other than that it looks good, but this isn't at all my area.
  • - Francis Tyers · 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, sometime in the eight years between Ahmose I's seventeenth regnal year and his death, the his heir... is a bit odd as a phrase. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union[edit]

Think needs another peer review so that the project members can decide what needs to be done to get this article up to Featured Article standard. - Shudda talk 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even just by scanning it I can tell it need a heck of a lot more references.Buc 11:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need "a heck of a lot more references" just for the sake of it? A great deal of the article discusses the rules of the game. In so doing, it references the official rules of the game. There are no other more appopriate references. Sometimes the citation mania in this place makes my head spin. As if multiple citations is the only proof of quality. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 02:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biggest problem is confusion, there has been a peer review or two in the past, and some people have complained that the article does is not coherant enough for the average person. I suggest breaking off Game laws and methods (except Players and officials and Playing field) into Game laws and methods of rugby union, and then writing a shorter more succinct overview of the Game laws and methods that everyone can understand, At present there are a million subsections. See this comment from an FAC.
  • The article also needs better use of images and their descriptions.
  • Also, merge Attire into Equipment.
  • Merge Possible alterations to the laws into Game laws and methods.
  • History needs re-writing, which I have outlined on the talk page.
  • Major international tournaments should be turned into one section such as "Notable competitions" to include club-regions etc.
  • Rugby coaching can be mentioned in Game laws and methods.
  • External links is too long.
  • Basically I propose to massively shorten the article to make it clearer and neater. Cvene64 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson NJ[edit]

Editors, admins, Please leave your comments and feedback for this article here. Thank you --Javierbaires1 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Javierbaires1[reply]

It's a decent start. Here's a few comments that I hope are of some use:
  • The introduction is a tad too short. It should serve as a summary of the entire article.
  • In my browser the Paterson neighborhoods template is colliding with the second image, messing up the layout.
  • "The City's Neighborhoods" section could do with a map showing the layout of the neighborhoods relative to each other.
  • "The Great Falls of the Passaic River in Paterson, which are the second-highest large-volume falls on the East Coast of the United States." Isn't "falls" singular in this usage? The "are" looks odd to me.
  • There is a severe paucity of citations in the article. (Particularly assertions such as "Paterson ... became the cradle of the industrial revolution in America.") For a heuristic, I'd recommend about one per paragraph.
  • Do you have any images for the History section? It could use one or two, or possibly the addition of sub-sections.
  • The geography section is very short. Per the FA'd Ann Arbor, Michigan article, it could use a paragraph or two on the climate. Also, by comparison, the Paterson page is missing a number of others sections, such as Economy and Culture. The Education section seems far too brief.
  • Would it make sense for the Diversity section to follow the Demographics section? In the Diversity section, how is diversity reflected in having multiple stores and restaurants? You could say the same about a shopping mall. ;-)
  • Sice => Since
  • If the page gets too long, you might consider moving "Famous Patersonians" to another page.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy[edit]

This vital article has undergone considerable expansion and I think it has reached a level of quality where it is about ready to be a Featured Article candidate. But before moving forward I was hoping to get peer feedback to make sure it is ship-shape and sufficiently thorough. (This is primarily a summary-style article on the subject. I'm counting on the sub-article links to cover individual topics in more detail.) Your helpful comments would be much appreciated! Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the lede sentence: "...a massive, gravitationally bound system that consists of stars, an interstellar medium of gas and dust, and an unknown dark matter." Should that read "an unknown amount of dark matter"? I don't know enough about the physics to say definitely yes, but just grammatically it sounds like something is missing there. Even if the statement is scientifically valid, an English-speaking layperson will be somewhat confused by the phrasing. Fsotrain09 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fsotrain: The nature of the dark matter itself is unknown, but not its mass. I believe that is what the first sentence is attempting to get across. Would "an unknown form of dark matter" be better? — RJH (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or "...and dark matter, an unknown substance." Some noun taking the adjective's modification besides the term itself. -Fsotrain09 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that it is a substance (which I take to mean Baryons), so I'll go with "type". Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks AndyZ, I've implemented most of your changes. I've always thought that adding in the date links for references seems excessive and nearly pointless, but they've also been added. — RJH (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainham, London[edit]

I nominated this page for review because I have made a big contribution to the article’s content, and I would like it to achieve at least good article status. I nominated it for good article status on 28th December 2006, and although it got some comments, I feel there is still room for improvement in the article. I would really like to achieve at least good article status, if not featured article. Thank you. Max Naylor 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Fish[edit]

Please take a look at the article on a serial killer, and see how it can be improved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Legacy" section could be cleaned up and prosified. LuciferMorgan 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a ghastly tale! I've made a few minor changes already but here are others suggestions:
It is mostly nicely referenced, but some paragraphs or parts of paragraphs are without citations.
Delete the space after the fullstops, commas etc before the reference tag
There are some stylistic things I would like to see changed. For example, find an alternative for the word "murder" (killings?) which is repeated too often in the first paragraph
Some sentences are unclear to

e.g. "He confessed to three murders that could be traced to a known homicide";

I was confused by the early life section, which maybe should be reordered a bit. Perhaps all the information about his father could go together, for example, and the bit about the name change and the orphanage go after the point where the orphanage is mentioned.
It would be good to put all the murders and attacks in order as it is strange going back to Billy Gaffney and the other murder after it looks like he should be in jail.
  • Comment I think the current order of the article is best with the information revealed as the case unfolds, rather than chrono order. I tried moving the Gaffney murder first, but most of the information was revealed only after his capture, so it seems out of place that way also. Its a tough call. Both the New York Times summary, and the crime library "events unfolding" order. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find another word for attack as in the "first attack" since I think raping kids is an attack for sure
Maybe put all the information about the psychiatrists opinions in one block in the trial section, rather than having part of it in the earlier sections.
I don't think Legacy is the right word for the last section. How about References in Popular Culture or somethin like that?

A gruesome life, but there is a lot of useful information there. Well done. --Slp1 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Any more comments on which format looks and reads best? 1) we have a pure chrono order from the perspective of Fish, 2) or the events as they unfold to the police and in the order Fish confesses to the crimes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link[edit]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is better than the first Zelda's article. I really felt like I had an idea as to what the game actually was. But a screenshot of the overworld, some more links and references, and some historical context would be nice. Did it have any effect on the console wars? Did Miyamoto take any flack for it? How involved was he? Plus the Talk: page is still messy. PS: the introduction has some strange-sounding locutions. You might want to scrutinize that. --Maru (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few years since the last peer review, and i feel that we may be well on our way to FA, and was hoping for some more tipsDurinsBane87 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

Few comments:

  • It's short on references, there are whole paragraphs and sections without cites.
  • Is there no more information on the development and reception. At the moment, it seems very focused on the gameplay and is predominantly in-universe.
  • There are a few stubby sections and paragraphs. Try to link it together to encourage a better flow.
  • For featured-quality, the images could do with more detailed fair use rationales.

It's good, but still needs some work. Trebor 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay32183[edit]

  • The gameplay section should probably be consolidated. It doesn't need to be sectioned off. It could probably also benefit with citations from the game manual or a player's guide.
  • The development section needs a good deal of expansion. Explain the process of developing this particular game, like how the story was written. Listing the developers isn't enough.
  • Check old gaming magazines for reviews, the reception section is empty.
  • Try and weed out details that are trivial. This is a general encyclopedia artical, not a fan's guide.
  • As suggested above, more sources and citations, and detail those fair use rationales for the specific use. Jay32183 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An additional note: complete dates should always link to the year in general for user preference purposes. Only link to year in video games when the year stands on its own. Jay32183 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isiah Leggett[edit]

I'm pretty new at this, so I started with a low-priority article. Need general assessment, including whether it follows general WP and project guidelines for style. Are there enough citations? What parts need to be expanded? Should there be more about family and personal life or should the emphasis remain on his political career? Mocko13 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galanskov[edit]

A good article so far. The style looks good to me. The article needs some more citations and interwiki links. I think the emphasis of this article should remain on his political career. Information on his personal life should be kept to the basics, such as whether or not he's married or has kids. The infobox could do with some more information. It might help if specific dates are given for some of the events described in the early life section. I'll help out. (Note: I'm a relative newbie around here too, so my recommendations may not be as good as those given by a veteran editor.) Galanskov 19:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

It's looking good so far, and I've upgraded the rating to B-class. I'll add my thoughts:

  • You should add the birth date in brackets after the name. See the style guidelines for biographies for more information on standard formatting.
  • During the 1970's - there is no need for an apostrophe in "1970's".
  • He would return - keeping it simple, just leave it as "he returned" (at the moment, there's a mismatch of tense with the rest of the sentence).
  • Be consistent in your wikilinking of dates (see here for the guideline). There are two basic rules to follow: if you have a month and a day, wikilink them together to allow user date preferences to set in (you can set in your preferences if you prefer August 10, or 10 August, for instance); and don't link years on their own unless it adds context. If there's a day, month and year, wikilink them all for date preferences. Hope you could follow that.
  • The whole article is a low on references. Ideally, every fact you include can be cited to a source, but at least aim for one cite per paragraph.
  • In the references, enter the accessdate as yyyy-mm-dd so it will be wikilinked and not come up as a redlink.
  • The image may not fall under fair use - as it is a living person, it is replaceable. If you can't get hold of a freely licensed image, don't worry, but I'm warning you that the image may be deleted. If you can get hold of or create a freely licensed image then that's great and add it to the article.

Those are my suggestions on how to improve it; keep up the good work. Trebor 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mocko13[edit]

Thanks for edit suggestions, made edits based on them. Going to keep the photo until it gets pulled. The article on Doug Duncan has one form the same source, which is why I went there. Mocko13 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Previous reviewers covered the major problems. Some minor remarks:

  • Per WP:MoS do not wikilink single years (e.g. 2006); only full dates (June 2, 2006).
  • Don't you have the full date of his birth?
  • "First Term as County Executive" looks a bit stubby to me. Can't you expand it a bit, analyzing the controversial issues you mention?--Yannismarou 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myco-heterotrophy[edit]

(Note that I am the main author and maintainer of this page.) So far, this has been rated as a Good Article. The article is in very good shape and has even been reviewed by Martin Bidartondo, one of the top authorities on this subject. I would like to have this article peer reviewed to see if it meets the criteria of an A-class article, and if not, what should be done to the article to bring it up to A-Class. (Note that the article is not long, but it is on a fairly specialized topic that does not require a long article.) Peter G Werner 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. I don't claim any scientific knowledge of the subject but it generally reads well. Some comments and questions:
  1. Is the bold text in the second section consistent with wp:mos? Most articles do not have so much bold text and confine it to the first paragraph.
  2. The paragraph that starts "The interface between..." is confusing. To what is the 'It' in the second sentence referring? The interface? The first sentence is also confusing. In which association? A partial or full myco-heterotrophic one? Or all of them?
  3. Is the word 'ultimately' necessary?
  4. Can you use the link to the external website as a source for a new article (which you could then link to)? Or could this info go in another existing article?
  5. Do the fungi do anything to stop the parasitic plant?
  6. Will one variety of plant always be associated with one variety of fungus or will many different fungus types support the plant?
  7. Are there any characteristics that all myco-heterotrophic plants share across the various groups that they come from? Or never have?
  8. How common are these types of plant? JMiall 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this point by point
  1. The bold text is consistent with WP:MOS. Many of these alternate terms represent existing redirect pages. Full and partial mycoheterotrophy represent a further introduction of terminology related to the core subject.
  2. Changed "It" to "Myco-heterotrophy".
  3. I'll think about that, but I think the word "ultimately" is necessary. Myco-heterotrophy strictly refers to the relationship between the parasitic plant and the fungus; when looking at the bigger picture of the mycorrhizal plant/mycorrhizal fungus/parasitic plant relationship, the parasitic plant is an epiparasite (an indirect parasite, or parasite on a symbiont).
  4. External links and further reading are sources of other articles on the same topic or more in-depth reading, even though I did not use these as sources for the article. I think this is nonetheless useful information to provide for the reader who may want to explore the topic further, even if I don't intend to use them to expand the article. I don't think the number of external links is excessive.
  5. There's no material on fungal defenses against myco-heterotrophic parasitism because I know of no research that's been done on this subject as of this date.
  6. Host/parasite specificity – will have to do more reading on that and add something to the article on this. I'm pretty sure snow plant (Sarcodes sanguinea) is associated with only one or a few species of Rhizopogon, while Allotropa virgata is parasitic upon matsutake. I'm not positive most myco-heterotrophic relationships are this specific – I'll have to some more reading.
  7. One characteristic that all share? Well, many (though not all) are non-photosynthetic, and I discuss that in the article.
  8. How common? Not sure how to answer that. As I mention, myco-heterotrophy is not uncommon in the plant kingdom. But in terms of how often you come across plants like this – it depends on the habitat, really. If I'm not mistaken, most northern coniferous forests contain at least a few monotropes and/or non-photosynthetic orchids. Anyway, that's not really a question most papers on the subject address, and I'm not really sure how to address that without starting to go into the realm of original research.
Peter G Werner 01:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at point 4, I was unclear on what you meant, but now I see – you're refering to the line to "common mycorrhizal network". Yes, in fact I think Wikipedia should have an article "Common mycorrhizal networks", but it doesn't, so I use the external link as a substitute for this shortcoming in Wikipedia. That's a whole other potentially big topic to take on. Do you think a better stop-gap solution might be to create a stub article for "common mycorrhizal network" with a link to the external article? Peter G Werner 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer a stub that includes the link as further reading rather than just a straight link to an external website. Who knows, someone else might populate the stub for you once it is created. On the characteristics question what I was driving at was 'do myco-heterotrophic plants always share certain characteristics apart from ones obviously related to myco-heterotrophy' like maybe leaf or seed types (maybe this is a daft question, apologies if that is the case). JMiall 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some useful suggestions here, though many of the boilerplate suggestions really don't apply. I don't think the article needs to be longer than it is. I'm trying for an A-class short article, not a Feature Article. As for copyediting, I've been pretty thorough with that (including printing several drafts and doing red-letter editing by hand). If somebody else wants to provide another set of eyes, they're welcome to. On the other hand, the suggestion to expand the introductory section so that it summarizes the article as a whole is a sound suggestion, and I'll do that. Also, I'll actually provide references for where these plants have been called "mycorrhizal cheaters" and the relationship seen as a biological "cheating" relationship. Peter G Werner 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Wallenberg[edit]

Please help improve this article for GA status. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tanzler[edit]

Please review and let me know if any changes are needed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riggs Stephenson[edit]

I made Riggs Stephenson nearly a month ago because I thought it would be excellent to showcase at DYK. It's a ~16KB article that is properly referenced, has an image, and is written in fairly decent prose. I want some second opinions on this article, as I am considering possibly expanding it and bringing it to GA. Thanks! Nishkid64 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velfarre[edit]

I have been trying to improve this article past stub-class quality, and would like some advice on howto continue. What would you want to know when viewing an article about a club? What would you not want to know? What images would you like to see when viewing this page, or a page about another club/disco? I know that this article isn't able to achieve featured article status, however I would like to give an accurate and complete description of velfarre. Also, please critque and comment on the writing style. I have tried to stay concise and informative. Thanks for reading and your time! -- Nictius 14:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline seems difficult to read and unecyclopedic to me. I suggest writing summarized paragraphs that cover the main events only. Sparkzilla 23:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial hypothesis[edit]

I am attempting to head of a showdown with another user whom holds conflicting views with myself on the appropriate level of skepticism to use when dealing with pseudoscience and the paranormal, and am requesting a peer review on this basis.

Ideally, I am looking for constructive comments on areas where this page needs altering to comply to comply with WP:NPOV, and that it is presenting an over view of the situation, rather than an argument for or against.

What I am not looking for are comments on WP:RS, or the factual/fictional nature of Aliens (this article is not actually about the truth of extraterrestrials, only the specific belief that some lights in the sky are/are not alien space ships).

perfectblue 12:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as long as the article avoids using opinions as the basis of proof of the hypothesis, then it is probably okay. The list of supporters of this hypothesis seems unbalanced; a corresponding list of opponents would likely be much longer. Perhaps the list could be set up as a category? The article could use a section concerning the nature of scientific inquiry in this context; including the strong requirement for reproducable results and the difficulting of absolutely disproving the existence of something (such as the existence of angels or demons, for example). Finally the McDonald quote is inordinately long and should be worked into the text. — RJH (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School band[edit]

The article needs some fixing up. A peer review would do good. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that it's hard to find much information to cite on this article. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Russell[edit]

Hi, the article about NBA legend Bill Russell is currently a GA, and I would gladly make it into a FA.

  • Does the prose flow nicely?
  • Is it accessible enough for non-experts, without being too verbose for NBA fans? (The problem is, I have no reference. There is currently no FA about a NBA player)
  • How to satisfy criterion 1a the best User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a, especially for sports subjects? :)
  • General remarks?

Thanks for reading, Onomatopoeia 11:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One note the picture in the infobox is not of a scaled down resolution. If you right click on the picture or the source picture and go to properties you can see both are 275 x 357 pixels. Scale down the picture as I'm sure somebody will mention this during FAC. You can edit it with an external application or save it to your computer then edit it but either way you need to scale down the resolution. Quadzilla99 19:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I copyedited it and added a photo with a full fair use rational, he was SI Sportsman of the Year and since it is now mentioned in the article a scaled down pic of the magazine can appear there. Quadzilla99 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I scaled down the resolution to 80% of source size should be fine. Quadzilla99 07:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made some wkfy edits to Bill Russell, hope those help. Chensiyuan 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
minor point - rpg, apg etc. should be made clearer in the article? in the sense that an ordinary reader who does not know much about basketball would not know what is rpg, apg, ppg... terms which are used many times in the article. Chensiyuan 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I wikilinked those the first time they are mentioned. That should solve the problem, if not just comment on what you feel needs to be done. Quadzilla99 09:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
russell's feats/achievements may also be over-repeated throughout the article... i remember reading about him winning a record number NBA titles 3-4 times... Chensiyuan 01:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, guys, and thank you. —Onomatopoeia 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot output (see AndyZ)[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 23:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Onomatopoeia 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Rumble[edit]

I need some advice on how to improve this article. Things could be added, removed, modified and polished but I am at a loss on deciding what needs to be done and what should take priority. My main concern is the layout but content is a huge issue as well. --Squilibob 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider expanding the reception and video game sections. In the reception section, make sure to include quotations from multiple sources (including any positive or negative reactions) that address all aspects of the series. Also, see if you might be able to reference the article some more; there are currently no inline citations in the first three sections. Has the series created any controversy (including any books/episodes pulled for one reason or another)? If so, that'd be a good thing to include. For an example, take a look at the Excel Saga article, which is currently a featured article. ShadowHalo 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "Media" section would be nice, that could cover the manga, the animes, the seiyu performances and CDs, the games, and various merchandise. Also, because of the recent cut, the article is lacking in pictures...(but an image for each character is overkill, maybe take a screenshot of the whole class together?) And the reception section is a bit short, but I guess there's no helping that...elaborate the issues with the fansubs or something. Hope this helps. _dk 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have expanded reception and video games which was merged in with the other information into the Media section. Added a picture of the cast from a screenshot of the OP theme and elaborated a little on the fansub issues. I've added some more in-line references and will search for some more. --Squilibob 10:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox picture shows the 2nd season logo from the anime, I think it is better if the one from the first season was put there instead. Because this article is not about the second season....And another point which may not have anything to do with this article...why do the characters all have their own articles? They really shouldn't, in my opinion. _dk 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anime section seems a bit empty. I'm thinking it needs info on the episode format (3 mini-episodes per episode), an episode list and, if possible, detailing the which manga chapters are adapted in the anime.--Nohansen 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta Lacks[edit]

Please help improve the article and leave critical comments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's a good article, but rather short, and needs citations on the "HeLa" and "Legacy" sections. Also, try to put actual citations in the footnotes and incorporate the present footnotes into the text. bibliomaniac15 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralphie[edit]

Any comments. I just heavily expanded the article. I'm looking to head for GA and eventually FA once Ralphie IV retires in a year. Any comments or questions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nmajdan[edit]

Good start for the article. Not too far away from GA quality. Some quick suggestions:

  • Who says being a Ralphie Runner is coveted?
    • Removed this. This part was from before I edited it, and I doubt I could find a source for this, though I did remove the other line with this that "they are like any other sport with tryouts" where I do have a source and some information about how they get to become a handler, but I figured this was about Ralphie and putting that in may be a bit excessive. Though it may be needed for FA? (MECU)
  • Is 25 mph normal for a female bison, or does the university have some special criteria for determining the next Ralphie?
    • According to American bison, they can run up to 35 mph, so 25 isn't special. I do have a source that says Ralphie IV was clocked at 20 seconds to run from one endzone to another, doing the conversion math that comes out to about 25 mph. I don't know if they have some special criteria. I think just getting one donated free is half the battle as buying one would be cost prohibitive. Ralphie IV is set to retire in a year so they should be getting another one ready so there will likely be information about that soon. (MECU)
  • Need references in the "Pre Ralphie era" section. Mainly the last sentence. Also in the 2nd para in that section.
    • Done (MECU)
  • The sentence "Live buffaloes continued to make appearances at CU games irregularly" could use some help. I understand what you're saying but having the word continued and irregulary just throws it off. Maybe something like "Live buffaloes continued to make sporadic appearances at CU games."
    • Agreed. I like using sporadic. (MECU)
  • First sentence in Ralphie II doesn't make sense.
    • I added a verb, that should help (I added "made her debut") (MECU)
  • There isn't a lot of citations for the older material. I'd like to see a source for the second sentence in Ralphie III.
    • Done. (MECU)
  • Is there a wikilink for Senator Lacy?
    • Nope, though I'll leave it redlinked since a state senator is worthy of an article, especially since she passed this important resolution! (MECU)
  • Fix the hypens inside of the quote template.
    • I'm not sure exactly where you mean, but there was -- above the quote and I changed into a long dash. Is that what you meant? (MECU)
      • Hmmm..... I could've sworn you had 13-year-old in the second WHEREAS when I reviewed it. But now its just 13yearold. Nevertheless, I think it needs spaces or hypens.--NMajdan•talk
  • Facts in the first para in Ralphie IV needs to be cited.
    • I shall work on this. All that will be referenced! (MECU)
  • After "1,300 pounds" please provide the metric equivalent per MOS.
    • Done, thanks. (MECU)
      • Per WP:MOSNUM, you should use the same level of precision for these two numbers. You use 1,300 pounds so instead of 589.67 kilograms, you should probably round that to 590. Also, the measurement in parentheses should be abbreviated, so change it to kg. (See here.)-NMajdan•talk
        • Thanks for pointing out how exactly to do that and covering my laziness. --MECU≈talk 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mere existence of Ralphie causes fear in opposing players." I don't know about that sentence from an encyclopedic point-of-view. The players were scared cause its a 1300 pound wild animal and they don't want to be in front of it.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the source for that, the article talks about how some of the opposing players were talking about how they wouldn't go near her at the game, before they had even seen her! I would call that "the existence causes fear", but I do see your point. I guess it's a little homerism on my part, but I do think the sentence can be reworked into something more encyclopedic. Perhaps "Players have stated they were afraid of being run over by Ralphie. Some are even afraid to approach her." Using the same cite? It would tie better with the next sentence that someone actually did get runover. --MECU≈talk 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your great comments Nmajdan! --MECU≈talk 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex[edit]

I am curious as to who pays for the upkeep for Ralphie. Does it come out of the athletic department funds? Buying a bison is not that expensive. A calf costs between $1,500 and $2,500 which is about twice the cost of a steer.[2] They eat mostly grass. In fact, they eat a higher percentage of grass than any other large grazer - the domesticated cow requires a higher percentage of nutrient rich feed.[3] You do need a fair amount of space for grazing, obviously.

So, I am thinking the major costs would be in things like vet visits, transportation, etc. In the case of UT's Bevo, the rancher who owns the Longhorn steer offers the steer for free to UT and the rancher still keeps the steer when the steer is not appearing at functions. As far as I know, they pay for all the upkeep and vet bills etc. I think the Silver Spurs pay for the transportation to games and the like - probably with money from donations and appearance fees.

Anyway, I mention all this because it might enhance the article to know more about the financing behind Ralphie.

It is a good article. Keep up the good work. Johntex\talk 05:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is already addressed, although not to the level of detail you provided above, in the article. Under Ralphie IV, the last paragraph talks about the Ralphie Fund started in 2002 by Stromberg who donated her life savings when she passed. More detailed information about her (Ralphie, not Stromberg) care would improve the article though. --MECU≈talk 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution of children[edit]

The article needs a complete re-write as it as confusing to readers. Full of typos, and needs attention from several users. Retiono Virginian 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Only Fools and Horses episodes[edit]

Just looking for suggestions to being this up to Featured List standard. What aspects need to be removed, cited or clarified etc. SteveO 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Dragons of Autumn Twilight[edit]

I did some work on the article a while back and got it to B-Class, but I'd really like to move it up hopefully to GA. I'd basically enjoy any and all comments on general improvements to get it to GA status, and in addition it would be very helpful if you could describe the coherence of the plot summary from the perspective of one unfamiliar with the topic. Thank you! DoomsDay349 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks decent. Some of the paragraphs are rather long and could use some splits. I was hoping to find something in this article about the book's influence on TSR's fantasy fiction publishing business. Also any sort of critical review information would be good as well. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

It's getting towards GA-class, but needs a fair bit of work. My thoughts:

  • The lead is a little short, and shouldn't include a one-sentence paragraph. Expand and summarise the article.
  • The individual title meaning may be a reference... - needs a cite to avoid being original research
  • Even worse - POV statement
  • The plot synopsis is alright, but a bit heavy on jargon and names (I've never read this). Could it be trimmed into a more succinct summary, focusing on only the key characters and events. It also chagnes between very long paragraphs and one-sentence ones - try to keep their lengths approximately equal.
  • Importance to Dragonlance should go above the release dates, to keep the prose together
  • Trivia sections should be incorporated into the text preferably, but this one contains mostly the same type of trivia, so perhaps it could be renamed
  • If there are any professional reviews, they could be put in a new section

As I said, it's alright but a bit unbalanced at present. If you haven't already, you may want to read WP:WAF. Trebor 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'll take it into account and fix it up later tonight or tomorrow. I'll have to dig up a reference for the title meaning...hm. Everything else seems pretty easy to fix, except professional reviews; they're quite hard to find for this topic. DoomsDay349 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; I was suggesting it in case it had been overlooked. You can only make the article as good as sources permit (obviously). Trebor 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't gotten to these, I've been busy the lat few days. Maybe this weekend, if I can. DoomsDay349 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worry, I'm not in any rush :) Trebor 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good; Neither am I :) It's taking me some time to get to this..hopefully, I'll have a snow day tomorrow (yay Chardon) so I might get to it. If not, weekend. DoomsDay349 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Big O media[edit]

As per SidiLemine's suggestion, I'm putting this article through peer review with the intention of going to WP:FLC.--Nohansen 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GunnarRene

Here a pseudo-random review. (I've removed irrelevant parts)

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[1]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Avoid using contractions like: don't, won't, won't, haven't, hasn't.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: Before you move to featured list candidate, at least a majority of the episodes should have articles, as per FLC criteria 1 a. --GunnarRene 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice the videos from Youtube were removed. Thanks for fixing that. I'll see to working on more sources... I sort of threw together the list over the span of a few weeks. Looks good though, if I do say so myself.
Also: I was going to create episode specific articles, but was discouraged from doing so. See here. Anyone else have a say in this? Episode articles: in or out?--Nohansen 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, creating episode artiles should perhaps wait untill you have encyclopedic info to justify their creation. I also wanted to not make episode articles, but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links", and I was also getting more information than what would comfortably fit within a list. I also needed to refer to individual episodes. So that's why I created articles.
In any case, do all the other stuff first, and save episode articles to last. And if you can, give feedback on the RahXephon FLC above; negative citicism is very much appreciated too, for the improvement of the list. --GunnarRene 03:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links"". While it is true that large amounts of red links are discouraged in FLCs, the existence of links is not always important. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and List of Planetes episodes is a good example. --SteveA026 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That list had an article for each and every episode that only included the same plot summary as in the list, and I believe that was also the situation when promoted. Ned Scot recently redirected all the episode titles to the list and de-linked them. And rightly so. If an unlinked plot summary is the main focus of the article, then that is not something which we should have. And I agree that we should promote otherwise good episode lists even if they don't have an article for any episode — as long as it's good in other ways.--GunnarRene 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article, following the guidelines in WP:EPISODE, and now it's been redirected to the media list. Any reason why this article was singled out? I understand SteveA026 had a problem with "forum posts as references", but couldn't you just remove the link?... Which, by the way, isn't a "forum post" in the pejorative sense of the phrase. It's just that the Save Big-O site has their episode synopsis in a forum. See here: "All the synopses have been completed, we just need final edits for some of them. If they are not yet posted to the main synopsis section you can find them in the forum.--User:Zola"
Oh, and by the way: SteveA026 created a List of allusions in The Big O. I like the idea. Any thoughts?--Nohansen 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I jumped the gun on that edit. I took your comment on my talk page (and lack of response on the article's talk page) to mean that you changed your mind about the individual episode articles. Oops.
And about the sources, I thought three was kind of excessive anyway for a short, to-the-point episode summary, so we're not damaging the credibility of the article by removing the forum source. TV.com alone should be sufficient to give us the info we need. --SteveA026 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic medalists in cross-country skiing[edit]

I would like to get feedback on what it would take to make this article a featured list. This is one of 57 similar lists (see Category:Lists of Olympic medalists) and I would like to see them all reach FL status. As far as I can tell, the only shortfall relative to the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria is the lack of photos of any medalists. All other criteria appear to have been met, but of course, I would like any feedback to the contrary! Any opinion on whether or not it is mandatory to include athlete photos would also be appreciated. Andrwsc 07:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great list. But the lead needs to be expanded and include a quick summary about the disciplines (15km, 50km...) and maybe a small history. CG 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review! One thing we are conscious about is duplicating material found on the main article for each sport at the Olympics. In this case, Cross-country skiing at the Winter Olympics is linked from the list, and that particular article is still somewhat of a stub, but that is our intent of where descriptions of events and history of the sport at the Olympics would be found. What amount of event detail do you think would be appropriate for the list article? Andrwsc 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see it's a bit tricky. You could check some other sports-related FLs. I suggest you enumarate the disciplines, with a mention about the most profilic athletes or countries, with some numbers. Besides the lead issue, this list could easily pass FLC. CG 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, thanks! I will wait another week for any more feedback and then start updating this list. Andrwsc 21:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)[edit]

I started this article from scratch, originally as a stub, in June of 2006. I've been gradually researching and updating the article since that time. Its been a "B" status article for some time now and I think it may currently meet the criteria for a Good Article. But I'd like others to take a look and suggest any possible improvements before I nominate it for GA. I've pretty much exhausted my various reference works...if someone could add any additional sourced details to the article regarding the film's production phase it would be appreciated.-Hal Raglan 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've responded to all suggestions on the automated peer review page.-Hal Raglan 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing one fair use rationale and the others are weak. I'll see if I can do a proper PR some time this week.--Supernumerary 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated/rewrote fair use rationales, should be proper and no longer "weak".-Hal Raglan 04:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also added the missing in action fair use rationale.-Hal Raglan 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

  • for the next several years - I think "next" is implied; nothing else would make sense. "Several" is a bit vague, so perhaps more detail on timescale.
    • Rewrote slightly, noting specifically in what year the series ended.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16th Century Spain - rather blunt start. Incorporate the setting into full prose.
    • This is actually a fairly standard practice for a plot synopsis for films set in the past. I've changed it to read "In Spain, during the 16th century...", which seems a little clumsy to me.-Hal Raglan 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it standard practice? If so, leave it; I've just never seen it before. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although they are mentioned in the intro, I would wikilink and give the full name of the actors within the brackets. It just makes it easier to associate character and actor.
    • This seems redundant to me, but I've wikilinked all actors again in the Synopsis section.-Hal Raglan 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There could be more wikilinking within the synopsis and perhaps the section as a whole could be trimmed slightly.
    • More wikilinks added to the section (I hope I haven't gone overboard).-Hal Raglan 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The synopsis currently consists of 672 words. Wikipedia guidelines suggest "between 400 - 700" words as the recommended length for this section. Nonetheless, I will attempt to make some trims to the text.-Hal Raglan 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it's probably alright. Take all my suggestions with judgement; I'm not always right (in fact, I'm frequently wrong). Trebor 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first part of production (The box office success...) isn't actually to do with the production of the film, so should probably be moved to response.
    • It was the box office success of the previous film that convinced AIP to proceed with the production of Pit, so I think this in fact does belong in the "Production" section.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I read that completely wrong; you're entirely right. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, wikilink the actors in the Cast section (it's a pretty standard thing to do).
    • I understand your point, but the actors are already wikilinked in the infobox, lead paragraphs, and "Synopsis" section. I think to wikilink them again here would simply be redundant. If you really think this might be an issue for other editors, let me know.-Hal Raglan 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, I can only comment on what is usually done in the articles I've seen (and the Film Wikiproject guidelines). Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With few exceptions, the majority of the film’s reviews - seems a bit redundant to say there were exceptions and also that the majority were positive - one implies the other. I'd cut the first three words.
    • Excellent point. Those three words are now gone.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has "uncredited" got a [sic]?
    • Because, despite the reviewer's comment, the screenplay was credited. The insertion of the [sic] is to show that this was Stinson's error, not mine.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh okay. It might be better to make more explicit what you're correcting; in my experience, sic is usually used for spelling or grammar problems. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe you are correct that sic is generally used for spelling and grammatical errors, but its also utilized to note that a transcription error has not occurred. I may just delete this particular comment to avoid any possible confusion.-Hal Raglan 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty good at the moment and fairly well-referenced. I'm not particularly involved with the GA process, but I reckon this stands a good chance. A bit of tidying and a copyedit should make sure of it. Good work. Trebor 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a more detailed read through and came up with a few things:
  • Other sources, including Corman himself, have said that the film's budget was in fact approximately $300,000, nearly the same as for House - I don't like the "in fact", it sounds a bit conversation-like. Also, the sentence follows a very similar form to the previous one (budget was so-and-so, nearly so-and-so of House); it might be nicer to change the form a little.
    • Rewrote both sentences to avoid redundant "sound", while retaining basic facts.-Hal Raglan 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • horrific finale - I'm nit-picking, but isn't horrific a bit POV.
    • I think its borderline POV. The intent of the finale is clearly to be horrific. Removing the offending word, as I can't think of any other way to write this w/out being equally POV, is probably the best course of action.-Hal Raglan 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming went fairly smoothly without any major problems - bit of redundancy, "fairly smoothly" implies "no major problems" and vice versa.
  • It was determined the best way to film the flashbacks would be in monochrome - passive voice and a bit wordy; could probably be simplified.
    • Fixed! Removed passive voice and trimmed.-Hal Raglan 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • constructed "from scratch" - the quotation marks suggest it's a quotation which I don't think it is. If it isn't, perhaps something less slangy could be used.
    • "from scratch" is taken directly from the Lightman article.-Hal Raglan 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • these treasure troves - odd way to describe them, perhaps POV.
    • Changed to "various depositories"-Hal Raglan 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Various" is redundant ;) Trebor 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film’s pressbook claimed - claimed is a word to avoid per this.
  • The film’s critical reputation has continued to grow over the years and it is now generally held to be a classic of the genre - definitely needs a reference if it's to be included.
    • Changed to less effusive "one of the best entries in Corman's Poe series." This is definitely supported by the numerous quotes that follow-Hal Raglan 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few sentences starting with conjunctions ("and" or "but"), which perhaps could be changed. I personally dislike them, but they are much more accepted these days; I don't know if it would count as poor prose, so you can take or leave this suggestion.
    • I'll take a look through the article and see if any these particular sentences can/should be changed.-Hal Raglan 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through this article in more detail, I've upgraded my opinion of it to "very good". Trebor 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

  • most of them starring Price - it'd be as easy and more informative to say "[number] of them starring Price."
  • a rare achievement for a follow-up/sequel - may need citing (I'm not sure). I dislike the slash as well, does "sequel" add a meaning that isn't implied through "follow-up"? Trebor 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • removed "sequel" (and that monstrously evil "slash"). I don't think this needs to be sourced, but I'll look for a cite if anybody believes otherwise.-Hal Raglan 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I just dislike slashes. I'm uncertain about the necessity of a cite but I think it's better with one than without. Trebor 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supernumerary[edit]

  • Please use <br/> in the infobox instead of ";" and ",".
  • "a young Englishman's visit to a forbidding castle to investigate his sister's mysterious death." Rephrase to avoid the repetition of "to". I suggest a who clause.
    • changed to "a young Englishman who visits a forbidding castle to investigate his sister's mysterious death"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "immediately following Corman’s House of Usher (1960)" This naturally refers to the nearest noun, which is not what you want. I suggest rephrasing to make it clearer and to eliminate the parenthetical (perhaps with "released the year before" or a more specific measurement).
    • changed to "the first having been Corman’s House of Usher released the previous year"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in order to find out" Redundant and colloquial.
    • changed to "to find out"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • changed again to "to investigate"-Hal Raglan 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "death" should be wikilinked, and I am iffy on "castle".
    • I agree with you; these were wikilinked based on a suggestion made during this peer review.-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having died from a rare blood disorder." Maybe change "having died from" to just "dying from"
  • "However, it is soon revealed that Elizabeth had become obsessed with the various torture devices located in the basement of the castle and one day locked herself into an iron maiden, having gone insane." Avoid passive voice. Move the "having gone insane" to earlier to make it clear why she locked herself in. Is "various" needed?
    • Rewrote for clarity, removed "various"-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Francis, having noted that Nicholas appears to be feeling guilty regarding Elizabeth’s death, is offered a lengthy explanation by Catherine." Avoid passive! You have a clause larger than the main clause separating the subject and verb. Using active voice solves this problem.
  • "Their father was Sebastian Medina" Their goes back to Francis and Catherine here.
    • Rewrote, and removed the name "Francis" from the sentence to avoid any possible confusion.-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suddenly began hitting" and "then began torturing" Avoid repeating "began".
  • "directly in front of Nicholas’s eyes" Drop "directly".
  • ' "But the doctor tells Nicholas that "if Elizabeth Medina walks these corridors, it is her spirit and not her living self." ' I dislike using "but" to start a sentence. Try a good "however" or "nevertheless".
  • "with one of her rings found in the keyboard." I don't think this clause works, I'd say change it to "and one of her ...".
    • magically transformed into two sentences to avoid clause problems-Hal Raglan 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That night, Nicholas, now on the very edge of sanity, hears his wife calling him." Maybe excessive commas.
  • "hears his wife calling him. He follows her ghostly voice down to the torture chamber." These two sentences can be easily combined by just saying he follows her voice (or he is summoned by her voice).
    • yes, but I think it reads better the way it is.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nicholas then approaches Elizabeth and promises he will torture her horribly." Needs a comma.
  • "pendulum/razor" Avoid using a slash. Perhaps "razor-tipped pendulum"?
    • changed to "razor-sharp blade"-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • decided to change to "the swinging blade" instead, because "razor-sharp" was used a sentence or two back.-Hal Raglan 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Catherine arrives just in time with a servant. After a brief fight, Nicholas falls to his death and Francis is removed from the torture device." The servant is not important, so cut him. You need a comma for the second sentence.
    • mentioning the servant is important, because it needs to be explained how and why Nicholas falls to his death. He doesn't fight Catherine.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh! So he fights the servant? I just thought that she showed up with a servant. I didn't see the servant mentioned after that and assumed the fight was between him and Catherine.--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously? I'm sorry, this is the first time I've laughed during this peer review. If you honestly believe this is confusingly written, I'll need to clarify this plot point. I suppose I could change the second sentence to "After a brief fight with the servant..."-Hal Raglan 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, after glancing at this again I can see why there was confusion. I've made the change to the second sentence.-Hal Raglan 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Pit and the Pendulum was announced in August 1960 and filming began the first week of January, 1961." Comma!
  • "Williams' " You need to standardize to either "s's" or "s' ".
    • Oops, thought I had standardized this. Changed to "Williams's"-Hal Raglan 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Lucy Chase Williams' book, The Complete Films of Vincent Price, the shooting schedule was fifteen days with an additional day set aside for cast rehearsals, and the film’s budget was almost $1 million." Again comma. Remove the parenthetical by simply saying "with an additional day for cast rehearsals".
    • I can't pretend to understand the horror some editors feel regarding parenthetical asides, but I've removed them here. The sentence seems clumsier to me this way.-Hal Raglan 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$300,000." I'm not sure if you need to make it clear that it is US$. Though in the infobox you should.
    • I think this is fine the way it is.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that barely resembled Poe, with only the finale having any similarity at all to the original short story on which the film was based." Redundant.
    • I see nothing redundant about specifically mentioning what aspect of the story was true to Poe's tale.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say that it barely resembles Poe, and then you say that the only similarity is the finale. I don't see why you wouldn't just say that it only resembles the Poe story during the finale. Doesn't that imply that it barely resembled Poe's story?--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the implication would indeed be there if I rewrote the sentence in the way you suggest. However, my personal preference is to keep it the way it is. I honestly don't find anything wrong with first noting that the narrative barely resembles Poe, then specifically detailing the small part of the film that does directly correspond to the short story. It doesn't seem redundant to me. I've incorporated many of your very helpful suggestions, but I just don't agree with you on this one.-Hal Raglan 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Price suggested numerous dialogue line changes himself for his character." Move or drop the "himself".
  • "Francis Barnard is first introduced to Nicholas and asks about loud, strange noises he has just heard." Awkward. Maybe use a when clause?
    • changed to "when Francis Barnard is first introduced to Nicholas, the young man asks about loud, strange noises he had heard a few moments earlier.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dialogue would have ruined the power of the scene" Should just be "would".
  • "with Panavision cameras and lenses." I'm not sure how important what cameras and lenses they used.
    • probably not important; another editor had inserted this info into the text and, since the Corman quote referenced camerawork, I felt this was an appropriate place for the detail. I may simply delete this.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the major technicians involved." Can probably drop "involved".
  • "Director of Photography Floyd Crosby and Art Director Daniel Haller" Wikilink "Director of Photography" and "Art Director", and check if they two people have articles.
    • both have articles, and both have been wikilinked previously in the infobox and in the lead paragraphs.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attempted to shoot them in a manner that would convey to the audience" I think "attempted to shoot them to convey to the audience" works just as well with fewer words, but I don't like the repetition of "to". I have no preference really.
    • since I can't think of a better way to write this (at least at the moment), I will let this stay the way it is.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sequences were then printed on blue-tinted stock which was subsequently toned red during development, effectively producing a two-tone image." Add some wikilinks.
  • "The image was then run through an optical printer where the edges were vignetted and a twisted linear distortion was introduced." Wikilink "optical printer" and "vignetted".
  • I don't see how wide-angle lenses help convey hysteria.
    • I don't really either, but that was Corman's reasoning, per the cited Lightman article.-Hal Raglan 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Except for a brief exterior prologue filmed on the Palos Verdes coast, featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach, the entire production was shot in four sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood." "featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach" goes back to "the Palos Verdes coast"; reword. Also is "featuring" the right word? Maybe "showing" is better.
    • changed to "The film's brief exterior prologue showing Kerr's arrival to the castle was filmed on the Palos Verdes coast. The rest of the production was shot in four interior sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood."
  • "all of which were dusty, discarded pieces left over from old Universal productions." There's no way to fix the ambiguity here (that always bothers me), but you could drop "left over from old Universal productions".
    • I rewrote the whole sentence to read "At Universal Studios, he located numerous discarded pieces from old productions, including massive archways, fireplaces, windows and doorways, and several torture machine props."-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he found gigantic stairways and stone wall units that were available" "that were available" is superfluous.
  • "Haller selected and rented numerous pieces" Is "selected" needed?
    • probably not, but it indicates that he did have ample choices. removed anyway.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "film were subsequently constructed" Is "subsequently" necessary?
  • "The film’s pressbook noted that the pendulum utilized in the movie was eighteen feet long, with a realistic rubber cutting blade, and weighed over a ton." Is "utilized in the movie" necessary? I don't think the commas are needed, and you might want to move "weighed over a ton" to earlier.
    • slight rewrite, deleted "utilized in the movie" and moved "weighed over a ton" directly after "eighteen feet long"-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage and suspended thirty-five feet in the air." Why not just "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage thirty-five feet from the floor."? Or am I misinterpreting "suspended"?
  • No, you're not misinterpreting...rewrote-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens used" maybe "equipped with a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens"
  • "These areas were filled in later by printing-in process extensions of the set, doubling it's size onscreen." Wikilink "printing-in process extensions" and change "it's" to "its".
    • "Printing-in process extensions" is exactly what is used in the Lightman article, and I confess I'm not quite sure what this means. I could find no wikipedia articles that relate to this term. In the film, its quite clear that a matte painting was added to the shot to enhance the size of the set, so I'll go out on a limb and wikilink the term to the article on matte paintings.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some, however, thought his acting overly theatrical and damaging to the film's mood." The some here needs to be specified with a source.
    • I've quoted a critic who felt this way, and properly cited it.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so after the filming was completed he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress." Why not just "so he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress"?
    • I could rewrite it that way, but the dubbing was done after the filming was completed. Perhaps an irrelevant detail, but I don't see the harm in including it.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anders'" should be "Anders's"
  • "Anders' role as Price's (much younger) sister was one of several appearances she made in AIP productions, most of them directed by Corman." Did Corman direct most AIP productions, or did he direct most of her appearances? (I see that it is later clarified, but fix this nonetheless.)
  • "Other cast: Patrick Westwood as Maximillian, Lynette Bernay as Maria, Larry Turner as Nicholas as child, Mary Menzies as Isabella, Charles Victor as Bartolome." Who are these characters?
    • Nicholas as child, Isabella, and Bartolome are all mentioned in the synopsis. Maximillian was a servant and Maria was a maid. All five roles are bit parts. I'll add brief descriptors in the Cast Section to explain who Maximillian and Maria were.-Hal Raglan 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Prior to the start of filming, Corman had set aside one day of rehearsals with his cast. "Previously, I had painstakingly rehearsed the actors so there was complete understanding as to what each was to accomplish in each scene. This is most important; there is nothing worse than to be on the set and ready to roll, only to find that director and actor have different views as to how the scene is to be done. Thanks to pre-production planning and rehearsals, there was no time wasted on the set in haggling and making decisions." ' Didn't you already talk about this before the cast section?
    • No, a mention was made earlier of pre-planning with the technical crew. This is in reference to one-day set apart from the shooting schedule strictly for cast rehearsals.-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I did mention this before, when discussing the production cost and shooting schedule. No need to state this twice, so I removed the previous reference.-Hal Raglan 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$2,000,000 in domestic (U.S. and Canada)" This is a case where I think you really should clarify that it is US dollars.
  • "peccadilloes" I sadly think that most people do not know what "peccadilloes" means, and that you might want to wikitionary/wikipedia link it.
  • "near to burlesquing the role." Again "burlesquing" might have to be linked.
  • "While noting that the film was “marginally less successful” than House of Usher," Should mention that this is erroneous.
    • I don't think he was referring to box office success.-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thing is that earlier it says that the film was both a better box office success and a better critical success. What was he referring to?--Supernumerary 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He was referring to the film's overall quality. His comment indicates that he personally didn't believe Pit was on quite the same level as House. That's why he says "marginally less successful". As this is one critic's opinion, I don't believe this conflicts with the earlier statement. If every critic felt this way, obviously the earlier statement would not be accurate.-Hal Raglan 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since this is apparently one of those "open to interpretation" kind of things, and could conceivably confuse anybody reading the article, I've removed the comment.-Hal Raglan 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phil Hardy’s The Aurum Film Encyclopedia: Horror observed" Wikilink the book?
    • I've been thinking about doing this for a long time. It is a major film reference work and needs a wikipedia article. I'll work on this later and eventually wikilink it.-Hal Raglan 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The response section seems to just heap praise on the film. I see that it is balanced by negative reviews, but consider cutting any of the less important/repetitive reviews.
    • My personal preference for "Response" sections is that they have as many notable positive and negative critical reactions as possible. I'll take another look here and remove what I can.-Hal Raglan 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's standard to have all film guide and rotten tomatoes links in the external links section.
    • OK, I'll add links to MRQE, DVD Beaver, MetaCritic, and Rotten Tomatoes to that section.-Hal Raglan 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks good overall and should easily pass GA criteria.--Supernumerary 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-26[edit]

Given that it failed A-class review, and I recently expanded the article a bit, I would like more input on how to make the article better, especially somewhat specific suggestions to improve the prose (which is lacking). Thank you. JonCatalan 04:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

This is quite good. The prose is a little dry in places, but that's a relatively minor stylistic quirk; having a couple of fresh editors copyedit the article should smooth things out. Aside from that, a few formatting issues:

  • Dates need to be wikified for date preference settings to work correctly.
  • The "See also" section should be gotten rid of, if possible.
  • The references for the tables would work better placed as footnotes, I think.
  • The lead could perhaps be expanded slightly to summarize the main points of the article in a bit more detail.

Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response! I made some quick changes, including eliminating the "See Also" section, changing the reference style for the tables and changing the summary a bit (although I hope that some better writers will take some time to make it a bit more interesting). Where would I be able to read on Wikipedia's date preference settings? Again, thank you. JonCatalan 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best place for date settings is WP:MOSDATE, I think; I vaguely recall that there was a simpler guide floating around somewhere, but I don't remember its location. Kirill Lokshin 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made as many edits I think I can properly do as suggsted by Kirill Lokshin and the automated peer review. I would appreciate it if anybody else took a look at the article. Thanks! JonCatalan 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed as well. Fixed some dates that had not been converted to WP:MOSDATE format, found a few minor grammatical nits, and linked to some of the German divisions that are specifically referenced. In a few places, I replaced slang with more straight-forward language ("tweaked Panzer I turret" became "modified Panzer I turrent", as this usage of "tweaked" may not be clear to non-native English readers). --Rjray 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I'd like to focus this peer review on what would be required for FAC regarding this article. Obviously, the prose needs work. Anybody have any tips? JonCatalan 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, if you're out of ideas for copyediting, you might try asking at WP:LoCE; aside from that, the issue is mostly playing with the wording until it sounds right, and that tends to be an extremely subjective thing. Kirill Lokshin 05:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy tale[edit]

I am aiming to get this article up to Good status and want advice on what it needs. Goldfritha 04:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion on the cross-cultural dissemination of fairy tales might be helpful. Other than that, it looks very good. I am putting this up as the selected article on Portal:Folklore in hopes of drawing more attention. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cross-cultural (make note). Research will be necessary, so this may take some time.
Thanks for the link! Goldfritha 19:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a section on the dissemination. Will add more, though -- as the section explains -- that is an area fraught with difficulties. Goldfritha 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing -- thanks! Goldfritha 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bakshi[edit]

A lot of work has been put into this article overtime. I'd like to know how well the various editors who worked on this article have done, and what more could be done to bring this entry to featured article quality. (Ibaranoff24 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Very nice in generel. Some remarks for further improvement:

  • In the lead: "animated feature films that were aimed at adults ", "He pioneered animation with adult themes". IMO this looks like a repetition; maybe you could combine the two similar assessments.
  • "and it was unquestionably aimed primarily at adult audiences—something that had previously been unheard of. Creator Robert Crumb, however, hated the film, and eventually wound up killing off the title character in retaliation." Proper referencing needed here.
  • "animation scholars accused him of not producing "real" animation, but simply training artists to trace over live action." Citation needed again; otherwise it is weasel.
  • "Bakshi turned away from race and cultural issues and began producing fantasy films." The connection of this paragraph with the previous one looks to me a bit sheamless.
  • "Another unmade Bakshi project was to be called Bobby's Girl, to be made from a screenplay he co-wrote with a young and ambitious Canadian named John Kricfalusi." "Unmade" and then "to be made". Have in mind that if you go for FAC the prose must be brilliant.
  • "The series was widely hailed by TV critics, and it is still prized by collectors of TV series today." Again citation needed. Try to ahve at least one citation for each paragraph.
  • "to Bakshi's earlier films Coonskin[17][18][19]". Try to avoid more than 2 citations in a row. You can combine them in various ways in one citation. See for instance Tourette syndrome or W. S. Gilbert.
  • Last paragraph of "Controversy and criticism" also needs citing.
  • "He is widely believed to be the inspiration for the character of Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons and Ralph the Guard on Tiny Toons Adventures and Animaniacs." Who believes that?
  • I added a [citation needed] in "Influence".--Yannismarou 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your concerns have been addressed. Please take a look at the current revision. (Ibaranoff24 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Rowing (sport)[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Rowing (sport)/archive1

This article has undergone extensive rewriting since the last request for peer review and has since gained 'good article' status. We would now appreciate any advice on what needs to be done to get the article featured. I will try to respond to any and all comments here within a day. Thankyou--The Spith 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a citation needed for the sentence 'The first recorded race in America took place on the Schuylkill River in 1762 between 6-oared barges.' which I guess you are aware of.
  • I don't know too much about rowing, but it appears comprehensive enough, well cited and has good relevant images.
  • There seems to be a debate going on about whether or not the lead section needs citations. See here. Your lead section has information about the two forms of rowing that isn't available in the body of the article. The lead should only repeat what's in the rest of the article, and not have unique facts. If the lead is tossed out, the article should contain just as much information.-BiancaOfHell 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, excellent. With corrections definitely on it's way to FA in my opinion. I feel like going sea kayaking now.-BiancaOfHell 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I changed the unsourced fact to one I found a source for. As for the intro, I'm not sure what is best to be done about that. I see no point in repeating information, especially as the content that is there at the moment does not realy fit anywhere else. The only alternative I can think of is making a 'basics of rowing' section at the start of the article, but then you would end up with two redundant introductions.--The Spith 07:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad[edit]

  • Try have a references for each paragraph,
  • Remove merge or expand the one sentence paragraphs
  • Fix the images under the oar section as it currently squashes everything there(messes up the structure).
  • Regarding the lead move the coxless pair image to the topright,
  • Change the two dot points into paragraphs
  • Don't wikilink solo years, ex 1900
  • You only bold text in the first sentence, Anatomy of a stroke has heaps of bold text
  • The Green Mountain Head Regatta external link in the text
  • Make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), fiber (A) (British: fibre), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), pediatric (A) (British: paediatric).

M3tal H3ad 10:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any pages on wikipedia policy discussing whether the encyclopedia should use British or American English? I'm guessing we are supposed to use the original author's choice, but this article was originally removed from another one, and there are American, Canadian and British contributors.--The Spith 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For guidance on Spelling differences, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English --Ozhiker (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso[edit]

Some comments:

  • The lead is a little short, and does not really summarise the article as a whole. See WP:LEAD for more details.
  • I agree with M3tal H3ad that one sentence paragraphs would benefit from being expanded or merged.
  • There are a couple of laundry lists towards the end of the article. What criteris for inclusion are used for the list of Rowers of wider fame? The Terminology and Event nomenclsture section would be better as descriptive prose.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments. I'll get to work on these--The Spith 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ozhiker[edit]

A first few notes :

  • The first sentence doesn't mention that the racing is in boats
  • I'm not sure we need to talk about "reaction forces" in the lead, it could just say "the boat is propelled using oars" and then go into detail within the body.
  • I don't think the phrase "In the United States, high school and collegiate rowing is sometimes referred to as crew.[1]" should be in the lead - it seems to be a pretty obscure name.
  • The lead refers "recreational" rowing, but the refers to rowers as "Athletes". These terms seem to be somewhat at odds, although I'm not sure how this should be resolved.
  • Gig, Coastal and Surfboat rowing are not covered - if these are not supposed to be part of the article then the article probably needs to be renamed, since these are sports too (governed by FISA). Also, the lead might need to be changed as fine racing shells are not seagoing. On the other hand, the article does cover Indoor Rowing, so maybe should include these other types of boats

--Ozhiker (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Donne[edit]

I think that the sections on his style and literary career are the ones that need the most work. I'm interested in hearing ideas for how to proceed with developing the article and any general ideas for improving its current content (e.g., prose, grammar, etc.). Thank you. Galanskov 13:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BirgitteSB[edit]

  • I find the tone to be sometimes inappropriate and not upheld by the references. Tone should less dramtic. If the source reads Donne's first teachers were Jesuits. At the age of 11, Donne and his younger brother Henry were entered at Hart Hall, University of Oxford, where Donne studied for three years; don't talk of his mother ensuring hs education by Jesuits or his profound understanding.
    • Despite the obvious dangers, Donne’s mother ensured he was educated by the Jesuits, from whom he acquired a profound understanding of his faith that equipped him for the ideological religious conflicts of his time.
    • Donne was forced to accept a retired country life in Pyrford, Surrey
    • It is not known how Donne grew to abandon the faith he had been educated to defend
  • There is sometimes an inappropriate context as if you are stuck writing about what happened from within his lifetime instead of a general enyclopedia article.
    • These poems were never published although they circulated widely in manuscript form Never?
    • he would become vicar of St. Dunstan's-in-the-West would become?
  • The text is needs overall tightening; it is repeats events in different sections and is sometimes even contradictory. It would probably benefit from a complete overhaul in organization where his life and works are dealt with at the same time in chronologically based sections.
    • including the infamous Death’s Duel sermon delivered at the Palace of Whitehall before King Charles I in February 1631
    • Even as he lay dying on Lent in 1631, he rose from his sickbed and delivered what was later described as his own funeral sermon. In case you do not know: Death’s Duel sermon = what was later described as his own funeral sermon'
    • It is not known how Donne grew to abandon the faith he had been educated to defend, but he certainly was in communication with the King, James I of England, and in 1610 and 1611 he wrote two anti-Catholic polemics, Pseudo-Martyr and Ignatius his Conclave.[3] Although James was pleased with Donne's work, he refused to reinstate him at court and instead urged him to take holy orders.[2] After a long period of financial uncertainty and difficulty, spent seeking profitable employment, during which he was twice a member of Parliament (1601 and 1614), Donne finally acceded to the King's wishes and was ordained into the Church of England in 1615.[5]
    • Earlier he had valued a skeptical approach to religion, but this now gave way to a firm faith in the traditional teachings of the Bible. Having converted to the Anglican Church, Donne pursued a position as a preacher.

El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda[edit]

This is the third peer review for El Hatillo, after this I will nominate it for featured article, so I would like to avoid any FA objections with this peer review. Here are the first and second peer reviews. For the 2nd one the changes were discussed in the talk page. Thank you.--enano (Talk) 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Very nice! I think the article has already reached a high level of quality. My remarks (with the exception of number [1] are mostly minor:

  1. I see a preponderence of non-English, Spanish in particular, aources; this might be a problem for some FA reviewers. When more than 90% of the citations link Spanish sources, this gets a bit problematic, since this is the English and not the Spanish Wikipedia. Could you do some "injections" with more English sources?
    Both enano and I searched the web and bookstores both in Venezuela and the USA; no more English sources :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we have honestly used every English source we have found, everything else is only available in Spanish.--enano (Talk) 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "An engineer assisted in the urban planning, which included grid streets and a parish church,[8] built to honor Santa Rosalía de Palermo, who Baltasar believed had saved him from a plague that killed his father in prison" I don't know ... Maybe many relative clauses for this not so long sentence.
    Fixed by Sandy.--enano (Talk) 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I know this is not absolutely necessary, but in the captions of your charts I would like to mention your sources. Searching, I found that the source of your first chart is some "Fuente: Instituto Nacional de Estadística." (National Institution of Statistics, probably!) When I was taught some economics I was told that often the source is more important than the statistics themselves! But maybe what I say may well be just a personal preference. In any case, the only verifications for your uncited assertion that "but demographics show a rapidly rising population" are these two charts.
    I have added citation to both charts.--enano (Talk) 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Two stubby sentences in "Demographics". Some FA reviewers do not like them. I would recommend that you merge or expand.
    Fixed by Sandy.--enano (Talk) 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In "Economy" I see no statistics. For instance, isn't there any info for the per capita GDP in the region?
  6. "On March 8, 2000—the year after a new constitution was introduced in Venezuela—it was decreed[15]". This citation could be at the end of the sentence, which is also better for the prose flaw.
    Done.--enano (Talk) 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In "Law and government" we caould maybe have some more things about the relations between municipality-state-central government. What are the fiscal and legal inter-connections of the municipality with the other two institutions?
    Couldn't find quite what you were asking for, but I have added news about a possible reorganization of the municipal powers, as proposed by Hugo Chávez.--enano (Talk) 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm not sure if "Crime" is actually a sub-section of "Law and government" or if it should be a seperate section.
    It changes from article to article. I have found crime information under government or under demographics, usually within a subsection or just with the rest of the section, but rarely as a different section.--enano (Talk) 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "The 2001 census shows enrollment of 8,525 students during the 2000-2001 school year; by the end of the school year, 8,149 had passed.[40][41][42]" Three citations in a row? ... Hmmm ... Not nice. Maybe you should combine them. There are ways to do it. See Tourette syndrome or W. S. Gilbert. Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "but Don Baltasar completed his years in prison and then moved to El Hatillo, bringing the legacy of Santa Rosalía de Palermo to El Hatillo, believing she protected him from the pestilence that killed his father in Cádiz.[9]" Two long participal phrases in a row. Not nice IMO.
    Fixed by Sandy.--enano (Talk) 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I see a section "References" with one source. Do you mean further reading? I see all your sources mentioned in "Notes" (which is actually "References").
    Book cited by page number in Notes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I suggest you get rid of the "See also" section. Just one link that could be linked within the text, if it is necessary.
    Done.--enano (Talk) 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Apart from some minor issues I mentioned above, the prose looks to me fine.--Yannismarou 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani[edit]

Fairly faultless. Some very (very) minor points:

  • Spanish versions are given sometimes as (algo), sometimes as (Spanish:algo) or sometimes as Algo with no English version. The last one isn't really a problem, but be consistent on the others.
    • Done, only (Spanish:algo) or Algo are being used.--enano (Talk) 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ft is linked but meters is not.
  • ha is used in the middle of a sentence, why not use hectares? or better still km²
    • Changed it to m², km² gave a number too small.--enano (Talk) 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are "bedroom community" and "collapse" quoted? Are they quotes or just failures to find the correct translation?
    • I removed the quotes from bedroom community, but I don't know if collapse has the same meaning in Spanish as it does in English, will have to discuss this with Sandy.--enano (Talk) 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, collapse is the word used in the Spanish text, and (as anyone who has driven in Caracas will attest) would be the correct word to use in English - you can remove the quotes in both cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, I said they were minor. Yomanganitalk 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl[edit]

The aforementioned article is of a game that is not yet released, but I'm looking to see if there are any suggestions that editors can give in order to improve the article. One aim is to get it at Good Article status. In particular, what needs referencing? Should some bits be given a reference to text that's in the game already? (That task would be hard but can be done - I find myself particularly good at reading Japanese.) What needs to be expanded upon?

Thanks. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 00:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this line mean? "Every Pokémon is catchable without using Pal Park (except for previous generations’ starter Pokémon, their evolutions, and Legendary Pokémon). However, there are Pokémon can only be caught with a specific GBA Pokémon game in Slot 2 of the DS." --Squilibob 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is "The use of Pal Park for players is necessary if the player wishes to transfer starter Pokémon or Legendary Pokémon from a previous generation of Pokémon games. There are also Pokémon that are only available by having a Game Boy Advance Pokémon RPG inserted into the the secondary slot of the Nintendo DS." a better clarification, or is there anything more in that which needs reiteration? Cheers. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that explains it properly. --Squilibob 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*blinks* Ref 7 is...staggering...can't you just write a message somewhere in the intro instiead of having 15 citations that all say the same thing? Hbdragon88 09:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe something similar was done before, but that cluttered the article. Blue Mirage | Comment 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've resorted back to using the {{Future_game}} template and removed the footnoting. Anything else? - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Run Record in Home Run Derby[edit]

  • I'm Wondering what you think about this article. Do you think that there is something missing. Should there be a explanation of the rules even though its mother page has that info. Metsman 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A number of minor edits
  • Numbers before dates
  • Numbers not in bold
  • Trim down second section to only the top 10

Buc 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne, Wyoming[edit]

I think the article could undergo improvement and make it to a featured article. It looks like it really needs attention. Retiono Virginian 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

  • This article really needs work, so keep it from FAC for a while.
  • I'm going to suggest very swooping changes, and then I'll nitpick later. I ask, though, that you post a message on my talk page notifiying me that the changes I have suggested are implemented.
  • Get a disambig for the Cheyenne, a native people of the Americas.
  • Expand lead per WP:LEAD.
  • Get a citation for that population number. You may want further verification, because population is not a static number.
  • In the History section, surely native peoples settled the area before Europeans?
  • Please reconsider the little right-side picture gallery. I suggest removing them all to find more relevant pictures to the section such as pictures of miners, the Cheyenne, early settlers, '49ers, etc. The amount of possibilities for pictures there is endless, but the pictures you have there is a waste of Kb.
  • Please get citations for your Union-Pacific "story."
  • Expand "Geography" to include information about the terrain and a picture of the landscape THERE would be appropriate.
  • Please cite the census numbers. It really shouldn't be hard.
  • Major cleanup to the "Other Info" section. It screams "HELP ME!"
  • It's written 9-acre.
  • Citation for the Philip K. Dick book mention, please.
  • Get flags for the sister cities.
  • Notable people can be dead, you know. There are more. And usually notable people have articles, not just red links.
  • IN-LINE CITATIONS, PLEASE!
Hope this will help. Feel free to contact me or yell at me if I've misinterpreted. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 23:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders[edit]

Hi, I'm submitting this article for peer review now as I think it's nearly ready for FAC nomination. This article is on the rugby union team that competes in the Super 14. I'd really like any comments that could help fix any issues that may arise during an FAC nomination. Please be specific, I'm especially interested in comments regarding criteria 1a, prose especially. - Shudda talk 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, hey, in respect to criteria 1a "the pose is compelling, even brilliant" I think this passes it well, the informal tone I noticed during the GA review seems to have been disolved aswell. My one thought is in relation to the section on the team colors and uniform, it seems pretty short, see if you can incorporate it into another section if at all possible †he Bread 3000 06:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of the second and third paragraphs in the lead-in. They are too long to be a summary of the club's history. They should be condensed into one short paragraph. The prose in the club history section needs some work.GordyB 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well ,as per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article,". So I've included information on history, records, and notable players, because these things are all covered in detail in the article. Also "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." Looking at it though, I think there may be too much detail, but something on history, records, and notable players should definitely be there. Also, could I have some more detail on what prose, specifically, needs work. It's not as helpful just to say it needs it. Thanks. - Shudda talk 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing too many sentences begin either 'The Crusaders' or 'The Blues'. Some of the sentences need to be re-written so that they have a different start.GordyB 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Bennet[edit]

Looking for any advice to improve the article, perferably to good article status. All sections open to discussion. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh....thanks. I'm not sure how well most of those suggestions helped, but I'll use them as a guide. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brands Hatch[edit]

I've been working on this article for a bit now and would welcome constructive criticism from other Wikipedians on where it could be improved (especially prose and structure, as it's easy to ignore the bigger picture when one's immersed in editing minutiae!) Heycos 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Links, Incorporated[edit]

What kind of improvements do you think that will help this article make featured status? What can users do in order to expand this article? Do you think that there should be a bio for each founder and president of the organization? Thanks. Real96 12:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelé[edit]

This looks to be very close to being ready for FAC. Think it's best to give it a PR first though.Buc 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

  • The sections from After football onward need work. The After football section is currently a list of unconnected facts, rather than a descriptive account of Pele's activities since the end of his playing career. The Trivia section should be removed, and the recently added Fashion section has a whiff of spam about it. The Acting section should have an element of prose rather than being a pure list with no context.

*I suspect that some of the unofficial tournaments listed in the Honours section were minor pre-season or exhibition tournaments which need not be listed.

  • The sections covering his club career should probably be expanded - it jumps from 1962 to 1969. I know the article is already 42k, but this figure is distorted by the goals table and footnotes.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson's paradox[edit]

I just read this article and thought it was excellent. Other people have commented on its talk page too. I am submitting it for peer review with a view to nominating it to be a featured article. Thanks.--Icon2007 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's cute for the example to involve Bart and Lisa, their activity should not involve editing Wikipedia as that's a self reference.-gadfium 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now read the talk page, and see the matter of self-reference has been discussed. I agree with the anon in Talk:Simpson's_paradox#One_of_the_finer_Wiki_entries that editing Wikipedia is not an activity familiar to most of the readers, so I would still prefer the example to use a different activity.-gadfium 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roush Racing[edit]

We think this one of the highest quality articles at WikiProject NASCAR. We'd like this to be checked for cleanup issues, such as grammar, and particularly NPOV. --D-Day 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News 24[edit]

As a result of a huge amount of hard work, this article has recently been listed as a Good Article after being reviewed. It is my hope now that it can be improved further to become a Featured Article and so I was hoping that I could receive some feedback on where the article can be improved so that myself and all those who have worked hard on this article can get it to featured article status. I would appreciate comments and suggestions and would like to thank you in advance. Wikiwoohoo 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD, two paragraphs would probably be best, but one long one may suffice.
  • Get rid of the long lists. I don't want to see a long list of who has presented; perhaps try a précis (in prose) of the most notable ones.
  • Get rid of the stubby sections and subsections with only a sentence or so in.
  • Give accessdates on the references.
  • More thorough referencing is needed, for instance "A key claim by Lord Lambert was that the channel was slow to react to breaking news unlike its competitor Sky News" is dying for a cite.

It's alright, some sections are pretty good and flowing, but it's inconsistent and has long needless lists. A fair bit of work to go until it reaches FA standards. Trebor 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. Regarding the lists of presenters, I have just replaced them with the paragraphs that were in place when I added this article for a peer review. It certainly is much better to have paragraphs rather than lists! Thanks for your help. Wikiwoohoo 14:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M.U.G.E.N[edit]

Submitting this article for a second peer review to fine tune it, and see what more could be done at this point or tidied up. I think at this point anything that can be said in there has as not many new developments come up the pike regarding the engine these days.--Kung Fu Man 14:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/M.U.G.E.N/archive1

Denmark[edit]

As part of the effort to improve this article to FA status we would like a peer review form our fellow editors. All suggestions are welcome! The previous peer review, a little under a year old, can be seen here. MartinDK 14:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is a little stilted and non-idiomatic in places towards the end of the article. If I get time I'll have a look at it for you. I'll bow to the experts but does it need a few more references? Otherwise it seems very comprehensive and a great article.--Spartaz 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Culture section (and the special article on Danish Culture) is a fairly arbitrary and chaotic list of famous Danes, ranging from scientists to fictional characters. It never provides an impression of Danish culture, and might as well have been written by the Tourist Council (or, more likely, by a lot of people each adding their favorite Dane to the culture list). It should be didvided into systematic subcategories (Danish science, Danish literature, Danish sports etc.) which in turn should be written with more coherence than the current namedropping. --Sangild 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri[edit]

  • The lead seems to be a bit too focused on Danish geography to me, I think some of the details should probably be replaced by summaries of other parts of the article.
  • "the Danish Monarchy is one of the oldest in the world"; is it possible to be more precise? The exact ranking could be interesting
  • "The Kingdom of Denmark also encompasses two off-shore territories, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, both of which enjoy wideranging home rule" Is it possible to be more exact here? Could you name their formal status? I know the Faroe Islands are considered an "autonomous region", what about Greenland?
  • "Together with Norwegians and Swedes, they colonised, raided and traded in all parts of Europe." Is it even possible to distinguish between Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes during this period? If not, then this sentence should probably be re-phrased.
  • The second and third paragraphs repeat the words "union"/"unified" quite a bit, wouldn't it be possible to rephrase them so that they sound a little more fluent.
  • "The two Schleswig Plebiscites took place on February 10 and March 14, respectively" the context does not say the year explicitly.
  • "Despite its continued neutrality, Denmark was invaded by Germany (Operation Weserübung), on April 9, 1940." that sentence should probably mention the historical context: WWII.
  • "The Danish sympathy for the Allied cause was in general strong, but in spite of this fact the economical cooperation between Germany and Denmark continued throughout the war. In 1944, 1,900 Danish police officers were arrested by the Gestapo and sent to the concentration camp Buchenwald, from which many never returned alive." How does one know the sympathy was strong? Was that cooperation voluntary? Why were these police officers deported?
  • One or two more sentence about Danish history after WWII might also be useful
  • The fact that the only sub-section in the history section is "The Viking Age" makes it seem, as if everything after that heading is part of the Viking age. Either remove that section heading, or divide the rest of the section into sub-sections. I think the former would probably be a better idea.
  • "This executive power is exercised on behalf of the monarch by the prime minister and other cabinet ministers who head departments. The cabinet, including the prime minister, and other ministers collectively make up the government." "While the monarch is head of state and theoretically holds all executive power, it is the prime minister who is head of government. The government is answerable chiefly to Parliament; however, ministers do not have to come from Parliament, though it is the modern day custom." A lot of redundancy there.
  • Parts of the map ("Sjælland", "Fyn") in the geography section need to be translated into English.
  • "A perfect circle enclosing the same area as Denmark would have a circumference of only 742 km (461 miles)." That sentence should probably be removed. Although this is interesting, it is just another way of expressing the area of the country.
  • "Administrative divisions" that section only seems to compare the old administration system with the new. It would be better to describe both and then compare the two (and a third step might even be to compare them with other countries)
  • "The government has been very successful in meeting, and even exceeding, the economic convergence criteria for participating in the third phase (a common European currency) of the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU), but Denmark, in a September 2000 referendum, reconfirmed its decision not to join 11 of 13 other EU members in the euro (UK being the other of the EU not to do so)." That sentence is misleading: in 2000 there were 15 EU members, but (I guess) only 13 EMU members.
  • "As in most countries, the population is not distributed evenly." If that is the case in most countries, than it's probably not worth mentioning.
  • The education mostly glamorizes the system in Denmark. It should be changed so as to be more NPOV and mention critique if it is notable.
  • The cuisine section should be merged into the culture section
  • The military section should tell more about the military itself and less about conscription: how technologically advanced is the military? What about its history?

The main problems, however, are references (there are sections without a single reference!) and copyediting. It is also better IMO, though not required, to use more English language sources. This article still has to be improved quite a bit to reach FA, but I'd like to encourage you to keep at it and hope these comments will help.--Carabinieri 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set[edit]

A vital article and a core idea in Mathematics. I'd like advice on how this article could be expanded, and what is needed to bring it to good or featured status. Thanks! CloudNine 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMummert[edit]

There are many ways this article could be improved. Most sections are trivially short. Here are some particular comments in no particular order.

  1. As it stands, this article is extremely redundant with naive set theory, almost to the point of duplication. This has been a problem for a long time, but someday it ought to be resolved.
  2. This article is an appropriate place to discuss the philosophical questions associated with sets, which I would be interested in reading and which would not fit into the technical articles. For example, Penelope Maddy is widely rumored to have claimed that sets exist in some "physical sense".
  3. There is no mention of extenstionality in the article, but this is one of the things that makes sets into sets. Like they say, there are no blue sets.
  4. The concept of the cumulative hierarchy is missing.
  5. Can a set be a member of itself? Of course the axiomatic treatment doesn't belong here, but some discussion does.
  6. The sections on basic operations could be grouped together (union, intersection, relative complement).
  7. There is no mention of Russell's paradox except as a "see also" link. This is, historically, an important step in the understanding of the technical limits of the natural language term "set".

CMummert · talk 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

I gave the article a bit of a copyedit; hopefully, I didn't change the meanings. I think the article works well as a basic introduction to the theory of sets, but needs more background information. There is very little detail on the history of sets, or their application to Mathematics in general (except in the lead, and the lead shouldn't introduce anything that isn't expanded upon later). A bit more background information (with references) would balance the article and provide a more well-rounded look; at the moment, it's more of a textbook than an encyclopaedia article. Trebor 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My main worry now, with including the History and Applications section, is that naive set theory will be a duplication of Set (the set theory article already duplicates a lot of information about basic set operations). What do you think? CloudNine 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not very knowledgeable on sets so I may end up talking rubbish. But I would say that Set should be a summary of both naive and axiomatic set theory. Then it would include a summary of the history and development of both, describe any features that they have in common and explain how they have been used in Mathematics to do "notable stuff". At the moment, the article is (I think) focused more on naive, which could be seen as POV. But since I don't know which features they have in common (if any), it may be quite hard to write an article that encompassed both. I just think that the general article Set shouldn't focus on a particular definition too much. Trebor 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis[edit]

It's a bit simple, isn't it? The content that's there is fine, but it's very elementary - sort of pages 1-5 of an introductory text. I'm only passingly familiar with set theory, but surely there should be something on countability here? The 'history' section is currently blank, and there's not even a link to ZF anywhere. Other more minor issues:

  • Images are prime candidates for SVG-ifying.
  • Top image is lamely cartoony; it's like Donald Duck's Guide to Sets.
  • FA and GA will whack you over lack of inline citations. Most of this stuff is trivially self-verifying, but when you add more background/history and more advanced material, make sure to add references where appropriate.
  • While you're motivated to improve articles on this subject, uncountable set is badly disorganized. Opabinia regalis 03:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Illusion[edit]

I've been working on this article for a few days, and wish to eventually get it to FA status. I'd like to know what needs to be improved in order to achieve this, and how those improvements can be made. LuciferMorgan 19:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The "Critical reception" section describes that the album received negative reviews. However, All Music Guide along with a few other websites gave it four out of five stars and more, which is quite good. Please balance the section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section has been "balanced". If you feel this isn't the case, please message once again. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say 4 bad reviews out of 6 is negative - that's like 2 to 1. In the section the excerpts from the 4 bad reviews are used, and excerpts from the 2 good reviews. I could change it to "mixed" reviews if wanted? What do other editors feel regarding this? (PS - Thanks for your comments) LuciferMorgan 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of one sentence paragraphs,
  • 6/6/06 Arrives, would it be better with just 6/6/06?
  • Avoid using contractions like: wasn't, couldn't, wouldn't.
  • You could remove the chart positions table as you turned it into prose
  • Reviews in the infobox from worst to best or best to worst would look better
I prefer it being alphabetical. LuciferMorgan 07:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to wiki-link the band members and mention their full name on first mention
  • Album artwork and lyrical themes, is basically a Controversy section?
  • wikilink the albums there
  • I created a stub on Carroll
  • Indeed, the band, you could remove 'indeed'
  • spaces for references
  • 'however' is used a lot

Just some general wikilinking of people, places, dates, albums etc good luck. M3tal H3ad 03:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought the "Album artwork and lyrical themes" would be a controversy section, but there was controversy over bus benches too which was better placed in another section. Thanks for comments by the way. LuciferMorgan 11:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead needs to be 2-3 paragraphs now, You could probably create a new paragraph solely on the controversy surrounding the album. M3tal H3ad 04:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See if it's possible to find new references to replace some of the Blabbermouth ones. The article is very thoroughly referenced, but it will look better if there is a variety of references (fewer from Blabbermouth). ShadowHalo 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, although Blabbermouth is the main resource in metal, and most metal news sites steal their articles from here also. LuciferMorgan 13:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not repeating the sentiments of any other reviewers but I'll give you my two cents regardless.

  • In the infobox, could you be more specific about the recording dates?
If I had this info at hand, I definitely would've added it. LuciferMorgan 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead isn't compelling enough. For it to be an FA, I think you have to improve the flow, link some sentences together. At the moment there is a glut of short, choppy sentences, each presenting an independent fact. Try to develop a more logical progression through the prose, linking more than one piece of data into each sentence.
  • In the first paragraph of "Recording", you reference the same thing twice in one sentence... I'd take out the mid-sentence ref; it's pretty clear where you got the info from.
  • You write out "9" and "11" as numbers. Change to "nine" and "eleven".
  • I'm not sure the plural of "demo" is "demoes".
It's actually "demos" (I checked), so thanks for pointing that out.LuciferMorgan 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You surround "Catalyst" with apostrophes. WP:MUSTARD asks that songs be surrounded with quotation marks.
  • "Although accredited, Rubin was not seen in the studio by guitarist Kerry King during the recording of the album [4] and is said (by King) to have only participated in the recording by providing suggestions during mixing.[4] The band wished for Rubin to produce the album,[6] and blamed him for the delay in entering the studio.[6] Around this time, Rubin lent production to Metallica's untitled 10th studio album, an action King deemed "a slap in the fucking face."[6]" I think this section is over-referenced. I think it'd be reasonable to only reference [4] and [6] once each, at the end of each citation. If you don't decide to do this, then you still have to delete the space before the first citation of [4].
  • Again, you write "11", change this to "eleven", and do the same where-ever you've written a number midway through prose.
Done, except where chart positions are mentioned. LuciferMorgan 03:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says to link to items relevant to the context - I wouldn't deem the date wikilinking so. LuciferMorgan 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shouldn't bold Christ Illusion at the end of the section. In fact, I'd advise you change it to "the album".
  • I think it should be explained why June 6, 2006 would be an ideal release date. Don't expect the reader to make the conceptual leap. Also, bear in mind 6-6-06 works in both American and British dating conventions.
  • "number 48 on the Swedish charts [10]" - delete the space before the reference.
  • Again, I think you go overboard on referencing in the "Bus benches" section.
  • Link "August 8, 2006.
  • "62, 000" and "93, 000" need their spaces removed.
  • I think "Rolling Stone" should be italicised. See WP:MOS to see if I'm right. I'm pretty sure I am.
  • "'God Hates Us All'," needs italicisation.
  • In the KNAC review "Christ Illusion" needs italicising again.

I think I've picked this one clean, I hope I've been useful. Seegoon 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, which have been of major use - these would've definitely been raised further down the line at FAC. I'll be sure to get to these concerns. LuciferMorgan 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the concerns regarding the lead, and'll try getting help in that matter. LuciferMorgan 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could go down two routes with the lead. One: prune it of details about Lombardo and the Grammy. Or expand it and produce one paragraph on the numbers of the album - release date, chart performance and so on, and another paragraph giving a rundown of the important facts surrounding it: Lombardo, the Grammy, the controversy. I hope that's not too convoluted to read through! Seegoon 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewrote the introduction of the article - everyone feel free to check. I hope it's an improvement. LuciferMorgan 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've improved it, definitely. Seegoon 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm unused to improving articles. LuciferMorgan 00:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yannismarou[edit]

Very nice. Some minor remarks:

  • Do not over-cite the sentences. For instance:"Christ Illusion was recorded at two venues: NRG, North Hollywood, with assistant engineering by Dave Colvin,[1] and Westlake Studios, Los Angeles, with assistant engineering by Brian Warwick.[1]" or "Rubin was not seen in the studio by guitarist Kerry King during the recording of the album,[2] and is said (by King) to have only participated in the recording by providing suggestions during mixing.[2]" or "The band wished for Rubin to produce the album,[3] and blamed him for the delay in entering the studio.[3]" or "National Day of Slayer, LLC, describing itself as a "a non-profit corporation in the State of Wyoming," launched a website asking Slayer fanatics to participate in "The National Day of Slayer",[16] where all fans would listen to Slayer tracks.[16]" etc. It is not nice to "cut" a sentence in the middle with citations, especially if the same citation is already at the end of the sentence? What is the purpose using it again in the middle? It is clear it covers the whole sentence. In general, use citation in the middle of a sentence only if it is absolutely necessary.
I've now made efforts to address this - feel free to inspect the article once more. LuciferMorgan 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Dave Lombardo ...". Since you mentioned him once in the lead, "Lombardo" alone is fine. "A song penned by Jeff Hanneman": The same; "Hanneman" would be enough.
  • "A song penned by Jeff Hanneman[4] entitled "Final Six" was meant for inclusion on the album,[2] and "Final Six" was originally declared to be the album's title by vocalist Tom Araya to George Stroumboulopoulous of CBC's "The Hour."" A bit clumsy sentence IMO; especially the repetition of the song's title within the same sentence. In general, the prose is fine, but I'm not sure is yet "brilliant"; maybe a bit more prose polishing wouldn't hurt.
I've tried reworking the sentence. LuciferMorgan 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Araya deemed this version "much better because he looked like a drug addict!"[38] King arranged to purchase the artwork.[39] An alternate, non-graphic cover was made to appease conservative retailers who would not stock the original version.[40] Certain album pre-orders gave fans the chance to win one of ten lithos of the artwork autographed by Carroll.[41]" The prose here with these short sentences in a row gets IMO a bit choppy.
I've tried reworking the prose in this section you've singled out. LuciferMorgan 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the article is well-written, well-researched and well-referenced. Maybe, some further in-depth analysis of the band's musical choices and themes in this particular album (if therei such info available!) would further improve the article.--Yannismarou 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'll see what I can do. LuciferMorgan 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably remove the credits section, as you included all the people in the body or add everyone to the credits list. M3tal H3ad 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LuciferMorgan 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad Comments[edit]

I read through it all again,

  • I'm not sure about this but NRG, North Hollywood, with assistant engineering by Dave Colvin, I think it sounds better as , with assistant engineer Dave Colin 'engineering by' doesn't sound that great, but that's just me
  • The second paragraph of the first section, i think Dave Lombardo should be wikilinked as readers may have to scroll up
  • Lombardo's involvement marked the first time that he, King, Araya and Hanneman, 'he' doesn't sound good to me, how about 'that King, Araya, Hanneman and himself had appeared..
  • Also 'together on record since' on record sounds like a police report, 'a record' sounds better but thats just me.
Doesn't to me.
  • "a mix between God Hates" i know its a quote but couldn't it be spelled out fully to give the reader a clearer understanding, also the album is linked two sentences below
I don't think so, as it's a quote. I don't agree with tampering with quotes, so wikilinked the album for those unfamiliar. LuciferMorgan 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although eleven songs were originally slated for the album, only ten made the final track listing., i think 'although would be better after the comma. Also i think 'only' implies a small amount, this is just one less.
  • which boasts former drummer Paul Bostaph on drums., drummer Bostaph then says he played drums is redundant
I'm confused - there's no Bostaph quote in the article. LuciferMorgan 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Araya took one I'm not sure why However is there, also gall bladder could use a wikilink.
  • Additionally, an EP named, additionally then later 'this date' so i don't see the need for additionally
  • limited to five thousand copies and exclusively available at Hot Topic stores in the US. My version, limited to five thousand copies, exclusively available at(through sounds better here) Hot Topic stores in the US. Don't see the need for the 'and' and it doesn't sound great
  • The release previewed new track "Cult", which was made available for streaming on the band's official website the same day. The first part could use a 'the new track' 'made' could be removed from the following sentence.
  • John Milton, could use a wikilink
  • The third paragraph of marketing and promo is rather choppy
I agree upon closer inspection. This tends to happen when you merge tidbits of info from several sources. I'll address this soon. LuciferMorgan 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Music Guide could use a wikilink
  • These three - terrorism, warfare and religion. could possibly be wikilinked
I don't think these should be wikilinked. When it gets to FAC though, I'll try finding consensus as to what should happen. LuciferMorgan 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Larry Carroll, who had painted the, name mentioned above in full, just use Carroll
But then again, as your prior point, they would have to scroll up to see who the article is referring to. LuciferMorgan 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph Dias, meanwhile, meanwhile could be removed
  • 9/11 terrorist attacks, 9/11 is very American, perhaps September 11
  • Joseph Dias, issued a statement which mourned the cover artwork, this is mentioned two paragraphs above so is redundant and were talking about lyrical content here
  • jihad could be wikilinked under lyrical themes

Most of these suggestions are just my way of preferred writing, some comments might be useful, some might not. Anyway you did a dam good job expanding this article. M3tal H3ad 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some I think should be wikilinked, though things like "gall bladder" shouldn't be. LuciferMorgan 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what a gall bladder was(heard of it though) until i heard about Tom's operation, then searched it here. About Bostaph, this is the sentence "existing in an alternate version which boasts former drummer Paul Bostaph on drums." Saying he is the former drummer on drums, is redundant. Regarding the Carroll sentence when reading the first sentence i can still see Carroll's name, with Lombardo it's about three paragraph and the Table of contents above. M3tal H3ad 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do regarding the Bostaph thing, though I disagree with it. One, Bostaph is the former drummer, and two the demo still exists so is present tense. Hmm I disagree with the rest though also. When wikilinking, the link has to be relevant to the context and I wouldn't deem gall bladder so. When clicking the subsection "Album artwork" from Contents, you can't see the mention of Carroll. Also "Album artwork" is a new subsection. Thanks for the comments. LuciferMorgan 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding the lead Grammy, Billboard 200, Eyes of the Insane could be wikilinked, also it says '#5' later on the article it's number 5. I know you haven't worked on the lead much but when you do. The release previewed new track "Cult" i think could be turned to The release previewed the track "Cult", as it's not new anymore and preview implies it's new. M3tal H3ad 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O the groove metal person attacked Slayer, apparently I'm vandalizing by removing his edits. M3tal H3ad 02:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get onto your constructive comments. As concerns the lead, I'm not sure what else to do, though I'll address the '5' issue. I'm no good with leads really, but I don't see it ending up much different to what it already is, especially since nobody's realled singled it out after I rewrote it. I'll remove the word 'new' as concerns 'Cult', though I'll keep 'preview' since it indeed do that - preview the track. LuciferMorgan 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk (game)[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive1
Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive2

After much work, I feel that this article is very close to becoming FA. It needs someone to do a grammar check and suggest where I should include more citations. Granted, there is still one section that I still need to add a little bit more to, viz. the official Risk versions section. However, I plan on working on that as people give me suggestions. Thanks. :D b_cubed 05:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Clyde

I took a look mostly References. Here we go.
  • There is a lot of OR in this article or it simply is not citied. A few random examples are (not all-inclusive):
  • "In the most recent rulebook, three variations are given."
  • "The official rulebook suggests variations to the gameplay mechanics for "Risk experts,""
  • Some sections are missing a citation. While there is no law that there must be X citations in an article, it would be wishful thinking to believe someone could read a whole paragraph or section without challenging a single fact in it. Hence, you need more citations.
  • Standard setup. There's no proof that what is written is the proper order or accepted practice of beginning the game.
  • Player turn. There are seven paragraphs present, and it is a stretch to believe all of that without any refs.
  • Basic strategy. How do I, the reader, know the official rulebook said that? Cite.
  • Popular Culture. See if you can find something out there about the episode, and then look for a mention of Risk in the write-up.
  • You have a bunch of rulebooks in the external links section of the article; you're the expert here (I don't know which one to use) but find one to cite anything and everything.
  • Several sentences are POV and need a reference and possibly rewrite for FA standards. A couple examples (Not everything)
  • "Compared to other military board games, Risk is relatively simple and abstract."
  • "Setting up the Risk board for play is more involved than in many other games."
  • It looks like most of the refs are in cite web (you might want to make them all cite web), which is good, but try to flesh them out so every single one has a publisher and wikified publishing date.
  • Reference 8 is simply Risk II. If you must remove the lid to open a paint can, it is better to cite the directions or an FAQ rather than the paint can itself. Just a suggestion.
I think that'll get you started.--Clyde (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxillary central incisor[edit]

In the string of work of dental articles, this article has the most content about a single tooth than any other. I want to know what could be done to improve the language of the article (considering the specificity of the content) and what else may need to be added. I appreciate any feedback. - Dozenist talk 02:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a read through this article seems in pretty decent shape, although it may be a little more difficult for somebody (like me) who is unfamiliar with the terminology.
  • Right off the bat I think it would help if a simple definition was inserted as the first sentence of the article. For example, "Maximum central incisor is a tooth mounted in the upper jaw, or maxilla, of a human. It is usually the most..." or some such statement.
  • The introduction is perhaps a tad too brief. Most reviewers prefer that it provide an overview of the article, summarizing the key topics. So possibly another paragraph could be added?
  • The "Notation" section is in need of some citations.
  • There are a number of terms that could do with a wikilink: mesiodistally, cervicoincisally, cingulum, labial, fossa, cementum, cervical, mesial, distal, gingival, apical, malocclusion. The existing cingulum page may need an addition.
  • I believe: "maxillary central incisors [are] one of only two types"
  • Is "greater deeper than normal lingual fossa" correct? It reads peculiarly. Perhaps "greater deeper-than-normal lingual fossa", but that's still not quite right.
I hope this was slightly helpful. Unfortunately I'm not sure what else may need to be added as I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate all the feedback. Hopefully, I will be able to address all the issues soon. Thanks again! - Dozenist talk 15:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any connection with animal teeth in general? I could tell it was human teeth by the infob ox - but in the introduction would be good.
  • There is a paucity of wikilinks in the later paragraphs - good to see some more here. GB 08:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was able to address all the points listed here. Thanks again for all the input! - Dozenist talk 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universe[edit]

This article was the winner of the ACID on 3 January 2007. I was wondering how to improve this article to FA status. Right now it is pending GA status, but I think that it could use some more suggestions. Diez2 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few comments that I hope are useful:
  • It looks like many of the sections still need citations, and the last paragraph of the "Shape" section needs a neutral tone.
  • I'm a little bothered by the entire lead section. The second through the fourth paragraphs are really a discussion about what is the "observable universe" and that could easily be placed in a section by itself. Also the lead isn't really "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" as is stated on the Wikipedia:Lead section page.
  • The article could do with an in-depth discussion of the "fractal structure" of the Universe, ranging from individual, gravity-bound objects such as stars and planets, up to the largest scale with (super) voids and clusters. There's plenty of references on the topic.
  • Some additional illustrations may be helpful.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - some comments

  • the lead in section needs quite a bit of work, it is too big and covers too many ideas, without summarising important facts reveiled lower.
  • In composition the CP violation origin of matter is just a unproved hypothesis.
  • How about including the (current) density of photons in the unuverse.
  • Comoving does not get explained well enough in the light of how many times the term is used.
  • The chemical composition part fails to say how this information determines the density and time available for nucleosynthsis.
  • "The concept of parallel universes is understood only when related to string theory." Surely there are other concepts outside of string theory!
  • There seems to be no reference to the history or development of the idea of universe.

Alternate theories apart from big bang don't get a mention. GB 08:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


According to the general theory of relativity, some regions of space may never interact with ours even in the lifetime of the universe, due to the finite speed of light and the ongoing expansion of space. For example, radio messages sent from Earth may never reach some regions of space, even if the universe would live forever; space may expand faster than light can traverse it.

This example as given does not support the general theory of relativity. If light is a constant and is moving outward with the expansion of the Universe (no matter when the light wave was created)then at some time in the future the lightwave will "catch up" with the regions of space at the futherest reaches. If it didn't then the expantion of the Universe is happening at greater than the speed of light.

Eicosanoid[edit]

I'd like to get Eicosanoid up to Good Article, or even A standards.

  • Is the citation style OK?
  • Does it have too many tables?
    • In particular, should table 2 or 3 be spun off into a List of... article?
  • Does it have enough detail in the Action of prostanoids and Action of leukotrienes sections?
  • Are any parts of it too hard to understand, or too long-winded?
  • Is there anything not covered that should be?

David.Throop 23:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos[edit]

  • After a quick read-through: the lead looks good, quite comprehensive, not too long. – Thanks
  • I'm not fond of Harvard referencing at all, but that's not really a valid objection :) I do believe this article could benefit from footnotes as the primary citation style; readability in the "History" section is particularly hampered now with close repetition of researcher names. Formatting of citations is very good. – Thanks, done
  • The "Biosynthesis" section is less readily understandable than the rest of the article. – OK, I've added more material to Action of leukotrienes, so that it matches Biosynthesis.  :-)
  • Table and figure headings, as well as references to them throughout article body, are quite "textbooky"—I imagine this could raise objections in a possible FAC. I don't think tables should be split into separate articles. – Changed
  • In the "Function and pharmacology" section: the "Action of prostanoids" subsection and Table 3 could be rearranged into a subsection such as "Manipulation in medicine" (used in Immune system) or something to that effect.
  • Good use of summary style, leaves room for future expansion if/when necessary. The "Action of prostanoids" section could be fleshed up a little, but this is an "overview"; details should be left to ancillary articles.

Minor stylistic concerns:

  • IMHO, Table 1 could be centered. It's too "skinny" and the right-floating doesn't direct attention to it. – Changed
  • As per MOS:BOLD, italics should be used for emphasis, not boldface. – Changed
  • As per WP:GTL, "See also" templates should immediately follow the section heading. – Changed
  • Inconsistent usage of en dashes and em dashes throughout. – Changed
  • "The first step of eicosanoid biosynthesis occurs when cell is activated by mechanical trauma..."—odd construction.
  • The prose in "Biosynthesis of prostanoids" is somewhat truncated.

I am unfamiliar with the peer review process and don't know if this is frowned upon, but I'd enlist the assistance of an editor experienced with FAC (or at least GA reviewing) to help with copy-editing of the article. I hope some of my comments can be of use, and good luck! Fvasconcellos 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia[edit]

These are just a few quick comments, mostly on formatting; this is admittedly not a comprehensive review. I'll try to read the text more thoroughly later. It's great to see articles like this getting some attention.

  • The lead starts with "In human biochemistry" - just humans? Later the article says they're found in other organisms, but do any others use them as signaling molecules? I'd be rather surprised if humans were the only organisms to do so. – Changed
  • "downregulating eicosanoids" - not exactly sure what's being said here. It makes sense to say 'downregulating a gene' or 'downregulating an enzyme' but 'downregulating an organic compound' sounds wrong. Do you mean downregulating eicosanoid synthesis? – Changed
  • Agree that the Harvard referencing is awkward. It's not punctuated properly, which is something I normally wouldn't care about, but in this case it's rather distracting. Examples - the commas between separately parenthesized citations at the end of the lead, and the parenthetical citation of (Cyberlipid Center), which doesn't read as a citation without a date attached. Much as I dislike cite.php, converting to the ref-tag format would help, or failing that, use the Harvard citation templates. – Changed
  • Pathway diagrams are nice but really should be in SVG. Fig. 1 in particular looks too small and pixelated.
  • I'd put table 1 on the left to draw more attention to it, but perhaps reformulating it in a horizontal format would help. – Changed
  • In general, I don't like explicitly referring to tables and figures as table 1, figure 2, etc. in wiki text. We don't have a fig/table labeling system and these are just asking to fall out of sync with later editing. – Changed
  • There are image-crowding issues between table 2 and figure 3. I like table 3 but I'd rather see it wider and centered in its own section rather than inline with the text; it's too fat to sit inline at low resolution. – Changed
  • I'd like to see "eicosanoids in inflammation", since you emphasize that effect in the lead. Starting with the Celsus link is a bit awkward; write his full name and when he documented these signs, and that they are still generally accepted. I think the explanation for redness has been abbreviated too much, because I don't really follow; TXA2 is a vasoconstrictor that promotes the subsequent release of vasodilators?
  • I'm not sure how to fix this easily, but the mechanisms and inflammation sections suffer from TLAO (three-letter acronym overload). Maybe a separate list article would be useful, because it would be tedious and lengthy to show all the acronyms and full names (and ideally, chemical structures) in this article.
  • Also agree with Fvasconcellos that a copyedit by someone familiar with the usual stylistic quibbles of FAC would be useful to clean up punctuation, the occasional awkward sentence, etc. (I don't know much about GA, but my instinct is that technical articles do better with FAC, since GA was the original source of all the cite-after-every-sentence silliness, and is entirely dependent on whether the reviewer actually knows the subject or is just processing the backlog.) Opabinia regalis 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments so far. I will make most of the changes; I've already made some. Converting from Harvard to ref templates is going to be a head-scratcher, tho. David.Throop 10:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

István[edit]

This topic is especially challenging because real-world research in eicosanoids/prostoglandins is moving quickly, what is accepted now is being continuously overturned. Not long ago, scientists were told that they were metabolic waste products - now we know they are very important regulators. Currently there is a wide (but narrowing) scope of disagreement which should be more clearly noted in the article. IMHO, this article, streamlined, clarified, and tidied up, has a good shot at becoming FA. Some observations:

  • Definition - Choose only one definition, even though there is disagreement. Doing so sets the scope of the article as well, you must also mention competing definitions and explicitly state that the operative definition for this article is xyz. Everyone can understand that there may be other interpretations, and picking one is necessary to write a concise article. —Good guidance. I'm thinking of creating a sub-article with all the bloody detail of which experts use which definitions, and just giving a summary here.
  • Nomenclature section - should be split into "Definition" (see above) and "Etymology" (to explain the greek root of the word, etc.)
  • Lead - the first paragraph should focus precisely what eicosanoids do and not include where they come from, nor why they are called as such - there is plenty of space below. You have a challenge of presenting very technical material so keeping each paragraph within one scope (function, source, etc.) is very helpful to the casual reader.
  • IMHO, the information presentation should be ordered as: Intro (action, definition, source) > Definition (def, alt def, etymology) > Function > Scope of what is known/unknown > summary Biosynthesis > everything else (with "history" being last) —Would you leave the nomenclature stuff - the explanation of the subscripts and double bonds, the series letters - under etymology?.—Your call. strictly, its not etymology but rather a key/directory for reference - best to first think what the 20:5n3 adds beyond the wikilink for EPA and for whom, and then make a decision. I suspect its just gilding the lily, and theres already lots of gild.
  • Table 1 - very informative and very ambitious. I think it should be larger to be more legible, and perhaps be presented near the function section. It should also stipulate that this is the n6 branch of the metabolic pathway, that there is a corresponding n3 branch eminating from EPA as well.
  • Biosynthesis - this is very long and complex, and IMHO could be taken out and form its own article, referred to in summary form here (e.g. How to build a wristwatch may be a subarticle of Timepiece) and put more emphasis on action, and dietary/medical control.
  • Mechanisms of n3 action - appears above a chart describing metabolism of both n3 and n6 EFA. The chart should be labelled as such, and the concept more greatly emphasised (which is perhaps the single most important idea of this article) that both metabolic pathways compete for the same enzymes, thus altering the ratio of n3:n6 EFA intake will (we are *almost* sure) alter the relative concentrations of resulting eicosanoids, prostoglandins, leukotrienes, etc. and thus promote a greater or lesser inflammatory response at the cellular level. The next most important idea are factors which block this metabolism, i.e. alcoholism, trans-fat ;-) intake, diabetes, etc. specifically the Δ6 dehydrogenase which is active at several points of the pathway.
  • The image labeled "Prostacyclin I2" is itself labeled "Prostaglandin I2" on its image page, however is the same structure as is depicted in the Prostacyclin article (print it out, flip the paper over and hold it to the light). I believe the Image page is a misnomer, in any case it must be ironed out before FA(C). —Prostacyclin is the same thing as Prostaglandin I. I believe that when they first classified them, prostacyclin was counted as a prostaglandin, but that it was split off as it's own class due to its structural differences (the extra ring). Unfortuneatly, I haven't seen that spelled out anywhere. But Prostacyclin is definitely the same as Prostaglandin-I. I'll put that in the Nomenclature section or a footnote to it. —Are the two isomers? Those 5-member rings can be unstable esp with double bonds on either side. Its something that would definitely be picked up on during FA(C) and easily solved beforehand.
  • the article should briefly describe how the body disposes of these materials
  • the article should mention the scope of this biochemistry - if I am not mistaken I believe that this is shared by all vertebrates, perhaps more specifically mammals or primates? —I'll say mammals as I can find some authority for that, (tho I doubt anybody's actually looked at the monotremes.)
  • Changing reference format greatly improved the article. It could do with some more streamlining. —Thanks. Besides the twocolumn you've been working, what streamlining are you thinking of?—Readability - there are lots of Three-letter acronyms, some of which refer to the eicosanoids, some to precursors, etc. many are accompanied by parenthetical explanations of their structure - e.g. EPA(20:5 n3) which could probably be done away with as anyone can click on the link and get an in depth explanation. Perhaps it *might* work if you put reference to the eicosanoids proper in a different format (color or bolded) to stand out from all the other TLAs. (but then again it might not). The infoload is challenging, especially to readability.
  • Once the article is in the structure you want, it should be copyedited for clarity to remove ambiguities. As most of the article is written by one person, it's unavoidable that some passages may be ambiguous. Its the next step after this peer review (then have another before going FA(C))
  • Finally, I would write this to the audience - I anticipate that many readers come here because they are having health issues (esp. cardiovascular) and look to Wikipedia to start learning about their own condition. They should be treated very sensitively - hence more emphasis on function and control, less on ancilary issues. (and revising the ref format helps them greatly!) —This is probably the best advice I've received so far. It's what got me interested in the topic in the first place, too. I'll give it a lot of thought.

This is a good piece of work and does not lack for detail or scope. It can become FA with some structural streamlining, copyedit and another peer review. István 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How are Eicosanoids degraded or disposed of? - they have a short lifetime so there must be a pathway to elimenate them. GB 08:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivorous plant[edit]

This article has been thoroughly scrubbed by some good people, and appears to fit the criteria for featured article status. CodeCarpenter 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick scan-through, and two things need to be addressed:

  • While the article has a fair number of inline citations (~18), more are needed, especially in the first half of the article.
  • The lead section is short, and should be expanded to two or three paragraphs.

I'll try and do a more thorough read through tomorrow and start addressing these issues. --NoahElhardt 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • this sentence seems to be missing something (at least I am confused):

The stalked glands that once made it (and are so evident in Drosera) have become the teeth and trigger hairs - an example of natural selection hijacking preexisting structures for new functions.

  • The use of conventional is confusing in this sentence, later we find out that conventional for carnivorous plants is what it means.

The more carnivorous a plant is, the more conventional its habitat is likely to be.

  • Why are there no completely carnivourous plants - that get their energy from eating animals, after all there are parasitic plants. Are there any parasitic plants that can sprout on an animal and digest it? (curious) GB 08:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy[edit]

What is needed to improve this article? Goldfritha 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take all articles in 'See also' and mention them in context. Wiki-newbie 14:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of them? Err -- why? I could see purging the list, but I don't think all of them suitable in the text. Goldfritha 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looking. Goldfritha 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My 2 cents:
  • Your lead may be inappropriate in size. Examine WP:LEAD to confirm that it is the right size, please.
  • "The term "fairy" came into use in the folklore of Western Europe in the medieval era;" Please verify/cite sources here.
  • "Fairies are generally described as human in appearance, though of variable size, and with magical powers. This is a generalization, please cite sources.
  • For obscure, occult facts such as the following, please verify and cite sources: "Folklorists have suggested that their actual origin lies in a conquered race living in hiding, or in religious beliefs that lost currency with the advent of Christianity." I apoligize preemptively for any offense taken from me calling the statement occult, but it shocked me as quite bizarre and other viewers will agree.
  • "Folklorists have suggested that their actual origin lies in a conquered race living in hiding, or in religious beliefs that lost currency with the advent of Christianity." See WP:WTA
  • "Much of the folklore about fairies revolves about protection from their malice, by such means as cold iron or charms of rowan and herbs, or avoiding offense by shunning locations known to be theirs." Another generalisation, the FAC people will rip your article to shreads over these. Please cite sources. Your opening, "much of the folklore about fairies" is awkward.
  • " In particular, folklore describes how to prevent the fairies from stealing babies and substituting changelings." This statement infers that all folklore is about fairies that steal babies. I know it doesn't mean that and that the author was intending quite different meaning. That is how it reads, however. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma splice alert! "tales, and continue in modern literature." Remove it (the comma.)
An example about comma usage, as you make the mistake more than once.
INCORRECT: John walked to the store, and bought ice cream.
CORRECT: John walked to the store and bought ice cream.
CORRECT: John walked to the store, and he bought ice cream.
  • " they originally were of a much different image: tall, angelic beings or short, wizened trolls being some of the commonly mentioned. " Sources-- cite them.

You do very well citing sources below. I couldn't find any mistakes that I hadn't warned you about after, Good luck with your article. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm working on these, but I have a few questions.
Do you see anything that can be chopped from the lede without its not summarizing the article?
How do I make it clear that two sentences come from the same source?
What do you mean by "obscure, occult facts"?
I have looked at WP:WTA; I think I need you to tell me which word you are referring to. Goldfritha 02:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about these comments[edit]

If this article (or any other) has some phrase with an incorrect assemblage (commas in bad place; grammar issues; etc., etc.) then please use your time to fix it. If you realize a problem, doesn’t help to use your time for putting messages that invite others to work in it (it is not useful or polite). Please just do the correction. Do what you can do at that time (even if not to much), others eventually will complete the task.
a reader.

Korona Kielce[edit]

the article is A Class in my opinion and the mid importance Bartekos 12:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Three big points. Way too much overkill in using images as bullet points, and with section headers, etc. You use the team crest in the infobox, it shouldn't be used everywhere. It smacks of fanaticism. Second. The entire article needs to be referenced per WP:CITE with Reliable sources that are Verifiable. The writing could be fixed up, it's rather lacking in being "compelling". It's loaded with a lot of language emphasizing that Korona Kielce is "the greatest" "an ideal", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam without any other substance. Thus is does not comply with WP:NPOV and is a page plagued by rampant boosterism. The You Tube links in the "External links" section exemplify this rampant boosterism and should be removed. This article is quite far from "A-Class". In fact, excluding the boosterism and focusing on substantive material, the article might just have a stub-worthy quality to it. —ExplorerCDT 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ExplorerCDT you have written that there are words like: "the greatest" and "an ideal". I’d checked it for you.

Word “great/the greatest” is in sentences:

  • “By first three decades of existence, the club could not be praised with greatest sports progress”. It is negative not positive sentence.
  • “Despite great determination, local government have shown in building of stadium…”. I have checked it. Budget of local government in 2005 was 570.756.041 zł. Stadium cost about 50.000.000 zł. so it was almost 10%. Of course, after stadium was ended state government and ministry of sport paid back some costs. But it took them a year or two, before they did it, so as you see, it was a great determination of local government.
  • “Small toy - for child great windfall” it’s the name of action that was made by a fans organization. The action consist on collecting toys for children from orphanage.

The word “ideal” was in sentence:

  • “Korona is recognized by football players in Poland as an ideal place for deployment their talent”. But how would you called a club that has been building its squad by buying 2nd, 3rd and 4th division players, and has been fighting for first place in Premier League? How would you called a club that take some unknown player (Grzegorz Piechna) from 3rd or 4th division and made him a best striker in a Premier League? How would you called a club that bought defender from 2nd division (Paweł Golański) and in a year have made him one of the best defenders in Poland? (It’s a fact not a piece of gossip. Paweł Golański is a first squad player in Polish national football team. He was also called, by Polish press, one of the biggest football discoveries of year 2006.) So, that do you think, is it possible that Polish football players recognized Korona as “an ideal place for deployment their talent” or not?

In my opinion Korona Kielce is a mid importance, A Class article.

Have a nice day, all of you people :)

Misiekuba 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article would be A-class only if it were well-referenced by reliable sources, if the writing actually said something beside "Korona is a great team." and other boostership. If you substantiated it with sources (like critical reviews by newspapers, books, etc.) then maybe it'll be passable. But right now it's a sentimental POV praise-fest/cheerleading article from an obvious team fan. Also, on the face, it's not well-written at all, written as if English is not the author's primary language, being loaded with bad grammar, sentence fragments, incorrect subject-verb agreeement, and terrible spelling errors. Examples:
    • "In 2002 the bright era in Korona had come." (empty rhetoric, boosterism, pretty language)
    • "The goal was simple - to be the best polish football team. The dream became reality" (again, empty rhetoric, boosterism)
    • "The club was funded in 1973 by connecting of 2 clubs from Kielce - Iskra and SHL." (Do you mean "funded" or "founded"?)
    • "Unfortunately the team did not played very well and was relegated. Next promotion was in 1982. Korona played in 2nd league to 1990 and in that year was relegated once again. Year 1996 brought several changes." (sentence fragments, what do you mean by "relegated"? "did not played" is not good English.)
    • "Supporters of Korona are one of the most numerously on settling on tribunes of premier league Orange Ekstraklasa matches" (most numerously what? bad grammar).
    • "New Korona stadium, despite that it stands in place, in which a stadium stood earlier, it is an object entirely new, built from bases according to directions of UEFA and in construction of sports object newest trends." (run-on string of fragments, no sense of coherence for the sentence, poor translation: "sports object newest trends")

This is just a start to identifying the many grammatical and spelling errors throughout the article. It not only needs a thorough copyedit, it needs to be completely rewritten. The language is incoherent, and often in places reads like a jumbled mess of words. The paragraph transitions are all in this flowery self-promoting prose; often complex and inconsistent in their structure. There's excessive use of bold text. For example, you do not need to embolden the name Korona every time you use it. In fact, the Manual of Style says plainly not to do it.

The "Major Achievements" is a bullet point list, and should be transformed into prose...right now it is too much like trivia. Aside from not saying much about the team, it's style is sorely lacking. Sure, the article might be "mid-importance", but if you think this article is A-class now, you're sorely mistaken and regrettably deluding yourself. Right now, this article is somewhere between a stub and a start in terms of article quality. It is no where near an A-class rating, not even on the same continent. —ExplorerCDT 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • P.S. I've removed the use of images as bullet points and to punctuate section-headers, per WP:MOS and WP:IUP and to make this look less like a pathetic fan website. I also (and more importantly) think their repeated use violates the fair use policy regarding the use of logos. I also added a few categories taht are relevant to the article. The rest you have to do.—ExplorerCDT 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get a peer review for this article to help improve its quality. Could you rate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MKS1973fan (talk • contribs) 15:56, January 28, 2007 (UTC)

Double act[edit]

This article was nominated for Good article status by User:Crestville, not because it was considered to qualify but in order to elicit comments. I'm requesting a peer review for the article as a more appropriate way of achieving that. Issues that have been raised on the article's talk page include the lack of cited references and the difficulty in defining a double act. EALacey 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EALacey[edit]

My own comments follow.

  • As has been noted, the article is very short on references. It won't be sufficient simply to provide references for all the factual details; much of the article is analysis, which needs to be sourced to reliable sources or removed as original research.
  • The lead section ought to provide an overview of the rest of the article. At the moment, it's largely concerned with definitions, and doesn't reflect the content of the sections below.
  • I think the "History" section overlaps too much with the geographical sections "United Kingdom" and "USA". The latter in particular seems to contain little unique material besides names.
  • It might be more accurate to talk about the "personas" of a comic duo, rather than their "personalities".
  • Some of the analysis in the History section needs development. How was it, for example, that The Two Ronnies "completely dispensed with the need for a "straight man"", or that The Mighty Boosh "essentially remained traditional at their roots"? How are Ant and Dec "basic yet effective"?
  • I don't understand the sentence under "1970s" about Saturday Night Live. It "provided" comedians to whom?
  • I don't know much about Vic and Bob, but did they really "deconstruct" light entertainment? I suspect another word may have been intended.
This is a direct quote from a documantary analysing the history of light entertainment, so you would have to ask Stephen Fry--Crestville 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peter Cook and Dudley Moore perhaps also deserve a mention as being the first double act to go against the grain..." Either they deserve a mention, in which case there's no need for "perhaps", or it's not clear that they do, in which case the whole sentence should go. (If the sentence is supposed to mean they were "perhaps the first double act to go against the grain", then move the word "perhaps".)
  • The characters in Porridge "endured a relationship of mutual respect"? At least one word in that sentence needs changing.
  • On the positive side, the article's prose is pleasant to read, especially in the "History" section. EALacey 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandugo Festival[edit]

So much recent work has been done on the article. Any feedback is needed on what needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing?--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Goebel[edit]

This is my first successful good article, and I'm trying to see how close it might be to featured article status. All help is appreciated. Acdixon 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park (film)[edit]

I've been cleaning up the article with the help of an excellent book from 1993 (so before it became a monstrous, no pun intended, hit) from the library, despite some pages about the pre-production having been torn out. I hope to gain advice on whether I really should cite pages or simply reference the book multiple times. Please give me some other advice too, because I can easily see this becoming FA. Wiki-newbie 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I haven't read through it yet, at a cursory glance I can see it relies pretty much on one reference. It would probably never get FA status with just one reference.A mcmurray 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might have to strengthen the fair use rationales. These need to be (re)written: Image:Jurassic_Park_poster.jpg, Image:Jurassic_Park_screenshot_3.jpg, Image:JurassicParkcast.jpg.--Supernumerary 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure where I should leave my comments, but at a brief glance, the first thing I noticed was the "differences from the novel" section. I think it would be good to find information as to why Spielberg changed what he did, or why David Koepp changed it (since he wrote it). Also, I think it would be good to get some other sources, it will help with the neutrality of the article. That's all for this second. Please move my comment to the appropriate place if it happens to be in an incorrect one. Thanks. Bignole 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite neutrality, which is a prose issue, but certainly verifiability. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erikster[edit]

  • I would suggest doing something about the T-rex image in the Plot section, as it's been pushed below the Infobox Film template on my screen. This could be handled by placing Production as the lead section, which would put the Plot section far enough below to display images without a problem.
I'm unsure, readers tend to want to know the plot first. Production proceeds to deconstruct it. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Dinosaurs featured" should be re-titled "Featured dinosaurs". Also, in that section, this sentence doesn't make sense: "A dog was used for when it kills a Gallimimus." In what context -- body, sound?

I think the sentence is fine given the sound information before it.
What does it mean, though? Did they use a dog's carcass for the Gallimimus when the T-rex kills its prey? Is that the implication? It seems like that would be controversial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wiki-newbie 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Marketing section obviously needs references, though I'm thinking that the Toys and Merchandise subsection could be written more succinctly. There is a whole paragraph about trading cards that could be summed up in one or two sentences, and the same treatment could possibly be given to other merchandise details.

That section was dumped from the book's article, which lacks references really. I'm thinking of jettisoning it all together. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Reaction section has some weasel wording -- "most well-known films of all time", "first notable film", "many consider it to be a milestone in special effects history", and "film's influence on dinosaurs in popular culture was also significant". There needs to be evidence to back these statements. Being familiar with the film and its popularity at the time, I don't disagree with the statements, but someone who has never heard of Jurassic Park might not understand the claims made. The Reaction section could use an expansion tag to grow up specific reviewers' criticism, positive or negative. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a section I've not really touched since I've been sprucing up the Production information. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if your focus is on Production at the moment, I'll offer some criticism. Is there a year or period of time in which Crichton conceived of JP? Was it a recent idea or something he's been wanting to do forever? Also, you should precede Malia Scotch Marmo with "Screenwriter" just to make it immediately clear who she is. Also, you mentioned that she deleted Ian Malcolm, but he's obviously in the film. At what point was he re-added? Another sentence: "...but fortunately for the crew they only lost one day of shooting." Sounds a little too casually written, any way to sound more objective, unless the reference specifically said that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is difficult as I've said the book has missing pages, and the DVD is exclusively on the special effects. I have Joseph McBride's book on Spielberg, but I'm unsure considering he supplies a lot of references, to which I'm unsure of citing his book or his sources. Wiki-newbie 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Raglan[edit]

  • I've only glanced briefly at the article. Relying on only one reference is a major flaw. A film this recent will have a whole slew of available informational resources. The article as a whole seems a little disorganized; for example, the "Production" section should immediately follow the synopsis. The "Reaction" section is amazingly skimpy; a brief critical response paragraph or two needs to be added, with negative and positive reactions from notable reviewers. And while short, this section is full of unsupported claims that have to be sourced. In fact, the majority of the article is missing citations. I think the article contains interesting details and information, but in my opinion still needs plenty of work to bring it to GA status.-Hal Raglan 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been referencing pages of Shay and Duncan's book for verifiability. Note the film is over 13 years old, so internet references will be hard to find. I have another book that is about Spielberg overall, though it does mention stuff on the reaction, which I could use as additional sources. I have also used up the DVD. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be many, many print references available, which are usually more reliable than internet sources. I know that Cinefantastique and Cinefex devoted issues to this film; both of these magazines usually have outstanding, extremely comprehensive "Making-of" articles. Many other similar magazines (such as Starlog) will also have done cast and crew interviews, with associated production detail information, for this film. It was a huge production, much hyped at the time, so it really should be no problem finding such publications are your local library. If you are unable to adequately source the article at the moment, you might want to hold off on trying to get this to GA or FA status until you do.-Hal Raglan 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are these magazines avaliable in the UK? Wiki-newbie 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all U.S. publications, unfortunately, so if they are available in the UK I supposed they'd probably be for purchase, at high prices, at stores that sell "collector's publications". Do libraries there keep copies of such genre magazines? If so, I'm sure Starburst undoubtedly had articles regarding this film. If there were similarly-theme UK magazines being published in 1993 (sorry, I can't think of any titles), they also might be worth taking a look at. Over the weekend, I'll look thru what I have at home and see if I can help with the article's citation problems.-Hal Raglan 20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If so, it'd be great to have your contributions. Wiki-newbie 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LordHarris[edit]

Hi Ive had a good look at the article. Some of the sections like production were excellent, well referenced, others not so much. These are some of my thoughts, though I havent made any changes to the article. I would be willing to help, as I have Joseph Mcbrides, Steven Baxters, Ian Freers, Tony Crawleys and warrens bucklands books on Spielberg and his movies. If you want me to look through them for a particular piece of info or a reference, then I'd be more than happy to.

1.) The Plot section was concise but needs to be rewritten in some places. The last paragraph is I think too long and about several different parts of the plot, could be expanded.

The previous one was quite long. I've tried my best to summarise it. Wiki-newbie 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.) The Changes from the book section really does need more references and some of the statements seem a bit subjective e.g. "in the movie Hammond is a kindly old man". Well I think Spielberg gives him that personna on the outside, but inside he is a ruthless, angry businessman, especially when he realises that JP is no more... Also it states many other minor characters are also different, perhaps a sentance or two on one or two "e.g.s"?

3.) Production section could do with an image, maybe a screenshot from dvd special features?

4.) Marketing section needs a lot of work. I agree with previous statements but am not sure its best to get rid of it all together, as the consumer marketing of JP has had a major impact on modern movie consumerism. I did think that there was too much info on toys and merchandise. Perhaps it could be written more concise, to say two paragraphs and then referenced.

5.)Reaction section, needs expanding and a reference for the criticism. Also with the academy awards, it only states those that it won. Did the film win all of the awards it was nominated for, or were there some it didnt win? Perhaps include nominations if there were any?

6.) The Parodies section needs a short opening sentance to the link for main article e.g. JP has had an impact on popular culture and has been parodied etc.

Overall good beginnings of an FA article! LordHarris 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Should I merge the changes from the book with Production? Could come across as original research. See talk page. WikiNew 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is GA guys! WikiNew 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kampfgruppe[edit]

This term is often used in the literature and ppl do not know it so it has potential for attracting users to Wikipedia. The room for improvement includes

  • links with battle group article
  • more strategy / tactics
  • examples of kamfgruppen in action
  • multimedia - maps and such.

--Jinxs 12:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few comments that I hope are of some use:
  • This article is quite short and is in need of further development. The introduction mentions that the term was used during World War I, but then no further discussion is made of that conflict. For example, who developed this tactic and why did it become practiced by the German General Staff during that conflict?
  • Was this taught in the German military schools, or did it just get employed on a whim? I think it is important to explain why this term is notable to warfare, perhaps by comparing kampfgruppen to the more inflexible formations used in other armies.
  • Didn't the U.S. armor divisions during WWII employ combat commands that were somewhat similar in functionality? I.e. they could be tailored to a specific requirement.
  • "batalion" should be spelled "battalion"
  • German words such "komponent" should be in English where possible, or else (as in the case of "panzer") should be explained to the reader.
  • "It has to be understood that" seems like extraneous text that could be removed without harming the sentence.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of members in the 110th United States Congress[edit]

So, what do you think? I'm trying to make it featured. I've already put in about 200 edits. The House is further along than the Senate, but the Senate will be easier since there are fewer members. Just H 00:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the second table pushed over to the right of the screen by the maps in the middle. Is this unique to me? Trebor 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that on this end. Just H 08:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not doing it now, anyway. It's looking good (the downside of all the pictures is that it's taking an age to load though). Can't think of anything to suggest (except the categories suggested at the bottom); seems to be a good idea for a list, done well. Trebor 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent list, very clear and easy to understand. However, why not put[[ ]] around the senators names as you have with the congressmen , senators are qute likely to have an article on wikipedia. I have done the first three names as an example.ncma 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do. I've only just started on the Senators.Just H 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multimeter[edit]

I'd like to get a peer review for this article to help improve its quality. Eventually, I'd like to give it a run at Featured Article status. I know that's a ways off, so I'd like to develop a laundry list of things that need to be improved before it can reasonably be considered for FA. Thanks!! -- Mikeblas 15:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Measured Quantities section the two last paragraphs don't really belong. In the References section there is a paucity of non-vendor material. There could be good text books, or non sales oriented web sites. Perhaps there could be more of a section on how the device works and a block diagram. Another section could cover the criticisms and problems experienced with multimeters -- eg display fluctuating, load on circuit, inability to attach probes, limits to current or voltage handling, resolution higher than accuracy... GB 11:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also could do with some history of the multimeter, when a combined meter was first developed, when the first digital one was made, etc. Trebor 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truman Capote[edit]

Although I have not edited this page yet, it is only because I think it is a fantastic article. I am fairly new, but this seems to meet standards for Featured Article status. Can anyone with more experience please correct me if I'm wrong, and offer any suggestions as to what needs improvement if it isn't at FA quality yet? One thing I am concerned about is the multimedia links at the bottom. It's not part of a standard encyclopedia, nor does it really fit WP policy, but they are well-chosen links, and I am inclined to keep them, as anyone who needs information about Capote would probably like them. Also, other online encyclopedias (Britannica, I believe, is one of them) often include multimedia links. Goyston (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not even remotely close to WP:WIAFA - have a look at WP:LEAD, WP:MSH, WP:NOT, and WP:EL, and the article needs to be thoroughly cited - see WP:CITE. After you cite the article, clean up the section headings, write the lead and prune the External links, I suggest submitting it for GA, then another peer review, before contemplating WP:FAC. Kroger Babb is a recent FA you might compare to. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition[edit]

We do not know your feelings on this article e.g. what could be improved; this makes it harder to suggest improvements please state your feelings 82.40.19.146 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK: Ernest Shackleton is one of the three or four most famous Antarctic explorers, and this is his most famous expedition. The resource and "see also" lists at the end of this article by no means list all of the analysis and work that have been done by historians, authors, and film makers on this particular expedition; its story is a compelling story of survival. Does this article reflect that? How might it better reflect that? Fworsley 20:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani[edit]

  • Very detailed, well-researched rewrite of the article. It is a little unbalanced - for example, far too much on the conditions during the voyage of the James Caird when the voyage to Elephant Island is covered in half a sentence. Nothing on the Elephant Island party until they are rescued, yet an in-depth account of the initial freeze.
Thank you for the comments. I would like to put in some more about the trip in the three boats and the conditions on Elephant Island, as well as perhaps remove some of the text about them blundering into the ice. However, the emphasis was somewhat intentional, I wanted to emphasize the active parts of the journey, while writing less of the details of their misery. I find the trip in the James Caird to be truly amazing, and I didn't want to leave out why.
Maybe it can be summarized more here and the main story told in the James Caird (boat) article. The size of the waves is repeated twice - once in the description and then in the excerpt from South. It's good story in its own right and you can't really do it justice in a parent article without increasing the article to huge proportions. Worsley has some good info on the trip to Elephant Island in Shackleton's Boat Journey.
Some other points:
  • The "Trivia" section should go: if it isn't interesting enough to be worked into the main body, then it isn't interesting enough to be in the article.
Most of the points that I put into the trivia section were facts that I thought were interesting, but not relevant to the main points of the article. Any tangent to include them would be too distracting, so I threw them all under Trivia at the end. Trivia sections seem to be popular on Wikipedia, perhaps because they give other users a chance to easily add random facts that they happen to know without rewriting a paragraph, etc.
Which is one of the problems - they end up as a magnet for every "interesting" "fact" that has a vague connection to the subject ("A character in the anime series Oh la la is called Enduro, which sounds a bit like Endurance" etc.) If you want to get this to FA standard it will have to go.
  • The lead doesn't conform to WP:LEAD.
I'm going to look at these conventions and improve this section.
  • Section titles don't conform to WP:MOS (sentence case) and are a little flowery and derivative for my liking (Endurance Beset is a popular caption for the photos, Into the Lifeboats feels like it needs an exclamation mark)
Likewise.
  • There is over- and under-linking: for example, Frank Worsley is linked several times (once as Captain Worsley), Vincent is linked in a footnote and the crew list but not in the body, the James Caird isn't linked at all.
James Caird is linked as a photo caption, but I will link it in the main text as well. I linked everybody in the crew list, but was more selective in the article. At the moment, no page exists for John Vincent, only a disambiguation page listing other people with the same name. This is true for some of the other crew members as well. I'm going to review these, but links to disambiguation pages where the subject isn't even listed are confusing.
Point taken, but you can add them to the disambig pages even if the article doesn't exist yet.
  • Date and measurement formats are inconsistent (ft v foot) and I would have thought British English would be appropriate for this topic.
Someone else requested the metric units, and I thought that they couldn't hurt. I spelled the units when hyphenated, and abbreviated it otherwise. For some reason, "23-ft (7-m) boat" just looked wrong, so I wrote it out as "23-foot (7-meter) boat". Maybe I'm just not used to seeing metric units in parentheses like that. I'll see what the MOS says.
  • Footnotes are far too expansive (there's almost another article in there).
Come on! They aren't that long.
Lots of the information could be covered by a wikilink to the appropriate article.
  • It could do with a copy-edit, there is some clunky phrasing in places: Shackleton was forced to give the order to abandon ship, and onto the ice, and into freezing temperatures of minus 15°F (−25°C), the crew took themselves, their sled dogs, their supplies, and three lifeboats.
I kind of liked that sentence. I'll review the article again after I've made some of the new changes.
  • James Caird was 22.5-foot not 23-foot (though that is wrong in the James Caird article too). McNeish should be McNish. Endurance should be in italics throughout. South Pole should be capitalized. The description of Elephant Island should use the same tense throughout.
I rounded the length. Shackleton wrote of "McNeish", but I'm going to change it; I think you are correct. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks.
I believe it got changed to McNeish by Shackleton's ghost writer (and by an over-enthusiastic editor in Worsley's case). His birth certificate says McNish, though he signed MacNish.
  • All those images crowd the article a little - some seem to be just in there because they are available, not because they illustrate anything in the article.
Every one was meant to illustrate something. If their relevance is not clear, then perhaps I should improve the captions. You seem to be familiar with the topic, and I wonder how the article reads to someone who knows less about it. Pictures can bring a great deal of understanding. It's one thing to say that the men set up a camp, and another to see a photograph of Hurley and Shackleton sitting on the ground surrounded by ice. If you've already seen the picture, it probably means less. I'm sure there are some problems given that the article must display differently given the size of a monitor. I'll see what can be done.
Maybe rearranging them would help (I'm not keen on what you've done with the picture forcing the infobox down, but at least it has let the text breathe further down).
  • The "Advertisment" section is out of place at the end of the article and couldn't be added in a balanced way at the beginning. I suggest it is moved to footnotes (if you slim down the rest of the footnote section)
Originally it was at the beginning, but I moved it to the end for exactly that reason. I put it in its own section because it seems like exactly the type of thing that someone who had just seen a documentary film or something would be intrested in. If I put it in a footnote, they might not find the info.
  • Reference 19 is missing (p.97 of Worsley's Shackleton's Boat Journey ISBN 0-7126-6574-9. if it was missing because you couldn't find it, and mention of the use oil paints is also in Caroline Alexander's Endurance p.108 ISBN 074754123X)
Thanks for the references. I'm going to put Worsley's in.
Hope this helps. Yomanganitalk 12:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fox: Assault[edit]

I would enjoy to see this article eventually reach featured article status, and I think it's on its way. I would like feedback on its overall appearance and feel so far. Thanks. PlatformerMastah 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations from the game manual should be listed separately for separate pages. The gameplay section should probably have more citations as well. That was just a rough pass through. Jay32183 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

  • Co-developed by Namco and Nintendo, Assault was released in 2005, however it was available for rental exclusively at Blockbuster and Hollywood Video stores beginning 1 February as a promotion - bit of an odd section. It being released in 2005 does not contradict the fact it was available for rental on 1 February. If anything it implies that the 1 February release wasn't in 2005, which I assume it was. Adding the exact release date would be one way of solving that.
  • The "citation needed" tagged sentence needs a cite (obviously...).
  • although this was the first and only time that it was ever mentioned - "first" and "ever" are redundant; just say it was the only time.
  • News about the game would not come about until - very wordy, could do with a rephrase.
  • Throughout 2004 - not sure what relevance linking "2004" to 2004 in video games has. It doesn't really add context, in my opinion.
  • and the name itself was changed to what it is today - clumsy prose. "Today" is a bit of an odd word to use as well.
  • Many new voice actors were hired for Assault - were they? You only go on to list two.
  • Star Fox: Assault, by critics, was the least well-received game in the series, which currently holds a 71% average at Game Rankings - again, messy prose.
  • two of the reviewers gave it a favorable 8.0 out of 10 - is that favourable? If so, by whose standards? Might be better just to say 8 out of 10.
  • Is there any more information available on sales figures? It seems very imprecise at the moment.
  • The article as a whole could do with some balancing. The "in-universe" details like the gameplay and plot are the majority of the article, with relatively little on Development and Reception. If there are additional details available for the latter two, they would be good to include, although I acknowledge that sourcing can often be tricky.

A good article which needs a bit of work and a copyedit. Good work so far. 14:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ANGI Homeservices[edit]

This is an article on a company, and a lot of effort is being made to keep it neutral. However, some people think it reads like an ad, while others think it is too hostile to the company. It has not yet turned into an edit war, and I don't want it to; hence the request for review. I realize peer revew is generally for articles that are higher-quality than this one; but be brutal. I want to know exactly where the article needs improvement. Which sentences are not NPOV; where is the language awkward; where are sources lacking; what sources are poor quality; I want to know everything. How can this article be improved? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the automated suggestions. I'm really looking to get more human eyes on this article. I have taken care of a few of your automated suggestions and responded specifically to some others. I would suggest human reviewers look at my responses to the automated suggestions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David I of Scotland[edit]

Been working on this page off and on for a while in my user space. Aiming to get it passed as an FA, so wanna skip the avalanche of opposes, objects and comments by getting some more feedback first. The article appears very long; but not sure what to cut. Even though kb range is currently in the 90s, actual article text is only around 60. How would such an argument go down in FAC? Anyways, any feedback will be most appreciated. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhoi Su-30[edit]

One of the more important warplanes of our time, and perhaps the most important of the "Eastern bloc"; Indian Su-30MKIs reputedly kicked USAF F-15s all over the sky (tho the fairness of the exercise is disputed). Definitly something that should be quickly moved up to GA status methinx... - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

There's still a lot of work to be done here, obviously. In no particular order:

  • The lack of references and citations is a major problem.
  • Bulleted lists are overused, and should be converted into prose.
  • The issue with the subsidiary variant articles needs to be resolved. I wouldn't necessarily advocate merging them in, but they'll need a longer summary section here, at the least.
  • Is the "Su-30MK multi-role twin-seater" section supposed to be a sub-section of "Development"?
  • There doesn't seem to be any coverage of it's operational use (or, indeed, anything after the development phase).

Once the big problems get fixed, you can turn to copyediting and fiddling with the structure and coverage; but, at the moment, it's a bit premature to consider those. Kirill Lokshin 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Askari Mark[edit]

A very good start, but I agree with Kirill Lokshin that there remains further development to be done. Not to duplicate his comments, I would add the following observations:

Automated[edit]

PocklingtonDan[edit]

  • "The aircraft is comparable with USA's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle." I'm not happy with this sentence. Why is this necessary? Why contrast to a US fighter as opposed to a British, French, Israeli, Chinese or whatever one? You assume US readership. I would remove this sentence. You have already described its role, a US-specific comparison is unnccessary
  • As above, sorely lacking cites at present
  • As above, more info needed on training, operational use, etc
  • The "specifications" section should go in some kind of sidebar rather than being a section of the main article, in my opinion
  • "Differential ±15-degree deflection of the engines' axisymmetric nozzles (with turn axes positioned at 32-deg angle to each other) enables pitch/yaw thrust vectoring control" This is all Greek to me. If using concepts like this, you should link to wiki articles on them, introduce a diagram or explain them in-line, in my opinion

I think ideally you need to find smeone with understanding of and access to Russian sources, where you will hopefully find a wealth of information that you can use to expand the article - PocklingtonDan 09:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Rolling Thunder[edit]

Rounding out work on this article and would appreciate any critical input. RM Gillespie 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin[edit]

A couple very minor editorial notes before actually reading the article:

  • The plural for "p" (as in pages) is "pp", and not, as far as I know, "pps". The latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style recommends not using "p" or "pp" at all, since it's understood that the numbers refer to pages, but that choice is up to you.
  • Page ranges in your notes and date ranges in your book titles should be en dashes rather than hypens, but no one will ever care except me. ;-)
  • Your list of notes is long enough that they probably should be made smaller, using the standard trick.

That's it for now from the overly nitpicky department. —Kevin 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I notice that there are several assertions within the notes, such as "Contrary to opinion, the U.S. public still supported the American effort..." or "The most accurate description of the incidents is...." These sorts of things have to be cited as well, as you have done with some other notes. —Kevin 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated[edit]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Looks quite good; a few points to work on, though:

  • The lead should be longer; about 2–4 paragraphs for an article of this size is appropriate.
  • Everything cited in the notes should appear in the full list of sources. This will also allow you to remove the bibliographical information from the notes in favor of short-form citation throughout.
  • The final paragraph of the article could use some editing for tone. Judgemental wording ("enviable", "tragic", etc.) is probably best avoided.

Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy J. Ray[edit]

I went in and wiki-fied dates. While there, I re-did some links to specific aircraft to keep a consistent style throughout, and while I was at it I changed all the "pps." to "pp.". Rjray 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan[edit]

  • I think I read somewhere that articles entitled "Operation X" are frowned upon because they inherently cover only one side of the conflict. Is there an alternative non-combatant-specific term that oculd be used instead here?
  • List of cites is excellent, so you are to be commended on that
  • Acronyms are overused. I know it is handy to use a phrase once, assign it an acronym, and thereafter use the acronym, but I feel you have overused this. Quite apart from it being good to refer to a thing using a variety of terms for reader interest, if you forget what an acronym means, you have to scroll up to find out. I would especially avoid using acronyms in section headers, and I would introduce each term using its full name at least once per section in case someone clicks down fromt he TOC without having read the sections above it, especially since many are clearly USMIL acronyms I for one am not familiar with
  • I would try and balance the account with more Vietnamese sources, since almost all (maybe absolutely all?) your sources are western.

Generally, though, a very impressive article - PocklingtonDan 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the title goes, I suspect there isn't a better one, since this isn't really a typical battle at some particular location, but rather a particular sub-type/phase of the broader bombing campaign against North Vietnam. I've never seen this particular effort given a name other than Rolling Thunder, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 10:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of The Big O[edit]

I'd like to know the level of detail acceptable for the character entries in this article. As it is now, the entries go into ending details, character analysis and trivial commentary on the idiosyncrasies of the characters. ("Dorothy is also in the habit of standing perilously close to edge of the roofs of tall buildings" comes to mind)

I've checked the guidelines but am not any closer to understanding the right way to go about fixing the article. I like the List of Metal Gear Solid characters, but to follow it as an example would mean trimming most of what is already done. Any suggestions?--Nohansen 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple thoughts:
  • The first and probably most effective improvement would be to add more reliable sources - I appreciate your efforts to source the character info, but it looks to me as if most or all of the sources are blogs. The easiest source for info on something like this is to get all of the DVDs and manga volumes (maybe you can do it by interlibrary loan, or by leafing through the manga volumes at the store) and review the introductions/commentary/special features for "out of universe" information. If you can come up with a comment on why they chose Steve Blum for Roger or what they were going for with Dorothy, you can win big points both for sourcing and "out of universe" style.
  • Generally, all of the descriptions could be shortened and rewritten to make their point more clearly. It seems like there are some random sentences jumbled among what could be a clearer, better organized work, and those sentences should either be cut or integrated into the overall narrative.
Thanks, TheronJ 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at this article I can see a few obvious errors. There are a couple of spelling mistakes. It should conform to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) naming conventions. Move it to List of Big O characters or a similar name. It should also fit into a category other than the Big O category. It could be put into Category:Manga and anime characters by series for example. There are sentences like This character is a fictional character in the anime series The Big O which leads me to believe that there has been a mass merger of individual pages at some stage. --Squilibob 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so no other editor gets any ideas on renaming the article, WP:ANIME says Name this page List of characters in (series) if it is just a list, or Characters in (series) if it contains actual information on the characters. On the subject of what should be done with the "Character history" sections, I'd like to point out the Dalek article. Sure, the Daleks have a longer history than "Angel", but you get the idea.--Nohansen 22:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear[edit]

Hopefully the eventual outcome of this peer review will be to bring this article up to 'Featured Article' level. However, there may still may be a number of improvments that others feel can be made. It would be greatly appreciated if others could highlight these points so as edits can be made. I feel that there should be a particular emphasis on the 'Segments' article, as I feel it currently has a lot of fancruft. I have made some headway into editing this section however feel it does need more work. Thanks ncma 20:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

  • First sentence is not good. To open with "The current format of" is very weak, and the awards its won should not be put in the very first sentence. Something simple, like: "Top Gear is BBC Television series about cars" is much better.
  • There are numerous citation needed tags, which (obviously) need citations.
  • There are stubby paragraphs in the lead and throughout the article.
  • Segments, as you say, is fancrufty. It is also probably focused on recent episodes too much. Top Gear has been around a long-time, so this isn't really an accurate reflection.
  • References change between "Accessed" and "Retrieved on" - the latter is probably the most-adopted standard.
  • The prose needs general work, but that should probably come after the other changes.

This needs quite a lot of work, particularly focusing on generalising it - at the moment, it is much too reflective of the current format of the show. Trebor 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will work on making some of those changes, isn't their an article on the original format of Top Gear?ncma 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, so there is - I failed miserably in noticing it. Shouldn't there then be an article on the current format of the show, with the main Top Gear article summarising both? Trebor 16:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - shall discuss changing title on discussion pagencma 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References changed - don't know how to link the citations in article, however

The reasoning for Top Gear being an article and not a disambiguation page is that Top Gear originally encompassed both formats of the show. Any content relating to the original show was recently forked off to Top Gear (original format). However, there are over 400 links point to Top Gear, the vast majority of which are about the new format. At first I was against the idea of a move, but after seeing how the article could be confused in the way it is presented, it might be worth it. With AWB, it shouldn't be too much work. More discussion at the article talk page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AndyZ automated suggestions[edit]

The Orb[edit]

  • I'd like to hear what others think needs to be done to make it into an FA (its currently a GA). Much copyediting needs to be done still, but what other issues are there? Is there too much information? Are some parts confusing? Is there anything that needs to be explained to those not familiar with electronic music? Those are just a couple concerns I have at this point - all general comments and suggestions are still needed of course. Thanks in advance! Wickethewok 08:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one? Wickethewok 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wish I knew what needs addressing, but you're better off giving editors a bell who usually hang around FAC and object for specific reasons. See if they can give you some ideas. LuciferMorgan 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Wicket, looks and reads really well. A few suggestions, though some may be subjective:

  • "Their early performances were inspired by ambient producers, most notably..." - clarify that these influences were from an earlier period, and the The Orb helped re-popularised the genre.
  • "Trippy sound" could be blue linked to psychedelic.
  • "Albums by The Orb have appeared on the UK Albums Chart" - how many albums?
  • Would be very interested to know what hand Paterson had in the production of Chill Out.
  • Two consecutive sentences begin with "As a result of the break-up".
  • "At least six studios and twenty outside musicians were used over the course of three weeks of recording" - sounds intriguing, why was this? How were they able to afford such production?
  • "many trip-hop groups sprang up emulating The Orb's "chill-out blueprint"" - might be worth name dropping a few.
  • "The Orb's more recent influences consist largely of German techno producers" - such as...
  • "the chemical generation" may need to be clarified.
  • The 'Imagery' section is very good; great idea. + Ceoil 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestions, Ceoil! I'll get on this stuff soon.  :-) Wickethewok 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borobudur[edit]

I have made some major modifications, adding citations, regrouping of this magnificent monument. Now, it's time to have outside reviews. Please take a look and I will be very glad to receive critics, comments and/or suggestions. — Indon (reply) — 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

  • "...platforms—on top are three circular platforms while the rest are square—and decorated..." You may want to rethink your usage of these dashes. Although it is reasonably correct, one should link the two ideas with a colon or parathenseses (Chicago Manual of Style.) I suggest that you break them up into different sentences.
  • "...decorated with 2,672 relief panels and 504 Buddha." I don't understand, 504 Buddha what? If you're trying to say 504 Buddha panels, then you would say, "...decorated with 504 Buddha and 2,672 relief panels."
  • "...2,672 relief panels and 504 Buddha." You may want to cite a source here.
  • "A main dome is located in the middle of the top platform surrounded by 72 perforated stupas, each containing one sitting Buddha statue." This is a run-on, seperate it into: "A main dome is located at the center of the top platform. It is surrounded by 72 perforated stupas, each containing one sitting Buddha statue."
  • "...starts at the base..." To keep flow, I suggest you say "...begins at the base..."
  • "...circumambulating the monument while ascending to the top in three levels of Buddhist cosmology: Kamadhatu (the world of desire), Rupadhatu (the world of forms) and Arupadhatu (the world of formless)." Clause-induced run-on. Say "The pilgrims follow a path circumambulating the structure." Note: I didn't understand where you were going with the last clause, so fix that up as best as you can.
  • "Evidence suggests Borobudur was abandoned following the fourteenth century decline of Buddhist and Hindu kingdoms in Java..." Citation please.
  • "It was re-discovered" No hyphen here.
  • "Indonesian government" Link this to Government of Indonesia.
  • "Since 1991, Borobudur has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Borobudur is still used for pilgrimage and is also a major tourist attraction." Cite sources for both. The UNESCO one shouldn't be difficult to find, the "major tourist attraction" on pushes on WP:PEACOCK.
  • "temples are known as candi" Get IPA for this, or do you know how many students are going to say they're called "cayn-dee," which they aren't. Look, although Wikipedia isn't responsible for that, it would be encyclopedically correct to have a pronouncing thing there.
  • "The origins of the name Borobudur are unclear, although this is not uncommon as the original name of most candi is no longer known. Furthermore, often even the local people did not know of the existence of a candi." Get a citation for each line. That is, the "Boroburdur's name unclear," the " candi name unclear," and the "villagers unaware" one.
  • "Raffles wrote about the existence..." You just used his name, and Wikipedia, as de facto policy, has avoided addressing people by their last names. So say "He wrote about the existence..."
  • Get a citation for the last hypothesis in Etymology.
  • There's a lot of red links. I'm not sure what one should do with them.

Drop a line when you're ready for more.Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 12:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, thank you Evan, for your very thorough review. I was a bit skeptic that WP:PR has a good review like this. Some of your suggestions have been updated, particularly the citation requests. For the red links, I'll try to create stubs about them. About Wikipedia has a de facto policy to avoid addressing people by their last names. I didn't know about that. Could you please point to me the policy? Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Response, Actually, sorting through Wikipedia policy, it appears that you are correct. I just thought that your usage of the last name broke up flow. That's for me, and Wikipedia house rules actually support the fact that one should use last names. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

  • I've only read bits of it so far, but it looks like a great article. Will read in full later.
  • There are some references to the monument originally being covered with white plaster over the rocks and then painted - see [6], [7], & this book [8]. Worth including, if it isn't a myth.
  • I wonder if there are some historical photos available somewhere (out of copyright or otherwise) showing Borobudur in a shambles before it was restored? This would be a great comparison against the modern photos.

(Caniago 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

More comments

  • Would be worthwhile mentioning the ochre problem caused by the archaeologist from Leiden University, since it remains one of the main unsolved conservation problems today - see [9]. The yellow color is prominent on many stones.
  • There is an overhead image here which seems like it might be out of copyright: [10]
  • Worth mentioning King Samaratunga, since he seems to be the ruler during the time of construction.

(Caniago 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Reply to Caniago, thanks for your valuable inputs. I've noted that, will add some info later. The image seems outdated, but I can't find when it was taken. It seems it is part of ANU research project, which perhaps much less than 100 years ago. I'll find other outdated images later. — Indon (reply) — 14:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the images on the site were taken by Van Erp, and this page here [11] implies they may be out of copyright. Wikipedia mentions "almost all works published prior to 1923 are public domain because their copyright term expired.". Probably would need to contact the webmasters listed here [12] to be sure. (Caniago 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah, the best way is to contact the webmaster. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by DVD R W

I just upped this article to {{GA}} and am leaving my comments here since this pr is going. I think the text looks good, with lots of facts, and credit to authors on this subject and so on, but what I find slightly lacking is the quality of the images. The detail photos are pretty good but the article really needs an overview, something orthographic like a plan or axonometric drawing - the two overviews in the article, [13] and [14] are lackluster. Indon, since you drew the renovation detail could you also draw a plan, and elevation, and section through the whole building? Maybe that would be too much to ask for now, but it would be a great improvement on the way towards A and FA. It would be good to show the access as well, this one [15] at flickr is uploadable (though slightly tilted) as is this one [16] which shows some of the verdure of the park below. I like this article so far and best of luck, dvdrw 04:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - DVD RW, thank you for your valuable comments. You're reading my mind. ;-) Right now, I'm drawing the ground plan and the cross section images for the article, and also details of the location, which will make the article more interesting to read. The content of the article is, I think, already enough to describe the monument, so I put first in GA which usually runs for weeks. But thanks to you for reviewing this article for GA. I'll let you know later when the drawing is finished. — Indon (reply) — 09:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eskayan[edit]

So much recent work has been done on the article. Any feedback is needed on what needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing?--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Greek[4][5], Phoenician[6], Biblical Hebrew[7][8], Latin,[9][10]" - ensure all citations that are next to punctuation go after the punctuation. Seegoon 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Govan[edit]

I created this page about the well known Beale Street blues and soul singer James Govan, and I'm looking for people to add some comments, or perhaps improve the article in any way they can. Thanks!--TheEditor20 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988[edit]

Both User:Dweller and I have put a lot of work into the article to get it to GA. The article failed to achieve GA status once, and we took some advice on-board. I just want to get i's dotted and t's crossed here to ensure GA. The Rambling Man 11:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, I'd also be interested in some general advice on what would be needed to aim for FA status, other than the obvious problem we've encountered with images, that is not an obstruction for GA. --Dweller 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seegoon[edit]

Here are my thoughts:

  • I'd change "7" to "seven", and do so throughout the article at your discretion.
    • Not sure I agree - in cricketing terms this would be unconventional, perhaps in some areas it could be acceptableThe Rambling Man 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I like the title "Introduction" - it sounds a little lifeless. Maybe "Background", or something more creative. I don't really know what to suggest, but it struck me as not quite hitting the target.
  • You have spaces before references 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14... I think you need to check them all to see how many are like this.
  • Be careful to use jargon without explaining it; for instance, you don't wikilink or explain "ODI".
  • "they had endured a stormy tour of Pakistan" - the tone here isn't 100% encyclopaediaic, or however the hell you spell it. Plus; the word "endured" has connotations of bravery and courage, which makes it sound a little POV. Again, "torments" runs the same risk. It doesn't bother me so much as it would bother a FA voter.
Comment - Thanks. I'll take a look at this, although we have sourced references to the diplomatic row. I'll cite Qadir's bowling figures. --Dweller 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Done. --Dweller 10:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the last paragraph of "Introduction" probably needs citation.
  • "Contextually, cricket is inherently a conservative game" - sounds a little biased and OR-ish to me. Try something a little more neutral, like "Traditionally, captains of international teams are not changed frequently". Plus, the section on captains between '77 and '88 could do with citation.
Comment Done the OR. The captains have a link to our (featured!) list of English test captains. Is that insufficient? --Dweller 11:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With such a huge margin of victory and such a poor performance, England (and Emburey) were strongly criticised." - needs citation.
  • "...later in 1988, in which Gooch achieved his first victory as captain." - I think you could safely change "Gooch" to "he".
  • Wikilinking "incumbent" might help - I didn't know what this term meant until quite recently.
Comment Not sure about that. It's not a sporting term and our article doesn't really add much. Seems a little patronising to add a link to Wiktionary. Anyone else have a thought about this? --Dweller 09:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope some of this has helped. As a rule of thumb for things to do, check all bold statements are cited. Anything like "praised" or "criticised" needs a source, and a reputable one at that. Secondly, ensure no citations have a space between them and the preceding word or punctuation. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly (in terms of GA), check to see that everything is understandable to the layman. Whoever wrote this clearly has a wide-ranging vocabulary and a clear grasp of cricketing lexicon, but not every reader will. Bear that in mind. Seegoon 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin's comments[edit]

  • There are some long and complex lines. For eg,
    • (1) The two lines starting with Before this, they had endured a stormy tour of Pakistan ...
    • (2) The team had performed well to reach the World Cup Final ... is held together by two commas and doesn't read well.
Comment - done both. --Dweller 11:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (3) Contextually is redundant in that context, I think.
Comment - done. --Dweller 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There should be a mention somewhere that the two previous Eng/WI series were both 5-0s. Tintin 09:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good point. Now covered.

Thanks, I'll take a look. --Dweller 09:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now all done. Thank you. --Dweller 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as Cowdrey replacing Emburey, the selectors also dropped Paul Downton, Martyn Moxon, Mike Gatting, David Capel, Phil Defreitas and John Childs in favour of Neil Foster, Tim Curtis, Bill Athey, Robin Smith, Jack Richards, and Derek Pringle. Apart from Pringle, they were all new faces, .. - What does "new faces" mean here (as something that makes Pringle different from the rest) ? Tintin 10:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that myself. I'll find out. --Dweller 11:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another light copyedit - they had not played in the series before. Only Curtis and Smith were on debut. I have explained this. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan's comments[edit]

Generally, pretty good, and not too far from an FA for me, but it needs a good end-to-end copyedit. By way of example:

  • From the first paragraph of the lead:
    • "...a number of first-class matches..." - surely we know how many!
    • "They enjoyed tremendous success..." - surely we can link "they" as "West Indian cricket team"
    • "...their hosts endured..." - their hosts being the England cricket team, presumably, rather than the county teams that they played?
Comment All done. The first was a placeholder that hilariously has survived this long! --Dweller 11:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great - these were just examples, by the way - the whole thing needs a read. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Easier if that's done by someone who's not written it - your assistance is welcomed! :-) --Dweller 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the second paragraph
    • "The" in "...The Wisden Trophy..." surely does not need a capital "T".
Comment - I'm inclined to agree, but our article uses it capitalised. We should be consistent. Anyone? --Dweller 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it but almost all trophies and cups too have the first letter of each word capitalised in the article titles. Tintin 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps I was not clear enough - I think "Wisden Trophy" is a proper noun and deserves its capitals, but the "The" does not. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I'm daft sometimes. I'll amend. --Dweller 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad you found someone actually calling it "the summer of four captains" (I hope they did not use us as a source for that usage!). The quote from 1995 - "It was the summer of four captains, four defeats, disgrace and disarray" - may be worth repeating.
  • In the infobox, dates need wikilinking to activate reader preferences.
Comment these were unlinked, further to the automated peer review comments. --Dweller 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I respectfully disagree - different readers will have different date preferences, and linking them is the only way to make that work. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you're a human (and a pretty nice one at that) I'm sure I can give your opinion greater weighting! Consider it done. (It will be) --Dweller 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find a reference to cite for England winning only 7 out of 52 Tests, and West Indies "approaching the end of nearly ten years as the best Test team in world cricket"
Comment I think the latter is already there. I'll look for the former. --Dweller 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • there seems to be a bit of POV - "temendous success", "endured", ...
  • The squad templates do not display properly for me - why are there line breaks after Curtis and Greenidge? And some &nbsp; may be helpful to avoid breaking in odd places. Perhaps bullets (•) would be better than pipes (|) to separate people.
    • Done, I used the breaks because they worked on my settings, which was completely naive of me. Bullets now, no linebreaks. The Rambling Man 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, some excellent, pointed comments. This'll take a little time to work through. The GA nomination has been waiting for some time and I hope it'll pass even if we haven't finished these. When they're done, I'll apply for FA. --Dweller 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have had a go at copyediting, but I am sure there are still things that could be polished. I had some conflicts, and have tried to put back what was added. It is looking really good, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnlp's comments[edit]

A few slightly random thoughts on what is really a very good read. Hope they're not too late.

  • I think the heading "Background" is weak, and would like a section perhaps entitled "The West Indian cricket team" that does the job that this section does of explaining the changes in the West Indies side, the tour party and its perceived weaknesses. Perhaps there should also then be a section on "The English cricket team". Or combine the two in a section called "The two teams" outlining personnel and recent records.
    • I've split the intro accordingly, added a bit more background to the Windies section, hopefully covering this concern! The Rambling Man 11:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Botham. Was injured all season. Not the player he had been, but still a loss. Perhaps worth mentioning.
    • I'm on it. --Dweller 11:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reviewed his career stats on Cricinfo. I'd find it difficult to make much of it. Wisden's report doesn't mention it and he was a shadow of his former self by then and only played a handful more games, mostly in the equally shudder-inducing English summer of 1989. I'm going to continue to leave him out, but of course it's subjective. Happy for anyone to disagree. --Dweller 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to find a citation as well but failed... perhaps best to leave it out for now, unless someone can cite us something concrete. The Rambling Man 14:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODI series was before the Test series and England won it very easily. The chronology is not clear in the article and is probably quite important, in that ODI success suggested England stood a good chance in the Tests. Perhaps the ODIs should be short separate preamble section before the Test coverage?
  • The "Aftermath" section is all about the English aftermath, not about the West Indies and whether they were able to sustain the success.
  • There were 17 players in the West Indies squad and it seems a bit harsh to omit the one who didn't play Tests or ODIs, David Williams, the second string wicketkeeper (who played both Tests and ODIs later).
    • Okay, I'll add him to the squad, it is harsh indeed! The Rambling Man 10:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of context: in 1966, West Indies beat England 3-1, England had three captains and used 24 players (one more than 1988!). The selectorial confusion was very similar (and Peter May was a selector each time). In 1988, had Chris Cowdrey not been injured between the 4th and 5th Tests, it's pretty likely that he would have captained at The Oval because the series was well lost by then: you'd have then had the Summer of Three Captains (Mark II). The "Summer of Four Captains" line (though neat) is a bit ex post facto: from memory, selector confusion was the feature throughout the season, from well before the time when we knew how many captains England were going to have!
    • Context added, including a reference to Peter May and a couple more citations The Rambling Man 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Told you these were random thoughts. Ignore or use as you will. Good luck with the GA bid: whatever happens, you've created a splendid piece. Johnlp 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning Phil Simmons horrific injury, hit on the head by Gloucestershire's David Lawrence at Bristol when he was not wearing a helmet?[17] Done, fab, thanks The Rambling Man 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC) And some background to Gatting's dismissal here More background added, and a quote, thanks! The Rambling Man 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crepitus (mythology)[edit]

I have added a fair amount of information to this page, trying to clear up a mystery. I had accepted as gospel the comments made in annotations to my translation of The Temptation of Saint Anthony by Gustave Flaubert that the alleged god Crepitus, the Roman god of flatulence, was a modern invention. Then I encountered the God once again, on re-reading The Anatomy of Melancholy by Robert Burton; and by this spiritual epiphany was born again. It seems that the notion of an ancient Roman god of flatulence was not entirely a recent invention, and I have attempted to sketch the origins and progress of belief in this deity in the article, in hopes of starting a lucrative cult. At any rate, I think this clears up a minor historical mystery, and thought I'd ask for other opinions as to whether any questions are left about the origins of this humble faith. - Smerdis of Tlön 08:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In terms of 'legend' and the ideas of an actual worshiped diety or not. I would suggest a modern era correlation. Flatulence is funny & our own dear Ben Franklin wrote on the subject. Not to mention the modern jokes that are made about it. At least a line or two that can link up to an additional article. Dharp66 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]

I'm confused about the research here. Are you working entirely from primary sources connecting the alleged Egyptian god with the alleged Roman god? I fear that may be WP:OR. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore[edit]

Massive expansion of the article. Needs general review, suggestions for/comments on referencing, any sharp eye for grammar or spelling errors, and especially suggestions as to improving the prose. I'm trying to work it up to FA. So yeah, any suggestions welcome. Mocko13 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need an infobox, pick one from WP:WPBIO. The lead neeeds expanding, and can you get an ISBN for the two other books? Persondata would be useful at the bottom too, see WP:PDATA. British spelling? I can see he's Irish, but I think it would make more sense than American English. The image source (http://www.heritage.nf.ca/avalon/history/george_calvert.html) says reproduced with permission of <someone> - can you clarify that its been released into the public domain? Other than that, I think you're doing pretty well. RHB Talk - Edits 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added infobox (although I don't think you meant to send me to wikiproject:beer, right?), added Persondata, changed image to one whose provenance and copyright I can be sure of. Will work on lead. I don't think the other two sources have ISBN's, since they're so old (but I could be wrong). You may be right about British spelling, but I'll need to find a Brit to go over it. Thanks for the input. Mocko13 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to run over and check for spelling consistency, just let me know whenever you're finished. You're right about the books, should've looked at the dates, and I've corrected the link to WikiProject Biography. RHB Talk - Edits 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool World[edit]

For a film that I hate, this is a lot of work I've put forward. How are my efforts? I think there's a GA nomination here. (Ibaranoff24 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm short on time, so I'll just do what I can now and come back later.

  • You have fair use rationales. Good.
  • The cast section is really bothersome. You took it straight from IMDB, and it shows. Cut it down to the important characters, and then for the characters you left out of the plot give a short summary of who they are. (You should probably use "*" instead of ":".)
  • Why are you linking to individual pages in external links? Who would really want to jump to page 3 of an article that they know nothing about?
    • Not my doing. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
      • I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, I just use "you" because it's tiresome to write "the article".--Supernumerary 05:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorporate the trivia. That is a red flag to any GA reviewer.
  • Is the fan site link necessary?
  • The cast section usually follows plot.
  • Take some images from the character pages and put them in the plot section. (As a side note, I don't think these characters merit their own page as they are only characters in one poorly received movie.)
    • Again, the character pages, not my doing. The film has some fans and they did some early work on the page. I would have put in some info about the very few fans the film has, but I didn't, because I didn't want to get too much into original research there. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Additionally, I found all of the images from the former character pages to be unusable. I added one newly-uploaded image from the official Bakshi website into the summary. (Ibaranoff24 06:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • The lead is choppy. 4 very short paragraphs and one misplaced comma.
  • The plot is usually written "... then John Doe (famous actor) opens the door to realize that his wife, Lorraine (famous actress) really is an axe murderer..." not "famous actor plays so-and-so". I see you switched later, go back and make the earlier ones conform.
  • Wikilink the actors in the plot.
  • Infoboxes don't have commas or ampersands.
  • Explain Cool World in the first paragraph of plot.
  • Why are each of these words wikilinked "sexy blonde humanoid female doodle"? Maybe "humanoid" and "doodle", but I hope everyone knows what "female", "sexy", and "blonde" means (this is the internet afterall :P).
    • I have no idea. I did very little work on the plot. All of my work on the article was mainly concerned with the production of the film. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Two consecutive sentences open with "During his prison sentence" and "While in jail". Condense.
  • Only wikilink doodle once.
  • "Frank Harris, aided by his partner Nails the spider-like doodle, keeps a sharp eye on Holli and Deebs, but eventually Holli and Deebs have sex and Holli turns into a noid." Run-on.
  • "Deebs and Holli head to Deebs's home dimension or universe, but the barrier between the Cool and real worlds has been thrown out of balance and Deebs and Holli repeatedly turn into clown-like doodles." Run-on.
  • The conception section is one big quote. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the section is also called production, so you need to talk about budget, development time, animation problems, etc.
  • Expand the response section with more views. Pick the three most major reviews and put them in there.
  • Did this affect anyone's career? Especially Bakshi as this was his return.
    • I put in a paragraph about this at the end of the "response" section. I'm not totally happy with it, but it's fine for now. (Ibaranoff24 06:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • That's all I can do in 20 minutes. I'll try to do more later.--Supernumerary 04:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions: "The film flashes forward to 1992, where we meet Jack Deebs"- in academic writing, "I", "we" and "you" are strongly discouraged and don't sound to good. The production section towards the end turns into Wikiquote; I understand your motives for quoting at length, but I'd surround it with a bit more prose. Cast section is bare and lacks prose- the production section contains some casting info, and I'd move that down there. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, one more note: since you didn't write the plot, have you checked it for ugly copyvios? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's no problem there. (Ibaranoff24 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The article is phat. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except now the images are cluttering the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. Not my change; can't be held responsible. (Ibaranoff24 06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Neuro-linguistic programming[edit]

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

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

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

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

Long Island Rail Road[edit]

I'm working on improving this to featured status, and would like to know what it currently needs (besides sources for the [citation needed] tags). I have yet to expand the rolling stock section (I'm hoping someone with a focus on that can help), and also want to write about steamboat, trolley, and bus operations, and add a section about service patterns, with a focus on non-commuter services like the Sag Harbor-Greenport "Scoot" and the Cannonball. But the general layout is complete. --NE2 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are far too many red links. This has to be resolved, whether by creating stub articles for the links or by removing the links altogether. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the status of other articles affect the quality of this article? --NE2 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the proliferation of redlinks suggests an overall case of overlinking. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me it simply suggests undercoverage in historical articles. --NE2 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (written in response to the post at WP:VPA, but I noticed this PR and thought this would be more appropriate)The article is at 68 kb right now. I take the 20-minute guideline at Wikipedia:Article size, which suggests a size of 30-35kb, pretty seriously when evaluating an article. Even if you recalculate the size without images and the many references, a technique which reminds me of how I used to change margins in reports, the size would still be a concern. We sometimes forget that readers may not be entranced by our writing and want to spend an hour out of their day on whatever subject. I would second the suggestion to split off enough of the article to bring it back within the suggested range, though you of course should be the one to decide what the core topics are. If you do decide to split off History of the Long Island Rail Road, you can always put your efforts towards making that the featured article. Though, playing devil's advocate, I should note that the history section by itself is already 48 kilobytes, indicating either a need for more splitting or a good, merciless copyedit to remove redundancy and streamline wording. Measures like starting Central Railroad of Long Island and collapsing the text into one paragraph will help as well. - BanyanTree 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to keep only the overall history in the article, and histories of the other companies and branch lines in their own articles. The various competitors only have the basics necessary to understand how they fit in to the overall picture. --NE2 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary style could be a good compromise if the history section splits. Referencing needs to be more consistent throughout the article and the bullet list may be better if it's worked into paragraph form. Create stub articles for the many red links. Good work so far. DurovaCharge! 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the history splits, I'll be taking the history article, not this one, to FAC. --NE2 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without having read the above comments, here are my thoughts...

  • History section should be at the top.
  • The lead needs to be stronger, covering all the essentials, leading the reader into the history section with enough context.
  • History section is quite long, in proportion to the other sections; I suggest a subarticle on the History of the Long Island Rail Road and more of a summary here, per WP:SUMMARY.
  • Too many red links.
  • The first map (in the infobox) and the third map (in the history) need work... I think some of the key stations, such as the terminal stations should be marked and labelled on the map. Also, it's somewhat difficult for me to distinguish the "purple" and "red" colors on the map. Also, I would label the three states, the Long Island Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean to help orient readers that may not be familiar with the geography of the NYC region.
  • Also, there should be some historic images to accompany the history section. I found one Image:LIRR atlantic avenue station 1910.jpg in the Library of Congress catalog that satisfies copyright requirements here. The NYPL also has some material in digital format that may be of use, provided the copyright has expired. Surely there is more material out there...
  • References look good, except the "Freight service" section. --Aude (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I don't understand why red links are a problem; these are places where articles will exist, and they should be linked. I'll look into the NYPL images, but I don't think a historic photo of a specific terminal is useful in the general article. Do you have any more comments on the history? If I split that, I will be taking that subarticle to FAC. --NE2 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might just be me, but red links pop out (eye catching) at me and make it more difficult to read through the text. A red link here or there is okay, but I think it's something people may object to in WP:FAC. I think short stub articles are fine. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started looking at the NYPL images, and they have the same problem as the other images I've found: they include the "created date" but not the date published, if published at all. The latter is needed to figure out copyright status. --NE2 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A strategy that I sometimes use is to look through old books and publications available in libraries (public libraries like NYPL, universities, historical societies, ...). I have one book checked out now that was published in 1903. If you are in or near NYC and so inclined, the New York Historical Society's collection may include some useful items such as "Long Island illustrated" -- issued by the Passenger Department Long Island Railroad in 1903. Don't exactly know what it consists of, but might be useful. Historical society staff could probably advise you. Since it's the historical society, their materials are probably non-circulating, but they could provide a copy of a page or photograph. It might be too much effort, too inconvenient, or whatever... such efforts are definitely optional. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to split off the history and not work on the main article, that's fine... but, the main article could probably use some details on things like fares (zone system? fare hikes?), safety and security, and expansion projects/proposals. (e.g. [18] [19] [20]) - I don't know how notable these details are and how worthy of mention, but some things I found. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The passion that inspired you to expend the effort to write this page is lost among the details. If ridership is the LIRR's distinguishing characteristic, spend more time on that. No ridership comparisons with other systems are apparent. If history/age is the distinguishing characteristics, spend more time on that. The structure of an article on a Boston transit line, Red Line (MBTA), presents a useful structure for describing the history and infrastructure at once. Notable events might also bear mention; one that comes to mind is a terrible 1993 mass shooting. --Drtillberg 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gascoigne Robinson[edit]

A Royal Navy admiral, First World War hero and Victoria Cross holder. I've recently greatly expanded, organised and developed this article and would be interested to know where to go from here with it. --Jackyd101 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Quite good; a number of points to work on, though:

  • Citation! The article is rather undercited, at the moment; much of the narrative can't readily be tied to any particular source.
  • The awards should either be worked into a normal prose paragraph or moved to the infobox. I would suggest the former.
  • The references need to be formatted properly, and should include everything cited in the article. I would also suggest moving the Victoria Cross Reference bit into the list.
  • The lead section can probably stand to be expanded to two paragraphs, to give a somewhat more detailed summary of the article.
  • Are there any other images that could be used here? A marked-up map of Gallipoli may be useful.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've followed the advice above, the only exception being with the references, as I don't have all of them. Do you have any further comments?--Jackyd101 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated[edit]

PocklingtonDan[edit]

  • "underfire" in the lead para, should this be "under fire" or is "underfire" ana ccepted term?
  • a "string of daring operations" sounds POV and biased without a cite
  • "forceful and diligent officer who conducted himself with meritorious service " likewise
  • The map I'm not happy with, I can't identify what part of Turkey I'm looking at there, and at the same time th exact area of Robinson's operationg is unclear - the map is at the wrong scale. I would add a single "magnifying glass" map simultaneously showing several zoon levels of which portion of turkey we are looking at and also a closeup of the exact area of operation, or else two or more separate maps.
  • I'd like to see more cites. I know there is not a lot of information in the public domain on relatively obscure figures but all of the statements in the article must be based on something read somewhere,a nd should be able to be cited

Generally a fine article though on a person (and indeed series of events) i previously knew nothing about. Well done - PocklingtonDan 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:OK, I've tried to sort this out, but I have a few questions here. 1) I'm sure that its not recommended to cite things in the introduction, since the remainder of the article should bear out statements made there. I've tried to cite the things you highlighted but I didn't want to overload the section. 2)The map was something I pulled off Wikimedia Commons as it seemed the best for this purpose. I don't have the first idea how to create a map such as you described, did you have a particular one in mind when you suggested it? I tried to label it a bit better though. 3) I don't see any major controversies which are uncited, if you see some outside the introduction, please let me know. The main problem here is that the article is based largely on a single secondary and some small primary sources due to a paucity of information. However, there isn't a lot I can do about that. Thankyou for your review.--Jackyd101 01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University[edit]

I am trying to generate more feedback on the article to improve it and ultimately promote it to a good article status. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!

LaSaltarella 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feyenoord Rotterdam[edit]

This peer review resulted from SportsAddicted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to help get Feyenoord Rotterdam up to FA status. A fantastic job has been done in getting it comphrensive, the issue that needs to be addressed now is what needs to be kept/put in sub-articles/deleted. So, what I suggest we do is divide the peer review up into seperate sections corresponding to the sections of the article, and then people can state their opinion on each. OK, I'll start off with a few observations...

Location

I would merge the first paragraph into a history section, then get rid of the second paragraph. There's mentions of Sparta and Excelsior further down.

History

Well, at a glance, I'd the whole of this can be moved into History of Feyenoord Rotterdam and then summarised in the main article. What pictures/text is to be kept I'll leave for now. HornetMike

Stadium

Firstly, the concert stuff can be moved into the stadium article, doesn't need to be here. "One of the major European stadiums" is a bit of a sweeping statement and needs clarifying. Also I'm not really sure about the "every fan looks at the stadium" stuff. It's all a bit POV. Regarding the songs, the hymn sounds interesting and could be put in the fans section. The rest sounds like typical stadium chants and could probably go.

Other accommodations

I'm not sure whether any of this is needed, to be honest. Maybe put some of it into the stadium article?

Historical clashes

This can go, I reckon. Any mention of big games can be put in a history article.

Famous Feyenoord Players

There's no criteria for this. I'd suggest linking to List of Feyenoord Rotterdam players and format along the same criteria as something like List of Arsenal F.C. players.

Feyenoord managers

Again, I'd suggest creating List of Feyenoord Rotterdam managers and then list notable managers like in Sheffield Wednesday F.C.#Managers.

Trivia

The two things here can probably be put in the lead, with citations.

Other comments

The page probably needs a clubs/crests section. Also, whilst the prose is generally good, it needs a bit of tweaking. HornetMike 11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will in due course make more comments on this PR but the most important thing is this - there are far too many non-free images included under justification of Fair Use, when they would probably fail it. I would remove all non-free images from this article (team logo in the infobox excepted) straight away, and only include any (one or two at most) if consensus decides that they are iconic enough that not including them would severely reduce the quality of the article. Qwghlm 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So, assume good faith please:

  • The page is good (def. in GA range), but HUUUGE!!! (136kb). Please put the history into a new article, and also consider moving more info related articles like Klassieker or Feijenoord Stadium (only soccer-relevant info in Feyenoord, rock concert and speedway into the stadium).
  • The accomodations do not need subsections, IMHO, just make them bold and merge them into plain text.
  • Image status of several images seems unclear. A bullet-proof fair use summary would help, maybe?
  • For an article this long, the lead is dar too short, see WP:LEAD
  • The sections "Motto" and "Location" are stubby, please expand or (better IMHO) merge them into the lead.
  • I dont really know if you need info on "first day" or "first training". It is well sourced, but IMHO many clubs are eagerly anticipated like that
  • The list of notable matches seems a bit POV and WP:NOR; I understand matches where Feyenoord wins something, but too many flat out unimportant matches are listed (e.g. Feyenoord-Rosenborg, Stuttgart-Feyenoord or all in 2002 UEFA Cup prior to the final)
  • DO NOT EVEN DARE TO INTRODUCE A TRIVIA SECTION!!! Trivia is bad and virtually guarantees your article will never be promoted. (believe me, I have written 2 GAs)

Sorry to nitpick so much, but I really like this article and would like to see it promoted to GA and FA. All in all, a huge improvement from the previously pretty crappy Feyenoord page. —Onomatopoeia 17:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SportsAddicted comment':

First of all I'd like to thank you all for the nice comments about the improvings and for the effort and time you all are investing in this article to improve it even more. I will now comment on what is said in this review to clarify things or to give my opinion so we can work to a consensus.

  • Merging location and motto into the history or lead section sounds like a good idea to me. I personally would say the lead would be the best place to have this information in, specially when the lead needs to be expanded like Onomatopoeia is saying.
  • Also creating a History of Feyenoord Rotterdam article should be done as the article is currently too large and needs to be trimmed. However, currently several people are copy-editing this section and I think we should let them do their work for now and create the main article as soon as we all agree that the section is complete and copy-edited well enough.
  • Stadium: I agree the concert stuff can go. The statement on the stadium being one of the major stadiums in Europe is made because it's rated in the highest class of UEFA Stadiums (5 stars) and has hosted a record number of European Cup finals. I guess that has to be mentioned then :) The statement of every fan driving over the bridge watching to the stadium is made at vasf.nl which is the official website for the shareholders of the stadium. I can see it still might look POV, but I know many people who indeed do this, actually I do it myself as well. The songs mentioned are not typical football stadium chants, but complete songs which indeed are sung in the stadium, but which all also became hits in the charts and I think it's proper to name these songs in this section of the article.
  • Other accomodations: The Topsportcentrum, Brasserie and fanshops can indeed be put in the stadium article itself, but they are part of the club and should not be deleted in my opinion. The clothing line part can probably be merged with the fanshop part as the clothes can be bought there. Varkenoord should stay in my opinion, it's where the youth and amateur teams of the club play their games. It's a well known place and an important part of the team.
  • Historical clashes: I agree some of these can be considered not that important and that naming them important is in a way POV. What I can do is merge these (or a part of these) into the history sections and if they are already mentioned there they can probably be expanded a bit.
  • List of Feyenoord players/managers/chairmen: That's a must I think. The current list is indeed too long and several players in the list have not been that important to the club at all, but were already added in the past. I guess we should only have the real historical figures mentioned in this part of the article and put the others in a list like the one of Arsenal, which will take some time, but which can easily be created as all information is available on the official website.
  • Trivia: I'm going to delete this, the facts are mentioned somewhere in the article already anyways.
Crest section: Sounds like a nice idea, but I guess there's not too much to tell about the crests to have them pictured and surrounded by text. What do you suggest this section should look like?
  • Fair use images: I saw these are deleted already. I guess you have a point, but I was assuming this could work as I have seen similar images on Wikipedia already without having trouble with the summary. Most of the times it's indeed just one or two pics in the same article, so that might be the reason why. Probably the most notible example I have for this is the picture on Liverpool F.C. where the players celebrate the Champions League win. This picture on a pretty notable team has been there for months already. I thought the gives fair use summary for the pictures was pretty clear, but if you disagree, please tell me what you think is not bullet-proof in these summaries.
  • Reconsidering subsections: These can indeed be changed a bit, making it one section with several paragraphs instead of 5 sections with 1 paragraph.
  • Opening day and first training: These are very notible and important to the club. Feyenoord's open day and first training are by far the most visited and popular in the country and are classics on itself and widely reported on Dutch television as well. These are definately a must have in the article.
  • Looks like I've had everything mentioned so far :) Cheers, SportsAddicted | discuss 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm in the process of going through the article piece by piece, doing copyedits in various places as I do so, as I find it too long to process all at once. Looking over the Other accomodations section, most parts can be removed. Topsportcentrum Rotterdam does not relate to Feyenoord. The bit about restaurant would fit better in the stadium article, it doesn't look sufficiently significant for inclusion in a general overview of the club. All clubs of any size have one or more club shops, the only remarkable thing here is that there are shops in Japan and South Korea, which can be mentioned in the later section about supporters. Likewise, the clothing is unremarkable, for a big club it is fairly common to develop seasonal lines of club branded clothing, and have the players model it. Oldelpaso 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me, go ahead, you're doing a pretty good job out there. SportsAddicted | discuss 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Robertson[edit]

Hi, this is the article of NBA great Oscar Robertson. I have just majorly rewritten it as of WP:WIAGA, so I lack a bit of distance to my work. However, I would like to shape it into a GA and perhaps eventually a FA, and ask for your help :D So, general questions:

  • Compelling prose?
  • Formally right?
  • Accessible enough for non-experts, yet not too verbose for experts?

Thanks for reading, Onomatopoeia 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a little copyedit, and altered some wording in it. Looks very good I can't really recommend anything else because if I saw anything I objected to I changed it myself. Quadzilla99 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brock University Students' Union[edit]

Most of the users that have made edits to the Brock University Students' Union article to date have been either anonymous users that are members of the organization itself, unestablished Wikipedia users that are members of the organization, and myself, also a high-enough up member in the students' union in order for me to feel too close to the article at times.

Currently, this has led to a very "inclusionist" attitude toward article content. However, I think it is time to ask the question, "what information is appropriate for a students' union article, and what information is inappropriate for the article and should be removed?", especially as I think the article might be getting too unwieldy.

What do other Wikipedians think? Andy Saunders 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first peer review. You should feel lucky!
The article certainly is detailed, so kudos on that. The only major problem I saw was a rampant use of ampersands, a real no-no in standard English. There were also a couple of misspellings. I corrected these on my own.
As an eighteen-year-old high school student from the U.S., I certainly was not very personally close to the article. Heh. I hope I have been helpful. Chris 04:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, Chris! Andy Saunders 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Great Teacher Onizuka episodes[edit]

I would like some input on how to make this list better. Please note though that the original air dates are mostly empty because I've been having a hard time finding sources for it. I might have to resort to using the English air dates, if only to fill in the table. Thanks. UnfriendlyFire 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. :) When was the Tokyopop release? Do you have a citation for that? -Malkinann 21:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a link here for the air dates on the Showtime network. I can check TV.com to verify those dates, but I think they might have referenced each other. The Tokyopop site might also have DVD release dates. UnfriendlyFire 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant the DVD release date. So you can say 'Tokyopop's July 2003 release', or whichever. - Malkinann 20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 290 (Illinois)[edit]

The main goal of the review is to make the article accessible to most Wikipedia readers without leaning too heavily on roadgeek-specific topics. In other words, is this article interesting?

There are also some leftovers from the Eisenhower Expressway --> I-290 merge, but I figure that will be caught and corrected with time. —Rob (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I finally figured this out. Nasty, you have to click on the header on the link to go to the article, then click on Discussion to go to the talk page, then click on the "a request" to get here. Wow! No wonder no-one helps out on PR, it's too hard to figure out how to do so!
Well enough ranting. Anyway I'll re-iterate my point: it would be nice to have geographical place names that aren't known solely to people in the Chicago area. The current place names are all smaller suburbs (I assume) that I have never heard of, so I can't really make out where this road is. Maury 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a map would benefit greatly. It would have to be a special map that could highlight each of those segments, somehow. —Rob (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment about the Eisenhower Extension --- "As of 2006, there are no plans to fix any of these issues."
Not quite true (I live in Elmhurst within one mile of this!). It is a known problem known to IDOT and local communities. Last discussion, mentioned at least one "flyover ramp" and consideration for better access to Route 20 East (Proviso rail / truck terminal) --- BUT construction would likley not occur -- until the O'Hare "west bypass" (2 miles north) becomes reality or is addressed.. Greg 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 2142[edit]

I would like a review of the overall section, what can be done to improve it. The article has been tremendously improved since December with a lot of the "game guide" sections completely removed as well as a lot of references has been added. Pembroke 03:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I tell pretty much everyone, a reception section is essential. The lead needs expanded, and I'm not sure why there's a section dedicated to describing how to put it in widescreen mode. Nifboy 03:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reception section with three references accompanying it as well as expanded the LEAD. The widescreen support I was contemplating on removing due to it's format, but it was meant to explain how to bypass EA's arrogant block against widescreen. If I remove that section, what else do you think needs improvement? Your input is very valuable. Pembroke 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the next logical step is to further expand the reception section: What did reviewers like/dislike about the game? The story is already mentioned, but what else is there? Nifboy 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way the widescreen support section belongs: Wikipedia is not a game guide. As for the trivia section, I advise you integrate that information into the rest of the article, as folks at GA and FA usually go ape at the sight of the word. Seegoon 16:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed the widescreen support and merged some of the trivia information to relating sectioms. What else do you thinks needs to be done? Pembroke 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan Bluth Studios[edit]

This is an article about a famous studio headed by one of the world's most famous animators, Don Bluth. This might be WP's second good article on a cartoon company (after Nelvana). How close has it come to achieving this? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • fix the redlinks in the intro
  • name the films that achieved poor results and that were in production during the budgetary crisis

Interesting article so far! Kaisershatner 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, this is Matticus78, and I wrote most of the article as it stands at present. I came across it at the end of November last year while on new page patrol, and it wasn't in the best of condition[21] (short, unreferenced and not very accurate). Animation history is an interest of mine, so I made it a project to rewrite the page (merging some content from the already existing article Sullivan Bluth Productions[22]). Frankly, I was surprised that Wikipedia didn't already have a good article on the studio, considering its importance. Anyway, I did a lot of research to get the article up to scratch, and basically rewrote the whole thing piece by piece over the course of a couple of months. I'd love to see this article given that bit of spit-and-polish that it needs to get it up to GA or even FA standards. The weak points I can currently see is the redlink for Morris Sullivan and (somewhat less important) Aurora Productions, both important entities in the studio's history, but I haven't been able to come up with much useful information on him. Also, the lack of pictures representing the studio's later productions is a bit of a problem, but it's hard to find any Sullivan Bluth films on the shelves any more, much less their not-so-successful ones. Anyway, I'll do my bit to pitch in during this peer review and help address concerns and suggested improvements. ~Matticus TC 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I created a stub article for Aurora Productions to deal with that redlink. Still can't find any good, solid information on Morris Sullivan outside his involvement with Bluth, and his being a mergers and acquisition broker (albeit semi-retired by the time he met Bluth). ~Matticus TC 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeschooling[edit]

Overall, this article has improved considerably. Criticism about NPOV continues to come up on the talk page from time to time, but I would like some dispassionate opinions about it overall. Darentig 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs citations for the interesting stats about who does homeschooling, just for openers. Kaisershatner 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought about that, but the citations for all these stats are provided with the more in-depth info beneath that the intro is drawn from, so that seemed like overkill. FYI, that statement was recently added to the intro because someone had complained that the article had too much information and they were only looking for the basics. I personally don't see any point in looking at an article that only provides the basics, but I thought such a summation might serve this sort of person better. As I say, that is all documented below. Darentig 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon's Animal House[edit]

I think that this article of this classic comedy could use some improving and make it into a truly great article deserving of FA status. I would like others to take a look and offer some suggestions as to how this article could be improved. Count Ringworm 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lose the trivia, cultural influences, goofs sections. Rewrite all those bulleted lists as prose. Most importantly use inline refs for every declaration of fact. Cheers. L0b0t 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compare with some FA films here.Kaisershatner 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hanneman[edit]

I wish to bring this up to GA status, second peer review. I have implemented all suggestions on the last peer review and have since added two new sections and more references. Thanks M3tal H3ad 08:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated[edit]

Yannismarou[edit]

Minor things! The article seems set for GA status. These are my remarks:

  • "The two live in Los Angeles with no children, and live forty minutes away from King, and often have BBQ's". It sounds a bit repetitive to me.
  • "Hanneman will come up with riffs at his house, using a 24-track and drum machine. Hanneman will show ..." Again, this could maybe be rephrased.
  • Is he regarded by music critics as a good guirast, a good writer of lyrics?
  • You could maybe have a caption in Hanneman's photo (I saw that it is "Jeff Hanneman performing at The Unholy Alliance tour in 2006").
  • Any expansion of the "Biography" section with further info would be welcome.--Yannismarou 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Brother[edit]

I would like some suggestion on how to improve the article, especially the reference part. Also I would like an assesment and imporance rating. Lots of Thanks!KGV (talk · contribs · count) 06:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See WP:LEAD. This section should be longer and give an overview of the article.Kaisershatner 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Reigning[edit]

This is on a live music DVD and i plan on getting it to GA. I expanded it from one paragraph and not sure what else needs to be added, as i haven't seen any live music DVD GA's or FA's, so yea any comments will help thanks :) M3tal H3ad 11:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Brown[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/James Brown/archive1

Requesting a second peer review of the James Brown article after a major rewrite and revision of existing content. At the last peer review, the article was rated previously at B-Class quality and, on February 4, 2007, the article was upgraded to A-Class quality.

After a major revision of the James Brown article (with new material added and extensive references to sources), the article still needs the following information:

  • James Brown's civic activities that he was well known for in his hometown Augusta, GA (in particular, Christmas toy drives (he participated in his last one 3 days before he died) and Thanksgiving turkey giveaway)
  • His political activism during the Civil Rights era (particularly in 1968 during the riots and info that mentions Boston concert that was televised on TV at request of mayor)
  • His politics, particularly with a brief mention of both Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon.

* Memorial services (especially since the event was nationally (internationally?) televised on CNN; event was held at the Apollo Theater and at the James Brown Arena; notable celebrities who attended event, esp. those that JB mentored through the years) (edit by →Lwalt ♦ talk 09:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Although this article is already considered "long" (approaching 80K), this missing information is important for this article, and the information should be at least included in the article to in some form since these events were notable. In spite of this missing information, this article is the "featured article" on the Music Portal for February 2007. lwalt 09:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville (TV series)[edit]

Several editors, including myself, have been trying to get this article in-line with other featured articles for television series. Certain topics seem harder to address than others because of the nature of the show. We need to atleast get it to GA-status but it seems that we are kind of stuck at the moment.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  03:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davey4[edit]

  • You have done a top job with Smallville. I just have a couple of thoughts. Looking over it, there are heaps of very short paragraphs that could be merged into the main headings for easier reading. *In "Production", I would really just merge "Filming", and put it before Sperboy stuff. The "Music" section seems out of place in "Production" - I would put that in "Other media". Also, the season one poster would be more relevent in "Production", as the current image is blurry and not as relevent imo. Also, ensure there is not too much over-linking (ie. Cloverdale, Lana etc.).
  • "Smallville universe" is an akward heading imo, as does "Allusions" really in-universe? Or episode format? Good info, but could be arranged a little better maybe. Not a huge fan of "Series history" - I say we just write it out like a plot summary-ish thing. Also, an unfammilar reader might get confused by some characters/locations - for example (spoilers - "Season 5 introduced several classic mythos elements such as Jonathan Kent's death, Fortress of Solitude, Professor Milton Fine (James Marsters), also known as the villain Brainiac, the Phantom Zone, and General Zod"....what are these things/people, why are they special?):
  • "Cast and characters" is good, but can we get a season one cast image as well? Fail that, I think a Brainiac or 'Justice' image would go well in the paragraph below. Yeh I know, we shouldnt clutter, but just a thought.
  • "Reception and awards" is good, but it doesnt mention how comic fans, critics like it? "DVD releases"is fine.
  • "Other media" should be more comprehensive (isnt there books and stuff as well?)
  • Also..."On January 24, 2006, it was confirmed Smallville would be part of the new The CW's Fall 2006–2007 lineup once The WB and UPN ceased separate operations and merged as The CW in September 2006. Season 6 began on September 28, 2006,[21] but a Season 7 has yet to be confirmed." should be included in a new section on "Broadcasting" with international info. I would be happy to help out if you think anything here can be of use to you. Davey4 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The music is part of production, that's why we placed it there. It wasn't just something for marketing purposes, it's part of the creation. We don't explain who each of those guest characters are because they have their own pages, that is why they are linked. It would create too much information for such a section if we were to explain who every DC comics character was that guest starred. If you go to the Talk page, you will see that I provided a "plot-like" summary of the entire show, instead of the seasonal breackdowns. No one replied to it. I know we need to expand the reception section for critics, for wouldn't comic fans fall under that unmeasurable information? How can one accurately measure "comic fans" or any fans? The only thing I can think of would be to get a Neilson Rating for the series, but I'm not sure where to find that. I've seen some articles have them, but I don't know if we should and where to get it.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avt_tor[edit]

  • Detail in lead: Second paragraph has detail not about the show per se. Certainly a casual reader of this article would be looking mainly for information about the show itself.
  • Detail in "Production" section: I'm really not sure that two paragraphs about how the show was greenlighted is important here. This level of detail belongs in a subordinate article.
Development (which is what it is, but it isn't large enough for its own section) is apart of production. It's relevant to know (IMO) that the show wasn't the initial choice for WB. We've trimmed what used to be a lot of needless details about the unproduced Batman show. Bignole
Saying this wasn't WB's first choice doesn't need two paragraphs. Seems like secondary detail to me. User:Avt_tor
It isn't two paragraphs. The information about the nonproduced Bruce Wayne show, that lead to the production of this show is 1 paragraph and it's a thin one at that. If there is something I'm missing here, could you copy what you are referring to and paste it in the talk page (so as not to boggle this area down).Bignole
  • Music section: Seems like there could be a lot more detail, there should be a link to a subordinate article here.
I agree on expanding, but it already has the links. It just doesn't have a "see also" link, but simple wiki links to the subordinate soundtrack articles. Currently, there isn't enough overall music information to support a page about the general music for the show. Bignole
  • Allusions: another good spot for a subordinate article, though mainly I would separate the last part of the second paragraph, which discussions links to the films, as its own paragraph as that's a distinct topic of its own.
There was already an article about the "allusions" and it was deemed to lack notability on such a detailed (meaning listing every allusion) scale. That is why it is a summary of how the show uses allusions to other media's reflected by either their subject matter (Superman) or its stars (James Marsters). Bignole
I don't know the history, but I know that a show that has been six seasons in a long-established franchise has got to have lots of allusions to past material. I consider this background material, which makes it very appropriate for a subordinate page and much less so for the main page. I will happily argue the case for a subordinate article here. User:Avt_tor
I wish I could have shown you what the "subordinate" page looked like, but since it's been deleted I cannot. We turned it all into prose here because Wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. We should only know that the show constantly alludes to Clark's future self throughout the entire series, with a couple of examples that are generally an every episode thing. Bignole
  • Smallville universe references: There's a lot of detail here and hardly any reference links. (Wikilinks are okay, as long as the pages linked to are specific to the overall subject and have reference links.)
I'm not clear about what you are referring to on this one. Bignole
No citations in section 2.1. No citations about kryptonite in section 2.2. Links to super strength isn't specifically about Smallville. Hardly any citations on links to super strength, super vision, and heat vision, making this whole section poorly sourced. User:Avt_tor
No citations for 2.1? It tells you his powers, which are verified via the episode. I can write out video citations for each thing, but that's generally what the links to the episodes are for, so that they can read the plot of each one where the power first appeared. There is verifiability beyond watching the show. It isn't subjective because the entire episode literally explains it is a power that he just developed. The only thing I can think of is providing a citation for every episode listed directly to the CW website where another episode plot summary is. What citations for kryptonite are you looking for? Again, this is a "watch it for yourself" kind of deal. There isn't a subjectivity to the effects of kryptonite on him, the episodes pretty much say what it does. You cannot source "super strength" and "super speed" like it's something that can be actually attained. If you are challenging the verifiableness of whether he has this abilities, then again I saw "watch the episodes". That's like saying, "there's no citation for Tom Welling playing Clark Kent". So, again..if I'm missing something here please copy and paste it on the talk page so that I may see directly what you are referring to. Bignole
  • Season One: This cursory paragraph is too short; implies that very little happened throughout the season. (My recollection is that basic characterization and relationships were established; surely a few sentences is called for here.)
  • Cast and characters: Not quite saying this is too long, but the character summaries include bits of POV spin. Even words like "loving" (mother) and "devoted" (father) are somewhat subjective (and inaccurate to the extent that they are limiting).
I take it that the "guest characters" subsection is fine? Bignole
It's reasonably concise; I have no suggestions for improvement. User:Avt_tor
  • Series history: is about the right length and is reasonably well-written, but is almost completely subjective. The main article links to season articles that link to a fan wiki, i.e. no authoritative references in this chain. Fan wikis are notorious sources of original research. It's a basic flaw with the whole section. Linking to season articles that link to episode articles within Wikipedia, of which the episode articles have a single reference (cite video) to the episode itself (so any other editor can go back to the same source, and where editors could also cite other published reviews or other reliable sources) would be much better.
Let me expand on this: If you don't want to have the articles on Wikipedia itself (and I don't approve of the way some not-very notable shows have very lengthy Wikipedia articles), the season episode summary article would be where the sources go. I don't object to linking to the Wikia articles, but linking the episode title itself to the Wikia article creates a level of credibility that is not appropriate. Stick a little "external link" list at the end of each episode and link to it there; allow other editors to link to other episode summaries if they wish. (As user-entered sites go I would consider TV.com to be better because of its huge user base; that's why there's a tv.com field in the Television infobox template.)
You aren't making since about this. What exactly is the subjectivity in those sections. You aren't citing examples so it's hard to follow what you are referring to. They are overviews, so linking to a page that expands the overview does not discredit it. Many times even featured articles link to pages that are hardly well written, and it would take forever to only link to other articles that are well referenced. That isn't the point of linking. What exactly do you feel needs referencing? You don't reference a plot for a film, that's what watching the film is for. I think I need some examples of what you mean so that I may better understand your opinion and make the appropriate corrections. Bignole
The individual episode titles link directly to the Wiki articles, making the latter look like an official extension of Wikipedia. You're using summary style directly from a non-Wikipedia site, without so much as a footnote. Doing that would require other editors to edit the non-Wikipedia site to justify changes to Wikipedia itself; that breaks consensus. It wouldn't matter, except that the whole section on the main page is in turn summary style from the season articles. Like all other articles, episode summaries should be subject to consensus and/or sources, but linking directly off-site breaks that. User:Avt_tor
The link to Wiki articles so that someone can see what the episode was about, and not just one tiny event that occurred. What summary style is directly from non-Wiki? Bignole
  • Awards: grouping several different awards into two prose paragraphs is hard to read. I'd like to see a bullet point for each category of awards. (Also the Saturn awards are completely bogus and should be listed last, if at all, not at the top. And I would have mentioned the Hugo nomination somewhere briefly.)
Listing is usually avoided, especially on pages that are featured. I agree it needs work to flow better, but if we start a "list" then we will open ourselves to every tiny award the show has been nominated for. Bignole
I suppose opinions differ, I think prose-ifying a list is what looks awkward, and adds to word count. I think that consensus can establish a standard of notability for awards; prose isn't going to stop people from adding whatever they think is important. Seems to me you haven't been shy about reverting additions that you think don't fit. If there are a sufficient number of awards to warrant, a separate page for awards could be created. If you must use prose, I'm not seeing the logic of the paragraph break. User:Avt_tor
I've gone and looked at some FA tv shows, and some use the prose and some use the list form (tables or bullets). We originally had the list form, but consensus wanted it to be more prose. Paragraph break? I don't know why it's there. Bignole

That's all I've got. This is not far from GA status. I'm thinking it might have been useful to discuss this on the talk page before submitting to external peer review; more experts on the topic could be found there. Avt tor 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFK (film)[edit]

I am requesting any input, comments, suggestions, etc. to improve on this article. Count Ringworm 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

  • "which purports to follow the 1967 to 1969 investigation led by New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) as he investigates the assassination of President Kennedy. " Run-on, and whenever you dicuss rumour, please get a citation.
  • you need more in-line citations.
  • Expand your lead per WP:LEAD.
  • The first line in "About the film" looks very much like, if not containing the exact information from the first sentence of the lead.
  • "FK stars Kevin Costner, Gary Oldman (as Lee Harvey Oswald), Ron Rifkin, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Tommy Lee Jones, Laurie Metcalf, Jay O. Sanders, Sissy Spacek, Sally Kirkland, Joe Pesci.." Don't list these people her! You already do in the infobox.
  • " Stone directed it..." Stone who?

This needs a lot of work. The errors shouldn't be to hard to find. Once you eliminate obvious errors, I'l help. Just leave a talk message. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 19:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 21:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lose the Trivia section. Notable facts can be integrated into more encyclopedic parts of the article (production, etc) The JPStalk to me 19:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been working away at paring down that section. I created a new one, Historical Inaccuracies which took a few of the trivia bits away. Count Ringworm 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Inaccuracies would need changing from list into prose etc., or it would be seen as another trivia section. LuciferMorgan 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawksbill turtle[edit]

Been working on the article for the past few days, just want to know what you guys think. I know I need more stuff (and citations) in the importance to humans, and possibly the range and distribution section. I'm coming from a scientific background, so I'm not sure how it reads to a lay person right now. Thanks! Shrumster 11:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, done! Anything else that needs to be done? Shrumster 08:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clear-up those "citation needed" markers, and maybe stub the red links (or remove the [[ brackets ]]). DrKiernan 08:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the wikilinks, just the citations left! Shrumster 08:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally found an old journal article for the citations. No more unreferenced info in the article. Shrumster 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a nice article. The Range Section is a weak point; it seems to be just randomly mention places the turle is known to live. It needs to be organized in some fashion. A rangemap would be great. It would also would be nice to see a diagram of evoutionary relationships with other turtles if that exists. The other thing I noticed was missing was information on the early life stage. Do young turtles live in a different area of the water than adults do? What are their main predators in the water? What stategies do they use to survive until they are large engouh to not be considered prey? How long does it take them to grow to significant size? What are the survival rates? --BirgitteSB 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'll try to add more info as I find them especially for the range and distribution. As for the early life history, the info is in the "Life History" subsection under the "Ecology" section. I think I should change that to "Life History and Ecology" to reflect its contents. Unfortunately, the next line adequately explains the lack of info about the turtle's early life: "Much is not known about the life history of Eretmochelys imbricata." :) Sadly, right now we in the scientific community don't have enough solid information yet to determine what goes on between hawksbills' hatching and their juvenile-early adult life stages (as we do with the loggerhead & the green). I'll see what I can do about fleshing out that section anyway though. Would stating how it is for others (loggerhead, for example) and then just pointing out where the holes in the data are for hawksbills suffice? Shrumster 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than using the Loggerhead, I think it would good if you could generalize how it is with Sea turtles (Chelonioidea) and then point out the holes for the hawksbil.--BirgitteSB 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Fleshed out the life history part, I hope it's adequate. Shrumster 15:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestions! It's been a week and I think I've improved on the article enough, I'm going to be bold and try for FAC! Shrumster 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HiPER[edit]

Peer review normally leads to FA, but in this case I'd like to use this process in order to clear up any problem areas before going to GA. I'm particularly interested to know if the language is clear, and if jargon is explained. Any obvious areas left underdeveloped? Thanks! Maury 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will.i.am[edit]

Here's just a few comments you may or may not find useful:

  • Could you add the e-mail correspondence (the one(s) in the references) to the article's Talk page? That would give all the pages' editors the same information to improve the article.
  • More references in general would be a good idea. The article will need more than two references (with no inline footnotes) to pass GA. I tried googling HiPER and a few newspaper articles came up that could be used for footnote/references.
  • In the references section a link to a "factsheet" is included. Perhaps an External links section could have the homepage to HiPER linked up as well.
  • In general, the article still has a very technical tone to it. This does three things: 1) it gives it an air of authority (which is good), 2) it makes it not very "fun" to read, and 3) sometimes it makes it difficult to follow for a non-expert like me (and I'm a scientist, which many readers will not be). Here's a few of places that stood out as being able to have their language simplified:
  1. tends to dump a considerable amount of energy into the hot electrons around the target - I know what you mean. But "dumping" energy might be more easily understood as "a considerable amount of energy is lost to the hot electrons around the target". Also, what are "hot" electrons?
  2. higher frequencies couple much less strongly - almost no non-scientist I know says couple or decouple. How about "higher frequencies do not affect ... as strongly"?
  3. The best high-repetition lasers currently operating are much smaller; MERCURY at LLNL is about 70 J, HALNA in Japan at ~20 J, and LUCIA in France at ~100 J - Could we spell these acronyms out? It's easier to see what the actual instruments are that are being referenced.
  4. an order of magnitude less expensive than conventional devices - I like how order of magnitude was wikilinked, but perhaps "ten times cheaper" is easier to understand for a lay-person.
  5. In the case of HiPER, this driver laser system is fairly conventional, but seemingly undersized. - a few words explaining what "undersized" really means would help. E.g., "the driver laser system is fairly conventional, but has less powerful lasers than other systems." (if that's what undersized meant).
  6. The beam width at exit from the beamlines is about 20 cm across. - perhaps "After filtering, the final beam width is about 20 cm across."
  7. Here, you start with a short-pulse broad-bandwidth laser source, as opposed to the driver which uses a fairly monochromatic source. - I'm not sure what to change broad-bandwidth too, but monochromatic could be simplifed to "single frequency".
  8. The precise number and power of the beamlines are currently a matter of some amount of research. - suggest "The precise number and power of the beamlines are currently a subject of research.
  9. There are others, but I think you get the idea.

Good luck with the article!--Will.i.am 02:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will! I have incorporated most of your comments, along with a few I got from Mike. I hesitate putting the e-mails in the discussion page, but I will ask -- he didn't seem to worried about putting his e-mail address "out there" and even suggested it be placed in the article. Maury 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't thinking about putting his e-mail address on there. (In fact, I probably wouldn't, even if he requested it. In the event that someone wants to contact him I'm sure google will find him anyway.) But I was thinking the contents of the e-mails, perhaps in question/answer format with any personal details/salutations/etc removed.--Will.i.am 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, thanks for the input! Mike Dunne has also looked over a recent version and given it the thumbs up. I've incorporated much of what was said here, and I'm going to remove the PEER tag and move on in the process. Maury 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximus the Confessor[edit]

Article has undergone a major rewrite. As he is connected to some technical theological debates, I want to make sure the article is properly written/linked to be accessible to the average reader. Also, to get a sense of what else would be necesary to reach GA-status. Thanks, -- Pastordavid 08:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I have added wikilinks for the dates and the person data box as suggested. -- Pastordavid 15:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might not be the best person to do this, as it is a lot easier to just look at an article then it is to actively review it. Having said that, here goes. The article doesn't indicate when he was canonized in the infobox. That probably could be added. The page on Monothelitism indicates that he is considered a martyr, although the article itself indicates that he died of natural causes. Maybe adding a section to the biography about canonization to indicate something about that and how and when he was canonized might be useful. I would personally like to see the "Early Life" section expanded. If the "reasons unknown" for leaving court are because they are disputed, it would still be nice to see the various arguments listed. I'm personally not sure if all the titles should be italicized or not, including the titles in "His writings", but, if they are, that should be done. Also, I think a bit more about his various writings could be included, particularly those not directly linked to Monothelitism, as I rather doubt any of them will ever be likely to get their own articles. I'm also not sure whether a lot of the details regarding Monothelitism might be better placed in that article, as it is right now rather short and actually seems to have less detail than the biogrpahy has. The biography by his Maronite adversaries is mentioned, and maybe a bit more about the various hagiographies and other biographies and works written about him might be included as well. And, of course, inclusion of any other significant details of his life, if for no other reason than to maybe increase the length, might be welcome as well. I don't know whether they're actually available or not, though. That's about all I can think of. Like I said, I'm not sure I'm really the best person to do this. John Carter 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I need to expand the Monothelite article as well as this one, that is probably next on my to do list. I will head out after more info about his writings and his early life. Thanks for your suggestions. -- Pastordavid 15:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Conner[edit]

I put this up for review in December but got only one response... cleared up everything from that and have waited until the article has settled down again. I'm basically looking for any suggestions on how to improve the standard of the article so I could possibly get it up to Good Article or Featured Article status. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

  • Wikilink full dates in the references (and everywhere else) for date preferences to work.
  • When there are different facts using the same reference, they should go to the same footnote. Name the footnote and cite it afterwards (see WP:FOOTNOTE for more).
  • The prose needs a fair bit of work. Merge out the stubby one or two sentence paragraphs into more flowing prose; watch out for overuse of the passive voice; proofread the article, for instance Deal or No Deal is italicised in the image caption but not in the text.
  • Sort out the ref spacing. They come straight after the punctuation with no space; there should also be no space between multiple refs for one sentence.

It's good, but needs a bit of tidying. Trebor 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have worked on the references and tidied them up per your suggestions - took a bit of figuring out but got it to work!. Have also worked on the prose and proofreading. Can you please give me some examples of overuse of the passive voice? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do a search through the article for use of "was" and if it's possible to rephrase, it's normally stronger. For instance, "This was neither confirmed nor denied by the Miss Universe Organization" is better as "The Miss Universe Organization neither confirmed nor denied this." Trebor 08:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse (computing)[edit]

I think this is fairly good, at least a Good Article. Comments? ffm yes? 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they won't pass it as a GA if it has cleanup tags or [citation needed] tags on it. Also some of the references are [23] this kind and would need to be converted to the <ref> kind. The "Accessories" section and the "Mice in gaming" section are unsourced and could be reduced to a sentence or two each without losing any valuable content. Recury 18:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Revolutionary Federation[edit]

I would like some feedback on how to make this article featured. It was just recently accepted as a Good article. I believe after alot of research and hard work, most of the work is done, but I'd like to be 100% certain. In this review, I just want to make sure that everything's done to meet FA requirements. I'd like it to be checked for its NPOV, grammar, punctuation etc. Also if familiar with the topic, please state anything you find missing. Thank you! - Fedayee 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

Okay, I'm looking at this mostly from a prose point of view:

  • Done Sentence beginning The party operates in Armenia, and in countries... is long and snakelike, making it hard to follow. The background information about Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh could probably be cut, it's not especially relevant and detracts from the thrust of the sentence.
  • Done politically oriented - hyphenate.
  • Done various small groups - various is redundant.
  • Done You could perhaps wikilink the names of the founders in the first section as well. I know it's a repeat from the lead, but the lead was very link-heavy so they could be missed.
  • Done At that meeting the - comma after "meeting".
  • Done the various chapters - various is redundant.
  • Done June 12 1903 - wikilink dates with month and a day to allow date preferences to work.
  • Done the Hunchak and ARF parties supplied - comma after "parties".
  • Done and to manage to grab - I think "to manage" is redundant.
  • Done (changed the phrase and added 2 references) It was an important victory for the ARF, both militarily and morally - needs a citation.
  • There's very inconsistent date formatting. Have a look at the manual of style for their guidelines on usage.
  • Done Sometimes he was viewed as being ignorant and sometimes he was dubbed a great hero - needs reference.
  • I'm not quite sure what the templates are doing for Nagorno-Karabakh and Lebanon; they're designed for their own articles and don't really make sense midway through a different page.

My general impression is that all the information is there, but it needs a pretty thorough copyedit, and a bit of standardisation. Good work so far. Trebor 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick work. To clarify further, the problem I had with the templates is that they aren't applicable for midway through an article. They say "This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Lebanon" which is clearly false; if templates are needed at all, these aren't the right ones. I got about halfway through the article last time, so continuing with comments from there (and yes, I could correct most of these myself, but it's easier to list them here than keep editing the article:
  • Done and by trying to imprison - "by" is redundant.
  • Done April 19 - wikilink for date preferences. If there is a month and a day, always wikilink.
  • Done The Dashnaktsutiun was also involved in other, albeit less successful resistance movements - "albeit" is unnecessary, you're not contradicting anything. Will be fine as "other less-successful resistance movements" (I think the hyphen is correct).
  • Done Later on, the ARF leader Aram Manougian - a specific date would be better than a vague "later on".
  • Done The Russian Empire collapsed in 1917. As a result, in the winter of 1918 - no need for wikilinked dates here (bet you're getting tired of hearing this). Generally, don't link individual years unless (and this happens rarely) they provide useful context; however, you should link them if they are associated with a month and day. Confusing, I know.
  • Done The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had drastic consequences for the Armenians; the Turkish forces reoccupied Western Armenia. - this is unclear. If you want to say the drastic consequences were the Turkish forces reoccupying Western Armenia, then use a colon. At the moment, the relationship is unclear.
  • Done only 3 months - write "three" out in full, as it's smaller than ten.
  • Done It was eventually decided - eventually is another vague term for a time period; anything more specific would be better.
  • Done It was decided that they would do battle - not a very encyclopaedic turn-of-phrase, in my eyes. What does "do battle" mean? Be more specific.
  • Done 28 May, 1918 - just to clarify, this is a case where the year should be linked. The month and day should be linked together, and the year linked by itself, for date preferences.
  • Done The paragraph beginning With the collapse of the Transcaucasian Federation... needs some work; possibly it should be split. It's got a lot of stubby sentences and doesn't flow very well. It also covers a lot of change: at the beginning they were being attacked; by the end, you are discussing the new ruling party's policies. Try to find a natural point to break it up.
  • Done Most important governmental posts - this is unclear. Do you mean "the most important governmental posts" or "most of the important governmental posts"? Rephrase to suit.
  • Done short lived - hyphenate.
  • Done in over 200 states including the United States - perhaps using "USA" would be nicer, to prevent the "state" repeat.
  • Done The ARF-affiliated - sudden wikilink of ARF, which is at the least a link to a disambig page, and at the most a link to the page you're reading.
  • Done Paragraph beginning The passing of Catholicos Garegin of the Holy See of Cilicia... is unclear. I think that the names of these people have places attached too, but that's making it very hard to follow. If by "passing", you mean "death", then say it - we avoid euphemisms. Try to generally rephrase the paragraph to make it clearer.
I've got up to the start of the Modern History section, so will come back and review the rest of the article in a bit. Trebor 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll maintain that the templates still don't really make sense (but you know I think that by now ;)). Anyway:

  • Done "a Free, Independent, and United Armenia." - it's a quotation, so needs a citation.
  • Done it played a leading role - again, a reference is really needed to assert it played a "leading" role; "leading" implies that it was extra special or inspired others. Alternatively, replace it with a different word.
  • Done tracing behind the PANM - tracing? I don't know what is meant by that.
  • Done Today - probably better to say something which isn't time-dependent, for instance "as of 2007".
  • Done second largest - hyphenate.
  • Done National Assembly although it currently holds 2 seats - comma after Assembly.
  • Done Beirut's big Armenian community - large instead of big sounds better to me.
  • Done First two sentences in criticism have "often criticized" and "often been criticized" which is repetitive.
  • Done ARF members have also been accused of assassinations - not additive to anything before, so no need for "also". Possibly link to the next sentence to avoid the awkward "such was the case".

That's all I've got from an initial run-through of the prose. When you're done with that, I don't mind having another look at the article as a whole: content, weighting, style etc. Also, I haven't yet looked at the References section. I'm happy to keep suggesting improvements for as long as you're happy to look over them. :-) Trebor 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more things:

  • Done In the interest of trimming the lead to the bare essentials, I don't think which declared its independence from Azerbaijan in 1991 is relevant enough for inclusion.
  • Done A member of the ARF is called Dashnaktsagan or Tashnagtsagan in Western Armenian - ambiguous - is a member called Dashnaktsagan or Tashnagtsagan, both in Western Armenian, or is a member called Dasnahktsagan normally and Tashnagtsagan in Western Armenian. Needs clarifying (hope you followed what I said).
  • Done The ARF's history dates back - could just be "The ARF dates back".
  • Done and to gain an eventual - remove the "to".
  • Done independence, it being - possibly use a semi-colon instead of a comma - the sentence is otherwise a bit snaky and hard to follow.
  • Done It was instrumental - bit of a tense problem, the previous thing referred to was "the Dashnaks" (plural). So change it to something like "they were instrumental" or "the party was instrumental".
  • Done Convert the bullet-point list of government ministers into prose; just separate them by a semicolon or something.
  • Done Ref 44 needs an accessdate.
  • Done You may want to separate notes and references, just to avoid confusion. See Chaco Culture National Historical Park for an example of how it's done.
  • Done (I made significant changes here, I turned "Diaspora" section into "In exile" sub-section and removed the part about organizations into a separate section titled "Affiliate organizations") .I'm not sure about the titling of the sections. Sections 1-3 seem, to me, simply to be a continuous history and fairly arbitrarily divided into Origins, ARF in the Armenian Diaspora (which shouldn't contain ARF per MoS and Modern History. Perhaps they could be combined into a single section "History" with appropriate subsections, although I'm not exactly sure which way is best. But the headings definitely need the word "ARF" taking out of them.
  • Done (big paragraph on its political and ideological philosophy added to "goals" section which was turned to "Political philosophy and goals" section) Once you do that, it seems the article is a bit heavily-weighted in terms of history compared to the other sections. I think the Goals section could be renamed and expanded into a general overview of their political philosophy (if sources are available). Perhaps Criticism could be expanded a bit too. I'm not certain here, as I can't find any other FAs on political parties with which to compare.

This is getting there, I feel. Trebor 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still a couple of accessdates missing. Other than that, I would now advise getting someone else to have a look at it; a fresh pair of eyes would be helpful. Trebor 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Very nice indeed. Some prose issues only (sometimes the prose gets choppy), and some wordings that could (maybe!) attract POV criticism. I think the article is comprehensive, and covers its topic satisfactory. Most of my remarks treat minor issues:

  • Done "The Dashnaktsutiun is also the most politically-oriented of the parties active ... " Parties (at least, this kind of parties) are political by definition (that is why the article is Wikipedia is Political party). So, I don't fully understand what you mean that it is the most "politically-orientated" political party.
  • Done "it being the only solution to defend the Armenian people from Turkish oppression and massacres that were widely present in the Ottoman Empire." I don't know if being the only solution may be regarded as POV. I would go for a wording not treating whether this was the only solution or not.
  • Done(kept greek alphabet but combined problematic citation and note) "people from Turkish oppression and massacres that were widely present in the Ottoman Empire.[6][β]". I have been criticized in FAC for having in an article of mine in some sentences both a citation and a note in a row like here. Maybe you could combine them, keeping the note and citing in it. I had been also criticized for using the Greek alphabet in notes (I shouldn't have said that!).
  • Done "The party began to organize itself in the Ottoman Empire in the early 1890s and held its first major meeting in Tiflis, Georgia in 1892.[9][3]" Minor, but I would prefer to have citations in their correct order: "The party began to organize itself in the Ottoman Empire in the early 1890s and held its first major meeting in Tiflis, Georgia in 1892.[3][9]"
  • Done "As a result, the ARF leadership decided to actively defend Armenian churches.[10] This caused many ARF casualties in 1905.[10]" How did they defend them? Where there violent clushes?
  • Done "In 1915, Dashnak leaders were deported and killed alongside other Armenian intellectuals." Avoid stubby, one-sentence paragraphs like this one, which, by the way, sometimes look "orphan".
  • Done "it contributed to organizing a social and cultural framework aimed at preserving the Armenian identity." Uncited, and, I do not know, maybe a bit verbalist. Again, this may be just my personal preference (the verbalism; not the lack of citation!)
  • Done "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation held 9 of the 33 seats in the National Assembly of Nagorno Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave that was assigned to Soviet Azerbaijan under the leadership of Joseph Stalin in the 1920s". When I first read this sentence I got confused: I thought ARF held 9 seats in the Assembly in 1920! Then I understood that this was before 2005 (and since when?!) But the sentence does not say that. Maybe the whole section needs some rephrasing, and a clearer chronological order.
  • Done "In the 2005 Beirut elections, the ARF was disgruntled because four seats normally reserved for Beirut's large Armenian community had gone unopposed to Hariri's candidates.[44] It called for a boycott.[44]" Choppy prose. This "it called for a boycott" IMO is not nice at all. You can have here just one, well-constructed sentence.
  • Done (added new english titled map:)) The nice map in "Political philosophy and goals" is in Armenian. Any chance to turn it into English?
  • Done In "See also" section I see article already linked in the main text (like Operation Nemesis). Clean it up. IMO the best solution is to get rid of this section, and linke these articles in the main prose, if you think that they are useful for the reader.
  • Done "When the powers of Europe virtually disregarded the massacres of 1895-1896, members of the Dashnaktsutiun, led by Papken Siuni occupied the Ottoman Bank in August 26, 1896." You know, wordings like this one ("massacres disregarded by the powers of Europe") could be regarded as POV by some reviewers. In any case, before going to FAC, try to "shield" the article against claims of bias.
  • Done "The Russian Empire collapsed in 1917. As a result, in the winter". I wouldn't start a new section with such a short sentence. You can combine with the next one and make a very nice introductory and explanatory sentence.--Yannismarou 16:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri[edit]

Hi, I've only read the article through the "Role in the Young Turk Revolution" section, but it looks good so far and close to FA. Here are a few issues I've found so far. I'll read more some time this week.

  • Done The statement "It is the largest political party amongst Armenians in the diaspora, having affiliates in over 200 countries." could be kinda problematic, because "largest" usually implies most members in this sort of context. Is that the case? Then that should also be said, if not then the term "largest" is misleading and the sentence should be rephrased, IMHO.
  • I do not understand what "most politically-oriented" means in this context. If it is a political party, then its obviously politically-oriented, but how are other parties less "politically-oriented"?
    • Response to your comments on my talk page: Do you think something like "Compared to other Armenian parties, the ARP's activities have been mostly focused on political topics and less on educational and cultural projects" (probably needs to be rephrased to sound more fluent) would work?--Carabinieri 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done "The ARF dates back to the Ottoman Empire, where its members armed themselves into fedayee groups to defend Armenian villages and gain an eventual independence in order to escape the Turkish oppression and massacres that were widely present in the Ottoman Empire." That sentence needs to be somehow re-phrased and probably split up into several sentences.
  • Done "although they sometimes subsided this goal in favor of a more realistic approach" what kind of more realistic approach? More autonomy? An example would probably be appropriate.
  • Done What is the Armenian name for the "Federation of Armenian Revolutionaries"? It should probably be added in parentheses even if its very similar to the "Armenian Revolutionary Federation".
  • Done Why is "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" in quotation marks, but Federation of Armenian Revolutionaries is not? Both contexts refer to the name itself. Decide one way.
  • Done The article uses both "Huntchakians" and "Hunchaks" to refer to that party, which is kinda confusing.
    • Actually this one still persists. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the history section uses "Huntchakians" and the sentence after that uses "Hunchaks".--Carabinieri 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Section headings: I think "Activities in the Russian Empire", "Activities in the Ottoman Empire", "Role in the Young Turk Revolution", "Role in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution", and "In exile" should be changed to "Russian Empire", "Ottoman Empire", "Young Turk Revolution", "Iranian Constitutional Revolution", and "Exile" respectively.
  • Done "Opposition leaders including Ahmed Riza (liberal), Sabahheddin Bey, and Khachatur Maloumian of the ARF were in attendance." sounds like all three were ARF members
  • Done "The ARF decided to cooperate with the Committee of Union and Progress, hoping that if the Young Turks came to power, autonomy would be granted to the Armenians." that's redundant, was already mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph.

I hope that helps.--Carabinieri 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done The "Democratic Republic of Armenia" seems to mostly re-tell the history of the country during this period. I realize it's important to give the historical background, especially with topics like this one, where most readers often won't know much about the context, but I think it would be better to concentrate more on the ARF itself in this section.
  • I removed a few off topic sentences...the rest I find important so that it flows a little and doesn't jump randomly so that clueless readers don't get lost.
  • Done The modern history section claims that "After Armenia fell under Soviet control in 1920, the ARF, now dispersed throughout the Armenian diaspora, fought Soviet rule over Armenia and championed the cause of Armenian independence". Shouldn't there be a section about the Armenian SSR, which describes these activities. In the "Exile" section it sounds like there were (almost) no activities by the ARF in Armenia for over 70 years.
  • In fact, ARF did not do anything inside Armenia SSR's borders as it was completely banned. I cleared it up so everyone understands that. It did however try its best to fight soviet influence from the diaspora.
  • Done The division into a history section (19th century-1991) and a modern history (1991-present) seems odd and kinda arbitrary to me. Why not merge the two sections and re-name the "Armenia" sub-section to "Post-Soviet Armenia" or something like that?
  • Best thing I could come up w/ was change History to Early history, sectionize Exile so that I could include Lebanon as a sub-section and then create section entitled Post-Soviet Armenia w/ 2 sub sections (Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh)
  • Done Shouldn't the "Nagorno-Karabakh" section give some information on the ARF role in and opinion on the conflict in that region?
  • Added info on how it armed fighters, gave moral support, supplies etc and how it supported independence since day 1.
  • Done Shouldn't "Lebanon" be a sub-section of "Exile"? The order of the information in that article also bothers me. It starts with the political situation today, followed by the party's history since 1956 (what about before that?), and then comes back to discuss the current situation. The first paragraph should probably be moved to the end of the section. I'd also like information about the ARF in Lebanon from 1920-1956.
  • Did turn Lebanon to sub section of Exile, inserted the first paragraph to the end so that it flows chronologically. But I don't think there is much information on them from 1920 to 1956 in Lebanon as this period did not have any notable event except the slow establishment of the ARF in Lebanese-Armenian life. I tried searching the web and google books but nothing came up. I added sourced info of ARF in Lebanon from 1923 to 1958 where the Hunchakian and ARF figures were involved in a mini-sectarian strife.
  • Done I think the criticism section should be dissolved. The information should be added to the appropriate sections in the article. I'm not a big fan of separate sections for criticism overall, but it really seems superflouos in this case. It makes it seem like you're trying really hard to conform to NPOV. It would be better to make the article as a whole balanced.
  • Criticism is now gone. I have included all the information in the old Criticism section into their rightful sections.

Some overall comments:

  • The article still needs some copyediting. I tried to help with this, but I'm not very good at it either. Try to find a good copyeditor to help you. WP:LoCE might be helpful.
  • There are some POV issues. I take from your user name and your user page that you have a strong pro-ARP and especially pro-Armenia POV. This isn't in itself a problem, but unfortunately I think it has influenced this article to a certain extent. I don't know much about this topic and therefore can neither point to any specific parts of the article, which I find problematic (except for some phrases like "mercilessly slaughtered"), nor help improve this (I could insert my personal POV, but that would be really counter-productive). Do you know of any Wikipedian, who is knowledgeable on Armenia-related topics and whose POV is opposed to yours? It would be good if someone like that would look through the article.
  • I would like to repeat that aside from the issues listed above, I think the article is really well researched and referenced and very interesting. Great work!!! Just a few steps away from FA IMHO.--Carabinieri 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoysala architecture[edit]

This article has been through two rounds of copy edits and a spell check. This article is a new subject I am writing about. My previous major contributions were on the history of a few South Indian Empires, including Hoysala Empire. So I think this article will compliment well with the Empire that created the architecture (Hoysala Empire). I would like some positive feedback on content, format, prioritization of subheadings and any other architectural details that are deemed necessary. I believe I have covered the basics of all the important aspects of Hoysala architecture. ThanksDineshkannambadi 18:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for the auto peer review. I will pay close attention to the points provided.Dineshkannambadi 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Hoysala architecture is the distinctive building style developed under the rule of the Hoysala Empire in Karnataka, India between the 11th and the 14th centuries" But Karnataka was not there as a state between 11th and 14th century.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This has been addressed.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just want to bring up this interesting issue. While the state Karnataka has existed since 1947, the land has been called "Karnata" or "Karnataka" for a very long time. Some 10th century Kannada literatures were Karnataka Kadambari on romance by Nagavarma I, Karnataka-Kalyanakaraka on medicine by Jagadalla Somanatha.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. A light copyedit may help. Submit it to FAC> =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your comments are appreciated.Dineshkannambadi 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Canadian Air Cadets[edit]

previous peer review

The Technique[edit]

I've been developing this article for a long time, and would like some advice on how I can further improve it. See also: first peer review on this article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse[edit]

  • References other than the Technique itself would seem absolutely necessary, just to prove notability if nothing else. They will also give you a hint how much space to devote to each subtopic.
  • The first ref, just to http://nique.net/ is dangerous - what if they change their "liveliest newspaper" line to something else? I'd link to a specific issue, ideally the first time that was used. Clearly the 1911 issue didn't have it.  Done
  • Cite the "citation needed"s  Done
  • The Section titles probably don't need wikilinks; for example the Opinion article doesn't really describe the newspaper's Opinions section  Done
  • "Possibly the most well-known" - WP:WEASEL  Done
  • "Common lore states" - darn, so close to getting a West Dakota Prize! :-)
  • Hasn't it ever broken any stories? Been involved in any controversies? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooh, good points. I'll have to think about some of these. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There aren't many mentions of the Technique outside of Georgia Tech and college newspaper-related pages. There was a recent bit of news when the 'Nique decided to not publish a fringe group's inflammatory advertisement, but it wouldn't be news if Frontpage Mag.com didn't have an agenda to push.
    • The online archives only go back to 1995, and there aren't any resources (other than offline archives) that have the answer to that; so, I just said that they did it since at least 1995 (for now). I might have a look in the archives to figure that one out.
    • I happened upon a better-quality copy of the first issue of the Technique today, something I'd been looking for since I started editing this article. So, I've nailed one of them. However, the sources I have that mention the merger incorrectly cite the newspapers that merge as the Yellow Jacket and the Technique; That's not possible, because (from what I've learned) the campus newspaper at the time was The Georgia Tech, and the Yellow Jacket was sort of a humor magazine. So, I'm not sure I'll be able to fill that ref until I do some deeper digging.
    • Removed the wikilinks on the section titles. That one was fun and easy :)
    • Removed "possibly," sounds 100x less WEASEL-ish.
    • As for "common lore states," Well, it's cited in a few places that ANAK founded the Technique, but it's not very verifiable at the moment. Before 1967, ANAK wasn't a secret society, so there might be some resources that confirm or deny this. Also, now that I have that first issue, I'll be able to cross-reference the editor list with the publicly available ANAK member list and give some credence to the claim.
    • See above with the bit about the ad that was denied. While it happened, I'm not sure the event was encyclopedic, given the consistent POV-pushing of those organizations. Unfortunately, not much else is known about the Technique's history than what's on the article right now. I wish it was otherwise.
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further research, I discovered a past controversy and wrote it up into the article. Given the paper's long history, I'm sure there are more. That's just the one that I've found. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Series of Unfortunate Events[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/A Series of Unfortunate Events/archive1 - Archived Discussion

This page has been peer-reviewed before, but recieved very little attention. This is only at B class and one of WP:ASUE's goals is to get this page to featured status. <3Clamster 23:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start off with a History section perhaps: has Handler ever stated his inspiration to write a miserable tale for children? Wiki-newbie 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit[edit]

  • "Snicket will display a greater aversion for macabre elements than the average reader. Whenever the story is reaching a depressing point, he will beg the reader to stop reading and imagine a happy ending." - But doesn't this device point out the absurdity of happy endings? I'm not sure that it means Snicket/the narrator shows "a greater aversion for macabre elements" - he seems to revel in them.
  • could you suggest other generic examples of "steampunk" for the reader?
  • I would suggest changing the "writing style and motifs" section from a bulleted list to paragraph form.
  • Could you find some literary criticism for your "writing style and motifs" section? That would give you sources and lessen the problem of opinion. In general, the article seems undersourced. I would quote from the books, for example, in the "General Storyline" section to support the description.
I agree with your description of "undersourced". The page needs sourcing, but I've found it dificult to find critical reviews as this is generally considered a childen's series. Currently, I don't have enough time to search for sources, but I hope other contributors will take the iniative. <3Clamster 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even putting "Lemony Snicket" into google scholar will get you a few basics. Awadewit 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's quite difficult to find detailed analysis and, frankly, I believe it is extremely to promote literature-related articles to FA status, as the themes' meanings are usually decided by the individual readers, meaning it's difficult to achieve NPOV.--Orthologist 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd-eyed cat[edit]

I've recently written this article about odd-eyed cats and I would like to know what information needs to be added and how it can be improved. Thanks. --Candy-Panda 10:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that they are popular among the Japanese, but that is the only cultural reaction you have. Is there any folklore in any countries about odd-eyed cats? Goldfritha 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent idea! I've now added a "cultural reactions and folklore" section. --Candy-Panda 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest perhaps adding a section towards the discovery and early mentions of odd-eyed cats and perhaps some mentions of the genes history with breeders. user:Editor125637373737353 10:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A mcmurray[edit]

At a first glance:

My more thorough edit, changes, adds and removals (all of which are reversible per user discrimination):

  • Add fact tag where applicable
  • Inserted hidden comment(s) looking for more detail.
  • Minor rewording of caption.
  • Minor word removal, ex:perfectly contradicted by a stat right after it.
  • Other minor copy editing details.

If interested I have an article up for peer review here. Hope that helps.A mcmurray 07:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auroranorth[edit]

  • I do not think you need so many pictures of odd-eyed cats. This clutters up the article and makes it look unprofessional, in my opinion.
  • The lead section needs improvement. I would suggest keeping the current information but then going on further 'The condition is caused by a genetic disorder. Turkey considers this type of cat to be a national treasure,' or something to that effect.
  • The external links section needs capitalisation and the wikifying has not been done correctly.
  • The kittens section could be merged with the cause section.

Thanks for your interest in developing good articles.

You may like to look at the Good Article criteria and the Featured Article criteria if you wish to go further with this article. You could also use Manx (cat) as an example. Auroranorth (sign) 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dryandra Woodland[edit]

I've spent a fair bit of time on this and have hit a wall as to what else is needed to improve it further. I think the prose and layout are good and its got nice images. ANY feedback is welcome. Thanks. —Moondyne 00:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Sixguns[edit]

Threatened fauna are listed; how about any threatened flora? Chris 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a table of declared 'rare' and 'priority species' as defined under the Wildlife Conservation Act. —Moondyne 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Table updated as the source appeared to have been out of date. —Moondyne 04:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will.i.am[edit]

Just a quick mention that the footnotes should go after the punctuation in the sentence. I believe that all of the notes in the article are in front. (See WP:FOOT for details.)--Will.i.am 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - another day that I learnt something new. Its changed. —Moondyne 07:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read through the article, corrected some typos, and changed some phrases (very minor). But there were two others which I didn't attempt:
  1. What does CALM stand for? The article should probably spell out the acronym in its first instance.
  2. The first paragraph of the last section (Tourism) is a direct copy of one in the lead. My suggestion would be to keep the one in the article body, but to cut down the one in the lead significantly (effectively you just want to say something to why Dryandra is important and notable, but you can leave the details for down below). Good luck!--Will.i.am 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. CALM meaning is now clarified and duplicate text in lead fixed. —Moondyne 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review by AndyZ[edit]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dupicated text in lead fixed
    • No infobox found
    • Units of measurement and number formatting is fixed
    • References moved to after the full stop
    • Copyedited to remove redundancies
Thanks —Moondyne 14:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Suggested improvements have been addressed and I feel that the article meets all the criteria at WP:WIAGA, so I'm nominating it there. —Moondyne 14:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Crisp[edit]

A highly celebrated First World War hero and holder of the Victoria Cross. Another article I have worked extensively on recently and would appreciate some feedback for future work required.--Jackyd101 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Quite good. Suggestions, in no particular order:

  • The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs. As it is, it's not really adequate as a summary of the article.
  • The use of "jr" and "sr" ought to be looked at. I would have expected these to be both capitalized and followed by a period; is this not the case in British English?
  • The references section should contain everything cited in the article.
  • Maybe put the citations directly at the end of the Victoria Cross section (in somewhat smaller boxes, even)?
  • As usual, any other images available? The ships involved, perhaps?

Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated[edit]

PocklingtonDan[edit]

  • "tiny vessel" - wiki likes quantification - can we say "tiny (just 20ft)" or similar instead? Also, perhaps parentheses what a smack is - I'd never come across one before and it seems unfortunate to have to divert to another article to find out when you've only just started reading
  • "self-sacrifice in the face of overwhelming odds" seems too POV and bias without a cite
  • I know finding cites for this must be difficult for a relatively obscure figure, but I would still like to see more cites generally if possible
  • "the son of Arthur Soanes,[13] one of the victims of this incident, later claimed to have contacted his father through his powers as a spiritual medium and reported this version of events as fact" - I'm not sure a spiritual medium should be cited as a reason to believe a certain course of events!!
  • Other that that, I found it a fascinating read. Well done - PocklingtonDan 09:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I removed the "tiny" and changed the sentance about the self-sacrifice to include a cited quote (althoug I have read that it isn't a good idea to cite things in the introduction). I have also added more citation generally although as mentioned, finding sources is very hard, much help was provided by a user in A-Class Review. Two replies here, firstly I couldn't find a way to slip in information about the nature of a smack without using a footnote, which is no less labour intensive than using a wikilink. As smack is a necessary technical term which is not related to the article itself, perhaps a link is the best way to go. Also, the spritual medium is not intended as the source for the event, the cited book does that. The medium is simply an interesting story related to the events, which is also cited. Thankyou for your review.--Jackyd101 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, its looking really good to me - Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Donne[edit]

This is an article that I've been working on recently, with the goal of achieving a GA aticle, or maybe even an FA. I admit that there is a lot of work that needs to be done. More information and more citations are obviously necessary. I'd like some feedback on how to proceed with developing the article (id est, how to structure the sections, whether some of the images are really appropriate, what to do with the trivia section, etc.). Galanskov 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

My general impression of the first section:

  • Eventually he would become - be more specific, say at which age or in which year.
  • Don't wikilink years on their own; they very rarely add anything.
  • who avoided unwelcome government attention - what of it? Seems a bit of an odd thing to say, so needs a bit of expansion.
  • leaving the responsibility of raising his son to his wife, Elizabeth Jones. His mother, also from a noted Catholic family, was the - was Jones John Donne Junior's mother? It's not explicit. "His" could also refer to either the father or the son. Rephrase it to make it clearer.
  • One of Donne's maternal great-grandmothers was a sister of Thomas More, the Catholic martyr and author of Utopia, whom Henry VIII had beheaded for his refusal to accept Henry as the leader of his faith - a bit of an obscure link, which may be best removed. The background information on More is particularly out-of-place.
  • Actually, the whole section on his family could do with tying more clearly to Donne. At the moment, it seems like background info is a bit of an aside.
  • he was accepted as a member of Thavies Inn -as Thavies Inn is redlinked, it'd be useful to know a little more about what it is, and what being a member means.
  • in the legal area of London - again, some expansion on what this means would be preferable.
  • we know that he fought - using "we" shouold be avoided; see here.

The prose could do with some work, and the references decrease later on in the article which may be a problem. The images look good, but the caption for Pyford could be better - I don't like the way it's instructing the reader to note something. The structure is quite tricky as it'd be fairly hard to separate personal and profession life (as is often done). The trivia section is always quite a hard one to deal with; if it's relevant or noteworthy then try to merge somewhere else in the article, or else just remove (I'll leave the judging to you). It's coming along nicely so far; good work. Trebor 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nicely done, but in some sections under-cited and IMO with a POV tone throughout the article. This is my review:

  • "Donne came from a Roman Catholic family, and so would experience persecution until his conversion to the Anglican Church. Despite his great education and poetic talents, he would live in poverty for several years, relying heavily on wealthy friends. Eventually he would become an Anglican priest and Dean of St Paul's. His literary works would reflect these trends, with love poetry and satires from his youth, and religious sermons during his later years." The over-use of "would" have been criticized in the past in FAC.
  • "Despite the obvious dangers, Donne’s mother ensured he was educated by the Jesuits,[1] from whom he acquired a profound understanding of his faith that equipped him for the ideological religious conflicts of his time." Why do you put the citation here in the middle of the sentence? The rest of it is unsourced?
  • The third paragraph of "Early life" is undercited. it needs at least one more citation.
  • "By the age of 25 he was well prepared for the glittering diplomatic career". "Glittering" could be regarded as POV I am afraid.
  • "Career and Later Life" has no citations.
  • "he remains one of the most vibrant, exciting and intellectually challenging of all English poets." Uncited and possibly POV.
  • "In a life largely devoted to state affairs, religion, and other matters considered more respectable in the culture of the day, he seems to have regarded writing as a tawdry habit he could never quite shake off, but his wide ranging output includes sonnets, love poetry, religious poems, Latin translations, epigrams, elegies, songs, satirical verses and sermons". Who says all these things? Any sources?
  • Get rid of "Trivia". Incorporate its material, if it is useful, in the main article.
  • "Critical Works" are no part of the references. They are "Further reading" or a separate "Critical Works" section.--Yannismarou 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit[edit]

I think that this article has a lot of promise but some sentences are awkwardly worded (a copyedit would fix that) and it needs more scholarly citations. Overall, though, I think that the article needs a few sentences here and there to explain its ideas more fully, particularly to a reader unfamiliar with seventeenth century poetry.

  • Perhaps you could mention one or two of Donne's most famous works in the opening? The poems that one must have in a survey of a seventeenth-century poetry? What is the essence of Donne? (By the way, I disagree that you need a source for the list of genres that Donne wrote in. That is silly. That is not the kind of statement that requires a source. No historian or literary scholar would ask anyone for a source on such a statement.)
  • In the second paragraph: Was he poor because he was Catholic? Perhaps you could make that connection, if it exists, more explicit.
  • Why born sometime between January 23 and June 19? Why not born early in 1572? If those dates are significant, why not explain them?
  • Perhaps simply "Welsh father"?
  • As one of the other reviewers stated, the details on Donne's family are a little confusing. But I think that they are important. Clearly religion was an essential element of Donne's life. Perhaps that section could be reworded? Think of it like a story and less like a relation of a series of facts, perhaps.
  • Briefly explain Oath of Supremacy - at least mention that it is connected to his being Catholic.
  • Condense legal education sentences.
  • Explain "coterie poetry." Alas, it is not a commonly known term.
  • You mention the "17th Holy Sonnet" - explain it more or delete it. If it is important enough to mention, it is important enough to give a few sentences to.
  • Again, please explain why the "Death's Duel" sermon is infamous. Have some fun!
  • One cannot die "on Lent," only "during Lent." The church season lasts meany, many days.
  • Perhaps you should give even more detailed examples of the metaphysical conceit? It is a difficult concept to understand.
  • Could you list the works published in his lifetime with their original dates and then the standard Donne edition used by scholars in the Poetry and Prose sections? I found the dates jarring.
  • The footnotes look oddly referenced to me. I was confused by all of the letters. I'm also confused why you don't reference the biographies you've listed instead of the encyclopedia articles. In general, biographies are more complete and reliable than encyclopedias.
  • I would suggest removing "Sparknotes" from the external links as well. It is not a reliable source for literary criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 19:12, February 5, 2007(UTC) (UTC)

User:BirgitteSB[edit]

  • I find the tone to be sometimes inappropriate and not upheld by the references. Tone should less dramtic. If the source reads Donne's first teachers were Jesuits. At the age of 11, Donne and his younger brother Henry were entered at Hart Hall, University of Oxford, where Donne studied for three years; don't talk of his mother ensuring hs education by Jesuits or his profound understanding.
    • Despite the obvious dangers, Donne’s mother ensured he was educated by the Jesuits, from whom he acquired a profound understanding of his faith that equipped him for the ideological religious conflicts of his time.
    • Donne was forced to accept a retired country life in Pyrford, Surrey
    • It is not known how Donne grew to abandon the faith he had been educated to defend
  • There is sometimes an inappropriate context as if you are stuck writing about what happened from within his lifetime instead of a general enyclopedia article.
    • These poems were never published although they circulated widely in manuscript form Never?
    • he would become vicar of St. Dunstan's-in-the-West would become?
  • The text is needs overall tightening; it is repeats events in different sections and is sometimes even contradictory. It would probably benefit from a complete overhaul in organization where his life and works are dealt with at the same time in chronologically based sections.
    • including the infamous Death’s Duel sermon delivered at the Palace of Whitehall before King Charles I in February 1631
    • Even as he lay dying on Lent in 1631, he rose from his sickbed and delivered what was later described as his own funeral sermon. In case you do not know: Death’s Duel sermon = what was later described as his own funeral sermon'
    • It is not known how Donne grew to abandon the faith he had been educated to defend, but he certainly was in communication with the King, James I of England, and in 1610 and 1611 he wrote two anti-Catholic polemics, Pseudo-Martyr and Ignatius his Conclave.[3] Although James was pleased with Donne's work, he refused to reinstate him at court and instead urged him to take holy orders.[2] After a long period of financial uncertainty and difficulty, spent seeking profitable employment, during which he was twice a member of Parliament (1601 and 1614), Donne finally acceded to the King's wishes and was ordained into the Church of England in 1615.[5]
    • Earlier he had valued a skeptical approach to religion, but this now gave way to a firm faith in the traditional teachings of the Bible. Having converted to the Anglican Church, Donne pursued a position as a preacher.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirgitteSB (talk • contribs) 01:22, February 11, 2007(UTC) (UTC)

Olympic Committee of Portugal[edit]

This article was created by me and I'm its main editor so far. I believe it's quite developed considering I used one major source and one or two extra-references (probably a minus argument) but I would appreciate a second opinion about what should be improved in both content and writing style. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey there. I have done a little copyediting to the page. It looks very good! I just have a problem with the wording of this sentence; maybe try to fix it up so that it's more understandable:

    On occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Portuguese presence in the Olympic Movement – which also celebrated 90 years since the latter's creation in 1894 – the IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch visits Portugal in October 26, 1984, to take part at the solemn ceremonies.

    → JARED (t)  18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, Jared, thanks for the copyediting! It's always good sense to ask a native speaker to correct the grammar. As for that particular sentence, I understood your point and I've reworded it into this:

    On October 26, 1984, IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch visits Portugal to take part at the solemn ceremonies of the 75th anniversary of the Portuguese presence in the Olympic Movement, which, coincidentally, celebrated 90 years since the its creation in 1894.

    Is it understandable now?
  • I briefly skimmed the article, but haven't done anything to it. One of my base problems with the article actually occurs in this sentence. A phrase like "solemn ceremonies" is a bit weaselly and unless attributable, should be avoided. The phrase "since the its creation" doesn't make sense. Did you mean "since its creation"? --Sue Anne 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've erased that weasel word and that extra "the" was a glitch from a previous idea. Thanks, Sue Anne. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else in the article? I wanted to include a picture of the COP's president, but it's so hard to get a non-copyrighted photo. I don't know if I could upload a copyrighted one and claim fair-use. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked over it very quickly, so I didn't have time to look at everything. But the new rewording was good-- I just had to make a couple grammatical/tense changes. As far as the picture, I've never had a full grasp of the fair-use of a copyrighted work thing. I think that it would be acceptable, but don't ask me because I've always done it wrong! → JARED (t)  21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article was about the COP president or if the picture was taken at a COP meeting, you might be able to find a photo out there that you could claim as fair use. But, that would be really difficult. Did you check over on Commons to see if anything was there? --Sue Anne 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already put a photo request on the man's article but I don't believe I'll get one in this century, lol. There's nothing on Commons, unfortunately. The thing is he's a "living person" so I can't claim fair-usage on a copyrighted photo (which I'm able to find) because it's possible for me to travel about 300 km, knock on his door and ask him to smile for the camera - but is it reasonable? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Parutakupiu, one other comment I'd like to add is that I think the use of navigational boxes as lists in the middle of the article is not a good style. I think normal bulleted lists are perfectly suitable for this purpose. Good work putting this article togather! Andrwsc 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're referring to the presidents table also? I had previously displayed the sports federations as list but they seemed to long. But if you think it's wiser, ok! Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's only 11 people long, so that's a manageable list in the standard format. I just think that navigation boxes ought to be reserved completely for that specific purpose. Andrwsc 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a pause on the reviews, I've been developing the article, so there are new things that may be subject to an appreciation. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I was wondering if you could incorporate some of the main info from Portugal at the Olympics into the article, as the OCP would presumably be in some way responsible for the athletic performance of the delegation. Also, I think you should find some info about funding - how does the OPC get the money it needs to perform its activities, eg, government, private sponsorship, and also how it interacts with the various sports - eg the Australian Olympic Committee distributes money from the Government of Australia to the various sports. The other thing is that there are too many lists - If you are looking towards an FA in the future, you should either expand text into them - eg, in the President's section, put stuff about what the policies and changes that the given president did during his reign. For the list of sporting bodies, it proabbly should not be ther unless you have articles for each sporting federation. I think there needs to be more on how the decision making process and selection of the body occurs. Also has there ever been a bid by Portugal to host the Olympics? If so, this should be mentioned, or if any Portuguese IOC delegates were involved in bribery, etc. I can help you with the language. I always admire people who try to do their best in a second language. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some commments on the history section. I'll look through the rest later.

  • Why is José Vicente de Moura referred to as Commander in the lead section? Neither this article nor the article about the man himself explains this.
  • The letter cited in the first footnote is in French, not in Portuguese. I also think it would be better to find some kind of secondary source anyway.
  • "Sources defend this date [in 1906] as the real country's accession date to the Olympic Movement". "and this date [in 1909] is still regarded as the Olympism's date of institution in Portugal, making this nation the 13th to enter the Olympic Movement." This is a contradiction. Obviosly not all regard the latter date as "the Olympism's date of institution in Portugal".
  • The word "upgrade" in the second paragraph of the history section has to be clarified.
  • More wikilinks should be created, some examples: Jaime Mauperrin Santos, Portuguese Public Instruction minister, Olimpo, Portuguese Olympic Academy. Even if they are red these links should still exist so that editors will be motivated to write articles on these topics. --Carabinieri 13:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review on the history section, which is quite a big poart of the article and the most sourced one. I believe I fixed all the points you mentioned. Please, confirm. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's been taken care of. The main issue with the rest of the article is that (most of) it needs to be turned into prose first.--Carabinieri 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think so? As the main editor, it's easy to let many things pass undernoticed, even more when I'm writing in a non-native language - get's hard to maintain a prose-like text. That's why I'd like reviewers such as yourself to go forward and copyedit the article as needed. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Araya[edit]

I plan on getting this to GA in the future, i would appreciate some comments on how to improve the size, if any information is missing, basic stuff, aside from the lead, Cheers. M3tal H3ad 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "Araya contributed to the lyrics of Slayers material as of 1988's South of Heaven. Tracks include Seasons in the Abyss, Dead Skin Mask, South of Heaven, War Ensemble, and Jihad. His lyrics tend to be about death, murder, and serial killers, a subject Araya finds interesting." Souldn't the names of albums or tracks be in italics or brackets per WP:MoS?
  • I see typos throughout the article. Check it carefully.
  • Maybe another thorough look of the article for prose issues. For instance, this sentence "Araya's father stated he take the course or find a job, Araya chose to enroll in a two year technical course" may not be a problem for GA, but if you later go for FA, I don't tink that such prose will be regarded as "brilliant".
  • Is he a talented bassist? has he been praised for his work as vocalist or bassist?

As a conclusion, I would say that the article will pass GAC. But for a higher ranking I would also like to have a more detailed biography section.--Yannismarou 17:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bassists aren't really called talented as you can't really hear them. Also on their first records the bass volume is low as he wasn't that great back then. I couldn't find any spelling errors,(i use Firefox 2, inbuilt spell-checker) I'll add another paragraph to Biography although is there any specific things you would like me put in? and is it enough for B-class? thanks M3tal H3ad 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you meant by spelling errors, I'm sure i cleaned them up now. M3tal H3ad 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per Hanneman, a section discussing the influences Tom Araya has, his bass and vocal style, and his actual influence on upcoming musicians at large. He has been influential. One interview, here, is where Soilwork frontman Bjorn Strid says Araya's vocal style influenced him as an early musician (without trying to be egotistical, I was the interviewer, LOL!). LuciferMorgan 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isis (band)[edit]

This article has failed what was probably an unwise GA nomination, recently been rated as B-class in WP:BIO and had a previous PR. I feel it's at a new level now, with minimal sycophancy and plenty of citations. Any input whatsoever would be appreciated; I have a goal of this achieving GA status in not-too-long. Seegoon 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Certain statements need a citation. LuciferMorgan 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? If you mention them here or {{fact}} tag them I'll get to work. Seegoon 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the Isis template at the bottom of the article, have you considered condensing the "Releases" section so that the box doesn't take up the width of the page? You would just need to add a <br /> between the appropriate releases, maybe after Panopticon? You could also make it three lines - but I'd at least get In the Absence of Truth on the same line (just my opinion).
    • Done, nice touch. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, have you considered adding music samples. I think they add a lot to a band's article. I added them to the discography section of Harvest; but I've seen them used a number of ways.
    • Great idea, that's something for a long weekend. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirdly, have you thought of adding the track names to the discography? You could possibly link some of the track names to music samples.
    • I'd be reticent about doing this; it'd make the article visually enormous, practically creating an article in itself. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope these suggestions help. By the way, if you're interested in adding music samples in the .ogg format, try out "Power mp3 Cutter 2006 - I got it for a free trial off of cNet Downloads. It makes cutting out 30 second or less samples a breeze (which is the legal length). Also, I've got the Harvest article up for peer review if you're interested in reviewing it. Jamie L. 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your suggestions, it's all helpful. I'll give Harvest a lookover when I have some free time. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

Thoughts:

  • I don't like the "see 1997 in music", that page doesn't really add much to the article.
    • I've removed all of these. It's a WP:MUSTARD reccommendation, but you're right. It adds little. Seegoon 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence is long and snaky, perhaps split it. What does commonly labelled mean? It implies that they are commonly labelled "among many others", which seems a bit odd. Do you mean that they are commonly labelled as "avant garde metal, post-metal, post-rock and experimental" and have also been labelled as many other things? Needs tidying.
    • I've give this a little prune - it's certainly not perfect though. It's one of things that'd work best if I completely rewrote it, and I'll add that to my to do list. Seegoon 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their sound has helped develop the sound of several contemporaries; namely Cult of Luna, Pelican, Tides, Rosetta, and Russian Circles - is this really lead material? I don't know the band, so it's hard to say, but the whole second paragraph seems to focus on how they've influenced others, rather than what they've done themselves. You could also get rid of "namely" and replace the semi-colon with a colon.
    • I agree, but I'm not entirely sure where it could be inserted into the main body of the article. I supposed it could follow the section on the albums which influenced said bands... I'll bear that in mind. Thanks. Seegoon 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Mogwai sourced, but Tool and Justin Broadrick not?
    • Further on in the article, it states how Justin Broadrick has worked with them extensively and that they have toured with Tool and borrowed a member for performance in one song - I could put that information in <ref></ref> tags if you think it'd be necessary. That's one possibility - but as you recommended, I think I'm going to try to assimilate that kind of information into the "History" section, and perhaps rename it "Biography". Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I don't like the "see 2002 in music" (or wherever it's used later on).
    • This is rectified. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suddenly we're given information about their most recent album, even though nothing else about their releases has been mentioned in the lead. The lead should summarise the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD).
    • With this, I was just trying to condense important information. I guess it'd function fine without that information, and I might remove it. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Turner states - "as" is redundant; is there any reason "states" is used instead of "said" ("states" makes it sound very strong).
    • I've reworded this section. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isis gained national underground attention in the metal/hardcore scene through tours with Cave In and Neurosis. - cite?
  • It signified a further progression many had predicted since Oceanic - if you're going to say that "many" predicted something, it needs a cite.
    • The next sentence covers this I think, but I might try to find another source to cover the "many" aspect. I have one in mind. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bands such as Tool, The Melvins, Godflesh, and Neurosis can be cited as influences to Isis' sound, - would be better as "Isis cite Tool...as influences to their sound". "can be" sounds odd.
    • Reworded that section duly. Seegoon 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*The second paragraph of "Genre" needs better referencing. At the moment, it sounds like original research.

    • Good point, I'll try to find a more lucid discussion within some reputable sources. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read further, not all the information mentioned in the lead seems to be substantiated later on in the article, which is a real problem.
    • It's becoming more and more clear that I gotta rework some of that. Yeah. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Isis album is as overtly diegetic as, for example, The Wall, or The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars—two prime examples of concept albums. - cite?
    • Hmm... I think I might take out the other albums. "No Isis album contains an overt diegesis, or story arc, instead focusing on themes as opposed to stories.[cite]" etc etc, you've got my brain working now. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referencing isn't consistent: they all need accessdates and the accessdates should all be phrased the same way (sometimes it's "retrieved"; sometimes "retrieved on").
    • I think this is OK now. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely there's more for Ref 25.
    • I've clarified this to the best of my abilities given what I have available. It's something for the long-term, definitely. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where available, add the dates the refs were written.
  • External links need pruning; see WP:EL

It's not too far off GA standard, but still needs a bit of work. Trebor 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your input, it's invaluable. I've bolded the stuff I still have to address; once that's done, I'd appreciate you giving it a once-over. Thanks again. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Crash of 1929[edit]

This article was the ACID winner of 24 January 2007, and is currently pending GA status. I would really like to know what the article needs in order to be bumped to FA status. Thank you. Diez2 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It could use a little more expansion: at the moment most sections have only two paragraphs. Those sections might need to be fleshed out. Also, I'd change Footnotes to References. Good luck on your future FA. —Scott5114↗ 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BirgitteSB[edit]

I agree about needing expansion. Here are some topics I feel can be expanded on:

  • Over the weekend, the events were dramatized by the newspapers across the United States of America.
  • in the immediate aftermath of the day of the crash, as the federal government contracted the money supply, to try and halt the flow of economic downturn.
  • The crash was also the impetus for important financial reforms and trading regulations. Any besides the Glass-Steagall Act; if not mention it by name in the lead instead of being so general
  • political over-reactions to the crash Any besides the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
  • Economists and historians disagree on exactly what role the crash played in the ensuing economic fallout What is the history of this disagreement? Have they always disagreed or has opinion differed at different times?

Sarah Brightman[edit]

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarah Brightman/archive1

I am considering running this through FAC sometime in the next few months (it has to be in a few months because she has a new album coming out and the thing needs to be stable first.) It's associated with the Musical Theatre WikiProject, and has gone through substantial editing. It's already been through one peer review, but I'd like some additional feedback before I do so. Thanks in advance. Crystallina (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a firm idea how musician articles should be structured, but this one doesn't feel properly laid out. Perhaps that there is so much on career and little else. The section on music and voice is a good idea, but it should probably be broader and a greater proportion of the article. It should include more description of here vocal quality, acting ability, etc, such as the best reviews that cover those. Try checking the other FA's on musicians, find the best ones, and see if you can distill an improved layout from them. - Taxman Talk 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd love to add more to these sections, but I'm limited by what's out there as far as sources. I'll keep looking but there isn't as much information as there is for, say, Mariah Carey. Crystallina (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Jinnah Dental College[edit]

Hi, I'm new and I created an article on the college I attend here in Karachi. I have ideas for several other new articles in my mind, but I wanted to get this one checked before I proceeded with the others. I've tried to keep in mind all the criteria of good article in mind when creating this, but since I'm new, I'm sure they'll be things I can improve on, so I'll appreciate a review. Thanks in advance.Zainub 13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're doing a great job so far. The article does needs more references, though. It's recommended to place references inline using <ref> note goes here </ref> format - the references will then be displayed if you put the <references/> tag toward the end of the article. (See m:Cite.php for more.) After adding more references, this might make a good GA candidate. To make FA, however, it would need to be longer. —Scott5114↗ 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion, I've made many in-line references now. I've made many references from a copy of the college prospectus I have with my self in print, which rather strangely is not available online at the college website, I haven't been able to link to specific URLs in that case, but have nevertheless specified the exact source of the content (down to page number!). Also, I tried to use the code specified in the Help Pages to group together content having the same refrence, but couldn't, it always ended up giving some error. I'll try again tomorrow morning, may be it was down to my Internet connection, which hasn't been behaving all the well off late. I've also added section headings and expanded the article over all, so more comment on how I'm progressing would always be welcome. And thanks again. Zainub 01:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the references for you - see this diff so you can see how to get it set up so that multiple references work. —Scott5114↗ 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (The 4400 episode)[edit]

I've been working to get this up to the standards of a Good Article, as well as the primary source it uses multiple secondary sources and is nicely formatted. The one fair use image used has a strong fair use rationale and is used within the context of the article. Unlike most episode pages this one is not scene-by-scene and actually only summarizes a small fraction (the most integral and important parts) of the episode to stay within fair use and "WP:NOT". The article does not use anything such as "trivia" and instead of including quotes inside the page, a link to Wikiquote is offered instead. I'm personally looking for any feedback that would stop me from getting this to GA and opinions as to any faults people see. Personally I consider it an example as to what an episode page should look like and have followed the good examples et forth by the Doctor Who WikiProject. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you dig up any information about the making of the episode? How about the reception of the episode, like critical reaction, awards and nominations, or broadcast ratings? It appears the greatest law in this article is its comprehensiveness. You may want to compare to Pilot (House). Jay32183 01:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Jay, I've added information on Emmy nominations and broadcast ratings so far, I'll be adding critical reception from notable sources in due course (Pilot_(The_4400_episode)#Reception) - Looking at the House article do you think that this article has the potential for a successful FAC? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's possible, as long as enough information is there and cited properly. There's no prejudice in article topic at FAC. I know it wouldn't pass now, but I assume you knew that as well. Jay32183 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Lavon Julian[edit]

Please help review the article for Black History Month

It's a pretty decent article, but I have a few suggestions:
  • I think commas would be helpful here: "...discovered that, upon hydrolysis, soy protein acted..." Just my opinion of course.
  • casein could be linked.
  • There's no mention of the difficulties Percy Julian experienced with his Mexico plant (in which he was heavily invested), or of the outcome of his struggles there.
  • If possible I would like to see more about his work at Julian Laboratories.
  • It would be good to see an estimate of the number of his scientific publications in journals and such.
  • It's a minor issue, but there are a few spaces between punctuation and the citation links. It would look tighter if those were removed.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow[edit]

I think that this article has a good change of achieving FA status and with some help in the form of helpful comments, edits, etc. we could greatly improve the quality of this article. I think that the quantity is already there to some degree. Any help and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No references, and the plot is overlong with pictures just strewn for prettiness. Put all the cultural references and cite them before putting them in an appropriate section too. Wiki-newbie 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is too short, it should summarize the article. The plot is overly long, there should not be a scene-by-scene retelling of the movie. The production section should probably be rename "development" as it discusses preproduction as well, and include the influences. The performance section should be called "reception" discussing both the subjective successes and failures, citing notable critics, and the objective successes and failures like box office gross and DVD sales. Mistakes within the movie should not be listed unless pointed out by a notable critic, in which case it should be listed in the reception. The article needs a lot of references and inline citations to weed out original research and speculation. I wouldn't worry about FA status for a while, the article isn't close to GA status, yet. Jay32183 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations for all of the quotes in this article and for certain factoids as well. Count Ringworm 19:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organometallic chemistry[edit]

Covers description, characteristics, concepts, applications, history. What else is missing? What needs to be improved? --Rifleman 82 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palladium[edit]

Cleaned up the references, using cite.php. Seems to cover the important parts. What else is missing? --Rifleman 82 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history section has too many one sentence paragraphs. In fact, in general, it really needs to go into a bit more detail. Physchim62 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the use of palladium against tuberculosis I only find one tiny note in a pdf listing journal articles from a library [24]. Has anybody mor about this.
The storage of hydrogen should also be mentioned. This revie gives a good summary: F. A. Lewis (1982). "The Palladium-Hydrogen System" (PDF). Platinum Metals Review. 26 (1): 20–27.
Medical issues concerning the risc of allergic reaction simmilar to that of nickel:J. Kielhorn; C. Melber; D. Keller; I. Mangelsdorf (2002). "Palladium – A review of exposure and effects to human health". International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 205 (6): 417–432. doi:10.1078/1438-4639-00180.
There is absolutely nothing about the chemistry and the compounds of palladium. It is a huge -! Also the toxicity section is completely missing. Check WP:Elements for format. Nergaal (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pa 107 - The article states that Pa 107 is a synthetic isotope, however Pa 107 is found in asteroidal deposits which were clearly naturally deposited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanada (talk • contribs) 09:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pd 107 is a naturally occurring radioisotope MornMore (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redox[edit]

Important topic; one of the cornerstones of Chemistry. What's lacking? --Rifleman 82 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other examples: The reaction involving iron and hydrogen peroxide is pH dependent. At the right pH (3 to 5 or so) it is fenton's reagent which produces the powerful oxidizing agent called the hydroxyl radical. However at higher pHs does H2O2 spontaneous decompose? Seems like a bad example since it isn't always true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.200.162 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 March 2007

Alkane[edit]

Mid-2006, this article failed the Good Article nomination. These are the comments:

  • WP:LEAD too short.
  • The names of all alkanes end with -ane. ... why? Talk about the history or where the nomenclature comes from.
  • Trivial names ... again why are these name kept or why do these compound have multiple names.
  • Images imbedded in text isn't recommended, plus they need to have captions.
  • Too many lists, at least in the beginning. - done -- Quantockgoblin 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References missing. Use the Cite.php method if possible because it is recommended.. - done -- Quantockgoblin 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line, Alkanes occur both on Earth and in the solar system, however only the first hundred or so, and even then mostly only in traces., doesn't make any sense ... first hundred of what, alkanes, branched alkanes or unbranched alkanes.
  • methane and ethane are every day gases, at least methane is emitted by animals through their feces. That is much more relevant than knowing it is present on such comet that is not known to the general public.
  • On Titan, the satellite of Saturn, it is believed that there were once large oceans of these and longer chain alkanes: smaller seas of liquid ethane are thought still to exist there. - This is trivia or it pertains tu such articles as Titan or ethane.
  • ... produced primarily by forms of Archaea. - maybe should say ... produced primarily by organisms such as Archaea.
  • Although they cannot be commercially exploited at the present time, the calorific value of the known methane hydrate fields exceeds the energy content of all the natural gas and oil deposits put together—methane extracted from methane hydrate is considered therefore a candidate for future fuels. - This should not be in the occurence section but in the Properties section. - disagree; they are about occurence Rifleman 82 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occurence section and Alkanes in nature should be merged or be one under the other as they go toward a same goal, which is showing where these alkanes are present.
  • In the Occurence section, the Today, the most important commercial sources ... text and what comes after should go into a section that explains why do we have the alkanes on the earth like Earth's alkane and its sources or so. - I'd say it would belong in an article on crude oil or something similar. --Rifleman 82
  • ... within the individual fractions the boiling points lie closely together. - Some explanation on this point .would be greatly appreciated. - done -- Quantockgoblin 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... although the following demarcation is idealized and not perfect. - This statement is pov unless it is referenced or the word idealized is changed. I won't agree - Rifleman 82
  • The Preparation section is a bit short, needs images of the reactions or needs to be merged with the Purification section. - done -- Quantockgoblin 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reactions should be labeled with names or be traced back to the publications where they were taken from. - done -- Quantockgoblin 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • trim down on conformation as it is already covered in Alkane stereochemistry, same goes for reactions of alkanes. Also too many subheaders. - done -- Quantockgoblin 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think the unit in IR spectroscopy should be cm-1 (wavenumbers) not nm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.50.186 (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've striked out those points which have been fixed, though opinions may differ. It appears that much remains to be done. What other comments are there? --Rifleman 82 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viscosity of liquid alkanes could be added.--213.205.192.13 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool[edit]

I would just like to know how the article can be improved, etc. Kneale 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citations and lots of them. Most of the article is missing citations.
Also, remove this:see: [1] - This should be in External Links
References: Don't just give URL's, use citation templates Mr.Z-mantalk 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halfbeak[edit]

Significantly upgraded since its feature article candidature. Includes compedia of scientific data not available elsewhere on the web outside of the scientific literature. References scientific papers where relevant, so no original research in those sections. Aquaristic sections written by me, and I've written about these fish for fishkeeping magazines and in my aquarium book, so in the slightly odd situation of referencing myself, but there you go! So while I'm happy to see the aquarium parts as being solid, I'd like a marine biologist's or taxonomist's take on the other sections. Any additional facts on things like sport fishing or cooking would be worthwhile, too. Thanks! Neale Neale Monks 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks decent to me. However I have a few, hopefully useful comments:
  • The introduction includes several instances of the word "important". What does importance mean in this context? Can that be explained through alternate wording? Similarly in the "Importance" section. Why are they an important link in the food chain? Are there any statistics that could be cited?
  • There's a number of instances of a space separating the citation mark from the punctuation (or prior citation). (Examples: ". [1]" and ". [7] [8] [9]") Could the spaces be eliminated? I also see at least one citation before the punctuation: "[5];"
  • "...it is this feature [that] provides the family..."
  • I'm unclear why the geometric shape cycloid is an alternate term for the texture "smooth". Can that be explained in the text?
  • I would like to see a couple of the better images intermixed with the text, rather than being relegated to the bottom sections. Is there a cross-section image of the skeleton for the Morphology section?
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have done all of these things (I hope!). "Important" is used only once now. Better terms used elsewhere. "Cycloid" means something specific in fish scales as opposed to maths, so I've added the link to the relevant article. Made a picture to show external morphology, don't have a skeleton of a halfbeak, unfortunately. Would be nice though. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Savio[edit]

I just found this article, and it seems to me to be at least superficially of decent quality. I am considering doing what work might be required to bring it up to good or featured article status. However, having done neither of those things before, I have no clear idea what to do. Any input on where the article could be improved would be very much appreciated. John Carter 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomb ball[edit]

I've done about as much as I can on this for now and would like some comments on possible improvements. There aren't a lot of sources online. In working on this, I get the impression that the game is probably much more significant than I thought (not hard, given that I thought it was kid's volleyball!) There is some speculation that it was a significant influence in the development of volleyball (I would have assumed that the opposite was the case) and the significance of the game in the development of women's team sports seems to be of some significance. I am not sure I have reflected this in the article. Any suggestions/edits would be really appreciated. Wikipeterproject 12:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • "The object being..." - very awkward sentence. Can't it be rephrased simpler?
    • "shall not constitute a fould" - foul?
    • "By this time The Spalding sports equipment company" lower case the
    • ageement - needs r
    • "The Rules" rather long section, we don't need to be a thorough rulesbook. A paragraph covering the most important ones should suffice.
    • "In circa" - awkward
    • Mexico[7], China[8], - ref after comma
    • "is as follows:" - last 2 words redundant
    • Was the Division Line just a rope, or a net? Later rules seem to specify a net.
    • Are later rules a quotation? If so, use quote marks and cite.
    • "a teams wins a point," - team
    • Why is Newcomb ball no longer played competively? Was it actually ever played competitively? Could use more on how the sport became less popular.
    • "named after Sophie Newcomb College" - this is an important point, and should be in the early article, probably the header, not relegated to a footnote.
    • "was fist coined" - first
    • Some terms are in quotes the first time they are introduced ("Division Line"), some not (Captain, Boundary Lines)
    • "size 1 for grammar grades and size 2 for " - what is a "size" for a ball?
    • "from the Division Line ." remove space before .
    • Did anyone comment on the fact the Rules refer to players as "he", when the game was intended for women? Or was it so intended?
    • " los of time" - loss?
    • Stepping on the court was a foul? How's that?
    • "tha ball." - the -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Panthers[edit]

Archived review:Wikipedia:Peer review/Nottingham Panthers/archive1

This is already a GA and I'd now like to get it up to FA standard. Any comments and suggestions on any further improvements that need to be made would be very welcome. Thanks PanthersGirl (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a deserved GA, and stands a good chance at FAC. Being picky as FA is the target:
  • Things which require citation:
    • First competitive game
    • secured their second English League title by one point over Streatham.
    • membership fell to five
    • the Ice Stadium decided to shut down the Nottingham Panthers.
    • modern Panthers took to the ice for the first time defeating the Solihull Barons 7–4 at the Ice Stadium.
    • The Panthers lost all four of their quarter final group games and failed to advance to the finals at Wembley Arena.
    • Some of these may be covered by a reference elsewhere in the same paragraph. In such cases there is no need to repeat the citation.
  • "Summer" means a different time of year to those in the southern hemisphere. If the exact month is not known, try "close-season" or similar.
  • Ensure that there is consistency in use of plurals. Most of the time the article uses plural form, but occasionally there are phrases like Nottingham was defeated 3–2 in the first leg.
  • Perhaps a short section about the rivalry with the Steelers could be included, as it is the biggest rivalry in British hockey.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi i[edit]

I've been working on this in little spurts for a while. Given that it's a fairly new car, I think pretty much all that can be said about it is there, except perhaps for production/sales data which I hope will become available in the next few months. It's mostly prose, contains no bullet points or tables, has free images except for two concept vehicles where I've justified their fair use, is extensively referenced and wikilinked, etc etc. I think it's GA material (though too short for anything more), but I've been told peer reviewed articles have a better chance of achieving this. Any feedback welcome, although of course fawning praise is always preferred... --DeLarge 12:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very nice article. Congratulations! The only things I could find to complain about is that per WP:MOS your references should be in a section called == References == - not "Footnotes" - I fixed that one. I think you also need to put non-metric equivalents of units in the infobox and elsewhere in the article - you got most of them - but there are quite a few you missed. (Yes, I know it's a pain - yes, it makes the article look ugly - and yes, I prefer metric too - but a large fraction of our readership are ill-educated Americans who don't grok metric stuff and need imperial units too.) With those changes, you should be able to get through WP:GAC easily. WP:FAC is harder because of a noticable bias against very short articles. However, there is no specific WP:FA rule about minimum article length and so long as you've covered the topic adequately there is no theoretical reason why you couldn't do it. You should probably get it into the Wikiproject Automobiles quality rating system too - once you have WP:GA, you should get a 'GA-quality' or perhaps even an 'A-quality' sticker. SteveBaker 15:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I can't find much about the references heading except in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes which suggests "notes" or "references". I used to use ==References== until I expanded the Mitsubishi Motors article, which had about 40 cited footnotes and 6 other sources; I split the section in two, with ===Citations=== and ===References=== as subheaders within ==Footnotes==. No matter, it's not an issue.
As for imperial measurements... harrumphh. I'd be a bit more inclined to do so if "they" weren't so pig ignorant about putting metric measurements in U.S.-centric articles themselves. Especially since this is a Japanese-market car which will likely never make it near the Americas. However (mutter, grumble), since you asked nicely (mutter, grumble)...
Not too worried about FA status, to be honest. I think it's wayyy too short for that. Even if it's not far off the size of Mini Moke and (especially) Talbot Tagora, I think it needs much more content to be "comprehensive". I'm hoping MMC will publish detailed production/sales statistics within the next 2-3 months, and if they do I'll be able to flesh out the article a bit more. Maybe I'll see if another Commons pic or two can pad out the byte count...
Cheers anyway. I'll get on to doing the (mutter, grumble) imperial measurements just now. --DeLarge 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - I'd forgotten how short Talbot Tagora was. This article is 14.6kB, Talbot Tagora is 14.9kB and Mini Moke (which isn't FA yet - but hasn't had a single significant objection so far) is 18.1kB. Maybe the FAC folks are mellowing on the issue of article length? In the end, if you've said all that needs to be said then there is a lot to be said for keeping it brief. SteveBaker 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
APR suggestions, struck through when completed:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] Done, although I prefer the old lead with just one paragraph.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb). Just the one, fixed.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] A bit vague, but I think the writing's OK.
Copy/pasted from here. --DeLarge 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Toivonen[edit]

I have worked on this article for quite some time now. Considering the amount of information available, I feel it is comprehensive and well-referenced. The biggest fault of it is probably the fact that it is completely written by a non-native English speaker. I have tried to achieve better prose and more neutral wording, but am unable to improve it further. I originally started working on the article with cleanup and referencing as the aim, but now I would like to see it become the first GA/FA related to rallying and the World Rally Championship. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Prolog 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done, as far as I can see. Thanks, Prolog 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distillation[edit]

Striking comments carried over from the previous peer review, used for testing.This article was the Wikipedia:Chemistry Collaboration of the Month for Nov 2006. The article has went through quite a few revisions since. From a scientific point of view, it does cover the important parts. The field is too broad for the article to be exhaustive. How about from a non-technical point of view? Tone? Style? Examples? Pictures? Please comment! --Rifleman 82 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]


Nominated by Rifleman 82

I think that some plots depicting Raoult's law would be very helpful, if not here, then certainly in the article about Raoult's law. Itub 14:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

How about this image?It assumes an idealized situation at 20 C - no deviation from Raoult's law. Data taken from http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/h2381.htm and http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/h0584.htm. If this graph is okay, I can fix the aesthetics later. --Rifleman 82 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the kinds of plots used in http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~rpc25/notes/chemistry/phase_equillibria/index.html are more illustrative, because they show how the total vapor pressure results from the sum of the vapor pressure of each component (each one being proportional to its mole fraction). This site also shows examples with deviations from Raoult's law, and the plots near the bottom of the page show how fractional distillation works, and why it doesn't work when azeotropes are formed. --Itub 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another topic that might be good to mention in the article is the "lever rule". I'm actually surprised to find out that there's no wikipedia article on that topic yet! --Itub 11:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated review[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]

*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) - not applicable Rifleman 82 08:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 60 meters, use 60 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 60&nbsp;meters.[?]

*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?] done --Rifleman 82 08:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azeotropes[edit]

There's a large amount of information on azeotropes available through wiki now, but it's pretty fractured and could do with thought being applied to where sections should go to limit redundancy.

This information can be found under the page on azeotropes, some on purifying ethanol and the distillation page - there's probably more elsewhere as well.

Since kids should be able to use wiki, and azeotropic distillation is a specialised and tricky to understand topic, I'd suggest migrating the azeotropic content, such as that on breaking azeotropes, to the azeotrope page and then creating a reference to it on the ethanol purification, distillation and other pages mentioning it. This would help condense :) the distillation page so it doesn't look so overwhelming to younger readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.19.29 (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unit Operation[edit]

Just happened on the Distillation after discussing unit operations with some students because of the sentence: "Distillation is a unit operation, or a physical separation process, and not a chemical reaction.". This suggests that chemical reactions are not unit operations. Perhaps we can remove the "unit operation" part or change it to something like" Distillation is a unit operation that is a physical separation process." Thanks!Mschaffer (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subboiling?[edit]

Wouldn't subboiling [25] distillation (a technique for getting rid of metal impurities, ICP-MS appreciates that very much) be in the scope of this article? 213.171.63.227 (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius Castle Complex[edit]

Article is already GA, recently it was expanded with new section. I would like to make this article an FA in upcoming future. So, I need an evaluation of this article before going on WP:FAC. M.K. 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick glance shows that there are some unreferenced paragraphs.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please, be more specific which one and which parts should be with refs? M.K. 15:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple, really: look at the article and count paragraphs that don't have any references. Starting with At the time of the attack in 1390... I count 12, plus several other places in the article where citations should be added (usually paras with a ref in the middle, and no ref for the following sentences). Check Jogaila for a proper density of references that we now expect.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not bad at all, lots of interesting information. Assorted comments:
    • Piotrus's statement may be a bit strong, Jogaila is quite dense with references, I would not aim that high for a not particularly controversial article, but he does have a point that more could be cited.
    • "The Castle Complex has been inhabited since Neolithic times." Wow, the world's oldest castle! :-) Rephrase so it doesn't imply there was such a thing at that time, or just strike since the higher section says the same thing better.
    • "13–14th centuries" link both or neither.
    • "the invasion of the Russians in 1655" don't link Russians, link to an article about the invasion
    • "Recently the Seimas, Lithuania's Parliament, passed a law" - surely this can be cited to a news article; and what is "recently"? - give a date.
    • "Atop the tower, on January 1, 1919, the Lithuanian tricolor was hoisted for the first time." - reorder -> The Lithuanian tricolor was hoisted for the first time on this tower, on January 1, 1919. Also can you link to/write a Flag Day article?
    • "the site was bowered." - what does that mean? wikilink or explain.
    • "After the Russian invasion in 1655, the state began weakening, and that negatively affected the Royal Palace." - awkward, rephrase. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Art University[edit]

Nomination as major contributor — Request peer review of article for accuracy, neutrality, completeness and style according to Wikipedia's featured article criteria for nomination as a featured article candidate at Wikipedia California, Wikipedia Education and/or Wikipedia Education portals. lwalt 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't support it as general WP:FA, don't know about the portals, they may have lower standards.
    • Very few images compared to other WP:FA#Education articles about active schools.
    • General Information seems a very broad section heading, again compare to others above.
    • The Controversies section on the other hand seems to get an awful lot of space, and doesn't give equal space to the university's side. The article seems biased against its subject.
    • "recognized a participating institution" - as, maybe? Also, kind of a short section.
    • "five future fashion designers to watch" needs quotation marks.
    • The possessive of "Stephens" is either "Stephens's" or "Stephens'" - experts disagree. In any case, it is not "Stephen's".
    • "shot up the Administrative ladder" - overly dramatic metaphor
    • What's so controversial about Girl with Curious Hair? From our article it seems innocuous, and nothing to do with serial killing. Improve that article or give a few words here or just remove it here.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Seventh-day Adventist Church/archive1

I am wondering if this article could achieve Featured Article status. It was previously a candidate in December 2005, and was classified as a Good Article. In the last 12 months it has undergone a major overhaul. Would appreciate it if people could assess it again and suggest any changes that need to be made to further improve the article. Thank you. Tonicthebrown 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assorted comments:
    • The header should specify what they consider to be the Sabbath, since it's important enough to be in the name of the church.
    • First two parts of Origins and early history section have no inline refs at all. That material does not sound completely uncontroversial.
    • "however some Adventists do approve of wedding bands." - cite, or merely remove, since your specify "more conservative"
    • "Note: The preferred abbreviation" - who prefers? Stating it that way implies the Wikipedia prefers. Also doesn't seem to be true if the GLBT org is SDA Kinship...
    • "as of 2006" - can't we get to "as of 2007"?
    • Firstly, secondly, thirdly - awkward.
    • Cite the citation needed tags.
    • Describe "the negativity" with which other churches are viewed. To some extent, most churches consider all others to be at least somewhat incorrect, if this church goes beyond that, specify.
    • "Adventist scholars such as Fred Veltman have contested this." Link, cite, or remove. Presumably Adventist scholars contest all criticisms, it's assumed; if Veltman is special, specify, or at least link and/or cite.
    • "unique recipe" - without giving the whole thing, what's unique about it? Or is that supposed to mean that there are thousands of distinct recipes? Specify. The off-cite link is different in style from most of the other inline references, better to use just one style.
    • Are the distinctive teachings numbered individually among the 28? If so, it may be useful to give each number. Is there common agreement as to which of the 28 are particularly distinctive, or is this just one scholar's view that these are more distinctive than others? Cite thoroughly.
    • Ten Commandments - which ten? There are at least two if not more different counts...
    • How many of them are there? How does that stand relative to other churches? Where are they in the world? A distribution map wouldn't hurt. If there are major centers outside the US, how & when did they get there?
    • "lady by the name of" -> "named" --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for your remarks, AnonEMouse. Tonicthebrown 11:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Komodo dragon[edit]

After some rigorous on-and-off citing, I'd really appreciate some feedback on sections and facts that need to be cited. Also, please tell me if I should add or remove sections to better organize the flow of the article. bibliomaniac15 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. Why is the page locked? 2. The images section at the end of the page looks incongruous, images should be integrated with the text. DrKiernan 08:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse[edit]

Well done, I like it. No major holes, seems thorough. I'm not a biology editor, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to be a long time since you got any comments, so I'll venture out of my depth. For sections, I'd follow the layout in Jaguar, a FA, I think having subsections looks better. Comments, mostly nitpicks:

  • Don't put a space between the . and the subsequent ref.
  • Too many wikilinks on common terms: Males, Females, Humans, Miles... Link the terms that are rare or particularly relevant to the article. Apex predator, yes, Poikilotherm, yes, but not Male. Don't link Inches and not Feet.
  • " In 1980, Komodo National Park was founded to help protect its limited population.[7]" - are most or all of the dragons in this park? Say so.
  • A distribution map would be good.
  • "Komodo dragons were thought to be deaf" - needs a cite and a date for that study. Proctor training has a cite, but needs a date.
  • Can you wikilink CITES?
  • "The hatchlings are born more or less defenseless, and many do not survive." Who eats them? Just cannibals, or what other species?
  • Bronstein - specify that he was invited in by the zookeeper. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have fixed many, and the map is a big help, but not all - for example, does the KNP contain all of the dragons in the wild, or just most? You really should say Bronstein was invited in by the zookeeper, which does two things, first underscores that even experienced handlers underestimate the dragon, and second makes Bronstein look like less of a fool, always an important thing when discussing living people. Still haven't specified predators other than adults - not that you say "top of the food chain", "no carnivorous mammals", so it does seem interesting. Also you are inconsistent in your use of units. Header uses "meters" primarily, first paragraph uses "metres" primarily, third section uses feet primarily, and both meters and metres secondarily. Pick one throughout. Since they're in Indonesia, and most studies seem English, rather than American, I would think "metres" would be best. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

I've made quite a few changes to this article recently; in summary, the size has gone down by 7Kb, the number of references has increased by 16, and it's hopefully better than it was before. However, considering it's, well, Wikipedia... the first link on Main Page, and one of the most-viewed articles, it's far from perfect. The talk page has a "to-do" list some of which I think has been addressed, though I've added some more things too. Some related articles still need a lot of work... Criticism of Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia and Wikipedia in popular culture, so a look at those would be appreciated too. I've made a couple of edits to them as well, but there's still a long way to go. Looking at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive, it seems very likely that Wikipedia will be the next collaboration in three days' time, so ideas for improvement here would give them things to work on too, which would be nice – Qxz 07:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update to say that User:WillowW has made some very helpful changes; the article now has a whole new section that tries to compare Wikipedia with other encyclopedias, and the size has gone up by 12Kb (perhaps a bit of a trim may be needed again, but I think the new material is useful). More references, too – Qxz 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some technical terms in this article, such as "mirroring" or "forking". They may need to be put in quotation marks to make it clear that they're somewhat uncommon terms. A more common word such as "vandalism" might also need this the first time it's used if they have a different meaning in Wikipedia's context. —msikma (user, talk) 17:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I'll see what I can do about it – Qxz 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been doing excellent work to fix this article up, by the way. It was just inching along before, and one dedicated editor working on it for a short time is so much more useful than 10 minor edits per day. —msikma (user, talk) 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; I did a complete rewrite over four days, then copied the changes over. (You can look at the history of User:Qxz/Sandbox to see the whole process). I like to think I made an improvement; at the very least, I cleared the way for new content to be added, which has indeed happened. Not just me now, though, it looks like at least two others have joined in. Hopefully we can settle our differences and perfect the changes. More comments welcome, of course – Qxz 21:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some of weasel words in the article, unfortunately. Such as here. I changed the wording slightly, but "Wikipedia users generally do not consider Wales to be a dictator or to be one who gives non-negotiable orders." is still subjective. —msikma (user, talk) 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, someone should go through the article and place a [citation needed] on every single dubious claim. I'll help with this as well, although I'll be pretty busy the upcoming days (maybe weeks). Claims such as "The editors of any encyclopedia have a responsibility to keep its articles as free of bias as possible. Historically, even the best encyclopedias have suffered from bias; for example, the "Lynch Law" article of the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica describes the Ku Klux Klan as a "protective society" and unabashedly defends its actions." should be sourced. —msikma (user, talk) 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's WillowW's new section, which is barely a day old and I guess is still somewhat in draft form, at least insomuch as it's likely to change substantially in the next few days. I've removed or reworded some of the more biased stuff, and Bramlet Abercrombie's contributions reflect a similar concern, but the section fills what was previously something of a gap in the article. It just needs to be trimmed down (right now I think it's a bit more extensive than it needs to be), neutrally worded and cited where possible. Peppering the page with {{fact}}s won't necessarily help much, because we know it has problems. But I understand your point — it needs doing – Qxz 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be the most tedious work, but I also believe that we should use the proper citation templates in this article. As it is right now, lots of references are written in text, while they should be converted to proper Template:Cite web instances. This makes it easier not only to keep the references consistent, but it's also generally a good idea to use correct markup for an article (for screen scraping purposes et al.) —msikma (user, talk) 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All the web citations are in text form; partly because there's so many of them. As far as I'm aware there's no policy or guideline to say that we have to or should use those templates. Indeed it seems many editors prefer them in this form. But consistency is good – Qxz 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It generally is useful. If someone were to make a bot that could scrape all references from an article and then check whether they're still operational (and if not, grab an Archive.org link that's closest to the date the reference was accessed instead), it would be much more complicated to check every reference to see if it's a web reference. And even then, to find out which part of the reference contains the access date. Abstracting adds meta-data to the text. But it's probably of small concern at this point. —msikma (user, talk) 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Citations of generic sources:

    "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus."

    In other words, it's very definitely saying don't change them without consensus. I'm not sure I really want to have to start trying to get consensus to make a change like this – Qxz 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look here, what's the reason for you posting that on my talk page? All I said was that I believe we should do this. I'm fully aware of the fact that these things need consensus, which is why I'm bringing it up here. If you don't want to do it, then don't. I believe we should, as the citation templates were made to make life easier. I'm not sure if you actually have an argument against using them (since all you did was mention that "there's no guideline that says we should"). —msikma (user, talk) 07:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the change in layout as a result of the thorough editing, the layout of the images in the article has gotten quite cluttered. It should be checked to see whether some pictures should be repositioned. —msikma (user, talk) 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think over the past week two images have been removed, and one has been added. The second half of the article seems to be lacking in images; unfortunately, I don't think there's really much that would be appropriate there `– Qxz 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems awkward, to me, that there are now only level 2 headings in the article. There isn't a single level 3 heading in here. Let's see if I can change that around a little... —msikma (user, talk) 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, it's better with some level 3 headings. Many of the ones that got removed came as a result of "Criticism" being shrunk to a single paragraph and "Encyclopedic characteristics" being removed – Qxz 10:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the rewriting of this article, a lot of information was trimmed. The article became significantly smaller. However, there are some sections which genuinely seem skinny. Especially the "Academic evaluation", "Criticism and controversy" and "Related projects" sections are very short even though there is much information on these things as well. Some parts of these paragraphs have a gigantic amount of references for a very short amount of text; it should be noted that good encyclopedic prose isn't just about writing the neutral truth and then providing a reference for the claims, but it should also attempt to explain the subject matter thoroughly. I think that some information can be slightly rewritten to be more carefully worded. For example, "Scholarly studies have concluded that vandalism is generally short-lived,[11] and that Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as other online encyclopedias.[12]" really doesn't have to be one sentence. Why not explain a bit more about what a "scholarly study" really means, and why Wikipedia is found to be accurate? The current version forces people to check out the footnotes, while they're really just references (and not simply external links). —msikma (user, talk) 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Criticism and controversy" has a whole article to itself, which is longer and goes into more detail, so that section only really needs to be a summary. I agree "Related projects" could be expanded (though again the individual projects have their own articles; the reader can refer to those if they want more detail) – Qxz 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually not just talking about the information, I'm also talking about the flow of the article. It's pretty bad prose as it is right now, for most of the article. Reading the talk page, I see that Willow has written a much better explanation of this. —msikma (user, talk) 07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, in my opinion, this peer review is done. I can't think of any other particular things that need to be improved, although I do believe that especially the last point I made does require a lot of work. I hope that future editors will address at least that one. —msikma (user, talk) 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest (band)[edit]

Please feel free to make suggestions as to the layout and content of the article. Please also comment on my use of music samples within the Discography section. I've heard comments on both sides so far.

I would also greatly appreciate any leads to additional source material for use in the article.

Thanks for any feedback,

Jamie L. 20:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you've put a lot of effort into this, but I think it's important you take a really good look at WP:MUSTARD and see what's out of the norm. There are some easy things to rectify here:

  • The main issue is the format of the discography section. At the moment, the article reads more as a Harvest Discography than one on the band itself. It's creatively done, but Wikipedians aren't generally that big on creativity, and will ask for a recognisable format. I can see you have the raw materials for a great big discography, big enough for its own article, possibly. However, I'm not sure when it becomes wise to split a discography off into its own article, so for the moment I'd advise cutting it into a more typical format; there are examples available everywhere.
    • Thanks for this advice. I will look at the format and make it more typical.
  • As for the musical samples, I think you've done that well. But I'd advise also including a more standard form, as in Slayer, for instance. And maybe instead of linking the songs themselves to the samples, try doing it like this: "Song title"(sample (help·info)), which is a little less confusing despite being more drawn-out. You'll see this in the Slayer article also. I should point out I didn't write it, but it just reached FA standard so it's a good guide to follow.
    • Sounds good. I hadn't looked at Slayer's article, yet.
  • Stylistically, you don't need to bold the headers, as you have done with =='''Discography'''== - delete the apostrophes.
    • Ok, will do.
  • The best articles on bands usually follow a format something like this: "History", "Musical style", "Influence", "Discography", "Band members", "References", "See also", "External links".
  • To that end, I don't think the lead really follows the guidelines in WP:LEAD; give that a quick look-over.

I hope I haven't been too damning, but Wikipedia's all about guidelines and conformity. It's sad, but that's just how this site rolls; individuality isn't truly rewarded. But that's understandable; this is an encyclopaedia. The best thing for the article would be to traipse through all the featured band articles at "Music" in WP:FA, and to get a grasp of what a typical good band article is like. If you have any further questions, feel free to post on my talk page. Good luck! Seegoon 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll give the featured band articles a look. Thanks for the direction and your time spent reviewing.
    • Jamie L. 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Orban[edit]

I would like your opinion on this article on the current European Commissioner for Multilingualism. I believe it has been researched and edited enough for a peer review to be conducted. Peer reviewers' opinion is especially needed because most of the edits have been done by one person (that's me) and the rest of the articles on the European Commissioners are shorter and less edited (with the possible exception of the article on José Manuel Durão Barroso) and cannot really be taken as a model. As to the content of the article, maybe more things could be told about his career before he was nomitated as a Commissioner, but, for the time being, I have no more English language sources that I could consult. Some Romanian language sources may help for his earlier carrier. I have asked some Romanian wikipedians for possible Romanian sources, but nothing came out of it. So fill free to comment on the content, the structure and the Wikipedia compatibility of this article. Maybe it can even become, in time, a GA or FA article and serve as model for articles on other European Commissioners. --Michkalas 17:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aytomated review[edit]

Many useful remarks from the semi-bot APR operated by User:AndyZ. Thank you very much!

  • Lead expanded (but I will see if some words could be added -please, make suggestions)
  • A free use photo is not available for this article, only fair use photos officially provided by the European Union. It is difficult to obtain a photo for such a high-rank person not taken by an authorised by the EU photographer, i.e. a photographer whose photos are copyrighted.
  • Template {{persondata}} added.
  • Years with full dates all linked.
  • All footnotes now follow WP:FOOTNOTE.
  • Article checked upon WP:WIAFA, but maybe specific comments by an other user should be made as it is difficult a contributor to distance himself from his text and find -even otherwise obvious- weaknesses.

Many thanks again! --Michkalas 18:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice effort. It needs some more work, especially in terms of prose. This is my review:

  • I rephrased a bit the first sentence of the lead. If you don't like it, revert.
  • "He supports Romania's closer European integration and stands for a strong European Union and relaunching ..." I would rephrase as "He supports Romania's closer European integration and stands for a strong European Union and for relaunching". But again this may be a personal preference.
  • "Personal life" is stubby. Expand or merge. Maybe you could create a bigger section renamed "Early years and personal life".
  • "Leonard Orban has studied engineering and, then, economics". OK, but why don't you tell us where and how straight away. You have another phrase, and then you return to his studies, and you analyse them in the next paragraph. Why? Like that, it looks to me like a repetition or an incoherence.
  • Your first 3 paragraphs in "Career" have no citations. Try to have, at least, one citation for each paragraph.
  • The prose obviously needs work. It is more than clear that this article is not written by a native-English speaker. These phrases is just one example of the many and various prose problems: :*"In December 2004, he became also Secretary of State of the Ministry of European Integration of Romania coordinating Romania's preparation for accession to the EU, until he became European Commissioner." This is repetitive prose.
  • "At the same time, he has held various other posts related to Romania's preparation for EU membership, and he has written numerous newspaper articles and analyses and has given numerous speeches on European affairs." He has held?! He still holds them. And when is "at the same time"? If he does not hold these posts right now, then you should say "he held".
  • "Orban is in charge of the Directorate-General for Translation, the DG for Interpretation and the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, as well as for the Multilingualism policy unit". Why "of" suddenly becomes "for"?
  • "The assignment of this portfolio to the Romanian Commissioner by Barroso was criticized as not being substantial enough for a Commissioner, as being a more administrative than political post, and the reasons proposed are that a technocrat rather than a politician was appointed by Romania[14] or the country's deficits in interior and justice policies, especially corruption." Long, prolix phrase, which confused me.
    I would suggest an external copy-editing by a native-English speaker. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors could be careful.
  • Do not over-wikilink. For instance European Commissioner for Multilingualism is linked at least 3 times. One is enough!
  • "Leonard Orban is the European Commissioner for Multilingualism in the current European Commission, the Barroso Commission, the executive body of the European Union." You repeat the exact wording of a phrase in the lead. This looks like a repetition and a sketchy prose.
  • "His salary is €18,233.38 (£12,202) a month plus housing allowance." Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs like this one. Merge or expand.
  • "Views on multilingualism" is almost only quotes. Some recasting into alternative language wouldn't go amiss. Now, have in mind that there are alternative ways to present quotes. <blockquote> is the most usual one. You can see such alternative ways and boxes for quotes in El Greco.
  • Does he have any opinions about the role of US, the EU-US relations, the role of NATO etc.?--Yannismarou 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very detailed, helpful and stimulating review. Thanks for your time. I will follow -I think- all your suggestions as soon as possible. Some of the repetitions you mention came from my effort to comply with WP:SS. The balance is of course difficult. Personal life and earlier carrier, as well as his wider political views (on EU-US relations etc), are really difficult to expand. Before he became a Commissioner he wasn't really prominent even in his own country and, as I do not speak Romanian, I have to rely only on English language sources. I asked for help from Romanian wikipedians but with no result. On "Your first 3 paragraphs in "Career" have no citations. Try to have, at least, one citation for each paragraph.", well, the citation is in the end of the 4th paragraph and I put it there because it the source for all the 4 paragraphs. I don't know what is best: to put it in the beginning of the section or to use the multiple citation template to put it at the end of its paragraph? Thanks again! --Michkalas 14:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made most of the changes you suggested: fixing grammar, shortening some long sentences, avoiding repetitions, merging paragraphs, creating section "Early years and personal life", reducing direct quotes, and avoiding too many wikilinks (I am not sure I did that enough). In fact, I have rewritten some parts of the article. As to the quotes, I preferred not to use <blockquote> or boxes like in El Greco, as these, I believe, give too much emphasis on a single sentence, but in the case of Orban a quote that important doesn't seem to exist. On his general political views I haven't found anything important besides that I have already included. Maybe when his official site is launched, there will be more information. I have asked SandyGeorgia for a review. So, thanks again for the review and for your valuable advice on how to proceed with the article. --Michkalas 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SG[edit]

Sorry for the delay, Michkalas; I lost track of your message on my busy talk page.

Since the article is currently undergoing a copyedit, I didn't look at the prose; I'd rather wait til ce is done.

Pls indicate PDFs as a courtesy to readers with dialup or old broswers—I did one for you as a sample.

Please use language icons on references that are not in English. I don't know all of them—or even where to find all of them—but the ones I know are (in Spanish) (in Italian) (in German) and (in French). You can find the ones you need by guessing, looking at other articles, or you may need to get someone to make one. For examples of how to use them, look at El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda

ah, found them here: Category:Language icons SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an external jump to an external website in the caption for the image on Orban's oath. That jump should be removed, via either referencing the statement to the website given, or wikilinking to an article about the subject of the jump.

The use of/link to one individual on the Politics of Romania template seems out of place and clutters the article. I can understand linking, for example, the President of a country, but not every politician. IMO, Orban should be removed the template, and the template shouldn't be used in a bio article.

Nice start ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: wikilink full dates in refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review and your help.
Indicating PDFs, using language icons on references that are not in English, wikilinking full dates in refs, all done. I didn't wikilink the dates which are used as part of the title of the official government papers as they are given in a fixed way: Monitorul Oficial al României no. 1031/27 decembrie 2006 and Official Journal C 321E of 29 December 2006. Tell me if it would be better to wikilink these too.
There is no external jump in the in the caption for the image on Orban's oath. I suppose you don't mean the description under Image:Leonard Orban oath.jpg where there is an external jump for the source of the photo.
On the "Politics of Romania" template. I had the same thoughts, though it was me who added Orban in the template (I did the same for the Bulgarian Commissioner). Well, nobody, including Romanian Wikipedians, has tried to remove him, though it has been a long time since I have put him there. The fact is that it is not exactly like linking "every politician" as he is the country's European Commissioner and because, though in other EU member states equivalent templates Commissioners are not included, Romania (and Bulgaria) are new members and the European issues are more present in the template and is interesting to know aspects of their accession· for instance, in the other EU countries no article "EU accession" is included in their politics template. There is not much attention for most articles on the Commissioners and there is no well established practice. OK, I am not saying no. I am not really sure what to do. Just some thoughts.
Thanks again -and for the encouraging words too! --Michkalas 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tru Calling episodes[edit]

I'd like some input on how page is going overall and any suggestions for what I need to add still.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The layout and content seems fine. But what the page is definitely missing are references from reputable sources (per Wp:lists#References_for_list_items.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images are missing fair use rationales. Hex codes have spaces between them and thus do not render in all browsers. Synopses could do with some expansion if you wish to go for FL. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thanks alot people, and about the fair use rationale, I was starting to add those last night, but I will finish those today, and I have just fixed the colours. I will also try to add some sources for the article later today as well, when I have finished all of this, you can review again if you wish.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace[edit]

This article is shorter than I would like and the WP:LEAD is only one paragraph. But, I am looking for feedback as to how I should expand this, what is really lacking, and (of course) the copyediting that usually needs done. Your thoughts? JRP 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note: WP:LEAD states that notable criticisms can and should be briefly discussed in the lead, so that's one possibility to expand the lead. However, given the length of the article, the lead is of adequate size. APR t 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chippenham[edit]

This page was previously classified as a "Start" but a few editors have worked very hard on it since then and we'd like to know where we come on the scale now. Thank you AlanD 21:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Thanks. Certainly a few things to look at but... um... anyway, thanks AlanD 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request we withdraw from peer review at the moment? We've had a couple of good pieces of feedback and have used this to establish a to do list. We'll be back for review very soon.AlanD 21:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it can be re-submitted when you feel ready for it again according to the "How to resubmit a request" instructions. If the second review will be very soon, then you could just leave it here and indicate that the review is temporarily inactive. APR t 23:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksAlanD 00:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota War[edit]

I originally thought of creating this article just to alleviate the length of Chadian-Libyan conflict; but then I started working at it, trying to make it a good article. This has made me think of the possibility of attempting to make it the first GA in Chad-related topics. All criticisms will be immensely appreciated; in particular, I'm concerned with the prose, as its not my first language, and if there are any repetitions in the exposition. Also, I'm not certain about the lead.--Aldux 21:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Not bad at all. Some things that need work, though:

  • {{Infobox Military Conflict}} needs to be added.
    • I added this with basic information I could find in the article. Needs to be filled out. - Francis Tyers · 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any images available here? At a minimum, some maps would be very useful.
  • The lead should, indeed, be longer; two or three paragraphs would probably suffice to provide a stand-alone summary of the article.
  • The prose isn't bad, per se, but some copyediting by native speakers would probably be helpful.

Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the images issue up at Talk:Chadian-Libyan conflict. Commons has nothing of use save the garishly colored Aozou Strip image which I added to that article six days ago. Picaroon 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll make a lead that presents a summary of the main events.--Aldux 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've written down an expanded lead, and given some context.--Aldux 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon[edit]

  • I was noticing the same things as Kirill, and have begun acting upon them. Seeing as there is a lack of other images, I've added the Chadian and Libyan flags.
  • There are also some things which are probably just differences in sentence structure between Italian and English, mainly the placement of phrases - if you check my recent changes, you'll see I've rearranged some sentences.
  • Seeing as I was the one who suggested you split it off in the first place, I guess I'm to blame for this: there are places where not enough context is provided, or too much familiarity is assumed. I've wikilinked several things already and mentioned who Gaddafi was to try to rectify this. Picaroon 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Picaroon. I'm not very coonvinced about the flags; there not specific enough, a map, even general, would be probably better. And yes, I keep forgetting that Chad - ahem (euphemism coming) - is not one of the best known countries in the world. I'll try to add some context.--Aldux 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tyers[edit]

I've written a pitiful little stub on Djamous, but Google doesn't turn up enough for this Jamahiriya Guard. Picaroon 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps it has another name? - Francis Tyers · 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, I changed its spelling from "Jamahiriyyah Guard" because that's a less widely used variant of Jamahiriya (Arabic for "mass-state," IIRC). I guess we should leave it to Aldux, seeing as he has access to the book which mentioned it. Picaroon 23:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Jamahiriya Guard is mentioned by Metz and Pollack as a sort of pretorian guard, recruited only amongst Gaddafi's tribal clan. I'll try to work on it, maybe it's called often in the west "Repubblican Guard" or "Presidential Guard" (it may have been disbanded; my info regards the 1980s).--Aldux 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the infobox, I can add some other info not contained yet in the article, and will expand Djamous. As for the Libyan or Chadian name of the conflict, I strongly doubt an estabilished name, as Libya has just removed any memory of this war, while Chad is too small to have developed a specific pov on the question.--Aldux 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a small stub on the Jamahiriyyah Guard. It seems that Fran was correct in suspectng an alternative name was more commonly used, and the name tends to be Revolutionary Guard.--Aldux 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, looks like a good stub. - Francis Tyers · 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures / Photographs

Here are some links to photographs — any chance of having a fair use rationale for any of them? - Francis Tyers · 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be easy to get at least a couple, using {{historicalphoto}}; they're pretty much all non-reproducible. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. I guess its just down to which ones to pick. I'll look around for more and post them here then we can make a choice of the most appropriate. You're right they're non-reproducible, it would be great to find some PD-US-gov, but I think it highly unlikely :( - Francis Tyers · 23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd focus on the photographs that actually show combat action; they're likely to be a bit more meaningful that the generic French-plane-flying ones. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Preferably one from each side. - Francis Tyers · 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this one would be good — no watermark and it shows the namesake of the war. - Francis Tyers · 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been any good with images - but if some can be used, maybe even the planes may be helpful for the connected Opération Epervier and Opération coup de poing. If some image could be found also for the Chadian-Libyan conflict article, it would be great, as it too will probably be passed through a peer review.--Aldux 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent)

Ok, I added one to the infobox. As fair as fair use (*cough* *spit*) goes, I think we have a fair claim to this one. It would be nice to remove the black border, but I'm not sure if that counts as a derivative work. If anyone wants to find a photo for the Libyan side that would be good. - Francis Tyers · 09:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BanyanTree[edit]

Specific points

  • What is the CDR? Also, please add that article to the disambiguation page CDR.
  • "France answered with a second airstrike" - what was the first airstrike? needs context
  • "affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - perception of who? international or domestic observers?

General points

  • There is a definite need for more background over why this war is happening and what happened in the previous phases. One tightly written paragraph may be enough.
  • I've copyedited a bit and added the garish map mentioned by Picaroon above. There are a couple of editors who have created battle maps in the past whom may be willing to create custom maps if you approach them and point out sources.
  • Were there any economic or humanitarian effects, e.g. refugees and IDPs?

Otherwise, I think it is quite good. I dislike massive articles greatly and this gives a reasonable amount of detail (though I would like more context and operational-level detail) in a reasonable length. - BanyanTree 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found what the CDR is via a google search for cdr chad libya - it's something called the Democratic Revolutionary Council. I'll add that to the dab page. Picaroon 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank everybody for the fantastic work done; I would never have expected the reviews to arrive so fast, and with so many edits to the article thanks! :-) It's a bit late here, so I'll only briefly awnser.
Regarding the specific points raised by BT,
  • Picaroon is correct regarding the CDR; I'll create an article on the miltia commanded by Ahmat Acyl.
  • Oops, the first one is the 1986 Opération coup de poing. As this article was originally just a section of a bigger article, what before was obvious is not anymore so.
  • "affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - shall change to "affected the international perception of Libya as a significant regional military power"
As for the general points
  • You're write, I'll try a paragraph lifted from the material in Chadian-Libyan conflict
  • As for the maps, this French website has some that would be very interesting If I could obtain them [[26]]. On wikipedia there's this meeting between Habré and Miterrand during the Toyota War [27], and maybe this map of Chad could be useful [28], as many of the towns mentioned on the article are there (Aouzou, Faya-Largeau, Fada, the capital, the Libyan base of Maaten as-Sara)
  • Regarding humanitarian effects, I know very little, mainly through a few hints given by Nolutshungu. Remember that the war to retake northern Chad took only 3 months, and that northern Chad is all desert (i.e., very few inhabitants).
    • Fair enough, though a sentence describing the environment and terrain (and lack of inhabitants) would be nice for the intro. - BanyanTree 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "more operational-level detail"?--Aldux 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By operational level detail, I think he's referring to details of specific skirmishes/battles, ie formations, human losses, etc... I suspect that there won't be much information on these, because it seems unlikely to have written down in detail. Picaroon 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do have some of this sort of info, especially from Pollack, but I didn't want to go too much in detail because I was projecting to write Battle of Bir Kora, Battle of Ouadi Doum, Battle of Aouzou, Battle of Maaten as-Sarra and reference/expand Battle of Fada.--Aldux 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A brief summary of the course of the war, with links to the battle would be great. - BanyanTree 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "a brief summary of the war", you mean a summary of the events already present in the article in the lead? As for the links to the battles, sure.--Aldux 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated[edit]

Buckshot06[edit]

No mention, even a short one, of the UN Aouzou Strip Observer Group - should be at least mentioned briefly. Buckshot06 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Calderón[edit]

I wish to propose this as a Featured Article, and would like to know what recommendations could be offered to improve the quality of the article, and be a serious candidate. Hari Seldon 08:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results of Automated Peer Review[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hari Seldon 03:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSm[edit]

This is my first Wikipedia article, so any reasonable comment is welcome. My vision is that various protein families/folds would have a Wikipedia article, and I used Myosin, Histone and Globin fold as examples. My intention was to produce a LSm protein review article within the Wikipedia world, with value to the full spectrum of readers from the lay person to the professional molecular biologist, and everyone in between. Bob Plaag 20:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took a quick look, and will review each suggestion over the next couple of days, as time permits. Bob Plaag 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot to review in the automated review. My plan is to cut and paste these automated comments into my talk page, and indicate my action for each one, creating a documentation trail. Bob Plaag 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the comments that APR generated for me. Bob Plaag 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSm[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
EDIT: The lead was expanded to three paragraphs to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. The first paragraph is a basic introduction, the second briefly describes the origin and history, and the third paragraph is a brief description of structure and function, roughly paralleling the remainder of the article. Bob Plaag 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I added a short 4th paragraph for a sentence that didn't really fit into the previous three Lead paragraphs. Bob Plaag 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for an applicable infobox, and concluded that there are none. Bob Plaag 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2nm, use 2 nm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2&nbsp;nm.[?]
EDIT: Included non-breaking space between number and its unit, to comply with Wikipedia style. Bob Plaag 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 7 nm.
EDIT: Changed unit measurement to comply with Wikipedia style. Bob Plaag 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
EDIT: Removed "The" from lead of 3 headings. Also headings that were worded as a sentences were converted to noun phrases (such as The Smith antigen is discovered to Discovery of the Smith antigen) to comply with Wikipedia Manual of Style. Bob Plaag 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Removed links from headings. Each instance was already linked in the paragraph associated with the heading. Bob Plaag 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I also moved a reference from a heading "Biogenesis of snRNPs" into body text. I had to create a one-sentence paragraph just below the section title in order for this to make sense. Bob Plaag 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I removed "LSm" from several headings, and I agree that this was an improvement.
  • However, I kept "LSm" in several headings. Specifically: "Discovery of the LSm fold", LSm is an integral part of the expression. I tried replacing it, but other constructions were longer, awkward, and less clear, such as "Discovery of shared structure" or "Discovery of a new protein structure".
  • Within "Functions", LSm is an integral part of specific protein names, such as "Lsm2-8 ring", and I could not think of an alternative.
  • Within "Evolution and phylogeny" the titles "Homomeric LSm rings in bacteria and archaea" and "Heteromeric LSm rings in eukaryotes" also seemed essential. "Homomeric rings in bacteria and archaea" seemed to be too non-specific, and simply "Bacteria and archaea" definitely did not capture the essential difference of the LSm rings in these groups. Bob Plaag 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT Checked headings. Capitalized words were proper nouns ("Smith"), abbreviations of proper nouns ("Sm"), or acronyms that are generally capitalized ("RNA", not rna, "SMN", "LSm", "snRNPs") in the professional literature. "Spinal Muscular Atrophy" and "Gemin7" appear in the literature more often than "Spinal muscular atrophy" and "gemin7", but changed to "Spinal muscular atrophy" as used in its Wikipedia article. "Archaea", "Bacteria", "Eukaryotes" treated as common nouns. "External Links" changed to "External links". Bob Plaag 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • I looked over the Table of Contents with a critical eye. There are 7 top level sections, including "References" and "Notes". The only one that stood out was "Biogenesis of snRNPs". This could arguably be transfered to the Wikipedia article snRNP which has a short paragraph on snRNP Biogenesis. Arguing against this move is that this section in LSm is more focused on the assembly of the Sm proteins onto the small RNA, rather than on the overall process of snRNP biogenesis. Also, much of the early research about LSm (specifically the Sm) proteins centered on how this assembly took place. So I decided to keep this section within this article. However, if another Wikipedian has a very strong opinion to cut this section out and paste it into the snRNP article, I will not start a edit/reversion war. Bob Plaag 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then there is the matter of the second level headings. I feel that each paragraph should have a central theme, which becomes its heading (except for the paragraphs within the Lead). Scientific articles tend to be rather dense, so I feel that giving a heading to every paragraph greatly assists the reader in understanding the purpose of a paragraph, and why it is there. Possibly, the TOC could be shortened by keeping paragraph headings with the body, but keeping them out of the TOC. Maybe someone else could voice their opinion on this. Bob Plaag 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GB had a comment on the value of a table. This could effectively replace the paragraph-level headings in the "Functions" section. And maybe a table and keeping these heading in the TOC would be best. Does anyone want to voice an opinion on this? Please see my response to his request for a table. Bob Plaag 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
This occurs under Biogenesis of snRNPs, and properly indicates that this is a hypothesis. This hypothesis is made in the reference [24] for this paragraph. Bob Plaag 04:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • apparently
I apparently overuse this word. I deleted all uses of it, and the text reads better for it. Bob Plaag 04:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
EDIT Moved reference 4 to end of sentence. Bob Plaag 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 15:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

END OF AUTOMATED REVIEW COMMENTS BY APR. Bob Plaag 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to read a definition of LSm in the opening paragraph. All I see is that it is historically connected to Sm. Is the definition a protein that binds to U6? Should SmD be in bold?
Thank you for this suggestion about including a definition of LSm in the opening paragraph. I have been busy recently, but will critically review my work with your comment in mind. Like most illogical things, the reason behind Sm and LSm are historical. Basically, the Sm proteins were the first to be discovered. Later, similar proteins were discovered that were 'like Sm' proteins, abbreviated LSm. Sm proteins are a subset of the LSm proteins. Obviously, I need to edit this for clarity. The connection to U6 is just that the first LSm proteins identified (that weren't Sm proteins) bind to U6. Later, other LSm proteins were discovered that have nothing to do with U6. The basic definition of a LSm protein is the 'protein fold', as described under Characteristics. I did not bold SmD, because SmD is not a single protein, but a mixture of 3 Sm proteins that were not initially distinguished. I had hoped that the second sentence following would clarify this. I'll look at this again. Bob Plaag 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead to three paragraphs as suggested by Wikipedia guidelines. The last sentence in the first paragraph is essentially the definition as LSm proteins are defined by structural similarity to each other. Giving a detailed description of this structure occurs later in the article. Does the following sentence suffice as a definition? "All LSm proteins have similar three dimensional structures and assemble into rings of six or seven individual LSm protein molecules." Bob Plaag 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more thinking, and changed the above sentence into an explicit definition (among other wordsmithing of the Lead). "LSm proteins are defined by a characteristic three dimensional structure and their assembly into rings of six or seven individual LSm protein molecules." Thanks for forcing me to put a lot more effort into the Lead, which is after all, the most important part of a Wikipedia article. Bob Plaag 05:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The The LSm fold (tertiary structure) section seems to be talking about secondary structure - but I am no expert in this area! I find it hard to follow this paragraph. -- The article looks quite attractive to me with good explanations of the history, fabrication, and use of the proteins. GB 10:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I will critically review this paragraph, and try to improve the clarity. I guess that in the tradeoff between brevity and clarity, I was too brief. Briefly, the secondary structure is simply a five (or eight) strand beta sheet. The tertiary structure concerns how this beta sheet is folded into a 3-dimensional structure. I agree that the distinction is a bit subtle. Bob Plaag 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a major edit of the LSm/Characteristics section, which needs improvement. Unfortunately, I am leaving it as a 'work in progress' before I leave on my trip, but the present state is no worse than what I started with. Please be patient with me. Bob Plaag 23:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had some time to 'finish' the section about the LSm structure. Please let me know if you think this was an improvement, and/or offer some other suggestions or criticisms. Bob Plaag 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tables[edit]

Apart from an Infobox there could be some tables to summarise and compare. There could be a table listing all the different kinds of LSm, along with some of their properies -eg Oligomer size, discoverer, MW, organisms... Another table possiblitity is of the components found in LSm. Just a suggestion. GB 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working my way down this list. I promise that I will get to yours. One problem that I am running into is length as I am already at 36 kilobytes. Bob Plaag 03:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far, counting all of the known LSm homologs, in all species that have a LSm protein sequence in the NCBI database, numbers over 1,000, which would be beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. But, all is not lost. The last External link listed brings you to a database of LSm sequences. The version, as of today, is a few years old, but I assure you that a far more extensive list is in the works. I know this because I created it, and my colleague is in the process of getting his website (where this database is located) updated. But maybe a short table would be helpful. Let me ponder this idea for awhile. Bob Plaag 19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Bob I was only thinking of a couple of small tables, that could summarise wht the text says. Tables and pictures do not really count in the size limit - as long as you can edit it with out a problem! My suggestions are to try to get the article to A rating. Certainly it will not be worth the effort to document 1000 species variations, but the ones found in humans would be good to have. You are the most responsive peer review canditate editor I have seen so far! GB 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment. I do try. (As a note, I will be travelling for almost a month, and won't be able to respond and work on this article during this time. Please be patient during this hiatus, as I promise to get back to answering these reviews.) I did some thinking, and think that the appropriate place for a small table would be within the "Functions" section. This section basically lists the types of LSm proteins with their functions as much as is known. It is on my 'To Do' list for this article. Bob Plaag 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five Themes of Geography[edit]

I created this article over the course of 3 hours using information from my History textbook. It's cited, NPOV, formatted well, wikified, and it uses good Commons images. Its only weak point (which isn't really that weak) is its length. Tell me what you think. ~ Flameviper 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a few comments:
  • I think the article should be renamed to "Five themes of geography", see WP:NAME: Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun.
  • There are no inline citations, the information in the article should be verifiable. (WP:CITE)
  • The hatnotes at the top are unnecessary (WP:HAT), move the links to a "see also" section or add them on the article.
  • I think the length of the lead section is OK, but the title of the article should be named in the first sentence. (WP:LEAD)
  • There are a lot of words linked, for example, in the place section:
Place is a description of the characteristics that make a certain location distinct.
Remove some of those unnecessary self links, I can't find the guideline right now, I'll search for it later.
Hope I helped. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 476[edit]

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

Reign in Blood[edit]

This is on a CD and the second peer review. Is currently a GA nominee and would like any more comments to further improve it. M3tal H3ad 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

  • please link "third studio" to a definition of some sort. Not being a die-hard audiophile, I was left confused regarding its meaning for the remainder of the article.
  • Please cite sources for the delay.
  • Please verify and cite sources for the nazism rumour, that's a very precarious thing to attack in the lead.
  • Every time you use the album's title, punctuation dictates that you italicize it.
  • Please cite/verify that it is really the first gold album for the band.
  • Expand lead per WP:LEAD.
  • A light copyedit is necessary, but it looks decent. Good job so far.

If my corrections are followed and no users bring up problems I read over, expect my vote for its FA. Just make sure you drop a line. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelas10[edit]

I suppose getting it FA quality would be quite difficult considering the very few existing sources and documentation regarding the album. It could use some copyediting; here are my suggestions:

  • ...thrash-metal - No hyphen here.
  • ...released October 7, 1986 - "In" would fit better here.
  • ...opening track, "Angel Of Death" detailed - Add a comma.
  • ...giving the band a sonic - A chronic?
  • ...guitarist Jeff Hanneman states - Lets stick with the past tense.
  • ...but became the band's to enter - Doesn't make sense.
  • ...number 94, and number 47 in the UK. - Split this to a separate sentence. Also refer to the UK charts rather than UK itself.
  • ...and ranked in Q magazine's - Reword to Q magazine ranked it among the..."
  • ...influencing former Sepultura drummer Igor Cavalera stating - Ouch. Reword.
  • ...Malevolent Creation, Chimaira and Erik Hinds - Serial comma.
  • ...entire album on solo H'arpeggione. - Grammar.
  • ...set list, played - Being played.
  • ...the band played the record - What record? The album?
  • ...The Progressive, The Village Voice and the New York Times - Serial comma again.
  • ...accusations of Nazi sympathizing" - Remove the unnecessary quotation mark.
  • ...about Mengele, while Slayer were on tour - No need in a comma here.
  • ...second in command in the Schutzstaffel organization. - Reword to ...second in the Schutzstaffel organization's command.
  • ...early CD pressings, that set - Switch that to which.

Further issues:

  • ...under the same name - That's basically not correct, although the name was based on the album's name.
  • The lead indeed could use an expansion in order to meet WP:LEAD.
  • ...did not appear on the label's release schedule - Confusing. Which label's release schedule? Do you mean the original release schedule?
  • ...featuring the band covered in a "wall of blood", while performing "Raining Blood" - Also confusing. Some, including myself, may think "wall of blood" is actually a track.
  • Try to add additional professional reviews.
  • Simply too many quotation marks on words and labels. Try to explain some of these in encyclopedic terms. For instance, instead of ...to ditch the "Satan" theme you could put ...to ditch the Satanic theme. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made all the changes, i know what you mean regarding FA, i guess I'll stick with GA, thanks for comments. M3tal H3ad 01:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

  • 2001 Kerrang interview with Kerry King; "The truth is, if you released 'Reign In Blood' today, noone would give a shit. It was timing, it was a change in sound. In thrash metal at that time, noone had ever heard good production on a record like that. It was just a bunch of things that came together at once." LuciferMorgan 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannibal Corpse interview where their drummer talks about Lombardo and Reign in Blood; "Primarily and personally as for a band that I idolized it was SLAYER and Dave Lombardo that did it for me. The very first influence that made me want to play music was KISS but then growing up… When SLAYER came out. Especially "Reign in Blood" to me, it was just so amazing and Lombardo is just so great. He made me want to do what I want to do. I wanted to play fast. That is what moved me the most in my heart. I would have to say that that is definitely the biggest influence for me. If there was no SLAYER what would modern death metal music be like?" LuciferMorgan 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Krisiun interview where their drummer says as concerns Lombardo, Reign in Blood, etc.; "Dave Lombardo was my main influence, especially in the beginning. I remember when I was listening to Metallica, I was kind of inspired by the drummer back in the 'Master of Puppets' and 'Ride the Lightning' days. Then I heard Slayer and I thought the drummer was unbelievable. It was so unbelievable when I heard 'Hell Awaits' and 'Reign in Blood' for the first time. It was so fast, so brutal. The fills, and a lot of things. I remember hearing the song "Silent Scream" from 'South of Heaven' for the first time. It just blew me away. It was like fast double-bass, fast kicks during the whole song. That was very inspiring for me."
  • Richard Christy interview where he mentions Lombardo / Reign in Blood "When I heard Dave Lombardo from Slayer I was just blown away by the double bass. When I heard Reign In Blood I was totally blown away." LuciferMorgan 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kerrang review of God Hates Us All comments that "Slayer will never again replicate the thrill and shock of their revolutionary third album". LuciferMorgan 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Live review (free registration required) of Slayer from NY Times; "In 1986, the band recorded Reign in Blood, an album that's still the primary sacrament of death-metal; the short, powerful record mixed the rhythms of hardcore punk with a single-minded focus on ritual violence." Info; the article name is "POP REVIEW; It's a Major Metal Band, and Even the Furniture Isn't Safe", written by Ben Ratliff, published on June 22nd 1998 in New York Times, and is a live review of a Slayer performance at Irving Plaza on the Wednesday prior to the article's publication. LuciferMorgan 04:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review (free registration required) of Christ Illusion from NY Times; ""Reign in Blood", from 1986, the record that made Slayer’s name, was recorded without studio echo; all the meaning of the music was right there in the sound." It was published August 14, 2006 and written by Ben Ratliff. LuciferMorgan 07:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reign In Blood was really the first album that solidified Slayer's unique sound, obviously a major part of this is largely due to producer Rick Rubin?

Absolutely, he took out all the reverb and everything and made it more where it hit you right between the eyes. Once we realized that we didn't need reverb, and our sound was a lot more threatening without it, we just kept it and it was done." LuciferMorgan 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seegoon[edit]

I see there's already been quite a lot suggested here and I haven't read it all, so apologies if I repeat anything. That said, something being repeated just indicates to you that it's very important.

  • I'm just looking at the Professional Reviews section in the infobox. It's not a major thing, but I'm sure some much bigger magazines will have published reviews. Rolling Stone, Q, Kerrang! - try to get some printed sources. It'd be tough, but add a shedload of veracity to the article, and also allow you some very eloquent quotes to pull.
RS never reviewed the album - all older Slayer reviews are on RS's official website. Q usually deals with alternative music so doubtful they did - Kerrang should've though. LuciferMorgan 03:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band stated numerous times they do not condone Nazism, and are merely interested in the subject." - I'd add a "however" in here to improve logical flow from the previous statement. Maybe: "The band has, however, stated on numerous occasions that they do not condone Nazism, and are merely interested in the subject."
  • "apprehensive about leaving Metal Blade Records as they were contracted" - maybe change to "to whom they were contracted", or "who they held a contract with"?
  • "Lombardo called Columbia Records - Def Jams distributor and Rubin agreed to come to see the band play - with photographer Glen E. Friedman." - the structure here is a little confusing.
  • "Chronic makeover" - maybe "drastic" or "massive"? Chronic sounds a little pejorative.
  • "King states that hour long records seem to be the trend; “You could lose this part; you could cut this song completely,” and make a much more intense record, which is what we’re all about." - I'm not entirely sure where the quote ends here.
  • "“So what?”[3]" - you need a space after this reference.
  • In reception, you need to ensure that you italicise the album title every time you use it, even if it is a direct quote. Also - you say "mainly" positive reviews. To me, they sound overwhelmingly and permanently positive. If you're going to say they're "mainly" positive, try to dig out a not-so-positive one. Your best bet is Metacritic.
  • "Former Sepultura drummer Igor Cavalera, was influenced by the album, stating "the 80s, when shit was pure,"[13]" - I think you need to add some context to this, as the quote doesn't directly express the album's influence on him.
  • Italicise Porsche.
  • "live set list played at every show, these two tracks are also Hanneman's favorite" - a comma doesn't work here. Change it to a semicolon.
  • "On finishing the artwork a member was not happy with the final product, until one member showed their mother, who said it was disgusting." - cite, specify.
  • "on her album Strange Little Girls, King states the cover was odd;" - I'd change this comma into a full stop.

I think that's all I can spot. Overall, great article, and good luck with wherever you're taking it. Seegoon 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/February_2007&oldid=948400294"