Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2006

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, 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 (~~~~).

---

Ina Garten

If anyone would like to help, I'd like some outside feedback and improvement tips on this article. I'd like for it to eventually meet feature article quality and would appreciate any input given, particularly in the Barefoot Contessa and Media and personal life sections. Thank you! Air.dance 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest increasing the lead to two paragraphs (even though not required). The second sentence of the article contains weasel words- Renowned for demystifying fine cuisine with an emphasis on quality ingredients and timesaving tips, Garten is considered a top authority on cooking and home entertaining. By whom is she considered so?
• The quote under Politics and opinions needs a citation, perhaps you might want to consider using the Cite.php footnote method. Note that according to WP:WIAFA, inline citations are required. Also, the sentences under Barefoot Contessa cookbook need citation(s).
• According to Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, only links with full dates (not just years alone) should be linked.

Thanks, AndyZ 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've taken care of all of that. Great suggestions, and thanks so much for your help! Air.dance 02:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this article has really come along! Ever since the chefography aired i've been meaning to come back and add stuff but it seems I've been beaten to the punch and then some. I've made a few little wording edits. The second paragraph of the cookbook section needs some work. The punctuation of that first sentence is all over the place. Some of the paragraph still seems a bit POV (calling the price steep for example). There is no reference to detractors, and the only reference to supporters is her Food Network lead-in, Giada DeLaurentiis. I would imagine she's not the most unbiased source. Finally, a personal peeve: the use of the word "notably." If it's not notable, why is it in an encyclopedia? Bgruber 21:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the punctuation for the first sentence is messy and will reformat that.
• As for the bias of the De Laurentiis quote, well.. yes and no. I see what you mean in that she's a fellow FN star, but she did single Garten out from the other fifty or so people on that channel. I think it stands okay as-is, but if I find another reference that's less biased, I'll definitely replace it.
• Will also look for criticism in-print, though I'll probably come up short on acceptable sources. What do you think about saying "comparatively steep MSRP" -- that would be verifiable by simple searching any bookstore and comparing prices.
• Haha, yeah, I know. I'll take a look at my use of notably and see if there isn't something more suitable.

Thanks so much for your help, these are great suggestions! Air.dance 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms

This article is awaiting the release of one final tropical cyclone report by the National Hurricane Center, that of Hurricane Beta, before it is fully referenced, but otherwise it is a strong candidate for a featured list. For that reason, I am nominating it for peer review to get some comments about the structure and writing style used in the hope that it can become a featured list shortly after Hurricane Beta's report is released. Thank you! —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 01:55 (UTC)

I like it, but there's a few problems. First, the TOC is too long. Perhaps eliminate the monthly section, IDN. Also, track maps for the depressions is needed. I know it is hard to do, but if its possible, then it should be done. Hurricanehink 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you recommend having no TOC at all? I don't think it is at all desirable to not be able to link directly to a storm, though I suppose the table from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season could be used. I'll get rid of the monthly headings; they bother me, too. Bug jdorje about track maps for the depressions. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 02:22 (UTC)

With the monthly headings gone, I would say the TOC is ok now. One of the reasons this article exists is that the TOC in 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was so horrendously long due to the storms, that the storms had to be moved here. One of the main complaints about the parent article, though, is that there aren't any links to individual storms, so they should stay on this article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Where does the 1923 deaths figure come from? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's an anon that has been updating the numbers as new Katrina deaths come in, and he/she's provided sources in the Katrina article in the past. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 00:25 (UTC)
• Also, about the writing style... it sometimes uses short simple sentences too much. I've tried to fix the Allison section, but it still should have a full read and copyedit. Otherwise, there isn't anything wrong with the article... it is stable as soon as the final TCRs come in, it is properly and thoroughly referenced (as soon as those little {{fact}} tags are dealt with) and very detailed. Good choice for a featured list. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean Arlene, I hope. I'll try to start going through it and fix the text this evening. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 00:25 (UTC)
    • I've tried to rework the Bret and Cindy sections. Could you read through them and tell me if they sound any better? If so, I'll start going through the rest in earnest, but I'm not currently sure that I am successfully fixing the problem. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:43 (UTC)

It's name should be 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. I refuse to support either of the two seperately, because, when seperate, both articles are incomplete. Neither is a complete article without the other. I have been and always will be against their seperation. Plus, I haven't had time to read through the whole thing, but in the past, I've noticed several figures-from-nowhere: random figures that are stuck in with no official source. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Without rehashing that entire debate again, the summary of this article in 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is 22 KB already, which is longer than the storms sections of complete seasons with decent articles. There is extensive linking between the two articles, and the storms list is larger than the season article itself. The storms section in the season article is quite complete too, and is considered a reasonable compromise by most, so I'm afraid any attempt at merging it will be met with wide resistance. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Without getting into this debate, I would just like to point out that the entire 2005 season article as it currently stands is 50 kb while this list is 64 kb. It does not seem to make sense to merge them together to create an article over 100 kb long that is highly biased towards one section. I also think Titoxd has it right that the current situation is the best possible compromise between extremes. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:46 (UTC)
    • The Storms section is the meat of the article; it should be weighted more than the other sections. Section biasing is a flawed rule IMO. And I never have seen length as an issue. That's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 01:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Flight planning

The results of this peer review have beem moved to Talk:Flight planning.

Theatre (structure)

This page was broken out of Theatre last year and it has languished a bit. I would like to bring this up to FA status (it's obviously not there yet). What should be done here? What info should be added? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think you need some more information about what is contained in the theatre besides the stage. The greek part is very good talking about the skene and it's purpose, but in that information isn't included as you move through time. There should be talk about the nuts and bolts of theatres, the green room and cat walks and curtains and sandbags etc. Curtains are actually interesting I wonder when they were first used.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I read through this a week ago and ponder it for a while. This is a tough one. I really don't have much to offer but a question as why the "History of theater construction" only mentions, Greece, Rome, England and "Contemporary". If there is a reason please explain it in that empty section between "History of theater construction" and "Ancient Greece". If there is no reason then consider adding what Asian (Japanese Kabuki) and African theatres are like and how they compare to these western ones. --maclean25 05:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Georg Forster

The majority of the article is a translation from the German featured article. Some additional work has been done with regard to his position towards Poland. I, as one of the editors who contributed to the article, kindly ask to give suggestions on what can be improved. alx-pl D 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article. I would recommend changing the structure somewhat; instead of all of those subsections under "Biography" make the first section "Early life" and bring the other sections up to the same level. Instead of "Foster as a professor" something like "Academic career" translates better. One of the section titles, if it is a reference to a work of his, should be italicized or put into quotations. Kaisershatner 20:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. The suggestion to make the sections up is fine. I'll change it. The formulation "Academic career" is a bit misleading though, as one may argue that he started the career much earlier. What do you think about "Forster at universities"? I'll also italicise the Views... section title. Again, thank you for your remarks. alx-pl D 20:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How many inline citations should an article like this have? Are inline citations necessary at all for general biographical things mentioned in any biography? Kusma (討論) 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rama

Hari Om - I strive to make this a Featured Article. I've added a lot of material and fresh references, and I request your much-needed help and advice. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not 100% related but currently the WP:INCOTW is Diwali and I asked someone to to translate Ganesha from Italian wiki it:Ganesha, which is featured and has now done so. After these become FA, I will start helping make Rama one too.

Currently the article is too much focused on the Ramayana, more needs to be on temples about him, why he is popular, his appearance etc. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Scope of work

Hi - I didn't want to summarize the Ramayana all over, so I've organized this article in the following logical format:

1. Classical names, literature on Rama
2. Two sections on Avatara
3. Prince of Ayodhya
4. Rama's dharma on banishment issue
5. The love of Rama-Sita
6. Ideal manhood - supplemented by Bharata, Lakshmana, Hanumana, etc.
7. Rama's dharma and actions in war
8. Rama Rajya
9. Myth differences and historical analysis
10. Rama across the world - SE Asia, festivals, inspirations

There's a lot more work to be done, including many revisions to reduce size. Rama's Arrow 08:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please get more refs, especially from more sources. Consider naming all the regional Ramayanas. Also, try to reduce the size to keep it at a constant 40kb.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with this. I said in the peer review for Lothal that it probably wouldn't matter if only one/two sources were used. This is because Lothal is a much less controversial topic than Rama. With conflicting modes of belief/worship, Babri Masjid, etc., you need multiple sources to ensure that all major POVs regarding Rama are given voice. I don't know much about Hindu mythology, so I'll leave contents analysis to the neighborhood experts. Saravask 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm yet to complete reading the article. Following is my wishlist at this point.
  • Rama's characterisation in other works like Panchvati, Ramayan by Tamil poet Kambar, Iravana Kaaviyam and others which I've not read. I vaguely remember the poets' bias in favour of Lakshman, Vaali and Ravan respectively. It would be interesting to bring those views on Rama as well. However, the comparision of the different versions of the story itself may be left for Ramayan. (I notice that the article mentions the other Ramayans.)
  • Mention his gesture towards Gukan. A critical note can be that the author might have had a "patronising" attitude there. Of course, without references, these might be original research. * -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sundar - thanks for your tips - I know that this article needs to incorporate a lot from Southern renditions, SE Asian renditions. And it must not be a summary of the epic, but a discussion of Rama himself. I plan to do a major revision on Feb 6. Rama's Arrow 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The first paragraph seems to imply that Rama is the seventh avatar of Vishnu who became the subject to Valmiki's work. But I suppose he really is a character in Valmiki's work who later got elevated to the level of a God.

2. Please make sure that the story follows the Valmiki version rather than the regional ones.

3. Maybe something about the status of Rama over the centuries. My understanding is the Valmiki treated him more like an ideal human and that the godly status that he enjoys now came in the c.14-16 centuries with the Bhakti movement.

4. The two paragraphs about Parasurama are not too important to the main narrative and may be trimmed.

5. I have heard a version of Rama and Lakshmana ending their life by jumping into Sarayu river as they could not fulfil a word that gave to Durvasa. Does this appear in Uttarakanda ?

6. Can you expand the idea of him as a North Indian king invading the South which currently is just two lines. I suppose there will be literature available on this.

The article is a bit too pious for my liking. It should be told a little more dispassionately, but that is a subjective opinion. The little that I know on this topic, it comes from misc. sources. So feel free to reject the comments which aren't good. Tintin (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply on Tintin's points

Hi - thanks for your input, Tintin, but I have some comments:

(1) There are a lot of revisions to make - first will come Feb. 6. I want to balance, as you say, the assertion that Rama was an Avatara, as well as simply a mythological king who inspired religion, folklore, social traditions.

(2) The story primarily follows Valmiki, but understand that to describe Rama, one needs to add the perspective of others: for instance, Laos regards Rama as a Buddha - how does this fit in with the war he fought to rescue Sita. A big difference that re-defines Rama.

(3) Status of Rama will be discussed in length but only with credible sources - I agree with you and I'll work hard to make sure this point is covered.

(4) "Initiation of the Avatara" is important, but I'll add it in with the section on the "Avatara". It is important becoz it discusses the nature of an Avatara, of what it means when one says Rama is an Avatara - it gives literary evidence of his nature. Plus, its just gripping to read of how the Divine mantle passes from One to His Successor...

(5) The end of life section is coming up Feb 6th.

(6) North-South question will be expanded - I'm trying to dig up credible sources on this, coz most of the assertions come from Dalit, Dravidian extremists.

The Ramayana has a huge number of different versions. My source from Ramesh Menon conflicts with some of the points you raise. A lot of the sources on Rama's Aryan/Dravidian thing, other stuff are really obscure and unreliable themselves. But I will try to solve the problem with inline citations.

I know about the piousness - I'll do my best to clean it up. Rama's Arrow 05:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow 07:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Please verify the copyright status of the images. 2. Avoid starting a section with left aligned images. 3. I've got a pic of Banganga Tank that u can use here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ascent

I will introduce a major round of revisions, expansion and re-organization from February 13 to February 18. I believe this article will be ready by that day. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Rama will be significantly upgraded, expanded and refined on February 23, 24, 25 and 26. Rama's Arrow 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

helloddg

Status of review

I request that the PR be kept open, becoz major changes are forthcoming (sorry about previous promises not coming through) and the PR will have to tackle fresh developments. Rama's Arrow 17:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobiin language

Géryì! Nobiin is a Nubian language spoken along the Nile in southern Egypt/northern Sudan. Its ancestor Old Nubian was the language of several consecutive Nubian kingdoms of the first milennium AD. Give it a read (that's what géryì means), it's intriguing. What does this article need in order to survive WP:FAC? Thanks for reviewing! — mark ✎ 10:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I made some changes to the introduction. Hope they're helpful. Kaisershatner 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks! I agree it's better this way. — mark ✎ 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to say about this article? Would it survive FAC? Is it hopeless? (Or does it just look plain uninteresting to non-linguists?) — mark ✎ 09:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have time to do a full review at the moment (maybe this evening), but some things I'd change before seeking featured article status:
  • The images dominate the article. The map and the photo of the Nubian wedding can be made smaller, the scan of the book cover I'd just leave out.
    • Partly fixed. Not sure of the book cover (I thought the article could use somewhat more color. I might trade it for a better picture. — mark ✎ 19:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Practically all speakers of Nobiin are bilingual in Arabic" is not supported by the Werner quote in fn. 1, who says the men are bilingual in Arabic, implying that the women are not usually bilingual.
    • The statement is comes from Burckhardt, but then I suppose that he could have based it only on his interaction with Nobiin men. I'll go and see what Werner does say exactly; I can well imagine that the women are less bilingual than the men. — mark ✎ 10:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't like forced fonts in tables. Use the IPA template where necessary in the table, otherwise allow the table to use the same fonts as the text. I'd follow the examples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Phonology Template for the consonant and vowel tables. And as suggested there, if there are vowel charts (the trapezoids with the dots on them indicating vowel position) anywhere in the literature, I'd say make one for Nobiin and use it instead of the vowel table.

• • Converted the tables to the ones of the WP Phonology Template; rewritten the sections on the phoneme inventory to include more phonotactics. I have not yet come across a phonetic vowel chart of Nobiin. — mark ✎ 09:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's looking a lot better. I'm wondering though what the circumstances are under which /s, t, k, f, g/ can turn into /h/. Is it morphosyntactically conditioned? If so, it's probably a case of consonant mutation and could link to that article. Or is it phonologically conditioned, or is it free variation, or what?

Werner (1987:36-7) doesn't define any morphosyntactical contexts for this process; I have quoted most of his examples but I'll add the two I omitted; on the basis of these examples, I'd say that it is free variation (though unidirectional); but I think his examples are too few too draw a conclusion. — mark ✎ 09:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Angr/talk 09:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• More later today. Angr/talk 10:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, here are the rest of my comments:
  • More info (actually, any info) about the writing system is needed, especially since the article asserts that Nobiin has a written history of over a thousand years. The letters in parentheses in the the table of the "Sounds" section suggest that the Latin alphabet is used today, but presumably it wasn't a thousand years ago. If Latin characters are used today, when did they replace the original script? Was the Arabic alphabet ever used? How many people are literate in Nobiin?
  • On a related point, orthography shouldn't be blended in with phonology. The consonant table should just have phonetic characters. Orthography should have a separate section, in which the sounds associated with each letter/digraph can be discussed.
    • This has been fixed; a section on ortography will follow. — mark ✎ 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template to see what points should be included in an ideal language article. It doesn't have to match that template exactly, but no major parts should be missing. What I miss from Nobiin is:
    • A discussion of its classification. How does it fit into the Nilo-Saharan language family? What are its closest relatives in the family? Does it have any dialects?
      • Added a section on classification. — mark ✎ 20:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • A discussion of its place in society. Does it have any official recognition in Egypt or Sudan? Related to this, but not in the template, are there any newspapers or radio/TV programs in Nobiin?
      • The short answer is no; it's really a marginalized language and matters have only got worse after het forced migration. I'll try to touch this point in the 'geography and demography' section. — mark ✎ 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The possessive pronoun chart looks ragged. Make a table here instead.
    • Done. — mark ✎ 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And on the references:
    • Some references are missing: Lepsius (1880) and Browne (2002) need to be added to the reference list.
      • Added. — mark ✎ 19:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The references need complete bibliographical information, including publisher's name. Consider using the {{book reference}} template.
      • Mostly done. For some old books, I could only find the place and not the publisher's name. — mark ✎ 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The ISBN of Werner (1987) must be wrong: it has only 8 digits, not 10, and it doesn't begin with 3 (as all ISBNs from German publishers do).
      • Fixed. The 8-digit number was the ISSN of the Nilo-Saharan series. — mark ✎ 19:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• And before you get the impression I have only negative things to say: Great work! I learned a lot from this article! Angr/talk 19:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing! Very good points. I'm going to intersperse your comments with my responses in grey like this. — mark ✎ 19:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've had a look at it before; it looked good back then and it looks great now. I think it might have some problems in an FAC due to its being smaller than more recent languages FAs, but personally I think it covers Nobiin very well. A good way to pad the article with more info would be a well-balanced paragraph or two about the written language and vocabulary, perhaps as separate sections too. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yup, those are the gaps. I'l try to fix this in the near future. — mark ✎ 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (political)

It is an understatement to say that this article is poorly written: filled with gramatical errors, uncited material and run-on sentences. But the subject matter is treated atrociously, and the examples very poorly, if at all, give any elucidation to the topic. There is almost nothing at all to distinguish it from Historical revisionism. I have removed some material, as you can see on the article's talk page, but this article makes a lot of accusations, and they need to be checked for validity. There may be a legitimate topic here (that's not my opinion), but this article is a rant that leaves a reader much more confused than when they went in. --DanielCD 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. This page is for nearly Featured-standard articles. Thanks. — RJH 15:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, m'i bad. --DanielCD 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My introductory paragraph here may have been a little exaggerated, as it often can seem when one comes to an article that needs work and has people in conflict. I will try some other methods to try to get a little fresh air into it though. Thanks. --DanielCD 16:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bremner wafer

The company of the wafers has allowed Wikipedia to use any images of the Wafers (logo, tins, trademarks, wafers) provided they are allowed to see the article. I would feel more comfortable if experienced Wikipedians were to edit the article. Thank you.Ram32110 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What can I say? This article needs lots and lots of work before it's even close to FA-ready. Can't each of the sections be significantly expanded? Aren't there some references? I'm more concerned about the content than any use of images. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson

I'm attempting to remove all of the constant fan-cruft and fan-gush from this article. Improving it to featured standard would definitely halt the daily information that never receives a citation or a verifiable source. Any information is welcome and I will resolve the issues in the article as soon as I make time for it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, there need to be more inline citations. I'd also re-incorperate some of discography into the article (maybe just a simple list, similar to the way it's done on Gorillaz). For Concert tours and the Awards and nominations, I would link both under See also, instead of having these subsections with no content. Also, I'm not sure what the current consent on the band infobox is, but I personally find its usage on articles about single musician somewhat improper (especially the field "Origin" seems really strange, I think). And I'm not sure American Idol really qualifies as a "reality-television series". --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Improving it to featured standard would definitely halt the daily information that never receives a citation or a verifiable source. Wrong place then. You would want to reducethe article's visibility, not increase it. Circeus 17:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

See Celine Dion for an example of a FA singer. You're going to need much more critical analysis, including critics in print references (newspapers, magazines, etc.—all music guide just doesn't cut it), talking about individual songs and albums and how her singing has progressed. Remove the reference to Wikipedia; that information must have come from somewhere. Inline citations are needed (see m:Cite/Cite.php). The three sections at the bottom that have links to separate articles need to summarize the content of those articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). --Spangineer (háblame) 06:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Collins (astronaut)

Just did a complete rewrite of the article. Looking for an outside opinion on how it might be improved or anything else needed to get it to an FA. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs trimming, as Wv said. If there's main articles for Apollo 11 and Gemini 10, you don't need two huge paragraphs paraphrasing them. That would drop it in size. Icky redlinks, but I guess they can't be helped. Proto||type 15:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the whole paragraph that basically a summary of Gemini 10 and removed some unspecific to Collins stuff from the Apollo 11 section. Agree about the red links - someone needs to go and write some articles about closed air force bases and defunct Air Force wings. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD; you're missing a paragraph about his post-space career, which is substantial. Kaisershatner 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Land of Confusion

This is a great song, featured a groundbreaking video, and perfectly encapsulated the greed and avarice of the 1980s. I'm hoping that if a fairly new Gwen Stefani song that no one will care about in three months can make FA status, this one can surely make it... or at least Good article status. Anthony 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You need some citations. Also, this is more nit picky, but a number of sentences start with The song. It sounds quite redundant. Jtrost 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. What citations should be in there? Obviously things in the video are in the video; there's no way to put an internet link to the video, or describe what's in it shot-by-shot. I'm just curious about the citations, if you could please explain further. Anthony 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some claims that I see that need to be cited:

• Chart Positions in the infobox
• The quote from Collins under Song meaning
• The song is widely remembered for its music video, which had heavy airplay on MTV.
• This is meant to visualize critics' statements that Reagan attempted to "save the world" from Communism.
• The different cover versions.

This is an older song, so it may be difficult to find sources. However, I think if you search Google enough or are able to get a hold of archived magazines in a library that deal with the song, you'll be able to find a lot of this information. Jtrost 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as the "quote" from Collins, those are merely lyrics. Do I have to provide a link to some website with the lyrics on it? The charts and cover versions are easy enough to find (for the cover versions, do I have to provide links to the track listing of the albums they were on?). However, I don't think it's possible to provide statistics for video rotation on MTV, other than I remember seeing it (even at 4-5 years old... it was the puppets). As far as the rest of it, it's simply interpretation of the music video, which is pretty straightforward, based on the imagery and the lyrics. I'll work on that; let me know once I update it how it looks. Anthony 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good start. I wasn't aware that the one quote was from the lyrics. I don't think you have to cite that. However, one problem is the fourth bullet point on my list. That can be seen as original research, which is not allowed. Unless someone else has published that thought before, it should be removed. The whole music video section should not contain any interpretations unless they are cited. You can summarize what happens, though. For more information, you can see episode guides of television shows that are available here. They basically summarize everything that happens. As for the MTV rotation, that's something else that really needs a citation. I would suggest finding something that says that the video was heavily played on MTV. Jtrost 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm currently fixing up the Phil Collins article (see below for my peer review to date). The process to becoming a featured article is much harder than you initially think, as I've discovered, but hopefully I can share a little of what I learned to help you out. However, you will need to put work into the article. Although I don't like that Gwen Stefani song you mentioned, it is a well written article and I've used it for comparison with some of my own writing.

1) You need references and notes before the article will be considered for feature status. For example, how do you know that the Superman lyric is a reference to Reagan trying to save the world? Also, you say "One interpretation is that Reagan is oblivious to the world around him" -- who's interpretation? Yours? Collins? Those need a reference, either to a critic such as Rolling Stone, or a band member, or video director, or someone. You have to assume that you can back up every sentence you write, and if you can't, it probably shouldn't be in the article. I had to delete a bunch of stuff in the Collins article which wasn't referenced and which, after a Google search, no article besides the Wiki article showed up!

2) You have to take the mindset of someone who has never heard the song before and wants to read about it. For example, your article makes a lot of references to "Collins" in an early section. But who's Collins? Now, you know and I know it's Phil, but "Phil Collins" is not mentioned until toward the middle of the article in "Music Video", although his last name is used earlier. Again, assume someone doesn't know who Collins is. Your intro also needs to be expanded. It needs to outline in 2-5 2-3 paragraphs why this song is so noteworthy. To see how I fleshed out the introduction to Collins, compared this before [[1]] and after [[2]].

I hope that helps you. Best of luck with the article. --Ataricodfish 17:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Corrected my prior statement, it should say 2-3 paragraphs. See WP:Lead, sorry. --Ataricodfish 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A properly added fair-use screenshot of the video (or two) would add significantly to that section. Also, I agree with what Ataricodfish has said. Andrew Levine 21:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to add some screenshots of the video once I get home from work... what else needs to be done with this article? I've tried to find websites that have UK charts on them, but the only ones I can find have the last few years... 1986 is hard to find. Anthony Hit me up... 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, Here are my comments/suggestions in improving the quality of the article.

• The introduction needs more body. Your introduction should summarize the whole article, without touching upon specifics. This Charming Man by The Smiths has a great example of a good introduction.
• It might be a good idea to break the song into Composition and Meaning, Music Video and Format and Tracklist. The first section (composition and meaning) should contain some information on the lyrical structure of the song (in this case it is AA BB or Bionic form) as well as what makes the song work, musically..discuss rhythm, beat, riffs, that have a dramatic impact on the song. What genre does this song fall into? What other elements are employed by Genesis to develop the atmosphere of the song — Rutherford's guitar riff and Collins' persistant drum machine pattern used through out the song should be discussed. The musical form of the song is also very typically 1980s Genesis, employing a verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus format. That should be mentioned. What scale is the song in? (I think it might be D major, let me know if you need any help here)
• The meaning of the song section is good, but could use some more content. The article makes references to Collins ("Collins takes a pessimistic view..", "Collins then says..")..though Phil sang the song, this is a Genesis composition and any references that are made should be alluded to them, not just to Phil.
• Also discuss critical reviews and any quotes that might be attibuted to the song. I can help with this.
• Overall, I think the article needs more content. I think you had mentioned screencaptures of the video — this will definately help accentuate the Music Video section. Also, many of the paragraphs have 2-3 sentences. They should be merged for the sake of clarity and flow. Also, please cite any sources you are using. Use the Cite/Cite.php format for your references and notes. Also, cite your references using The MLA style manual. The chart position table looks out of place, and should be positioned alongside the section that discusses structure.
• Good luck! Once these changes have been made, I will come in for copyediting. Like I said, let me know if you need any help with some of the suggestions I've touched upon! AreJay 22:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention...many of the song facts can actually be referenced to Scott McMahon's Genesis Discography available here (pdf). It is a comprehensive 475 page discography on Genesis' music. I am adding some quotes to this article that I have referenced using the Cite/Cite.php format...you can use this as an example to cite your sources. AreJay 22:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Something to look at: the sweet he wakes up from, does it has something to do with the watergate scandale?

Status of PR?

Is this Peer Review dead? It has been inactive for sometime and should be listed as {{oldpeerreview}} and archived since we're at the end of the month and the PR has been dormant for sometime. AreJay 22:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not dead. I'm still looking up stuff on the video, but I've been a little busy with family matters for the past week. I plan to update the page by the end of the week with some of the information from the Discography, plus screenshots of the video. Just give me a little more time before closing the peer review. Anthony Hit me up... 22:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Keratoconus

This article has been receiving attention recently, and I think there is reasonable scope of it going forward to Featured Article status. For that reason, I would welcome some outside review on its scientific accuracy (particularly from anyone with ophthalmology or refractive surgery expertise), and on format and style. The article is not a specially long one (at 2,400 words/15K characters), and I myself am generally satisfied with its coverage and depth, but I would welcome any viewpoints on that. BillC 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are too many facts and statistics that aren't directly cited. For example, "A ring of yellow-brown to olive-green pigmentation known as a Fleischer Ring and caused by deposition of iron within the cornea can be observed in around 50% of keratoconic eyes." Where does 50% come from? Seeing that it's short I think there's space for a "History" section. Otherwise, it seems well written and informative with a nice set of external links. --Oldak Quill 08:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'll try to beef up the unsupported statements with citations. It might be a struggle to produce a 'History' section with more than two or three sentences, but I will see what I can find. BillC 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent work, Bill! I have only a couple minor suggestions right now. I would consider changing the title of "Diagnosis" to "Signs" or "Signs and Diagnosis", then merge the section entitled "Possible complications" with it. As it stands now, there is a section for signs and a section for severe signs, and I tend to think of surgical complications when I see "complications". Whatever you choose to do, I might also consider adding mention of Munson's sign in signs/diagnosis section. Treatment section: Consider noting that patients are often advised not to rub their eyes. Consider noting that eyeglasses may suffice in mild cases or until the irregular astigmatism advances to a point where visual acuity is not acceptable to the person. Not sure if you want to add a bit on non-surgical treatment/management of hydrops. I believe epikeratophakia and thermokeratoplasty aren't common surgical options anymore, so I'm not sure if you even want to mention them. Keep up the great work! AED 23:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'll get onto them. BillC 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried it as a subsection ('severe symptoms') of symptoms. We can see how this looks. BillC 23:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Rather than a section entitled "Treatment" and another one entitled "Other surgical options", how about one section called "Treatment" with "Contact lenses" and "Surgical options" as the two main subsections. "Surgical options" could then have "Corneal transplant", "Epi-k", "Corneal rings...", and "RK" as sub-subsections. AED 06:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Points summarised below:

• Provide citations for all facts and statistics. In progress
• Seeing that it's short I think there's space for a "History" section. In progress, but mostly complete. (Would be nice to know who coined the term keratoconus.)
• Consider changing the title of "Diagnosis" to "Signs" or "Signs and Diagnosis", then merge the section entitled "Possible complications" with it. Done.
• Consider adding mention of Munson's sign in signs/diagnosis section. Done
• Consider noting that patients are often advised not to rub their eyes. Done
• Consider noting that eyeglasses may suffice in mild cases. Done.
• Add a bit on non-surgical treatment/management of hydrops?
• Consider discussion of epikeratophakia and thermokeratoplasty? Did epikeratophakia. Thermokeratoplasty seems rarer.

Mahatma Gandhi

ma ha karin

- This peer review has been opened to help repair a lot of the problems that are threatening this article's quality and FA status. I ask for your help to solve some very urgent and serious problems in this article. We hope to repair all the problems and find ways to protect the article's quality. Rama's Arrow 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems (with respect to FA standards)

1. The size is 68kb presently. It should be below 50kb in ideal circumstances, but as much as possible it should be reduced.
2. The "Contents" box is too long.
3. The lead is not good enough.
4. The "Criticisms" passage is not comprehensive or NPOV (why should there be "Pakistani", "Jewish", "Hindu" sections?)
5. Copyedits - a lot of misplaced links, spelling and grammar errors abound. The prose style is often adversely affected.
6. Inline citations - best way to protect integrity of data
7. Gandhi's Principles - this section is repetitive and too long. It is contributing to the size problem. Plus, the quotes need to be cited.
8. Commemorations - why is there a need to list every statue of Gandhi that exists in each foreign country?
9. Overediting - too many different people come in and add all kinds of info (for example...ahem....me). Over a period of weeks or months, the quality of article steadily erodes, as it has by now.
10. Fancruft - not only from Gandhians, but supporters of Subhas Bose! This needs to be extensively addressed.

I've listed the faults I see in this article. I hope this discussion will help resolve all venues of problems. Rama's Arrow 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the problems have been addressed Rama's Arrow 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before, but I think we should take this opportunity to address the question again if this article's rightful title should be Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and not Mahatma Gandhi. I assert that it is our obligation to remain encylopedic at all times, and given that there are extensive re-directs, the article should be moved to MKG. P.S. - for Gandhi himself - he would not like being titled Mahatma Gandhi everywhere. Rama's Arrow 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think "Gandhi's principles" sections should be renamed "Gandhism" and should be condensed to a list, w/ each item corresponding to a current subheading. There could be a short (one sentence) description for each principle, w/ the details left to the subarticle.
• I agree w/ all the above points raised (that's some great self-critique).
• IPA pronunciation guide (as well as spoken guide, like the one India has) for his full name would be useful.
• Daughter articles should be cleaned up, because they are integrally tied to this article. I've had objections to FACs I've nominated due to poor condition of subarticles. Could be a problem at potential FARC as well.
• Lead section should be compressed somewhat (maybe two-thirds its current size. It needs to have a more chronological/narrative flow/thread and do a better job of descibing his actual life.
• Rm all WP:PEACOCK ("one of the most prominent" — show us w/ specifics attesting to his prominence, and let readers make up their own minds) and WP:WEASEL ("at a time when many thought that such activities were not 'respectable' for women" — who are these "many"?). I've been (and still am) myself often guilty of violating this advice, and its not as major an issue as the above points.

Good luck, and let me know if anyone pulls the WP:FARC trigger on this poor, defenseless, non-violent man. ;-P Saravask 04:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• 1. A summary needed. 2. The number of headings needs to be kept to a bare minimum. 3. I have a pix of the Sabarmati Ashram, I'll be adding it later. Plz remind me if I forget. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Great work

It has been some great work in pruning the material, hats-off. The contents box can be reduced in size once "Gandhi's Principles" section is pruned as per Saravask's comments. I feel that it makes sense to divide criticism section into sub-sections as to understand who or why they criticised him; however, the titles of the sub-sections need to be modified. Same is the case with other titles like "1930's and conflict with Bose." From a historical basis, such a conflict was less severe or impactful when compared to the one with Ambedkar. A better idea for re-organising the material would be a complete re-write where apart from the political life, his struggles against untouchability and efforts towards sanitation etc. need wider mention - however, I doubt if this can be done easily. Gandhi's legacy in terms of his family can be probably attempted through Category:Mahatma Gandhi. Overediting - most of it is actually vandalism and POV which is typically reverted fast. Anyways, I've semi-protected it and would review the progress in another 3-4 days. Commemorations as well as artictic depictions - they are notable and verifiable; however, the potential for farming these off to a separate article is very high. Some pruning can be done from references section as well - e.g. "The kingdom of God is within you" does not contain any material about Gandhi and hence, cannot be a reference etc. I would be able to have a go at some of these only after a week or so, if no one else gets to them before I do. --Gurubrahma 17:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. The article looks pretty good. One way of solving the Table of Contents problem would be making the subheadings in Ganhdi's principles bolded instead of subsections. Though the current TOC is not truly unwieldy. I don't know enough in detail about the subject to comment on it's coverage and neutrality, but it seems pretty good. One note specifically is the Penn and Teller criticisms themselves may be common criticisms, but I have a hard time seeing Penn and Teller as a reliable enough source to warrant mentioning them as the source at all. If more important people have leveled those criticisms they would be better to cite to. The only thing that could support mentioning P&T is if there is objective evidence of their views being important or influential, such as them being commonly cited, etc. So the criticism section needs to stay, it just may need more research. On a similar vein the most common criticism I have heard of him as a man is over his relationship with his son. That would also take some research to justify, but I believe that would come out as one of the most important criticisms of him. The length is likely to gain negative comments at FAC, but you already knew that. I can't offer specific advice except looking at the longest sections and focusing on them for summarizing and moving out detail to daughter articles. It's just a tough process of prioritizing what is the most important information and leaving everything else to subarticles. - Taxman ^Talk 17:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply on some points

1. I don't feel that "Gandhi's principles" should be renamed "Gandhism" becoz even though there is a good article called Gandhism, its not an officially defined term - besides, Brahmacharya, Ahimsa, fasting, etc. are not Gandhi's original thinking, as he has admitted himself.
2. Criticism in sub-divisions is ok, but I objected to the branding like "Pakistani", "Jewish", etc.
3. "The Indian Independence Movement" was a lot about rmv untouchability, uplifting women - extensive social reform. Without such work, Gandhi's campaigns in Champaran, Kheda, Non cooperation would not have been successful. There is no need to separate politics from social reforms.
4. I don't see the need to list all those statues of Gandhi, especially since this contributes to size problem.

Rama's Arrow 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Since "Gandhism" is not an officially defined term and Gandhi himself said that truth and non-violence are as old as the hills, it would be sensible to move "Gandhism" to "Principles of Mahatma Gandhi" and explain in the lead of that article about the similarity and difference in the two terms. While no one denies that social and political tasks went hand-in-hand, a separation makes sense from the point of view of the reader. This is how even his autobiography is organised, albeit, it covers events before 1924. While you don'tsee the need to list statues everywhere, others do so - I'd be mighty impressed to see the statue of a foreigner in India; so would be the case of a foreigner who sees Gandhi's statue in his country. If size and flow are the issues, forks are in order to create sub-articles. --Gurubrahma 06:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually "Gandhism" should stay "Gandhism" - the term has been used many times in many mediums (all I'm saying there is no dictionary definition). The article discusses the generation/movement that arose from Gandhi's values and how Gandhi got to them. Otherwise the article would be called for deletion since there are independent articles on brahmachary, ahimsa, etc. already. But that's another issue.

Gandhi's autobiography is organized in chronological order, not Volume 1:Social work, Volume II:freedom struggle. I think the reader must be asked to understand that the freedom struggle involved a joint fight against British tyranny and social evils - it is revisionist history to suggest that they were separate.

Others might favor the listing of Gandhi statues, but the job of informing of Gandhi's worldwide fame can be done in simpler sentences with a few examples. When one goes listing Gandhi statues/busts in 10 cities, Canadian provinces, colleges, it gets inefficient. After all, one wouldn't list the cities possessing a "M.G. Road", would one? While its ok, its not good writing (Britannica doesn't do this, nor do most others) nor does it help achieving FA criteria. Rama's Arrow 06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Across the world" reform

Instead of the current version, I propose this to address the problem of length in this section:

Across the world In the United Kingdom, there are several prominent statues of Gandhi, most notably in Tavistock Square, London (near University College London), where he studied law. January 30 is commemorated in the United Kingdom as National Gandhi Rememberance Day. In the United States, there are statues of Gandhi outside the Ferry Building in San Francisco, Union Square Park in New York City, the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta and near the Indian Embassy in the Dupont Circle neighbourhood of Washington, DC. The city of Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, where Gandhi was ejected in 1893 from a first-class train, now hosts a commemorative statue. The Government of India donated a statue to the city of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, to signify their support for the future Canadian Museum for Human Rights. There are wax statues of Gandhi at the Madame Tussaud's wax museums in New York and London, and other cities around the world, including Moscow, Paris, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Lisbon, Canberra, Santiago de Chile and San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago.

Cleaning out some examples, this para still conveys the respect Gandhi is given across the world, while cutting size. Rama's Arrow 06:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fresh tirade of edits

Hi - a user:Saiswa had recently undertaken a lot of edits containing POV and drastic in nature, including the creation of a sub-article Criticism of Gandhi w/o discussion. I had to revert those changes to protect our task here, but obviously we're open to his/her opinions and contributions. The Criticism "sub-article" might not be a bad idea, but he/she should have discussed it here obviously. Rama's Arrow 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

He has also created Gandhi's comments on various religions. Rama's Arrow 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Dialogue on structure and forks

There are two problem forks - Criticism of Gandhi, Gandhi's comments on various religions. These are entirely cut/paste jobs, and should not have been created before a proper discussion.

I have set up AFD for these particular ones, but forks are needed in some places to reduce the length of the article. Rama's Arrow 21:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why re-invent the wheel?

I strongly feel that we should first compare the FA version and the latest version to see the changes in terms of additions, deletions, modifications not just to the content but also the size so that we do not end up re-inventing the wheel. --Gurubrahma 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem or difficulty in consulting the former edition for tips. But the addage "Reinvent the wheel" is mis-applied: the FA criteria is always there and standard for each article on Wikipedia - no matter what the change is, you can always look at the FA criteria to work things out.

The previous Gandhi FA version had less content, undiversified formatting, no citations, problem links and a simplistic approach to writing of Gandhi's life. The writing and content is far more complex in this version, and when you talk of comparing writing/content, its a pretty hard job. Also, I don't think the FA process by which that version became an FA was as rigorous as the process is now. Rama's Arrow 16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by complexity of writing and content, is that this article is addressing multiple interpretations of Gandhi's life, more sophisticated facts and quotes, and attempting to explore many parts of Gandhi's life at the level of a research study, but obviously limited to an encyclopedia. Its not competent enough to work with "leader of peace, political leader of freedom struggle." Rama's Arrow 16:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Music of Philadelphia

Last PR here I've done a bit of work on this and I think that, except for sound samples, which I hope to do in the next couple days, it's ready for FAC. Any suggestions? Tuf-Kat 20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I see there's been some amazing work on an already great article there. Haven't ahd the courage to read through the new version, but there's a few things I'd like to point out:

• Some references are apparently identical, but actully point to different pages of the same site, this should be fixed (Personally, I'm a big sucker for {{cite_web}}, but I know these templates are sometimes complicated to apply)
• Normally, web refs aregiven a "last visited" date.
• The Philadelphia soul issue I pointed out last time still isn't fixed.
• Footnotes should be put directly after punctuation, per proposed style at WP:FOOTNOTES

Circeus 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

New York City

This article was nominated for FA status a year ago and failed. The main objection was that it was not comprehensive enough. Secondary objections were about POV and poor writing. Since then this article has seen major rewriting and additions. If anything the article is now too comprehensive at 60+ kbs. POV and poor writing issues have been corrected. Before renomination for FA status we need to edit for concision, to 50 kbs. Wv235 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Transportation/Airports makes no mention of the general aviation, and as such is pro-airline-POV. IMHO, the main article cited in the section could do better mentioning reliever GA airports as well. --BACbKA 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• It's long and could use some trimming. More cited references might be nice, maybe one or two per section if necessary. Also, review the issues revolving around the plans to rebuild at the WTC as I think the Freedom Tower may be on hold. To trim, focus on city history more and trim areas like climate, etc.--MONGO 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

United States Academic Decathlon

We've been working a bit on this article, and it would be helpful to hear other opinions on how to improve it, looking towards a future Featured article candidacy. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• lead is awfully short.
• More inline citations, if your aim is FAC
• Question examples would be nice.
• I think the table should be centered for esthetics.
• though not necessary per se, paper references are nice
• needs a history section badly.

Circeus 14:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think sections with only one subsections look awkward; my view is better to have one longer section or two subs per section at least. Kaisershatner 16:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC) The lead should explicitly state (1) who competes in it (teams of high school students?), (2) what the competition consists of ("there are ten events, including..."). I think it should also include the popularity of it or number of entrants, to give the reader some idea of the significance of the subject. Kaisershatner 16:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've worked on most of your comments now, but I'm still working on the articleto split the events section into more manageable sections. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

I submitted this article I wrote only five days ago to the FAC page and originally received 3 objections for various reasons, but managed to correct them and gain the support of two of the readers only to have the article yanked from the FAC page and sent to the archive for some unexplained reason. I feel I wrote and thoroughly researched a well-documented article with absolutely NPOV. What do you think? I appreciate any comment you can give. Thanks! --Jayzel68 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite like it. Relevant images, structured well. I'd vote for it at FA. Don't small-font your notes, though. Proto||type 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've changed the font size. Thanks for your comment! --Jayzel68 16:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I made some changes to get you started; here are some more comments:

• Typically on wikpedia quotations are not italicized
• The WP:LEAD needs to be expanded - the Woodward story was only a small early part of this event; the lead should summarize how the story influenced the event, if it did (ie, was it the first public evidence of the investigation?), or present a chronology of the events - "an investigation was started in 19XX (why? was there a tip, an informant?) and led to public scrutiny, criminal charges, denials, apologies, etc."
• The lead should also probably note whatever role the controversy had on the 2000 US Presidential campaign,
• and should note the prominent figures (Clinton, Gore? Riady? Trie?)
• what is a "blast-faxing" business?
• I added an image that I think helps with your background paragraph

Hope this helps, Kaisershatner 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I believe I have addressed all your issues. However, I don't feel it is important to get into to possible effects on the 2000 campaign. Also, I believe an issue such as that would involve too much opinion and would potentially cause a problem re: POV. Thanks for your comments! --Jayzel68 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The administrator, reverted his decision and reposted my article to the FAC page. If you like it, please vote "support". Thanks again everyone! --Jayzel68 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Santa Anita Park

The biggest prep to the Kentucky Derby comes up on the 8th of April (that is the Santa Anita Derby) and I thought that if enough editing and improvement this article could possibly be featured on that date. I understand this article is not perfect and that the pictures may be copyrighted (I didn't add them) but I think with some polishing it could certainly be a great article.

-Loucards 03:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This article still has a ways to go before it is a serious FA candidate. Looking at the article, I am not convinced that the article is comprehensive in its coverage of the park. One area for expansion is a description of the grounds beyond just the track. There is a picture of the grandstands, but no description of things like archtechtural styling or seating capacity. Other items that need to be included are the names of who owns and operates the park, what times of the year does the park host races, and does the park hold anything other than just a race track. The long list in the racing section will also raise objections at WP:FAC, and should be converted into text. I would also recommend adding inline citations at the same time you are adding this extra information (see m:Cite/Cite.php one possible method of adding inline citations). --Allen3 ^talk 13:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement about the listing and i have converted it to text while maintaining the links where they exsist. I have also added more information about the Art Deco style of Santa Anita as well as the seating capacity. The racing section details the meetings at Santa Anita and it is also mentioned in the history. --Loucards 14:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

West Virginia

The U.S. state of West Virginia was recently the U.S. Collaboration of the Week and was upgraded to the status of "Good Article." This article has the potential to become one of featured article status, but needs to be trimmed in some sections (History) and added onto in others (Education, Film, Demographics, Economy, etc.) For these reasons I am nominating West Virginia for peer review. --Caponer 05:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to locate the ISBN numbers for the books that are cited under General references. You may want to also use a standardization of cited references based on what is listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations, but I don't see that as mandatory in a nonscientific article. I think the history could use some trimming ensuring that whatever gets taken out is put into the daughter article that is linked. I'd also mention the Cass Scenic Railroad as an important history/tourist destination.--MONGO 06:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is partially a rehashing of the to-do list, but:

• Something needs to be done with that horrible list of "General References." Only a handful of genuine general references should be listed; the rest should either be turned into footnotes for specific citations where appropriate, or removed.
• The History section is long, and too focused on the separation from Virginia. There is no mention of any specific event after 1898! So cut some of the sections (move info to sub-articles) and give more 20th Century and recent history.
• Expand the Economy section.
• Put something in the Transportation section.
• Add some content to the Education section (could be taken from Education in West Virginia).
• Is there anything to be said about sports in WV, beyond the simple list of pro teams?
• Is there more that can be said about WV culture aside from music?
• Strive to improve citations throughout. Some sections (demographics, geography) might only need one or two citations, but others (like history) will need many.

The article certainly has Featured Article potential, but it still needs some work. Cmadler 12:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have checked through the image licenses, and most of them look good. Several that should be checked into by someone more familiar with image licensing are: John Carlisle (be more specific), Joe Manchin and "Greetings From West Virginia" stamp (claimed as fair use), and Capitol building (appears to have been taken by the submitter, but they did not indicate any license). Cmadler 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dream

The article is looking much nicer and has been split into daughter articles. It needs, at the very least, copyediting and some prose reworking. Additional resources would also be helpful. --Mgreenbe 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to make this easier by breaking it down by section:

• Lead
  • The lead could be more cohesive. Don't be scared to make it longer if you need to.
• Overview
  • The first paragraph in this section is just a really long sentence. I had to reread it to find out what "this association" was. Break it up a bit.
  • Don't rely on clickthroughs to make important concepts clear. I saw cases all over, but I'm thinking specifically of the bit on hypnogogia. That sentence tells the reader nothing without a clickthrough to Hypnogogia.
  • Cohesiveness is also a problem here. How ideas are grouped together into paragraphs seems totally arbitrary. There should be clear connections between the sentences in a paragraph.
  • This section touches on remembering dreams repeatedly, adding just a bit of new information each time. There should be a single paragraph in this section that covers everything you want to say on the topic. A central location for each important topic rather than a random journey touching each repeatedly.
• Understanding dreams
  • Neurology of dreams
    • Too many single short sentence paragraphs.
  • Supernatural interpretations of dreams
    • This section needs an introductory paragraph, and could stand to be a little longer.
  • Psychodynamic interpretation of dreams
    • Why is the second paragraph sitting on its own? It seems to jump ahead into differences right before "The critical difference between Freudian and Jungian theories..."
    • This section only mentions Jungian theories the tiniest bit, and then only as a foil for Freud. It should describe Jungian interpretations more.
• Lucid dreaming
  • "...can analyse the situation logically and react accordingly....particularly control of the direction of the dream...usually has direct control of the dream environment" - got it, lucid dreaming means control of the dream. How about putting all that related information in one place.
• Dreaming in animals
  • On a random note, my dog has two distinctive types of dreams: chasing prey (characterized by twitching legs and muffled barks) and nightmares of some sort (characterized by whining). I've often wondered what kind of creatures he's encountered in his sheltered life that can scare him so much in his nightmares.
• Bibliography
  • I'd like this better as a "Further reading"
• External links
  • You may have enough links to group them thematically into sections

So those are the issues that come to mind for me. An interesting article overall. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your helpful comments! Right now I feel the biggest problem is the lack of Jung resources; I've swept this under the dream interpretation carpet, but the issue needs to be resolved. Additional carpet sweeping includes moving hypnogogia to "see also", as I couldn't find an appropriate place to mention it. Do you feel the prose edits have helped? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgreenbe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a Jungian scholar, having read nearly all 22 volumes in the Princeton-Bollingen series and completed a dissertation that explored a Jungian theory of dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 March 2006

The article should make better use of references by employing inline citations. Andrew Levine 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I like that the overview section material has been incorporated into the lead and body, and I like how the neurology section is organized now. The supernatural section transitions much better now, too, and the lucid dreaming reads better. If you want FA status for this, you'll have to have inline citations, as Andrew pointed out, but I think the prose has definitely improved. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, for a FA it'd be nice to have another picture, as I'm sure there are good ones out there. Perhaps something illustrating the spiritual or psychodynamic sections. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A good point, thanks. As for citations, that's my next step — I'll reformat the page and scour PubMed et al. when I have a decent chunk of free time. --Mgreenbe 01:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Robinson

An article about the actor I've been working on for the last two months. Looking for ways to improve, expand, etc. --Fallout boy 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article. A few suggestions

• Why is there a notes and references section? If the references are used in the article, shouldn't they be in the notes? If they are further reading, then they should be in that section
• Excessive wikilinking of years. Within the chart it makes sense because it is pertinent to the article, but generally years do not need to be linked if they add nothing
• The other roles column for his filmography is unused. Perhaps you want to drop it
• Personally I would prefer a list to a table for both of those. Just my preference

Looks great though. joshbuddy^talk 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Frog

It is already a Good Article. We think it has huge FA potential. Our main questions concern the structure of the article, including the use of headings and subheadings. We have also just added a new gallery in an unusual format that we would like your comments on. Any other comments welcome. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, a few things: A few more notes would be good; I think a wide article about frogs has far more categories. Certainly more than one; I like the gallery, but can I ask you why all of you decided not to use the <gallery> finction?; perhaps mentioning them as a food delicacy (especially in France!)—Or is there no point, as you already have Wikibooks:Cookbook? Hope this helps. Good article though. ^KILO-_LIMA 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of the <gallery> function is still in discussion. None of us really liked the look of it, but apparantly, there is a problem with rendering the current gallery in one of the Firefox versions, so there may be no choice. It does mention frogs as a food delicacy, in the Adult sub-section, but I think that it is more suited for the Frogs in popular culture article. I can think of adding Category:Amphibians, but don't know what else would be suitable. Do you have any suggestions? Thankyou for the help. --liquidGhoul 21:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would definitely put it into Category:Amphibians. What about Category:Prehistoric amphibians? ^KILO-_LIMA 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have put it into Category:Amphibians, but I think Category:Prehistoric amphibians is more for things which became extinct during prehistory. Otherwise almost all extant animals would be part of the category. --liquidGhoul 03:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to briefly expand on that, as it may be of interest to others: the problem with using the <gallery> method is that the gallery can be overlapped by nearby existing images that, depending on what size the browser window is, can be invading the space of the gallery. The gallery is agnostic to this - it makes no attempt to get out of the way, neither so do the other images. This is not just a problem with images, but also with other elements such as taxoboxes. Since the gallery does not adapt to changing screensize at all, it is badly viewable at small window sizes. I hope someone comes up with a better solution to this problem. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Frog legs are currently mentioned in the life cycle section, the idea being that people are thereby natural enemies of frogs. The article used to have a "human uses" section - do you think this would be a better idea? - Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is really good. Great work and definately FA-worthy. I only have two minor suggestions: In the 'Poison' section, you might want to say which two non-poisonous species mimic dart poison frogs' coloration, or at least add a citation for that. Another idea would be to add an audio clip to 'Call', but that's in no way required. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 22:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Names of mimics are added. I think that the audio clip feature is a great idea. I've got a recording of a "Whistling Frog" from Barbados as well as a corresponding picture of a male calling, but am swamped with "real" work at the moment and can't get around to it for a week or so. If anyone else wants to take this up that would be great. Otherwise, look for my addition in about a week.Pstevendactylus 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone in the Edinburgh, UK, area has a means of transferring audio tape data to a digital format (I guess ogg), then please let me know - I have a frog pond recording from Thailand. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people who are watching this know that it is now a featured article candidate - see its nomination. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hochtief AG

This is the first time I've written anything more than a stubby article, basically because (1) I found a really annoying red link and (2) I wanted to try my hand at the new <ref> thing. But it turned out the subject was so interesting (did you know that the company that rescued the cave temples of Abu Simbel by painstakingly moving them out of the way of the River Nile, as it started to swell from the Aswan Dam, also built Hitler's Berlin bunker where he killed himself, and later constructed Germany's first nuclear power plant?) that I dragged on a bit and have now got an article that's so big it might be worth doing something serious with. It's not brilliant prose, I'm afraid, but there are lots of pictures if you like that sort of thing. There's a few red links too, most of which are for articles that exist in de: but not in en: so I might have to do a couple of translation jobs. Anyway, for an article less than 24 hours old I really don't think it's too bad! I'd really appreciate suggestions for what to do with it next, but unfortunately, German company articles don't usually get a lot of attention on English Wikipedia so I thought I'd try Peer Review. Feedback from anyone out here would really be appreciated! --TheGrappler 22:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• You won't find applause from me for the ref thing usage, as I prefer the Harvard referencing style and the ref hooks don't support that yet :-) However, it is really an interesting read, well-referenced, and significantly longer than the de.w.o counterpart version where I expected to find more than you've researched. And the 24 hours figure is pretty impressive, too! As for the prose, the only thing that made me cringe a little was the overuse of the word "ultimately". I am no specialist on German companies though, and have no idea as to how they're typically represented on the Wikipedia. See what other notable companies have good articles written about them, and try to see if there is any common style pieces in them that you could pick. From what you've written in your last sentence above, it could be you've done that already, in that case, consider it from the other side --- is there anything about the German company articles that you find commonly missing? try adding it to your article then (again, sorry for being not specific here --- as I said, I'm no expert in the area). --BACbKA 00:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated!:) I only used "ultimately" once so bit surprised that came up as an issue... although "ultimately committed suicide" is a little excessive, you could hardly do it penultimately! As for referencing, I think the hooks are useful on an online document (where clicking there and back is easy) especially if you have a very fragmented website source (as happened here, loads of different URLs). Having said that, on a printed document, the hooks thing would drive me round the bend! I still get the feeling that there's something missing from this article - a lot of the big U.S. companies go into some depth about their management boards and so on, but there probably isn't enough information (at least, readily available in English!) for me to do that here. Company articles are of extremely varying quality and format which made it hard for me to know how to pitch it. The interesting thing about the de. article is the strength in depth it has - lots of blue links where this had red links (rather oddly, for instance, we don't have so much as a stub for two of the German World Heritage Sites listed here, whereas .zh wikipedia does) as well as little bits of biography and less well-known German buildings. I was very lucky that the de. users had kindly provided a lot of Commons media that I was able to use. The reference/note-making thing was quite straightforward for me in this case - I hadn't even heard of this company until I saw it as a red link, didn't realise how important it was until I did a bit of research. Since I did all my research on the net, I could put a citation for every tidbit of information I found. I suspect that one of the reasons so many would-be FAs lack adequate citation is precisely because they are written by experts! Anyway, the feedback is helpful. I'll have a look around... --TheGrappler 00:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Any further feedback would be appreciated :-) TheGrappler 04:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The article reads nice, I just feel it is a little overlinked. The lead section should probably be a bit shorter, more introductory and maybe only have three or four links and not so much detail, that should come after the TOC. May I use the opportunity to point you to the German noticeboard? You might get some help there as well. I have also included your article on the Portal:Germany list of new articles, and as a DYK. Kusma (討論) 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I've cut down on the links and pruned the lead section a little. Does this help? I don't think the lead now looks too different from some of the FAs. I think it could still do with more work, possibly on the financial side of things, where I am having trouble finding information. Partly because I'm not quite sure what information I should be looking for! Hopefully somebody on Peer Review will have an idea what's missing. TheGrappler 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup

This is a Peer Review for the article Cricket World Cup which now bears quite a lot of the qualities presented by other FAs such as FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup and may better them in some aspects. Please provide constructive criticism for it. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Barring any good reason, I think that each tournament history should have roughly the same length, so I expanded the 96, 99 and 03 ones to match that of 1975. I think we need to hit the books for some of the other ones. As far as copyediting goes, ALoan and Nichalp are the best ones for the job who have some interest in cricket. Every fact should be supported by refs, so there's a lot of work ahead. Hopefully if this makes FA, it will be allowed on the main page anyway despite having no free pictures due to the histroical coincidence. I like long articles, so I suppose more detail is never a bad thing (My only FA happens to be 100kb, but that's because there wasn't any logical fork - Ian Thorpe) as this article is 42kb (not too big) and seems to have a lot of tables etc, which we don't want to dominate the article too much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is a little too much about individual competitions than that is strictly necessary. The extensive details can be left to the article about the tournament. There should be more about things like the background of the world cups and the political issues. Re politics, it should be difficult to get it from a single source as each one (incl. Wisden) has a strong POV one way or the other. We will have to read up all the arguments and present a summary.

• We should not get too chatty about miscellaneous facts. The tournament reports contain phrases like "1987 Cricket World Cup held in India and Pakistan was the first World Cup hosted outside of England." "The 1996 championships were held in the Indian subcontinent for the second time", "The 1999 event returned to England after sixteen years", which are all unnecessary because it will be obvious to the reader from the earlier paragraphs. Or if you look at the Cricket_World_Cup#Performance_of_teams, there is some text and a table accompanying it. There is very little in the text that cannot be deduced from the table.

• Not happy about some sources and the way they are interpreted. The media coverage has the line "The Cricket World Cup is televised in over 200 countries, with over 2 billion television viewers". I had added an invisible comment to it but somebody deleted it silently. This comes from http://www.cricketworldcup.com/icc-marketing.html which is a marketing site which means that we cannot readily believe everything that it says. According to List of countries, there are only 202 sovereign countries, so "over 200 countries" is at the least an exaggeration. A reading of the source would show "over 200 countries" and "televised to over 2 billion" are just estimates for 2007 (and that coming from a promotional site) and not facts. It is best to get the data for 2003 if we want to put it here. I have already corrected some misinterpretations like this and there may be more. Tintin (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of Tintin's comments. I believe someone with little knowledge of cricket and the World Cup will prefer reading a concise but well written article rather than a detailed one which may bore them. I suspected the media coverage section will cause problems. I couldn't find any good statistics for the 03 WC on the web so we may have to turn to the books for sources. Tony Cozier, a Cricinfo journalist, recently wrote "History of the Cricket World Cup," which will probably have the figures needed. I also agree with avoiding the hosts redudancies pointed out by Tintin. In addition, we should find someone with relative little knowledge of cricket and the World Cup to copyedit or comment on the article. I have a feeling some parts of the article won't be understood well by those outside the cricket world. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would like this article to be of the similar formats than the two FAs FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup. I don't think that infoboxes are needed in every article. A nice picture of the cup would do great as a lead image. CG 13:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, the infobox doesn't add anything in this case. All of the information in the infobox is redundant. The format of the article is loosely based on the other FAs in terms of headings and structure. Apart from the infobox, the structure is almost identical. Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The sub section about 1987 - present in the History section is fine for now but needs to be modified later with about one or two sentences that summarizes each world cup rather than a whole paragraph for each when there's more world cups held (with expceptions where there needs to be more because its something that becomes big part of history for the world cup) or that section would be come too big. But prior to the world cup and the prudential world cups sections are fine as there are big part of the world cup and is basically the main history of it.

• Also, I think the infobox summarizes the whole article for people who doesn't have time to read through the whole article. And in that list(replying to comment from above) it says "243 entities considered to be countries" and so I don't think it's an exaggeration as it's not taking about sovereign states. I agree with Gaza in that someone with little knowledge about cricket and the World Cup should comment on this article so we can edit out the things that would be confusing to the people not really into cricket.--Thugchildz

I don't believe the infobox needs removing because it is more informative then a picture of the world cup alone. It is not more or less useful than a biography article having an infobox about the person's death, birth and occupation etc. As all these things are presented in the article itself. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

i guess it passed as far as the article being too confusing to the casual people(not into cricket much). and i quote "

Finally read the article. It looks like a pretty good summary. I'm not sure what they mean by "platonic dimensions", or whatever it was. That could use a one-line explanation. It was interesting to note the subtle variations in the short form of the game since 1975. If that version had existed in the 1800s, maybe cricket would be more popular in the U.S. It once was popular, but if they were playing 5-day matches, that would have limited its audience, as most folks had to work for a living, but they could see the occasional baseball game, and you know who won that duel. d:) Wahkeenah 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"

so i guess it's ok on that--Thugchildz

Kolárovo

Kamocsai 18:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC) This article is a fantasctic one ! It is telling everything about of Kolárovo, and i thing that it deserve a nomination for featured article !

Desperately needs sources/references, especially for details like the history. The photos are a nice touch, unfortunately, like all the images, they need to have non-redundant image tags (I suspect that the map is copyrighted, if it isn't, could you give the source and explain why it isn't?). Some details, like the hotel, belong on Wikitravel, not Wikipedia. The wikifying could do with more attention eg link Slovan Bratislava to the football club not the city; also consider linking the nationalities to their articles. It's very comprehensive; perhaps more should be said on how important it is to the Hungarian community in Slovakia - is it a cultural hub or a backwater? The list of streets serves little purpose; perhaps the more important or interesting streets should be listed, with a brief description? Overall its of much lower quality than recent featured articles, the quality of English is pretty good but probably needs a bit of help to make it sparkle, and the lack of references and sources really lets it down. These days its not enough even to have references, you have to put them into the text (look at the current and recent featured articles: not only is there usually a list of sources at the bottom, they rely heavily on the <ref> system. It's a very decent start, and I'm extremely glad to see more articles on settlements in Slovakia, d'akujem! Like much of Eastern Europe we have a serious lack of articles there, and it's good to see someone building up the quality and thoroughness of our article base. TheGrappler 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Kolárovo Team 9:45 18 February 2006 (UTC) I love this article !

Eric A. Havelock

This is the most technical article I've ever written, perhaps too technical. It's been a challenge. There is very little biographical material available, and, as far as I've been able to find, no photographs (of Havelock himself, that is). Havelock's personal effects (including photos and, tantalizingly, an unfinished autobiography) are at the Yale archives, and I know from personal experience that what goes in there doesn't come out. Thus, this is all rather scholarly. However, I'm pleased with it and I'd like to submit it to be featured. I'm concerned that it's not clear enough or, perhaps, interesting enough for a reader not familiar with the relevant fields. I'd greatly appreciate any advice in making it more accessible, or, of course, anything else at all. Thanks! Chick Bowen 04:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice shiny, thorough article. Short-attention-spanned as I am, I think the lead and the omg pix need some work. First sentence seems a bit pedantic - I mean, it's not unusual for a modern academic to have taken posts in several different countries, is it? Then the summary of his work went right over my head, and even the last sentence on impact I had to read twice... For a biography of a C20 figure, it seems odd not having a picture of them - though I appreciate finding something (especially with an appropriate licence) can be far from easy. The article itself looks (to amateur I) like a good overview of his work, but is a bit light on anything outside that. --zippedmartin 09:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. You're quite right about the lead, and I'll work on that later today. I'm not sure what you meant by "omg pix" though--could you explain? I'd love to have a picture of Havelock--I honestly don't know of the existence of any except in the Yale archives. I do think I can drum up some more biographical information, at least about teaching and perhaps the Canadian political work. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 16:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done some work on the lead, but it's still rather awkward. I'll return to it tomorrow. Chick Bowen 02:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooo, that's much better. Giving the time division makes the thesis sentence make a lot more sense. The irc-style picture request was just to demonstrate the relative importance - if you can find a picture of 'im, great, but it's not the end of the world if it's not possible. --zippedmartin 05:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. See, that's the kind of thing that goes over my head. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 17:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

I completely overhauled this article. It is a thorough account of her life, films, and her relationship with Tom Cruise. I inserted footnotes galore and it has illustrations. This was formerly on peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes (old)/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think it looks really good, though I don't care for the use of Image:Dawson-katie.jpg in the Dawson's Creek section. You can only see about 1/5 of subject in the picture. How about this? Image:CreekPromoHolmesJackson.JPG AriGold 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That will work. I'll try to replace it now. PedanticallySpeaking 19:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Glad I could help a little. Again, kudos on all the work you did. AriGold 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your kind words. PedanticallySpeaking 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I always enjoy reading articles that you have worked on and this is no exception. I am extremely impressed by recent edits, especially as the article was very good to begin with. Well done! I think the only problem here is that it is a little too detailed in places, for example "Holmes told The Toledo Blade her favorite film was Pretty in Pink with Molly Ringwald and the three people she most wanted to meet were Pope John Paul II, Senator John H. Glenn, and actress Meryl Streep. She confessed her "secret vices" were Starbucks coffee and jelly beans and the three words best describing herself as "honest, determined, and imaginative."" - I don't think that we need to know things like this (well, maybe the quote from Holmes in this instance could stay). Also, the images need identification of their respective copyright holders and fair use rationale on their description pages. I'd like to reiterate that I think this article is excellent and extremely close to featured article quality, and it's always nice to see comprehensive and well-developed pages on popular culture-related topics. Extraordinary Machine 19:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What about moving that bit, which I found interesting as background, to a trivia section at the end? PedanticallySpeaking 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I myself am opposed to trivia sections, but I wouldn't mind all that much if material such as the sentence I quoted above was moved down into a trivia section. It's just that it seemed to "jump out" and upset the flow of the article when I was reading it. However, I do think that the quote from Holmes could still be worked into the main body of the article. Extraordinary Machine 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Trivia sections always wind up being junk collectors. What about moving the above to Wikiquote? Jkelly 19:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't like the WikiQuote idea because only a tiny bit of that is actually a quote from her. And nothing in there is anything I'd think of as "quotable". I'll look at the sentence again, see if I can't smooth the flow of the narrative. PedanticallySpeaking 21:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• It looks good to go, plenty of footnotes and illustrations and has come a long way from my little bit of work. I too think the image change from Image:Dawson-katie.jpg which is somewhat grainy to Image:CreekPromoHolmesJackson.JPG is a good idea. In the Hometown reaction section the quote from her Toledo friend has an improperly spelled word. I know it's a quote but it grabs the eye.--Dakota ~ ε ° 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your praise. I've read this thing so many times, I'm amazed how typos go unnoticed. I'm too familiar, I guess, which is why I put it up here. I've corrected the misspelling. PedanticallySpeaking 15:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I am commenting here in response to a spam request on my talk page. I have no interest in this article other than the "Personal life" section. That said, I think the section is missing a couple of things. I have read that Katie's parents disapprove of the relationship with Tom Cruise, yet the article describes her family's reaction to their engagment as 100% positive. Also, I read that she lived with, not just was engaged to, Chris Klein; yet she claimed to be a virgin when she got engaged to Tom Cruise, and she said that she would not have sex until she got married. She apparently later changed her mind.
  I freely acknowledge the possibility that I am misremembering what I read, or that what I read was incorrect. If you want me to find sources for these claims, I will have time a little later tonight. TacoDeposit 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, believe me, I've read through enormous amounts of material for this article. I know there are rumors floating around on-line and in the tabloids, but I tried to stick to citing print sources that have a reputation. I've heard the talk of "auditioning" actresses and the speculation that there's a "contract" but I've not seen that with any credible sourcing. So I'm holding back for now on several of these points. PedanticallySpeaking 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Good overall. Need to eliminate the last few orphan paragraphs as per User:Taxman/Featured article advice. The second lead paragraph could stand to be a bit longer too. I also had heard her parents weren't happy, and I don't know how widespread it was, but there was certainly talk of a leaked contract Katie had signed to stay with Tom for 5 yrs and have a child. $5m or something. Now that could be just urban legend stuff, and shouldn't be mentioned if it is of course, but it's worth checking in to. - Taxman ^Talk 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do you mean I should eliminate the section heads in the "Personal Life" section such as "Hometown reaction"? As for some of the rumors, see my comment to Taco Deposit above. I've seen in the tabloids some of these things, but these articles often are "a source", "a friend", etc., and no names worries me. So I've tried to avoid citing from anything but the more reputable publications. Yes, yes, I rely on People several times, but that's the gold standard next to some of these ;) I'll look at that lead as well. PedanticallySpeaking 15:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, if you've searched, and can't find anything valuable in print then you've done the right thing. I just thought that one might have risen to the level of a widespread unsubstantiated rumor enough to be mentioned as such. But again, without evidence supporting that, adding it is not good. And no, I don't mean remove those headings, I mean paragraphs that are 1,2 or even 3 sentences are too short and should either be expanded or merged smoothly with related material. Now that I count them, here's all three, the paragraphs beginning with "In 2005, Holmes played ...", "Holmes purchased a townhouse ...", and "Cruise proposed ...". - Taxman ^Talk 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. You're right about that trio. I merged them together. PedanticallySpeaking 16:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've expanded that graf in the lead. Better? PedanticallySpeaking 15:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, much. - Taxman ^Talk 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Years are overlinked (they should generally only be linked when part of a full date; see date formatting). Also, I'd remove Dawson's Creek from the See also section, as only things not mentioned in the article should be listed there, and Dawson's has its own subsection. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the "see also" link you cite. That was there from when this article was much shorter. I'm probably too eager with the brackets, I know and I wonder if someone more familiar with our date policy than I would be willing to go over this article? PedanticallySpeaking 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks very much, Fritz. PedanticallySpeaking 15:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Looks excellent. I have one minor quibble. THe second sentence - "Only her second role, Dawson's Creek made Holmes a star, praised by critics and adored by fans." - looks a bit odd to me. How about something like "In only her second role, Dawson's Creek, Holmes became a star, praised by critics and adored by fans."? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a bit awkward. I've rephrased it. Better? PedanticallySpeaking 16:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine now and I added a link to saop opera just in case someone wonders what it is. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• It looks good. Excellent work! Figaro 13:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much. PedanticallySpeaking 16:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Hi PS, Great article, very well written, referenced etc. Great quotes, and appropriate level of detail. The only minor change I would make to the text is simply changing the header "Tom Cruise" to "Relationship with Tom Cruise" as it's the relationship being discussed rather than Cruise himself. Otherwise I would completely support the text as FA worthy. There is still some work to be done with the images however. Image:HolmesBat.jpg needs a source and fair use rationale, however if this can't be provided I could make a screenshot from Batman Begins - let me know if you would like me to do this. I don't have anything for Dawson's Creek and the same problem applies to Image:CreekPromoHolmesJackson.JPG. The image Image:PiecesOfApril.jpg is fine but needs a fair use rationale. Source and fair use needed for Image:Katiegap.jpg plus I think the tag is wrong. It's not a promo photo - no way could it be. It is more likely a magazine cover, so needs to be retagged. As it's an advertisement for "Gap" I think the fair use rationale must be very strong to justify why we would be promoting a product within a Wikipedia article. (I'd prefer to just see the image deleted but that's my own opinion). Tom Cruise (what an idiot!) jumping on the couch - Image:Cruiseonoprah.jpg - needs a source, even just saying it was taken from a television broadcast would be fine, but it still needs a fair use rationale. User:AriGold was the uploader for some of these images, so I will drop a message onto Ari's talk page and see if Ari can recall where the images came from etc. The article has developed into something very strong, since it's last nomination. Kudos to you! Rossrs 01:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's (Tom Cruise & Oprah here if you have screen capture) [3]--Dakota ~ ε ° 01:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • thanks. have added the link to the image page as a source. Rossrs 10:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem glad to help.--Dakota ~ ε ° 16:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• PS, I've reread the article and there are just a couple of other things I think need to be looked at. The comment in discussing The Gift - "and winds up dead for her trouble" reminds me a of a film-noir voiceover. I think it should be made a little more encyclopedic. Also, in the "Guest appearances" and "Personal life" sections, the name "Holmes" appears 12 times in three short paragraphs. Many of these could be substituted with "she". Also some of these sentences are quite short and some could perhaps be joined together. The article flows really well until that point, then it kind of gets awkward for just that section, and then it flows along well again. Sorry I didn't spot these things earlier - I guess I have to read something a few times to see everything that's there. Rossrs 13:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your help, Rossrs. You're right. Many of these passages were written at different times and stiching them together later was not seamless. I've replaced a number of "Holmes" with "she", "her", "the actress". The sentence about The Gift did sound off. I've changed it. I don't know much about these images. I did not upload any of them. I will say about the Gap ad, I'd say that's most definitely fair use; it's a print ad and I should think the Gap people wouldn't object to some additional circulation of it. I'll take a look at the images, though, and see what I can do. I've also gone through and tried to polish things, correcting punctuation, rephrasing things, and correcting some problems in the notes. PedanticallySpeaking 15:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Huge, well-sourced. Very good. The intro contains two sentences that are awkwardly constructed, the first of which is, "The part on the teen soap, only her second professional role, made Holmes a star, the actress receiving tremendous praise from critics and adoration from fans." That same problem with the last subordinate clause is in the following sentence. Also, spell-check it. "Magnificent" is misspelled at least twice, unless the original quotation has it wrong, in which case add "sic". Kaisershatner 19:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your praise. As to the lead, I don't understand the objection to the sentences' structures. Thanks for correcting the spelling error. PedanticallySpeaking 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC).
• Too fruity, too many (similar) references. Do you really need a references AND that gargantuan bibliography, which repeats the same links? Too many quotes ("Holmes said ..."). Too much bloat. It kinda sorta reads like a gushing magazine article, rather than an encyclopaedia article. A lot of the speech marks and apostrophes are messed up (are you putting this together in Word, by any chance?). It needs trimming, writing from a neutral point of view. There's way too much info on 'Joey' that should be in the Joey Potter article. Drop the filmography to a sub article. Proto||type 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried to cite all my sources. The reason for the list after the notes is because on second reference, I've abbreviated sources, e.g. "Dunn". So rather than have to wade through all the notes to find the first reference to that article, one can simply look at the alphabetically list. I was taught in school that if one used footnotes, one still needed an alphabetical list of sources. Could you supply specific instances of the "fruity" and "gushing" prose you object to? Where is it not "neutral" other than cited quotes? As for "Joey", I have one paragraph about the character. Hardly excessive and particularly relevant because I quote Holmes talking about how much she was like the character. PedanticallySpeaking 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "The tall (5'9") brunette enchanted the press, writers of both sexes commenting how Holmes was the sort of girl one wants to bring home to meet the parents and to marry." That entire paragraph is glowing press quotes, not an encyclopaedic section, and could go. I count four paragraphs about Joey and how Katie Holmes plays her (first two and last two of the Dawson's Creek section), which is three too many. The 'Hometown Reaction' section is entirely fluff, contributing nothing whatsoever. There are far, far too many press quotes throughout the whole article, and every single one of them is glowing praise. I don't see any 'cited sources' criticising her purportedly lumpen, wooden performance in Batman Begins, (and they really would not be hard to find - I recall AICN described her as the only bad thing in the movie), or on any of her other work - a little balance in the quotes would be nice. Lose half the quotes, which would enable the gigantic and repetitive refs section to be culled, and try and find some that aren't one-eyed praise. Proto||type 15:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

      To clarify - yes, there is a small section, with one referenced quote about her poor performance in The Gift, one about her poor performance in First Daughter, and one about Batman Begins. I count at least 10 fawning over her performance in the Creek. Proto||type 15:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

      Well, I tried to edit it to assuage my concerns, but the whole thing got mass-reverted by PS with no explanation. That's not really going to endear me to supporting this article in an FA. Proto||type 11:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I restored this material because it illustrates how taken the producers were with the actress, who had only a single professional credit to her name, and about Holmes's personal connection to the material. PedanticallySpeaking 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• it is a little short, but then again there may not be much more info to add depending on who she is. the references section looks awesome. nice intro photo. overall, it looks great to me. --Lan56 06:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. PedanticallySpeaking 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Books of Magick: Life During Wartime

I've been working on this for awhile and I believe I've covered everything that needs to be covered. I just wanted to see if its good enough to go through this process. (Stephen Day 03:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

The lead should give more information: What genre is the series in, how many issues the series had, maybe add a very general summary of the plot without giving anything away. The section Life During Wartime should have a different heading, as from that one, I'd have no idea what that section covers. Both Characters and Plot synopsis should probably be level-one sections anyway. The Publication history should be moved further to the top of the article (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars#Comic_book_series) and be expanded (was the series supposed to be 15 issues from the beginning or was it canceled, if so, for what reason). You can probably just merge it with the Origins section. The section How was this series received? should be retitled Reception or Critical reception, and expanded as well, giving more details (what did the favorable reviews say, how much copies were sold, etc).

"The artwork is done by Dean Ormston with one or two issues being exceptions." - That probably can be more specefic, can't it?

Also, I think there was some talk at the time the series debut that the change of Tim Hunter was made so he doesn't resemble Harry Potter that much anymore. Maybe you could add something about that, too? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Scotch College, Perth

• Scotch College, Perth recently was a FA candidate and failed. I would like to see this article be FAed, so I have come here to fix the final problems. This article has been Peer reviewed before ((earlier review)). I have addressed these issues. Here is the FA page - FA candidate.
• Any Suggestions on anything would be most helpful. Thanks --Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  I would recommend the following:

  1. Throughout the "history" section, you mention loads of statistics (mostly money), these all need sourcing. done --Hamedog^Talk|@ 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. "The project consists of researching the topic, producing the article and doing a maximum 5000 word write up on the project. The project is marked from 1 - 7 with 2 being a pass mark." - is this really necessary?--Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

     I think it is, as there is very little information on it here --Hamedog^Talk|@ 04:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

     It seems not really of interest to the readers of the page. I would strongly recommend it's removal. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

     Removed --Hamedog^Talk|@ 12:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  3. The "middle school structure" section could do with many more wikilinks.

     I have put some more in, is that enough?--Hamedog^Talk|@ 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

     Yes. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  4. One paragraph sections are bad: merge or expand them ("Novell computer system" and "Moray")DONE
  5. Just list the sports like: "The students can play basketball, football, rugby..." rather than in a formatted list.DONE
  6. Ditto the music section.DONE--Hamedog^Talk|@ 06:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  Having said this, overall, it's a pretty good article. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Any other suggestions? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 06:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also say that the subheading "ties" is unnecessary. My general rule is that if there is only one subsection in a section, it should be merged. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Done

Any other suggestions? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 11:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Any other suggestions at all, any one?--Hamedog^Talk|@ 13:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Current computer and video games events

Any comments regarding how the page could be improved would be most welcome. Jacoplane 03:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikinews. Oops, sorry, thought this was an AfD for a second. But yes, shouldn't this be on Wikinews, not Wikipedia? Proto||type 15:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well no, since we're archiving the page every month like in January 2006 in Computer and video games, this creates a historical record that's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikinews is focused on writing in-depth stories about events, whereas this page is just covering the basic facts. jacoplane 14:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't AfD....LordViD 17:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hazelwood Park, South Australia

The latest suburb article to be worked up to such a standard. Any critique at all would be greatly appreciated, reference (featured) suburb articles include Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory and Waterfall Gully, South Australia. Thankyou! michael ^talk 04:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• The onlly thing bothering me is Image:Hazelwoodpark foreign.GIF becuase it seems to be the exact colours that MS Word and MS Excel use; therefore, is it not a screenshot? Anyway, everything else seems quite good to me. ^KILO-_LIMA 21:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats the problem with that? ...maelgwntalk 08:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it is, then it certainly can't be put into the GFDL, can it? ^KILO-_LIMA 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Going by the same principle, anything I use in Microsoft Word and print out I can't use for my business because its copyrighted (clipart, autoshapes, colours?!). I'm pretty sure Microsoft would release this type of 'copyright' (if they haven't there's got to be a hell of a lot of violations). It's not even worth worrying about. michael ^talk 21:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Burbank, Los Angeles County, California

I am requesting a peer review of this article so that it can eventually be considered for a featured article. --Hetar 00:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Several things. Depending on screen resolution, the "The City of Burbank" heading may be uncomfortably squeezed between the Dependencia picture and the fact table on the right. I recommend moving the picture down or using the picture clearing tag, <br style="clear:both"; />.

Also, in "Burbank Today", the second word should not be capitalised, otherwise it may be assumed to refer to a newspaper or other news-related media. "Looking east over Burbank" image should be placed on right-hand side, otherwise it breaks up text flow in an uncomfortable way. You should also consider the use of inline or footnote citations.

The layout further suffers from having too many short paragraphs, especially in the middle section from 1940s to Disney. Please consider joining some of them together into longer ones. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 18:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the bulleted list under "Economy" would look better converted to prose. That would also avoid the visual break created by the combination of the list and the picture. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 14:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear fission

I overhauled Nuclear fission a while ago; It now appears to be rather stable and informative. I'd like to polish it up to FA status. Any suggestions? zowie 04:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A little bit more about other fissions in physiks would be good. Protons alpha-particles are possible particles for fission. U an Pu are not the only possible atomes to be target. Stone 18:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot -- that's a good point. I'll add something by tomorrow night! zowie 19:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Hmm... quite a few things jump out at me - I think this still needs some work.

• The layout doesn't strike me as the best - why all those other subsections under 'physical overview'? I think that all of the current subsections should become sections.

• Also, '1.1 Spontaneous and induced fission; chain reactions ' is rather tedious for a subsection (or section) heading - is there any way this heading could be shortened without any meaning being lost?

• In the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of 'physical overview', I (as a layman) start to get confused as to what exactly is meant. Clarifying language would be helpful. Come to think of it,it couldn't hurt elsewhere in the article - state even things that may seem obvious to you, since not everyone has the same background on the topic as you do.

• The captions of the pictures seem very important, and thus should be more flushed out much more in the actual article; things like that should not include new material, and you shouldn't hesitate to put in new sections to add more info.

• As it stands, the rationale behind the caption of the graph (the part leading up to the "giving rise to the nuclear waste problem" statement) seems very unclear - I don't understand it.

• I get the feeling that this article is still lacking important facets - could a section on nuclear waste be included? It is mentioned several times, but is not given a section of its own. Are there any other subjects not discussed that are pertinent?

• Under fission reactors, could anything more be added to the three types of reactors? I think that these bullet points should become subsections if there is enough to be said (and I'd be suprised if this was not the case).

• Also, I remember reading about a way to fashion a nuclear power reactor with very little nuclear waste, and nearly 100% efficiency - I don't remember if this was from Scientific American, or Discover, or Pop Sci, but I could find it again. I think it should be mentioned if there is anything to this, since it claims to have the potential to reduce the nuclear waste that is mentioned in the article.

The history section needs help:

• "The results of the bombardment of uranium by neutrons had proved interesting and puzzling." (italics mine) - this two sentence paragraph seems possibly misleading, and also needs expansion. What was the significance of Enrico Fermi's studies?

• "...to discuss some abstract problems with Albert Einstein." Abstract problems with what? Heck, what was even meant by "abstract"? Clarify.

• "(Four years later Bohr was to escape to Sweden from Nazi-occupied Denmark in a small boat, along with thousands of other Danish Jews, in large scale operation.)" Not relevant to nuclear fission - should be discussed in article on Bohr, but not here. Also, I'm not sure that the fact that Otto Robert Frisch and Lise Meitner were both refugees from Germany is important, either.

Come to think of it, that paragraph doesn't seem to contribute to the article at all in its current state...

• What about before 1934, and after 1942? Was everything ever learned about nuclear fission learned in those eight years (except the Oklo thing...)???

Those were some problems I noticed with that section - I think the whole history section needs a rewrite for clarification. I don't think that I can do a good job of this - just whoever writes this should remember to keep a close, scrutinizing eye on what they write.

If you deal with these things, and you still want more help, feel very free to contact me on my talk page, and ask for more help. I would be more than glad to help. --Trevdna 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Yow! That's awesome stuff! Thanks! This might take a little while to get through, but definitely worth it. zowie 05:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Trevdna 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The theory that the internal structure of the core is the cause of fissibility could be included. The cigar formed core the flat ones and the flat ones, where as the cigar formed are U and Pu. Also that some of the neutrons emmitted can be emitted upto some seconds later than the fission. This is the cause why you can built a reactor at all. If this would not be so the going critical would be so fast that no counteraction woulc be fast enough. Stone 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Hmmm... I'm not familiar with the cigar-shape theory of fissibility -- do you have a reference I could use to find it? As for delayed neutrons, do you think it is better to include them in nuclear fission or to leave them (like now) in nuclear reactor physics? The fission page seemed to be getting rather long, so I split out a large amount of material into the reactor-physics page, but that might not have been the perfect split. zowie 15:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will look for something on the core shape. A short mentioning that not everything bursts apart and some neutrons come late would hurt nobody.Stone 21:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

---

• In the first paragraph, "Most nuclear fuels undergo spontaneous fission very slowly, gradually disintegrating over periods of eons." implies that the common method of natural decay is spontaneous fission, instead of an alpha - beta decay chain.

That was a quick one -- addressed. Thanks! zowie 20:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization

it's a great article, containing most information we have about the indus valley civilization. why not make it a featured one? Jasminek 06:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sections of this article have an unfavourably high image/text ratio. You should try and address this by either relocating the images or adding more text to those sections. Also note that other sections have no images as yet. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead is too short and should be expanded. No inline citations (other then a hyperlink here and there, which is a no-n according to MoS anyway. As this looks more of a former state article then a history one, it sections needs some tidying up. History should be in one place (at the moment we have 'predecessors/Emergence of civilization' at the top, and 'Decline, collapse and legacy and the bottom', 'Trade' and 'Agriculture' should be merged into economy section, 'Science', 'Arts and culture' and 'Writing or symbol system' should be merged into a culture section (which needs at least a para about religion), and something on politics, government and military should be added for full comprehensivness. Oh, and a word on administrative division would be nice, too. See our former states FAs like Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the recent Indo-Greek Kingdom for comaprison.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

National emblem of Belarus

I have made some recent additions to the article, but I still would like to see some guidance on helping this article Featured. I have sent it through peer review twice, but the last one was responded only by a automatic script. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• (again) Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 02:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment-- an automated review is not a peer review. Why is this here? Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I did some of the "suggested" edits, and I am sent an email to use a pic I found on Flickr of the border post. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good overall. "The way of carrying out the referendum was heavily criticized by the opposition" could do with citing. "Some claim that this failure to win a majority is a violation of the Law, but the imperfection and incompleteness of the Belarusian Law cannot resolve the issue." That sentence is a bit unclear - do the people who claim it is a violation also claim Belarusian law is imperfect and incomplete, or are the comments on the law supposed to be factual. Either way, it also needs citing. Trebor 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement about the "Belarusian law is imperfect.." and I cited the rest of your points. I listed one of the complaints by the opposition and cited that and your first point. I added a cite to the second point, since it is true that while a majority of the population did not vote for the symbols, the many people who did vote on it did. Thanks again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. I gave the article a full read-through and it seems good - nothing jumps out at me to be improved. It might be time to try for featured article again. Trebor 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Going to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck ;) Trebor 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't Copy That Floppy

Like to make a run at FA with this ... needs Peer Review first... is there anything else this article should contain?  ALKIVAR™ 00:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now, this is what really jumpsout at me:

• I really don't think spoiler warning are needed ;-)
  • Well I'm not sure its needed either, but MoS says to use one when describing a video's content.
    • It's not a movie or tv series, but rather a advertisment, IMHO. At any rates, a {{endspoilers}} would be nice.

• Needs sections and inine citations
  • There are no direct quotations used, no inline cites are therefore needed. Sections I could understand, but I dont see where it should be broken.
    • see criterion 2(c) of Wikipedia:What is a featured article. FAC will not let you get away with such an argument.
      • Clearly you looked right past the "REFERENCES" section of the article ;)  ALKIVAR™ 09:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• However, the games the video chooses as examples: The Oregon Trail, Tetris and the Where is Carmen Sandiego? series; were among the most successful and largest selling educational games of the late-1980s to mid-1990s. I don,t get the point of this "However".
  • Re-read the paragraph this sentance is a rebuttal to the lead in sentance of the paragraph: "The point of the video is the message that software piracy will cause the computer and video game industry to lose profit, resulting in halted production of further computer games."
    • I still don't get what makes it contradictory. If tey are popular, obviously they would be the most copied, wouldn't they?

• Who designed the campaign? What was the impact, if any?
  • Uhm... who designed the campaign is stated quite clearly in the 2nd sentance of the article :)
    • e.g. which publicist.

Circeus 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • • The SPA, the CREATOR of the product IS A PUBLICIST, and acted so for this production. This is stated in the second sentance ""Don't Copy That Floppy" was an anti-software piracy ad campaign run by the Software Publishers Association (SPA). emphasis mine  ALKIVAR™ 09:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

forgive the interspersed responses, easier to rebut that way.  ALKIVAR™ 01:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could state how long the ad is. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It has a run time of 9 mins 38 seconds... I dont see how that fact really matters to the article though.  ALKIVAR™ 09:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• The article appears to be on the short side. Information on how was the campaign received by it's intended audience would be worthy of inclusion. -- Longhair 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

John Marshall Harlan II

I've been working on this for a while and would like to check if anyone has any suggestions/comments. -- Emsworth 20:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

An excellent article. There were only a few minor editing nits, such as a couple of extra commas where they weren't needed. You might mention that he spent much of his youth living in Canada.[4] Also he was the eighth Princeton graduate to serve on the Supreme Court.[5] It could also use a line or two about his activities with the New York State Crime Commission, where he "helped investigate waterfront rackets in New York City and illegal gambling activities in several other communities", &c. (In the process possibly explaining why he was selected for the Court of Appeals???) Thanks. :) — RJH 17:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire

Sassanids era was one of the most important periods in the prolonged History of Iran. It had a definitive impact on the its neighbouring cultures and played an important role in late antiquity. I've been working on this article for three months and I believe I've covered everything that needs to be covered to an adequate level. I want to nominate it for feature article candidates and I just wanted to see if its good enough. Amir85 23:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've copyedited the first part of this, through the end of the history section; I'll come back and do more later if I have time. This needs some serious work, though, if its going to be FA. There's good information here, but it isn't being presented well enough yet.
• Three things to work on:
  1. Flow. What is the narrative structure of this article? Is it chronological, or topical? Right now, it jumps back and forth between the two rather unpredictably, and many issues are discussed in two or more distinct sections--often redundantly. Create a plan for the overall strucure of the article and rearrange accordingly.
  2. Referencing. An article this size will need a lot of footnotes (or other inline citations, if you prefer) to be FA caliber. Plan on citing your source for every little known fact and every judgement or opinion, and possibly cite each section to a general source that contains the basic facts of that section.
  3. Writing. Right now, the prose in this article is of spotty quality. Some sections are quite good, others are in bad shape. I'm giving it as good a going over as I can, but the more attention that gets turned on this the merrier. On the same subject, remove any judgements that cannot be cited to a source, and state those that remain as the opinion of that source rather than as fact.

There are smaller issues as well, but these three are the big ones. I'll do what i can for the writing issue, but someone with the knowledge and the sources needs to address the first two. Robth^Talk 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of course the requests for expansion statements will have to be removed before nominating as FAC. Ensure that the Main article: xxx and See also: xxx at the top of summarized sections conforms to Wikipedia:Section#Body sections. Orient the images so not to squeeze the text between them like in "Art and science". Do not have one-sentence paragraphs like "In modern media". Also, concerning that section, I do not think the Sassanid Empire had much to do with the development of the game but if the section is not going to be removed expand to include other forms of media like novels, documentaries, etc. and do not simply acknowledge their existence but rather explain how the Sassanid Empire is portrayed. --maclean25 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Jordanhill railway station

Not that there aren't already enough eyes reviewing this page, but we might as well add a few more. -- user:zanimum

• Generally speaking, I can't see TOO much, although it would be nice to get another image or two. Deckiller 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to see some comparison of its importance relative to other train stations in Scotland as well as in/around Glasgow. For example: "In SRA's 2002/3 financial year, 85,861 people boarded trains at Jordanhill station, and 94,613 alighted." Does that make it the 4th-most-frequented railway station in the country, the 104th-most-frequented, or what? Andrew Levine 02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Alighted? Why haven't they closed the station yet if people burst into flames there? Maybe it's because I'm not native English speaking, but maybe another word would be useful. - 131.211.210.15 08:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, it's a dorky word. I forget what I had originally wrote. What could replace it? "where people got off Scotrail"? -- user:zanimum

It's not dorky, just a little dialectic. How about "disembarked?" Same syllables, more letters. --James S. 19:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- user:zanimum

• I'd say there's a couple of unecessary images in the article. I don't see the need for a mock-up of the rail totem at the station, for example, nor a photo of a very anonymous and typical ticket machine. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Consider the lack of replacements, I believe that's why they were in there. The ticket image could just go to the general Scotrail article, I guess. However, I personally support the sign illustration, it is like a logo for the station. -- user:zanimum
• The gallery should go on Commons. Johnleemk | Talk 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a copy of the gallery in Commons. I think the intent was to let people discovering Wikipedia see more graphic content than normal. -- user:zanimum
• In the "Nearby attractions" section, consider adding prose that describes the station's relationship with the attraction. For example, the school was opened near the station x years after it was built, the station is used by students from communityx going to the campus which is x km from the station, this makes it busy in the morning between 8 and 9 as it is serviced by more trains and so on. --maclean25 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, fair enough, but just make sure that the sentences thus created are grammatical and written in British English. The User above requested additional info, not just changing a list to prose and subtracting info, eg a link! Scottish universities have faculties, not departments, and the universities are never, never, ever called "schools" (although occasionally faculties may be called schools).--Mais oui! 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• This article could use some kind of infobox to help organize some of the information. Tarret 14:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Peace Theory

I am requesting another peer review in order to get some new perspectives on this article. The majority of the editing is currently being done by myself and two others, and has, unfortunately, somewhat turned into a NPOV battle and a revert war at times. Specifically I would like comments with regard to NPOV, length, and scope. --Scaife 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The old peer review can bee seen here /Archive_1 Dec 2005. --Scaife 23:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think you are both doing a pretty good job. I'd suggest adding a few pictures for general viewing pleasure. Transform hyperlinkis into proper inline citations, as well as remove such things as 'See the bibliography linked to under External links, below.' - it should be transformed into a note, again. Lead should be expanded. As for getting some more useful info, have you considered emailing scholars involved in the research asking them for external peer review? Who knows, maybe some will reply? Stranger things have happened.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard a number of variant and nick names for this. Are those being redirected? The formatting needs to be fixed up= the top of the article especially looks horrible. Those various tags are rather offputting as well. Also, generally See Alsos come first, then References, then Notes, and only then are External Links provided. --maru (talk) contribs 05:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment on this, for the record. The external links here are relatively important, and the notes and bibliography are extremely long. There was a compaint, which I thought well-taken, that the external links were invisibie, so they were moved. Septentrionalis 15:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Georg von Boeselager

I could use some advice on several points. Please see the article's discussion page for a list. --Joe 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs more on the family. Also, the info on the actions that earned the awards is sorely lacking. Spelling is occasionally lacking. Who is Kluge? There is also next to nothing on his notability. --maru (talk) contribs 05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've given it good article status. It needs quite a bit more to become an FA. Good organization and presentation, strong writing, not too many red links. Needs more sources and more citations. I get the impression that there's a lot more to be said about this man. How did he feel about Hitler and Nazi policies before they started losing the war? He joined the army after Hitler already came to power. He served in France during the war: was he associated with the Holocaust in any way? Did his correspondence reveal his opinions about Jews? Why wasn't von Boeselager executed after he plotted against Hitler? Other than coming from the nobility, what was his upbringing and family like? I presume they were from southern Germany because he was Catholic? Durova 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane

I've done some work on this article, and I feel it's a pretty nice article, and would like to nominate it for FA soon. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's far to short to be successful at FAC. It would need a substantial amount more research from reliable sources. It also needs more information on the structure and reactivity. The name and CH2FCF3 is enough for people trained in chemistry, but a standard graphical model would be helpful for those with less training. It needs more detailed chemical and physical properties to be listed as at ethane. That's the standard infobax it seems. What makes it a good refrigerant and useful in bronchodilators? In short, more expansion needed. :) - Taxman ^Talk 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a 3D structure for it.-gadfium 23:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Taxman the article is still a long way from becoming FA, though it is on the right path. The article would definitely benefit from an infobox, as do most of the other chemical articles. I added the compound's Lewis structure to the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the table but there is still data needed like R/S, Dipolmoment and the savety numbers. I anybody has them please put them in!Stone 10:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What typ of synthesis is leading to this compound.

• Hg2F2
• HF and AlF3 high temerature
• Pyrolysis of CHClF2 (this would be my canidate!)
• Electrolysis in HF

Stone 21:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I added some sectioning, and some minor layout things. Current assessment in the Chemicals wikiproject is IMHO a fair {{Chem Start}}. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Goldfrapp

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

Automated review

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

• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

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

The Illuminatus! Trilogy

all comments welcome about this v. influential series of novels. what could stop it being accepted at WP:FAC ? Zzzzz 19:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we have more pictures? Book covers would be nice, you can import pics from other hyperlinked articles related to that one as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

pics added - the 3 original 1975 edition covers by carlos victor, and an image of the "eye of providence" from the us dollar bill. any more comments? (looking for FA status now) Zzzzz 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the plot section needs to be majorly expanded- as it stands, the trilogy sounds fairly tame. --maru (talk) contribs 05:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed. is it just the lack of detail that makes it seem tame or something else? in any case this section will be expanded. any other issues? Zzzzz 09:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

plot section has been somewhat expanded now. it also crucially now explains the ending. can you take another look to see if its acceptable, or still needs more? Zzzzz 14:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Mango

I am resending this article for peer review as it has greatly improved since the start of the last peer review and I would like more comments on how this article could be improved. Tarret 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• The "uses" section mentions that mangoes are messy to eat several times. Perhaps once is plenty. Joyous | Talk 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A mango fork will help. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 18:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a picture of how to properly cut and eat a mango? Cut it in half, cut cross sections of about 1/2" cubes into each half, down to the skin, invert the skin, and the cubes pop right up for eating. Sandy 19:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is usually a good source. Consider using part 1, part 2, and to part 5. --maclean25 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• North and South America are both mentioned under North America ? South America -- where the mango is a diet staple in many countries -- seems to be somewhat overlooked in the article, which focuses on Asia. I'm also wondering if there's any place to include a disclaimer paragraph about the current Multi-Level Marketing "scam" for a product called mangosteen, which is *not* related to mangos? (Reference quackwatch.org ?) How can an article about mangos be complete without a reference to the saying "mango bajito," meaning low-hanging fruit, easy for the picking? <smile> Sandy 19:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not unreasonable that it should concentrate on Asia, as that's where mangos come from. South America (and other places they're grown, like Africa and Australia) certainly need to be mentioned, but as secondary developments, rather than primary. Never heard of "mango bajito," before, what is it? (and why the comma?? should it not be just "mango bajito"?) - MPF 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct about the wayward comma. Mango bajito is a Spanish saying for anything easy to pick up, including (but not limited to) the lesser desirable images conjured up by that saying. It translates literally to low-hanging mango (i.e.; easy to pick). Once you've seen a tree full of ripe mangos, feeding entire communities with whatever they can pick off the lower branches, it makes complete sense. Sandy 00:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Benzoic acid

As the simplest aromatic carboxylic acid it is an important chemical and is used often in food preservation and chemical industry. The article is good but needs some little improvment by the comunity and without review this article will sleep a long time in the shadow. Stone 13:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just one thing cnocerning me: it may be hard for someone to understand what Image:S-Sci-ArCOOH.jpg is. I found it totally weird as it was in greyscale. ^KILO-_LIMA 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you'll find this objections eventually on FAC, you should get them out of the way now:

• Too many one-line paragraphs. Merge paragraphs where you think convenient and expand the text.
• Too many lists. Convert them into prose and expand upon them.
• You should probably mention specific industrial processes where benzoic acid is used.
• Also, the history of the compound didn't stop in the 19th century, did it? Look a bit more into modern applications or relevant research on the compound.

I uploaded a higher resolution image of the structure. Good luck! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Changed some of the one-line paragraphs (now longer).
• Converted two of the lists into list with text.
• Put the chemistry to the end (most people are interested in other things)
• The industrial process is under investigation (benzyl chlorid)
• There is not much new history of benzoic acid. Most of the important work is old.Stone 10:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's shaping up pretty well, and right now I can't think of much more you can add. (Although I see the safety section is a bit lacking: consult a MSDS!). I recommend you to have a look at the Acetic acid article to give you an idea of what a featured article on a chemical compound should look like. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis and Preperations could be arranged a lot better. More specification has to be done on the health effects though. Schizmatic 11:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's major importance in thermochemistry should also be mentioned! SocratesFcup 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fiduciary

My first article, applied to have it listed on featured articles, but there were some objections. Posting it here to figure out best way to meet the objections. Two objections suggested that the article may be too complicated for younger readers. I think this is a decent claim.

Therefore, I will appreciate any feedback about parts of this article you found hard to understand or that you think other readers may find hard to understand.

There was also one objection relating to references. Apparently, reference to primary case law is not enough and there must also be reference to secondary authorities, such as legal texts. I do not particularly agree with this view, but I will comply with it during the day, by adding references to some secondary authorities.

Any other helpful suggestions will be appreciated --Charlemagne the Hammer 01:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Charlemagne, per my point at WP:FAC, I think you should move the section that defines the parties in a fiduciary duty type of relationship into the intro ("a fiduciary duty is (some kind of economic thing) between a trustee and a beneficiary, something like that) to establish the definition in more easily accessible terms. I have no legal background and your intro leaves me baffled, frankly, as to just what a duty is - I realize it's the most eminent of whatchmacallit, but what does that mean, exactly, in English? About the bullet points, rather than listing ten types and (what presumably are the court cases that defined or exemplified these relationships), start with "the most common type of fiduciary duty is that established between an X and Y. Other types include Z, A, B, C, etc., in a paragraph form rather than bulleted list. If the court cases listed are all relevent for making distinctions among those types of fiduciary duties, explain why in some kind of historical section: "The relationship between G and H became considered as a fiduciary duty after Lemming v. Volcano, 1920, in which the Court ruled that..." etc. I think prose would work better here than a list. More comments may follow if I get more into it, but I hope that helps for now. Kaisershatner 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, this is pretty useful advice. I don't know about turning the entire list into paragraphs... as that may take up to 1,000 words to explain it all; however, I will certainly add an explanation into each presumed relationship. Also wll take other recommendations on board and get back to you when done --Charlemagne the Hammer 02:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the lead, made it easier to understand, and made it longer. Included some definitions so it should be easier to understand what a fiduciary and a principal is in this context. Still have to update the bullet list part. I plan to turn it into a definition list, with an explanation for each entry. --Charlemagne the Hammer 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good changes. I made some more dramatic ones - moving up the "jurisdictional note" for example - remember, you are writing for a general audience that may never have heard of English common law or equity. A very, very, basic definition is needed; the wikilinks can allow people to get up to speed on precisely what is meant if you put the appropriate terms in (ie, you don't have to explain every detail of what English common law or equity is, just note that the fiduciary duty comes from those things, and let the reader click them if inclined). That's another reason I moved up the jurisdiction section, we should make it clear that what is being discussed is the English view of this idea. A minor change of the "Foot Notes" section to "References," which I think is covered in WP:MOS. Keep up the good work, Kaisershatner 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC). Oh and nota bene that IANAL! so if I didn't get the definition or terms right, fix them! Kaisershatner 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I remembered - avoid "it is said" and similar terms. Who says? Cite it. Kaisershatner 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It already was cited --Charlemagne the Hammer 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

State Military characters of Fullmetal Alchemist

I decided to relist this here for additional feed back before attempting a run at featured lists. This is the second time that this article has come through peer review, the previous archieve is here. TomStar81 03:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nominator’s Note: I am enrolled in summer school, so if it appears that I am slow to respond here it probably means that school work has me tied down. TomStar81 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article needs to better establish in our universe why these characters are important (see WP:FICTION). Right now, I hardly see anything in our universe. From my own experience, you might have difficulty in establishing out-of-universe significance for many of them. The most important ones (presumably Mustang, Hawkeye, Pride, etc) warrant a paragraph or so, but others probably only an entry on a bulleted list. A less radical first step would be making the second sentence of the lead the first sentence. Just a few things that popped out at me: Try to incorporate the trivia into the actual sections; people seem to frown on trivia sections: You need actual citations instead of just explanatory notes. Titles like "Crimson Alchemist" probably should be in parentheses and unbolded (they're meaningless if you haven't seen the show). "Black Hayate" seems a little confused, nor especially relevant for its length. The speculation about "Storch's" name could use a citation, right now it's just your word (on that, a general citation linking FMA names' to real-life ones would be useful). In lieu of citation, cut the speculation.--Monocrat 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, all of the name speculation needs to be nailed down more precisely, like with inline citations. State Alchemists are refered to either by their real name or thier alchemic name, so me thinks that they should remain bolded, although the parenthases idea sounds good. I do not think that the lesser characters shold have a simple bullet list of their achievements, due in large part to the fact that the manga series is still running, so more information on those characters may become available in the future. In fact, it is entirely possible that one of the minor anime characters could become a major manga character. I will look into the rest of your suggestions as time permits. TomStar81 19:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations would be great, but if you can't find a source, they're fair game for deletion per WP:OR, and the FLC would rip uncited speculation apart. About minor characters: just because they could become important doesn't mean they will. For the time being, consigning them to a bullet list makes sense and would cut down on that longish TOC. To further cut down on the TOC, would it be possible to organize personnel by function or broad rank (staff officers, field officers, NCOs, enlisted?) or some such, using only dictionary list format for the individual characters? In any case, the article itself lacks any sort of organization apparant to a non-fan, so something should be done to bring clarity. As a last resort, perhaps alphabetize entries by surname?--Monocrat 00:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about retooling them so they appear in the order of their anime introductions. TomStar81 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be better, but I'm still unsure how useful it would be to an uninformed reader.--Monocrat 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkish literature

I've been working on this article for about a month with a view to getting it up to Featured Article status. I realize that the article is long (47KB or so), but: (a) this is an article about the entire history of a literature, and requires space to even approach adequacy to the topic; (b) the associated articles are still in a rather sorry state, and until they are worked on (which I plan to do at some point in the future), this is about the only informative article on Turkish literature going at Wikipedia at the moment.

With those caveats in mind, any and all advice about what to do with this article will be both considered and appreciated. Saposcat 10:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• heading sections capitalization needs to be fixed (only cap first letter of heading)
• "One significant preliminary point to be made about Turkish literature is that" - unecessary words, get rid of them
• koroglu redlink - make it blue
• should this poem line really be in bold? : Bir gül mü var bu gülşen-i âlemde hârsız
• the heading "Early Modern..." sounds confusing, can it be renamed?
• the book cover "memed my hawk" might not be fair use - i dont see it or the author mentioned in the adjacent text?
• garip pic needs caption
• category:articles lacking sources ???

Zzzzz 11:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

All changes suggested by Zzzzz made. "Köroğlu" link has been taken care of (in an admittedly rudimentary fashion, pending sufficient research). "Early modern Turkish literature" may be "confusing", but I believe it is highly appropriate insofar as it is from this literature (i.e., the New Literature, Dawn of the Future, and National Literature movements) that modern (i.e., post-independence) Turkish literature directly arose. As for "Memed, My Hawk", the author (Yaşar Kemal) was already mentioned in adjacent text, but I have now added a direct reference to the book as well. Thanks for reading and suggesting, Zzzzz. Saposcat 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about Turkish literature, but it looks like it has written with great care, the bibliography and notes are long, it is indeed a small essay. --Wikipedius 16:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Stargate (device)

• 1st PR
• 1st FAC
• 2nd FAC
• 2nd PR

As you can see, this article has had many reviews. Since the last one, there has been a lot of work put in, especially on referencing. Is there anything people think still needs to be done? Thanks! --Tango 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Berlin Wall

Was a featured article candidate over a year ago and I think most of the issues have been appropriately addressed. Here's the link. I think it's ready to be a candidate again and wanted it to go through the ringer first. Vicarious 19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the lead (which I think should be two paragraphs) seems to be altogether as one, big paragraph. Perhaps splitting it to two.

1. There must be inline citations.
2. Too little outgoing links—just three?
3. There must be a fair-use rationale on Image:Conrad Schumann.jpg. Also, please state why it is fair use.
4. There must be a fair-use rationale on Image:Stamp-ctc-fall-of-the-berlin-wall.jpg.

That's all I can think of. Good luck! ^KILO-_LIMA 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can you clarify what you mean "Too little outgoing links—just three?"? Do you mean only three inline citations? Vicarious 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• The conrad image was uploaded by a user that has since left wikipedia and my brief probes for the source of the images have been in vain so I simply removed the image. The stamp image is very explicit on what constitutes fair use and it's use in the berlin wall article is not, so I removed it as well.
  I thought the article was a bit skimpy on inline citations as well but no one mentioned this when it was a candidate for featured aticle before so I thought of it as a non-issue. I do think that a lot of the sources are from books rather then online but I'll see what I can do. Vicarious 04:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• What Kilo said. More interlinks are needed - the lead, for example, does not link to important terms like Communist bloc or Soviet Union. I 'The fall of the Wall' is not comprehensive - for example, it does not even mention Polish Solidarity. I'd suggest expanding the article - doubling the size would probably make it comprehensive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I wikified the things you mentioned and much more. I also redid the opening, I didn't find it very well written before.

---

The things that have been said before me are very important, and should be addressed. However, I noticed a few more things:

• The "of the wall" in section titles are all unnessicary - this article is about the wall, and so we already know that.

• "...to most vehicles and a barbed-wire fence was erected, which was later built up into the full-scale Wall." When was it built up to the full-scale wall?

• "Accordingly, the administration made polite protests, at length, via "the usual channels", but without fervour, even though it was a violation of the postwar Four Powers Agreements, which gave the United Kingdom, France and the United States a say over the administration of the whole of Berlin." - Run-on sentence. What is meant by '"the usual channels"'? What were the "postwar Four Powers Agreements"? Should a new article be made on this?

• "And if West Berlin fell, after all the efforts of the Berlin Airlift, how could any of America's allies rely on her?" Two things: One, the rhetorical question has no place in an encyclopedia article. Second, most people will not be familiar with the Berlin Airlift, so it should be explained in the article.

• "... with ambassadorial rank (as Kennedy's special advisor)." Hmm... I'm not understanding what is meant by this.

• "The battle groups were pentatomic, with 1362 officers and men each." What is pentatomic? Dictionary.com talks about replacable atoms...

• Paragraphs 3-8 in Construction of the wall section don't seem to be related to the construction of the wall. More like "Early response to construction" or something.

The Layout section looks great.

• "Sometimes political prisoners were dramatically released — for a price — at one of the checkpoints. " This doesn't make sense to me - was the proceeding example the only example? If so, this sentence should be restructured. If not, other examples should be included, or at least be specific that there were other examples. Also, "dramatically" seems POV, and "for a price" is vague and unencyclopedic.

• I think that The Wall years section should be renamed - perhaps "effects"? Hmm... maybe, maybe not.

• A full restructure of the article might work well:

Construction

Layout of the wall

Immediate effects (JFK's visit, military guards, cutting up the public transit system, etc.)

Lasting effects (most of the current The Wall years section)

• Was there anything else worth noting during the time the wall was up? Economic effects? Public resentment or reaction?

• The fall of the Wall section reads a little like a narrative. Also, was there anything else worth noting?

• Celebrations might want to be a subsection under The fall of the Wall section.

• "Many German public figures have called these numbers "alarming"." Who? Why?

Hope this helps. If you do all this, and want more help, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I can tell you if I see anything else.--Trevdna 04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I made some major changes to the structure, expanded the WP:LEAD, added more background information, resized the pictures, added the Fechter picture as the most notorious example of the symbolism of the Wall, and did some copyediting. I hope you find it helpful! Kaisershatner 20:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also, it's not that close to WP:FAC/featured article status. EVERYTHING needs to be WP:CITE cited! Kaisershatner 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's that far away. It certainly needs citations but I think the article itself is rapidly approaching FA quality. Vicarious 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

---

First off, I learned a lot I didn't know about the Berlin Wall reading this article, pretty interesting stuff. I went through and performed a copyedit and checked and fixed redirects. I hope I don't repeat any comments, but here goes:

• Citations. MANY more. This right now if the biggest FA obstacle, and it's a big one.
• I've moved inline external links to the references section, but only formatted two. The others need to be formatted (see {{cite web}}) or, better yet, replaced with citations from books, which should be readily available.
• Image:Peterfechter2.jpg needs a different licensing tag and fair use rationale.
• the wall was a long separation barrier between West Berlin and East Germany - East Germany or East Berlin?
• There's a mention about West Berliners buying subsidized goods from East Berlin, and how it's a drain on the economy. Later it's mentioned how East Germans "welcomed" money from legally visiting foreigners (one would assume from purchases). This appears to be a contradiction.
• frequently because of lucrative opportunities in the Marshall Plan rebuilding West is written a little confusingly.
• There seem to be quite a few one-paragraph sections.
• Construction of 45 km (28 miles) around the three western sectors began on Sunday 13 August 1961 in East Berlin. - 45 km of what?
• John F. Kennedy had accepted in a speech on 25 July 1961 [1] that it could only really hope to defend West Berliners and West Germans; - this sentence is calling JFK "it".
• It was clear both that West German morale needed more and that there was a serious potential threat to the viability of West Berlin. - needed more what?
• As such, it was vitally important for the Americans to show the Soviets that they could push their luck no further. - I know what "they" refers to, but this sentence doesn't sit well with me, I think it should be recast.
• with 1362 officers and men each - are officers not men?
• Lyndon Johnson left a visibly reassured West Berlin - how was the reassurance visible? This needs some support or a citation.
• in the hands of Gen. Frederick O. Hartel and his brigade, now of 4224 officers and men. - officers/men notwithstanding, this phrase is awkward.
• most importantly, it offered a clear field of fire to the watching guards. - important to whom?
• 1. Basic wire fence (1961) 2. Improved wire fence (1962-1965) 3. Concrete wall (1965-1975) 4. Grenzmauer 75 (Border Wall 75) (1975-1989) - This should be fleshed out into prose, with a little more description of what each stage was like. Were they expansions of the previous versions, or were prior sections torn down and replaced?
• over 116 That's an awfully exact number for an "over xx" type of statement.
• East Germans were occasionally given permission to cross, particularly when they were too old to work. - this is pretty interesting, what other circumstances allowed an East German to cross? How old is "too old"?
• One location where Westerners could cross the border was Friedrichstraße station... - this paragraph feels like a bunch of sentences thrown together, there's no cohesion.
• Varying reports claim either 192 or 239 people were killed - are these the only two numbers claimed, or would a "between xx and xx" or "around xx" be more appropriate?
• DDR-WOH is still flying today, but under a different registration. - earlier DDR-WOH is called a registration. So, this registration is flying, but under a different registration. Huh??? The bigger question might be, is it significant that this plane is still flying today? Why?
• The most notorious failed attempt was that of Peter Fechter - why was it the most notorious? If the coverage in the media of his death had a significant impact, it should be mentioned.
• On 23 August 1989, Hungary removed its border restrictions with Austria - removed or relaxed?
• The leader of East Germany, ... Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, ... - is there a more specific term other than "leader" that can be used?
• The fall of the Wall considerably changed traffic patterns in the city and the M-Bahn. How? This needs more if it's to stay.
• An experimental magnetic levitation train system around 1.6 km (1 mile) in length was demolished just months after its official opening in July 1991 as it used part of the track bed of an underground line previously severed by the wall. - it's not exactly clear how the actual falling of the wall impacted this.

Pagrashtak 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Are You Being Served? (film)

• First polished draft, ready for review. Con-crits very welcome. Little Nicky 09:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This subpage was created a few weeks ago but was never listed on WP:PR. Listing now. - Bobet 11:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum

The story of a single fragment of the New Testament, one little disputed phrase among many. This particular sordid tale begins with the first person in Christian history to be executed for heresy, then continues with Jerome, Erasmus, Isaac Newton and John Locke, touching upon publishers' greed and a pope who just might've been murdered by Fascists. It's hard to tell for sure, but I think the sources I cited come from Catholics, Protestants and secular humanists alike, so the POV is probably pretty neutral. Still, this is the kind of topic which treads upon sensitive toes (if anything in the article looks bizarrely inconsistent and contradictory, see the Talk page for potentially relevant remarks).

I know the article needs more on the King-James-Only Movement, at least a paragraph or so. Is there anything else?

Best wishes, Anville 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There a few places that need citations, I mention a couple below. I did some copyediting - here's such parts that could be a little better:

• If Cyprian had been aware of the Comma, he would likely have quoted it directly - Without a citation this is original research.
• The first work to use the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be - Does it appear to you, or is a reputable source claiming it?
• ''(A Spanish theologian... - This parenthetical sentence currently feels like it's been forcibly shoved into the paragraph.
• The central figure in the sixteenth-century history... - This sentence setting up Erasmus is the only sentence of the paragraph. The next paragraph doesn't mention Erasmus at all, leaving the reader to wonder where he went.
• ("prœcipitatum fuit verius quam editum") - Does having this quote help the reader beyond the English translation provided?
• All modern major Christian denominations are Trinitarian, with their beliefs refelected in three ancient creeds - Needs a citation.
• The end feels a little weak.

I'll say this though, it's refreshing to see an article with only public domain images. Pagrashtak 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your edits. Some of your points, including the weakness of the ending, were things I had already hoped to address (had I world enough and time...). I think a couple others are due to poor footnote placement, and I will get to work fixing such issues. Again, many thanks. Anville 11:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mini

This article looks good and is stable, it's the correct length and the team of people who work on it regularly seem pretty happy with it. I think it's ready for Featured Article - but we need more eyes on the page. Thanks in advance! SteveBaker 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• A couple of small things, could the lead be expanded to create a brief overview of the article per WP:LEAD? Also, the external links under the footnotes section should be cited correctly according to WP:CITE. AndyZ 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable. I've expanded the two paragraphs in the overview - I'm off to learn about WP:CITE. SteveBaker 02:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• The layout is top-notch! I'd support now, but to be constructive - the intro is a bit ropey, I'll edit now, revert if you don't like! --PopUpPirate 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a great change. Sometimes you get so close to the words what with fact checking and aiming for consistancy of 'tone' and all that - so you can't see elegant simplifications like that. This is what Peer review is best at! Mini-thanks. :-) SteveBaker 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Test

I have submitted this article for Peer Review because practically all of the work has been done on this article by myself, and I wish to incorporate other perspectives on the organisation without inviting the vandalism that has led to the page being semi-protected. Thanks for the time of anyone who wishes to contribute. --ProTestOxford 20:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is there really a need for that many subsections? As some of the subsections have just two sentences, given the current length of the article it'd probably make more sense to have just one subsection, combining the information currently included in four short ones. Also, there seem to be way too many references. I don't think there need to be six (!) sources for a simple statement such as "These included an arson attack on Hertford College boathouse" Also, all the sources should be linked with footnotes and properly listed in a References section. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• The external links should to be removed from the body as explained in Wikipedia:External links. If they were used as a source to write the article then place them in a "References" section (Wikipedia:Cite your sources#Complete citations in a "References" section) like this Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. --maclean25 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I believe that your suggestions have been incorporated. Is there anything else that would improve the quality of the article? --ProTestOxford 11:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, convert the inline citations from external links like this [6] to m:Cite/Cite.php. An example of this style can be found at Hugo Chavez. --maclean25 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Some images of the recent protest, or of the group's banners or literature, would be good. I agree with the <ref> suggestion - see Deus Caritas Est for a shorter example, and also how Saffron combines a section with notes separate from a section with references.

A short tutorial -

1. Add the text of the references where they are needed in the article (so, for example, you should add a text desciption of your inline external links).
2. Add "<ref>" before and "</ref>" after the text of each reference.
3. Add "<references/>" towards the end.

Hopefully, all of the <ref>s should be replaced by little superscipt numbers, and the text of the reference should appear automatically at the end. If you need a reference more than one, give it a name, and cut and paste the same "<ref>...</ref>" more than once.

Good luck. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Parallel universe (fiction)

Did a major overhaul of this, and I'm hoping to get some feedback--Saswann 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got a lot of good material here. Main issues I'd raise is with the current organisation, and emphasis. I think there needs to be a general sorting out of what goes where, at the moment the way the various pages are arranged is not exactly intuitive.

• Parallel dimension / Parallel dimensions, (double) redirect to Parallel universe
• Parallel universe silly redirect to + (fiction) in the title.
• Parallel Universe, drum and base album
• Parallel universes -> Multiverse
• Parallel world / Parallel worlds, (double) redirect to Parallel universe
• Alternate dimension -> Multiverse
• Alternate dimensions
• Alternate reality, DAB, links Alternate Reality and Parallel universe.
• Alternate Reality, game.

• Parallel universe (fiction), (your rewrite) books and stuff.
• Multiverse, currently an article on physics theories, which is being religiously defended in its current state by User:DV8 2XL, despite the fact scifi popularised the idea (and term).
• Many-worlds interpretation, the right place for quantum mechanics.

I went through these redirects and whatnot and funneled them all to Parallel universe which I set up to be a disambig page that directs to the alblum, the game, Parallel universe (fiction) and multiverse--Saswann 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that was probably the right thing to do, will just need to watch in-linking to make sure it's going to the right place.

Onto the actual article, it seems wrong to me to *start* with the MWI, it's an important, but late, influence on this kinda idea. Certainly the Narnia flavour of other-worlds have nothing to do with physics and everything to do with old ideas of fairy realms and such like.

Fact is it became increasingly difficult to convincingly tell a tall tale along the lines of The Lost World as the 19th and 20th centuries progressed, and the idea was totally killed by artificial satellites. The modern traveller's tale can't rely on forgotten corners of the globe for extraordinary settings, it's either space, past, future (reminds me, got a link to post apocalyptic wotsits?), or dimension games.

Finally, I think there needs to be more of an indication of how thouroughly the concept has entered mainstream, globally. You can't watch kids cartoons anywhere without running into other dimensions all over the place. --zippedmartin 07:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I reordered the lead section. I'm thinking how best to restructure the main body. Saswann 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead looks much better to me like that, the extra bit about myth/religion is nice too. I've got a few good books that might be useful lying around, I'll have a look through them later and see they've got anything good to add to the main article. --zippedmartin 05:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Federalist No. 68

I edited and created most of this article, working from the Constitutional Congress to Hamilton's words themselves, and then finally the Anti-Federalist perspective. However, because the modern perspective has its own page (through the U.S. electoral college), I did not comment on that too much in the article. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jlove1982 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, nice work! Here are some suggestions:

• add a second paragraph to the introduction giving an overview of the contents and some context, something like "The convention was arguing about what method to use to select the President, and considered direct election, state-appointed electors, election by the Senate...(etc.). Hamilton forcefully advocated a plan, eventually adopted by the Convention, that essentially became the modern electoral college, winning favor over the competing ideas of John Doe, Frank Doe, etc. A counter-essay, written by X under the name Y, criticized Hamilton's views as "elitist" (or whatever).
• change the first section from "History" to "Background." Add information not just about the Convention, but also why they were having a convention and why they cared about choosing the Chief Executive in any particular way. "Prior to 1788, the young United States was governed under the Articles of Confederation, which proved too unwieldy to allow effective management of the growing nation. Delegates convened in Philadelphia to draft a new Constitution, however, the anti-royal sentiments that in part had underpinned the American Revolution manifested themselves as opposition to an unduly strong Chief Executive...."

Kaisershatner 15:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's a good source:[7] Kaisershatner 15:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

Since I have essentially rewritten this article over the last month I would like some outside review. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Almost the entire article looks black- there are very few links, and I would suggest some more wikification. In addition, it would be better to increase the lead as suggested in WP:LEAD. AndyZ 00:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I did some wikification. I will reflect on the lead-in for a bit. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Expanded the lead-in to two paragraphs. At 27k words it should be 2-3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Archived PRs - PR2 PR1

Military history of France

I decided to expand and improve this article because I’m interested in the subject and I felt it was very under-covered in its initial version. Pictures were added, information referenced, sources increased, categorization improved, grammatical and spelling errors fixed, the number of battles and wars greatly expanded, visual quality got better, and descriptions also became more detailed. I greatly appreciate any and all input. I also just want to clarify a few things (these will become clearer after you’ve read/reviewed the article, so please do that first):

1. The article is somewhat long, but this is out of necessity, not oversight. I can’t change the fact that French military history was long, but I did try to be as economical as I could.

2. On the other hand, someone could claim that the article is short. For example, one could object to the fact that some wars (Revolutionary and Napoleonic) are covered as separate categories while whole periods of centuries received a category. This is because some periods, like the ones mentioned, witnessed profound change in warfare, and the literature also reflects this division. One of the books I used (it was on general world military history), for example, devotes one chapter of about 20 pages on 1,000 years of Medieval warfare while giving one chapter of the same length to 23 years of Revolutionary and Napoleonic warfare.

3. Because the article may be judged as (probably) long, I have included many pictures for variety and “visual entertainment,” but I would more than concur should anyone suggest some need to be taken away. However, the very reason why I put so many up was to provide some balance.

4. Below the descriptions for each era of warfare are the major conflicts (organized into wars and battles) that occurred in that era. However, you’ll notice that not every war or battle featured in the tables at the end is included in the descriptions; this is because those descriptions are meant to give a feel for what happened and why it happened. They are not meant to regurgitate every war or battle that French military history covers (that in itself is impossible, anyway). Furthermore, there is sporadic analysis of society and politics and how they shape war. This just follows from modern military theory that war has many different aspects besides what happens on the battlefield.

5. There are some online footnotes (six), which I more than realize is a weakness. However, they do not in themselves represent important claims, and because of that I thought it would be more convenient if I used online sources. One was a copy of part of the Versailles Treaty (primary source). One is a Britannica article on the “Grand Empire,” which does little more than give a casual description of that term (and I wanted nothing but that, so I thought it would suffice). One is a link to another wiki page on the Demographics of France, and if I must find another source for that then I will. One is a site on French colonization that I used for the size of the French colonial empire; a book might have been more reliable here, but I went back myself and added the number of squared miles of France at the time in question and found the number to be correct. The last is a site that talks about the controversy regarding the date of a battle, and the issue at stake is between several different historical authorities claiming different things (you’ll see in the site).

6. Articles in wikipedia look different depending on the text size or screen size in which you are viewing them. The way in which I expanded this article means that for optimal visual quality you should use the “Larger” text size. To do this (in Internet Explorer), go to “View,” then “Text Size,” and select “Larger.” If you don’t do this, the spatial relation between the words and the pictures will look disjointed. This can sometimes be a big problem in wikipedia, and someone needs to find a way to fix it. Also, a desktop would be ideal because of the large screen size.

I am hoping for some comments and help with the sources, prose (does the article read well), visual quality, and extensiveness of coverage (did I leave something out that should've been in? and so on).UberCryxic 00:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights

Someone else nominated this for WP:FA at the end of February, and it was (justifiably) creamed, since at that time, it met basically none of the criteria. I've worked on it a lot since then, but I'd love some help and/or some suggestions to get it closer to FA status. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Times Golden Globe Race

This is intended to be an interesting and informative article about the first ever round-the-world yacht race, which was also a single-handed race. I'm interested in feedback as to whether people think this article is ready (or close) for FA status. Comments welcome, including any indication about what I could do to make it more FA-worthy. — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent article. For me a compelling read and made me want to read no stop from beginning to end - but I am fascinated by the topic!!. A small addition for consideration relating to Nigel Tetley - He subsequently committed suicide. I found the following (copyright??) from the web:-

"The title, A Voyage for Madmen, does no justice to Peter Nichols's intelligent analysis of his fellow sailors, who were certainly not mad at all. Odd, maybe, but not mad - even the two who were driven eventually to suicide. The bizarre story of Donald Crowhurst's attempted deception, sending false progress reports while never leaving the Atlantic, is an all too plausible tale of human fallibility, with suicide the only escape when he realises that he cannot live with the hoax. Nigel Tetley, who lost his boat within a whisker of completing the course, hanged himself later, depressed by his failure to find sponsors for a renewed attempt. Chay Blyth, by contrast, who had to drop out of the race at Cape Town, went on to become a highly successful entrepreneur of the sea while continuing to drive himself to the limit, as did the ever restless John Ridgway.

Of all the "competitors" who set out in 1968, only two were completely at home on the ocean - the expansively poetic Moitessier and his bluff Anglo-Saxon counterpart, Robin Knox-Johnston, described by a psychiatrist as "distressingly normal". Plodding slowly round the globe in his tubby, Indian-built, teak ketch Suhaili, improvising repairs, navigating with an instinct honed by years of experience in the merchant navy, his voyage is a classic tale of the human spirit triumphing over adversity. He admits that his self-imposed task can resemble "ten months solitary confinement with hard labour" but, with his affinity for the sea, he can also proclaim: "I was sailing round the world simply because I bloody well wanted to - and, I realised, I was thoroughly enjoying myself." Peter Nichols illuminates the specific lure of the ocean. But he knows better than to attempt glib psychological explanations, because if there were a simple answer to why people do these things, they would no longer be worth doing."

The info above re Nigel Tetley suicide is in the public domain and I recommend is included as it is closely linked to the race. The quote re Robin as "distressingly normal" is also in the public domain and is relevant. The contrast between the two characters is wide and maybe could be briefly highlighted in the article. Hope this helps. Please feel free to make a desision either way. Ian aka Boatman 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the "aftermath" bit could do with more work. I'll get on it. Thanks for the comments! — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ABBA

I think this is good candidate for a featured article. Its length is more than enough, it meets most of the criteria, and I think if it's named as a Featured Article people might realize there were other supergroups out there besides the Beatles. -- Supertrouperdc 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object, no references. Length alone does not a featured article make. Fieari 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per Fieari. Also, trivia sections (or in this case, lists) should be turned into prose if they contain pertinent information. RyanGerbil10 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Refer to WP:PR - sorry, but meeting "most" of the criteria is not enough: it needs to meet all of them, and references are a fundamental criterion (see WP:WIAFA). This is going the right way, but not quite there yet: (i) the sectioning is a bit odd - why is "Before ABBA" in "History, but "After ABBA" is not? (ii) There is very little on the distinctive musical style of ABBA, rather than the bare facts of which singles where released when, and what chart positions they reached. (iii) Videos could do with their own section, I think, and the non-music impact (currently only fashion) could do with extending to the wider cultural impact - has ABBA been an influence on later music? Who? How? When? Why? (iv) Trivia is a bit overwhelming, and most of the items should be incorporated into other sections. Good luck. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Fieari. -AKMask 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object, for lack of inline citations and references, and per ALoan. The list would be best off in prose. AndyZ 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Just like the last featured article candidate you brought up, "Waterloo," it's a nice read but it isn't Wikipedia's 150% BEST work. Mike H. That's hot 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object, no ciatation of sources and references at all. No peer review has been done and needs more content. --Terence Ong 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object This thing really needs some refs. Staxringold 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• This was referred to peer review from FAC, because it clearly has a snowball's chance of being promoted. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• This appears to be an inappropriate peer review request. The submitter (User:Johnleemk) has not indicated what the desired goal of the peer review is, but based upon the discussion it would appear that this request would be better served if it was submitted to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup instead. --Allen3 ^talk 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to Wikipedia talk:Peer review and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. This has been accepted practice for quite some time, and just because someone removed it from the FAC procedure page to cut down on verbiage doesn't mean it's prohibited. Pages needing attention, requests for expansion and cleanup are all totally inappropriate for this article, as they are (ahem) either for pages needing expansion or really really screwed up articles. Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is the right place, but until the original nominator or another interested party impliments the suggestions from the FAC, there isn't much more to peer review here. I suggest bringing it back to PR after some substantial research has been done with Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Taxman ^Talk 00:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Despite Johnleemk's comments, moving other people's FAC nominations to peer review verbatim is not accepted practice. Please see the talk page link I posted below. Cedars 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The decision to move FAC nominations to peer review verbatim is a source of controversy, to further discuss the issue or review existing discussion, please see the talk page topic here.

---

added by: -- TechsMechs 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • allege
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 22 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Andy _t 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

add by: -- TechsMechs 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

Chris Benoit exemplifies the best in professional wrestling, and his article exemplifies one of the best written articles here on Wikipedia. about a wrestler. Chad1m 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article lacks references as required by FA criteria 2c. The image Image:Benoit & Woman.jpg is lacking source information. The "Wrestling facts" section also needs to be converted from a list format into text. --Allen3 ^talk 03:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Allen3. Also needs proofreading.--Bcrowell 03:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object, as above. Also, is there any information on him outside of his career? Childhood, inspirations, influences, that sort of thing? Fieari 04:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per Fieari and Allen3. Some sections, like records and trivia should be converted into prose. RyanGerbil10 04:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Refer to WP:PR - this is a nice-looking article, but the lists are excessive ("Westling facts", "Trivia", "Championships and accomplishments", "Championship succession") - please move to a sub-page, or sumamrise as prose here, or both. References are also essential. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object, just doesn't cut it as written. -AKMask 19:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Staxringold 16:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• This was referred to peer review from FAC, because it clearly has a snowball's chance of being promoted. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• This appears to be an inappropriate peer review request. The submitter (User:Johnleemk) has not indicated what the desired goal of the peer review is, but based upon the discussion it would appear that this request would be better served if it was submitted to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup instead. --Allen3 ^talk 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to Wikipedia talk:Peer review and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. This has been accepted practice for quite some time, and just because someone removed it from the FAC procedure page to cut down on verbiage doesn't mean it's prohibited. Pages needing attention, requests for expansion and cleanup are all totally inappropriate for this article, as they are (ahem) either for pages needing expansion or really really screwed up articles. Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Despite Johnleemk's comments, moving other people's FAC nominations to peer review verbatim is not accepted practice. Please see the talk page link I posted below. Cedars 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The decision to move FAC nominations to peer review verbatim is a source of controversy, to further discuss the issue or review existing discussion, please see the talk page topic here.

Dynabee

There are some changes in the article lately which leads to information which is not right. Regarding the patents, dynabee top rotations per minute and other things - it has to be rechecked. - Dmitrek 09:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You might give "pages needing attention" a try. — RJH 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See info nanosecond and so on are not the

successors for the dynabee while dynabee is still on the market and even a lot of other brands as Ironpower and so on!!

So hold the info correct as it is and not for marketing from a brand as nanosecond!

Despite claims to the contrary, many on the market seem to be identical. Just rebranded versions from the same source in Taiwan? No USA! See this ! Here but in German some reality from a German Uni [1] So please don't keep saying and asking wich was first and real and so on, you can all read this or translate it if you care.! The first device for commercial use was the Brand Dynabee. The pictures they changed into that of a Nanosecond powerball wich is not correct?!

Who/what is behind recent surge in interest?

What real improvements have been made to these things (not just the LEDs and other gimics introduced in patents like 5800311)?

Are there any studies on the putative benefits of these things (I doubt it)?

80.0.181.93 23:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi. As it was said in the article, Dynabee was the first powerball on the market. It wasn't that good as the current powerballs but that doesn't matter for now. Let's say for example it could achieve only 6000rpm. After some time passed, the NanoSecond company started producing their NSD Powerballs, usually reffered as the "Powerball". They are the successors for the DynaBee project, since it's the only company, which produce powerball under original patent and with the latest improvements, created by NanoSecond itself. If you like to split the articles for the DynaBee product and Powerball - do so, since after your change the patent information, the rpm record, and many other options are not right. -Dmitrek 09:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dynabee Turbo Pro still on the market is the most powerfull from durable plastic and last ( also proven) for years. Somewhat bigger and more weight so more power ( see the formulas for this) then any other plastic powerball. Also there are Ironpower powerballs with a German steel rotor wich have more weight and therefore more power.

So the thing said above is not true at all. Only that Dynabee models don't have counters yes that is. Nanosecond powerballs are not reffered as "the powerball" because of legal terms and said by a judge also. ( the first on the market was yes that's true the Brand Dynabee and therefore you can say that the dynabee is "the powerball" but they don't because of respect for the description term "powerball" that is free to use for any other brand and gyro device on the market)

Some science behind the thing:

   Journal of Applied Mechanics -- June 2000 -- Volume 67, Issue 2, pp. 321-325
   On the Dynamics of the Dynabee
   D. W. Gulick, Graduate Researcher and O. M. O'Reilly, Assoc. Mem. ASME, Associate Professor 
   Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1740 

Other questions:

Despite claims to the contrary, many on the market seem to be identical. Just rebranded versions from the same source in Taiwan? No USA! See this ! Here but in German some reality from a German Uni [8] So please don't keep saying and asking wich was first and real and so on, you can all read this or translate it if you care.! The first device for commercial use was the Brand Dynabee. The pictures they changed into that of a Nanosecond powerball wich is not correct?!

Who/what is behind recent surge in interest?

What real improvements have been made to these things (not just the LEDs and other gimics introduced in patents like 5800311)?

Are there any studies on the putative benefits of these things (I doubt it)?

Most of it you can read in some articles on websites and lawsuites that has been in the last 2 years.

Dynabee Turbo Pro could reach over 8000 RPM, while NSD Powerball (even the regular models) can exceed 14000 RPM, and the current world record is set on the NSD Powerball. Ironpower is again - just a copy. Why? It doesn't have a metal finish, it copies an NSD Powerball 350Hz, and it still (again!) doesn't have a counter. So, I want you to stop changing the article to older information - there must be a cooperation, not a counter-operation in Wiki. I and the other editors added lots of information to this article, and I want this article to be expanded, not shrinked for some egocentric reasons. If you have read everything I've wrote before, you'll see, that current information about NSD Powerballs is real and up-to-date. Thanks for reading! Dmitrek 23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why telling that others are copy's from nsd and so on when dynabee is the first gyro and ironpower is the first metal gyro? . If you look up the real patents and dates you see that NSD has copied the most important parts from dynabee. ( the principe of gyro effects the shapes and so on ) And ironpower is not a copy of nsd ( yes because of the counter that is not on the ironpower!) wich is the only real part nad has the patent!! Look in the patents for that.

If you explain dynabee its not ok to make en say things that are not through because the turbo pro last much longer than nsd and also can reach more rPM that only depends of the user. Yes the marketing of nsd make it more beautiful to mention a higher RPM ( turbo pro is talking about the RPM that is for average user and healty because the higher RPM's can "damage" your wrists muscles if not trained well and this warning you can see in manuals and so on!) The turbo pro is also bigger ad therefore more powerfull and so on. But anyway this as you told yourself is not the place to compare so why from the start you do that with lies that in articles ( from universatity's and lawsuites) and in court are proven to be lies!

So the talking is over dynabee wich are powerballs is not ok to make marketing here for other brands with lies about very much. Dynaflex is not the manufacturer of dynabee that is variety plastics they started in the 1970's with production and again in the early 90's. ( the orginal owner/licensehoder of the old patents from mishler also with generator! nr 5353655 from 1994 before Nanosecond even was there and the other patent is from 1973 mishler / dynabee patent nr 3726146) So the numbers patents and dates speech for themselves. The extra Nanosecond has done is the patent with the counter but that is no successor from dynabee only an extra option!!) Variety is now a part of Dynaflex but dynaflex has there own models powerballs that Nanosecond has copied to Ironpower is from metal ( the outershell is allu/metal and thats metal to!) The steel rotor is from very high quality RVS ( German Edelstahl) so what you are talking about?

Please stop this nonsens.

Because of the outdating old dynabee/mishler patents its free to produce powerballs for others with that principe thats why nanaoseond startet but not only nanosecond a lot of others. Therefore all copy's from dynabee principe if you read the patent info's. Thats OK but then only saying nanosecond is .... and so on is not the complete latest info look f.a. the Ironpower thats on the market for a few years now the first real metal powerball on the market! And Gyrotwister and so on. You Dimitri likes to bring this as marketing for the nsd and not with real facts only degrees others and with marketing talk about nsd to have them be better and so on. They are not better but yes they are good ( as you do here to in marketing and saying bad things about competitors) The isssue is here dynabee and the principes of powerball gyro's As you see the link that's in german to ( http://www.powerballeu.com/powerballdynabeeuitvinding.pdf ) and this one on page 5 from houston horizon ( this part is abused throug people that are saying nasa has developed the dynabee) http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter/feb01/feb01.pdf proves what i said about al this, so also not correct to made these dissapear for the readers

There are a lot of brands and models from a lot of other manufacturers! not only nsd! Prove that you are trying to damage others is in the top of this txt you say first that it reaches only 6000 RPM after that you say 8000 and so on. So for editors clean this mess up to real info and not this marketing from a nsd person!! Lawsuites have also proven that other nsd persons which where talking bad about dynabee had to place a rectification because they where so wrong!

You know, there is no nonsense in here. As I've mentioned in the article, dynaflex and nanosecond holds all the major patents for powerballs. There is a workaround of these patents by the other companies and people, but I am not talking about it - I am talking facts to you. Check the patent information provided in the article and see for yourself. Your "prove" that I am damaging something is nothing - I told you information from the official internet sites of these products. When you've told me about "turbo" model, I saw that it can achieve 8000RPM. For example, I can almost achieve 13000RPM with my powerball, and I am just a normal and regular person without any special training or skills. And again, the lifetime warranty for powerball talks for itself, isn't it? The article from "houston horizon" says the same thing - about the first inventor of Powerball. Speak facts, and stop harming the article with your imagination. Thank you. Also, you can try to reach me via ICQ - 499117, and try to argue there. Dmitrek 13:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you say achieve 8000 rpm it also say that that is not the maximum. Also the German prof tell the speeds could reach far beyond 10000RPM in the article Why 8000 its a 'kind of common training speed not trying to get max speed, the purpose of the product is training your arms and wrists not hurting them! ( that why also on nanosecond powerballs manuals the warning if you feel pain stop stop !) ( we have an medical expert (therapist) report of this that say's not to get that max speeds for a longer time because its not giving you the power that you can reach by training short periods with less speed, only for fun and competetion yes max speed but as in top sport it can damage your muscles for a short period ( i don't know the English term for it) Overdone is overdone and not good at all. Lifetime warranty is for all of these products? You say also that ironpower is copy that is not true because it was the first metal on the market in 2004. Dynaflex is not the holder of the patents, the original patents of the gyro principe's are outdated yes and therefore some changes as nanosecond has done with the counter but thats it. Please stop saying nanosecond and dynaflex are the only real ones and manufacturers as told the first was variety plastics. There is also a old model patent out of holland 1994 and so on believe me that was the date that i started to practice with dynabee models that are all still alive now so more then 12 years and still working. More power also because the turbo pro has larger measurements and weight as you can see in the Houston formulas that means simple more powerful! All people testing these two the nsd and turbo pro agrees with me. A judge did to so why keep on trying to make some stories that are not that important to the facts of the principe explaining in wiki of the powerball gyro exercisers concept. And stories about succesors and so on thats only marketing commercial bullshit ( sorry for that word) and has nothing to do with the prinicipe and explanation of the gyro power effects. Thats also why the links of these explanations though German and English should be staying in the article, because they are neutral and real! ( from university people and profs) Scratch all the names of brands or name them all, not giving credit to brands that have copied the principe from the gyro because patents outdated and they used it to make only little changes as you can read in the university article so they can keep on saying we have the only patented gyro wich is not through because if so there was no possibility for others at all. That also where on the Market before Nanosecond was. Yes there are others saying we are the succesors as for example the manual powerball says.

Its simple every little change are extra options and not doing things with the real first gyro powerball principe of a rotor in a shell that is turning arround his two axis

And the first on the market with that patents was dynabee and still is, dynabee give others space to produce after outdating the patents, and then people as you are saying that some options as counters are that important that they can be called succesors? Then every new automobile from wich brand does not matter? is a succesor of the one before also if it's from another brand and therefore better. You know yourself that that is not correct, only small things are changing in the cars to, between models and brands, but they still are cars. To call a new porsche the succesor of the mercedes car before that is the same false statement. Yes the porsche can have some options the mercedes don't have, but doesn't make it the better car. Only for some purposes yes it could be! But not for all try to do a lot of shopping or have some passengers in it? Yes for the same models from the same brands they can call them succesors so new audi a4 for the new audi a4 but that is also no succesor in the way of new invention of the principe of the car itself only in design and options it could be. ( and we all know newer doesn't always means better!)

I hope you understand now why calling brand or/with models, succesors can be so wrong, if the basis prinipe is still being used only with some extra's and for the principe of working though minor options.

Please try to read the complete german part and also the patents themselves from 1973 and 1994 then you read the newer ones and you see yourself! What is major patent? a counter as option no it is not dynamo with leds no because it was there in 1994 before Nanosecond did patented this in 2001 and so on. The only major patent is the principe of the rotor in the shell and so on because thats the part that give the working power to these products and these patents are whoever names are on it outdated. Therefore calling brands after the first real inventor and commercial use dynabee is ok as you name them all and not talking bad of them or others or make a lot of marketing stuff, because wiki is not for this reason!!!!!!!! ;)

Also read the above 2000 sience of Gullick that the explanation of it then saying that others as nanosecond has made some extra options as counter for it yes ofcourse that is through and OK Others as Ironpower has made the first metal version on the market yes thats through. Others as manual power has made a model with a kind of powerplant for mobile phones yes thats through.

I hope because your english is much better you can review and change your part a bit so that it will be respectfull for every brand and the real first inventors. Without marketing or commercials in it Then ofcourse i wil not change it, and the result a good complete Wikki about Dynabee is for every one there ;) Dynaflex was not there in 1973 and 1994 that was variety plastics, later a former employee of variety grounded dynaflex made som copies of the dynabee and now is working together with variety So also the part that the original dynabee inventor is dynaflex is not through you can see the websites in wayback machine on internet that Dynabee and Dynaflex where compatitors in the past. Dynaflex was about the first that made coppies of the dynabee in taiwan/china where also then the cooperation with Nanosecond started. as for your information. We had good connections and contact with Ken Pravitz the owner of Variety plastics and Dynabee before he died, out of respect for him the wiki info should be correct and that also why i place this reaction. ( he brought this invention in the 1970's and 1990 to the world)

Most of it you can read in some articles on websites and lawsuites that has been in the last 2 years

Death

A small group of users continues to post abortion in the causes of death statistics list.

Since abortion is a: not included in any reputable compilation of death statistics outside pro-life organisations and, b: not in case of fact a provable or disprovable fact and therefore a opinion,

This can only be considered a politicisation of a NPOV article. The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 19:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think we can help you here; peer review is not a forum for resolution of content disputes. Besides, there's no reference to abortion in the article (as of right now). Sandstein 21:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Good article, although in parts reads like a list and should (imo) have an intro image. --PopUpPirate 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Social anxiety

I would like some general feedback and copy-edits. I'm not sure if the tone is OK or if the clarifications are understandable. Constructive citicism is appreciated. Thanks. :) Gflores ^Talk 19:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Let me give you a layman's first (and I mean first) impressions:
  • What do the funny numbers at the top mean?
  • I don't get all the complicated words. What is a Symptomatology?
  • I need to read really slowly to understand the complicated sentences. Maybe more examples would make the article more lively. Or pictures. And I don't mean of some guy giving a speech.
  • It took me a long time to understand that this is actually a complicated word for shyness.

Hope that helps ;-) Humor aside, the article is very informative and well-sourced, but largely inaccessible to those not benefiting of a university-level science education; the tone is more suited to a scientific paper than to an encyclopedia sitting on a family's bookshelf. Granted, I have no idea whether the underlying concepts can be "dumbed down" to make the article more accessible with a realistic amount of effort. As for the substance of the article - sorry, I'm a jurist, not a social anxietist... Greetings, Sandstein 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good job, but 1) yes, what are those numbers about? 2) make sure to ilink phrases like symptomatology 3) lead is too short, consider merging it with overview section 4) history usually goes first, not last 5) don't dumb down, but instead read the great Howard S. Becker's book on how to write for social sciences and be undestood by your readers :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikify the headings where you can, at the moment the headings don't mean anything to the layman skimming through the article, and it makes for clumsy reading, eg. convert-

Comorbidity - There is a high degree of comorbidity with other psychiatric disorders. Social phobia is highly comorbid with low self-esteem and major depression, due...

to

Comorbidity - Social phobia often counteracts with other psychiatric disorders such as low self-esteem and major depression, due...

--PopUpPirate 00:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the proof-read and replies. Here are a few of my comments.

• Oops, after expanding the article, I forgot also expand the introduction. That should clear up what social anxiety is. PS, it's not just shyness, it's extreme, debilitating shyness (in a nutshell) :)
• Funny numbers... I've tried to copy the format used in other FAs and WP:GAs related to psychology and disorders, see Schizophrenia, Chagas disease, Cystic fibrosis. Both of these have the box up top (I don't what else I should do with it). There's also been some discussion on the infobox's talk page... there's nothing I can do.
• Pictures are extremely hard to come by, especially those not copyrighted. The 2 FAs above don't have too many images. I would like to add a picture of therapy somehow, but none of the therapy articles have one. I've searched everywhere.
• You're right, having complicated section headers are a bad idea. I think I'll change symptomatology and etiology to something else. I might also change the overview section to something else... Terminology or something like that
• History section: I've seen history sections toward the bottom before, do you think it'll look better at the top. I think going from the intro to history to overview is a bit odd. Or should it go after the overview section? Honestly, I kind of like it at the bottom. :)
• I'll try to copy edit it (I was hoping to get some help here :)) and try to add more examples
• Pirate: It's recommended not to wikify the headings, although there are exceptions. Secondly, I don't think counteract is the right word there, but I will change it up some.

Thanks again! :) Gflores ^Talk 01:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pakistan is a country located in South Asia that overlaps onto Central Asia and the Greater Middle East".

Dear Pakistani brothers, such stupendous confusion of identity is embarrassing! Just pick a geographic region, any region, and stick to it. You owe it to little-little kids who may be using wikipedia for their school essays.

Sisodia 05:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan is located in the Central Asia and the Greater Middle East. Take a look at the map on the Middle East page, and you shall see, under one classification scheme, Pakistan is included into this area known as the "Greater Middle East." Pepsidrinka 12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Pakistan can be included in Greater Middle East if we look at the geography of Balochistan, but I am not sure about Central Asia, infact I am sure Pakistan does not overlap with Central Asia. To back my comment Greater Middle East and Central Asia digitalSurgeon 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Or just call it a prominent country in Asia --PopUpPirate 00:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

---

One thing you have not mentioned is that the layout of the pics makes gaps in the text. Tobyk777 07:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

May I ask where exactly because it seems to look fine on my browser (Opera) and/or resolution (1024x768). Pepsidrinka 12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The shrinking Mughal Empire fell prey to the East India Company's conspiracies and the eventual collapse of the freedom struggle against the British by the Muslim leader Tipu Sultan, from 1749 to 1799, left the remnants of the Mughal Empire completely vulnerable.

Why does this refer to a South Indian ruler like Tipu Sultan ? What is the significance of 1749 ?

After a 60 year formal and generally unarmed struggle for independence, Pakistan came into existence on August 14, 1947 from the British Empire. Again why 60 ? What happened in 1887 ?

Even though the War of Independence was a joint Muslim-Hindu struggle to oust the British, the brunt of British retaliation was directed at the Muslim population of the empire, employing the infamous "divide and rule" policy. This suppression and subjugation helped set the stage for the creation of modern day Pakistan My history isn't very good but I doubt the historical accuracy of this. Tintin (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The references to Tipu Sultan, the "East India Company's conspiracies", the 60-year struggle and the "divide and rule" policy have been removed and replaced by relevant things like the Lahore Resolution. Green Giant 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations on a good job, Pepsidrinka. The following are some suggestions you might want to look into:

1. The History section is needlessly long. Consider not breaking it into sub-sections. A three to four paragraph detail on History should suffice. The purpose of having a Main History of Pakistan article is to elaborate on detail in that article and to restrict your discussion on the History of Pakistan to the most salient points in the Pakistan article. Also, don't use the {{seealso}} template - it clutters up the section.
2. Forms of Government should be expanded. I don't think you need a Political History subsection in the main article
3. Provinces and Territories - this section should be in prose form, per WP:MOS.
4. Geography is an important section, consider expanding on this.
5. Condence Demographics to prose form without subsections. You may want to break it down into 3-4 paragraphs, as necessary.
6. Apart from that, there seems to be a tendency, although not intentional, to highlight the positive aspects of the country. To maintain NPOV, you will need to discuss both positive and negitive aspects within the various subtopics. Cover communal/ethnic tensions, economic and political issues.
7. Also, to maintain NPOV and for users unfamiliar with Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute, please state Pakistan's position on Kashmir a-la the note on the India article.
8. You should probably include a section on "Sport" as well, discussing popularly followed sports as well as popular participatory sports.

These suggestions should be able to help you out. Thanks! AreJay 05:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by =Nichalp «Talk»=:

• The lead is poorly written. Pakistan is geographically in South Asia and from what it is written, it seems to want to be in the Middle East and Central Asia. Pakistan does not have cultural and linguistic ties with either. Please provide references to support this claim. The details on its location seem to be superfluous and makes a confusing match as to where Pakistan lies.
• Why is Pakistan's membership in various organisations being discussed here? All countries are members of something or the other. Summarise Pakistan's unique history, geography culture instead.
• Pakistan's border with China is not internationally recognised. A footnote should be applied as is done for India.
• History should be summarised into 6 paras. See India
• Fair use images should be removed from the article.
• Sub headings should be done away with
• (review stopped) Please model this article on lines of India, Nepal and Bhutan. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by Sundar

• The article needs a reorganisation of sections. For example, tourism can be covered as a paragraph under the economy section. Section titles like roots are not encyclopedic.
• Consider renaming wildlife section into flora and fauna and expand it accordingly.
• History section should be shortened. Political history can be covered under history itseld, not under politics.
• There is no need to have a separate section for political parties under the politics section.
• Use summary style.
• Sports section should have more prose.

I wish you all the best to get this article featured. I'd try to help with copyediting after the improvements suggested by peer reviewers above are taken care of. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead and History

• I have restructured the lead per WP:LEAD and history per Wikipedia:Summary Style. Please follow a similar format for restructuring other sections within the article. Also, there seems to be nothing about the history of Pakistan post-1971. Please consolidate the history section by retaining only the important pieces of information and expanding on Pakistan's history as it relates to the 1980s through the 21st century. Nothing about the 2005 Kashmir earthquake or the Balochistan strife is mentioned.
• Please expand on Provinces, in prose format. The provinces, as they stand today, were amended in the Constitution of Pakistan (First Amendment) in 1974, section 2 http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part1.notes.html#1. This paper [9] may also help in your research. AreJay 19:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the page size. It's too long and sections have too many subheadings. Cut down the page size to about 30-35 kb by moving the content to daughter articles and summarising the same here. (see India, Bhutan and Nepal) Secondly, the maps need to be NPOVd. so you'd need to contact someone skilled in graphics to NPOV them. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensive-ness

Hi - I have concerns about the comprehensiveness of this article. It doesn't give a balanced or comprehensive description of Pakistan:

1. This article does not discuss infrastructural, government/political, economic problems and challenges in Pakistan.
2. All issues and info regarding Islamic fundamentalism in religion, society, culture, politics are scant.
3. 2005 Kashmir earthquake?
4. History - this section has many glaring problems. The 1947-71 period when Bengalis were the majority - what about the problems, the onset of the civil war? What about "Basic Democracy" plan of Ayub Khan? There is one section badly worded on the freedom struggle, which suggests that the League took over from the Congress. This is nonsense - please represent the politics of the era factually. The League's popularity grew after 1937, but even then Badshah Khan's Congress controlled the NWFP, and the Unionist Muslim League controlled Punjab with the Akalis and Congress till 1942.
5. Foreign relations - War on terrorism? Taliban? Lahore Declaration 1998? Kargil War?
6. In-line citations - entirely missing from history.
7. Military services - user:Mercenary2k is preparing History of the Pakistan Army for FA status. There should be more coverage here about police, paramilitary and military of Pakistan.

I know there are difficulties in dealing with sensitive issues, but there is a huge gap on basic information on economy, society and government. Rama's Arrow 22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Review on 11-Mar by =Nichalp «Talk»=

1. LEAD:
   • Pakistan does not have a border dispute with India. Its territorial.
   • 19th century --> In words
2. INFOBOX: Remove (also financial capital)
3. HISTORY:
   • invasion by the White Huns. -- from where?
   • ...opportunities for the Afghans, Balochis and Sikhs -- opportunitunities for what?
   • ...Junagadh, Kapurthala but primarily over Jammu and Kashmir which led -- copyedit this sentence
   • Remove the cyclone part. Not needed in the summary
   • Too much information on Benazir. Zafarullah Khan Jamali not needed here
   • Too much information on the earthquake. Reduce to 1-2 sentences
4. GOVERNMENT:
   • party/alliance -- change "/" to "or"
5. =Provinces and territories= : Mention that 7 & 8 are also claimed by India in the paragraph.
6. GEOGRAPHY:
   • Too many mountain images in the =Geography= section. Please remove 1.
   • Use non breaking spaces &nbsp; for units. (See Mumbai)
   • The monsoons are unreliable...water shortage problem summarise into "monsoons are unreliable and thus result in frequent water shortages"
   • Rename wildlife to =Flora and fauna=. Retain only the first paragraph. Delete the other two.
7. ECONOMY:
   • Text squeezed between two images make reading difficult. Also avod having left-aligned images at the start of a new section.
   • a "brighter" economic outlook : brighter? use another word
   • Visitors are attracted by the ruins... and the Shalimar Gardens. -- Remove. Reads like a tourist brochure.
8. CULTURE:
   • so Indian film stars are popular in Pakistan as well. cpedit
   • (Lollywood)? What is it.. see how the word "Bollywod" is meshed in the India article.
   • "Many Western restaurant chains, such.." -- remove. Sumamrise the remittances in 1 sentence.
9. Fill in the red links
10. Use &ndash; (ndashes) instead of hyphens.
11. Promote ===Holidays=== to ==Holidays==
12. Maps need to me NPOVd!

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Tales of Symphonia

Similar to Paper Mario, any information and any suggestions are welcomed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Eternal, I've decided that you are the busiest person in the FAC/peer review sections as of late, between these peer reviews and We Belong Together. Just don't stress yourself out with all the writing, and be sure to go outside and see the sunlight when you have a chance! :)

As for article suggestions, the majority of my suggestions for Paper Mario stand here -- i.e., sales, influences, awards, competition, and anything that would help someone who knows nothing of the Tales of... series, such as myself, understand its significance better.

After an admittingly quick overview of the article, I would suggest that the "Links to Tales of Phatnasia" be turned into prose. There's enough information there to be a couple paragraphs instead of a list. The "Playstation 2" section should be worked into the article itself. As well, the lead should be rewritten to focus less on its many release dates and more on why the game is noteable. Remember that the lead is what pulls you into an article you might not have read otherwise. If the lead is a list of release dates, you might lose people who would otherwise be curious of the article, no matter how good the article is.

Hope this was helpful. Best of luck, Eternal. --Ataricodfish 20:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Quick note here - part of criterion three for featured articles states that the article should comply with revelant WikiProjects. WikiProject CVG recommends this for lead sections:

Lead section: The name of the game in bold italics, release date, platform, and other identifying information go first.

The release dates should stay, although I agree that the lead will eventually need expanding. --Pagrashtak 01:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Pagrashtak for bringing that to my attention, as I was not familar with that particular WikiProject and their suggestions regarding release dates in the lead. If that's accurate, then Eternal doesn't need to remove all that from the lead, although I would put it into the last paragraph of the lead and not start with release dates. --Ataricodfish 05:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up before; WikiProject consensus is that names, release dates, and platforms should come first, as specified. --Pagrashtak 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Alright, I'll remain quiet on the lead then. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, as I mentioned earlier, I was unfamilar with the Wikiproject and just offering my own personal suggestions, and don't mean to mislead. Obviously, go with the Wikiproject first. Best of luck! --Ataricodfish 08:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I normally don't play video games, but stumbled upon this game last November in a sale bin. I bought it, and it quickly became one of my favorite games. I think you've done a fabulous job with this article so far, and with some work it can become a featured article. Here are a few suggestions I have:

• Move Storyline before Characters because the text in the Characters section about exsphere and regeneration do not make much sense unless you've either played the game or read the Storyline section first. Just to be safe, it's be best to assume the average reader of this article has not played the game.
• Don't say "Lloyd is our hero", as that's written in the first person.
• Don't list Sheena's summon spirits. They're not that notable.
• Expand the part about discrimination under Themes. It plays a major part in the game and deserves more than a couple sentences.
• Don't go into so much detail in the Battle section. It almost sounds like a players manual, not an encyclopedic entry.
• In the PS2 version section cite some sources about load time, and that the general consensus is that the graphics and sound are inferior to the GCN version.

Again, you've done a great job with this article. Good luck! Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...

• I prefer this order for RPGs: Gameplay, Storyline, Characters. Storyline definitely comes before characters because it's a pain to talk about the character's relations and nuances without already having lightly introduced the rest of the cast.
• Characters: I'd rather prose-ify the whole section rather than have eight highly detailed one-paragraph sections.
• Bad phrasing: "Lloyd is our hero" was mentioned above. "He is the only character other than Presea..." is unnecessarily confusing. The entire article could stand a good copyedit.
• Storyline: Two really big paragraphs. Ouch. Split it into four or more paragraphs.
• Themes: Another really big paragraph. Crikey.
• Gameplay/Battle: Good up until the descriptions of "ultimate techniques"; cut out the ultimate techniques and the Japanses PS2 techs. Far too FAQy.
• In general, avoid hard numbers referring to explicit game mechanics (ex. "Zelos' level 2 Personal skill...") or specific buttons ("The A button controls attacks and B controlling special moves; if "Guard" is mapped to R...") especially since this is a multiplatform game.

The rest, I think, has been covered above. Nifboy 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Miami, Florida

I been working in this article recently and I think it may be ready for FA standards, I got the History of Miami, Florida one to FA, and I want this one to be next. Any advise before I continue? Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I renominated this page because it has improved since it's last peer review, and would like to see it as a featured article. --Arigont 8:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Very nice, I'd neaten up the image structure a bit (standardize image justification and sizes), and perhaps reduce the number of subcategories. --PopUpPirate 00:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nice work, Jaranda! Here are some of my comments/suggestions...
  • Sentences in the lead are far too frequent. Also there is no need for 2-3 sentence paragraphs. Please merge some of the sentences to promote flow.
  • If you're going to reference a main "History of Miami" article, there is no need for subsections within the History section of the Maimi article. Please summarize the contents per Wikipedia:Summary Style.
  • de-italicize oolite, limestone and ice ages. Not required per WP:MOS.
  • "Starting about 100,000 years ago, the Wisconsin glaciation..."
  • Stating that Miami is the 46th largest city in the country, without stating that the Miami metropolitan area is (possibly) among the 10 largest in the nation provides a wrong impression of the population of the city vis-a-vis the rest of the country. The Miami metropolitan area has over 4 million people, making it the second largest city in the Southeast, after Atlanta. [10].
  • "Other languages that are spoken..." is this list in any particular order? If this is a ranked order, cite sources and/or their respective percentages. If this is not in any ranked order, none of these should be mentioned since it could promote a misleading interpretation of the demographic buildup of the city.
  • "The latin and Caribbean-friendly atmosphere.." What is a Caribbean-friendly atmosphere??
  • Wikify the Miami Floridians, Miami Gatos, etc.
  • Wouldn't Scarface warrant a mention in Miami in television and film?
  • Please consolidate 2-3 sentence paragraphs in the article into more solid paragraphs.
  • Apart from all that, this is a well written article, well referenced. You might want to expand on some of the negative aspects of the city. There is only a short paragraph on crime. What are some of the other issues in the city?
• After these suggestions have been addressed, I will help with the copyediting effort before you promote the article to FAC. Thanks and good luck! AreJay 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Some comments/suggestions:
  • Definately combine the two "History" sections and go with the Wikipedia:Summary Style (see Hugo Chávez#Early life (1954–1992) on how to combine two main articles with summary style.
  • There are many one and two sentence paragraphs that need to be developed into substantive paragraphs (specifically the "Economy", "Media" and the "Sports" section require attention).
  • The "Media" section currently reads like a list of trivia, when you develop this section orient the discussion more towards the city rather than the film/show, consider filminflorida.com, filmiami.org, madeinmiami.org and other related tourism/economic development agencies.
  • The "Demographics" section can be prettied up with a little token chart, table or graph.
  • A map of the town would be most useful, preferably showing the street layout and notable places (airport, downtown, stadiums, etc.)
  • The hard services, like the provision of drinking water and sewage disposal are important/high-profile services that the article could benefit from an expansion on. Soft services, like parks and social services, would be nice, too. --maclean25 08:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mount Vesuvius

During article assessment Violetriga rated this 8/10 (and if I had rated it in time, I would've given it about the same). It is comprehensive, has good pictures and (forgetting the current reference problem) it fulfills all FA requirements, so I believe it has a fair chance at getting featured in the near future. Apart from separating external links from references and using inline citation, what else can be done to improve this to featured status? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes overall it's a pretty good article. The writing seems a little awkward in a few places and could use some extra polishing up. The bulleted list of eruptions in the "Before AD 79" section should converted into a table form. The one picture I'd like to see added is an overhead (or satellite) shot to give the big picture.[11][12][13]... (I know the coordinate link takes you to a map site. But still an artfully chosen overhead image would help.) A section covering media appearance of the mountain (books, movies, &c.) would be welcome as well, if there were, say, more than two such. Thank you! :) — RJH 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ideas. Any further ideas are welcome. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally I think polishing is required - many sections are rather short, there are capitalised headings which don't conform to the MoS, and things like that. I think the article is not particularly scholarly at the moment - no references cited from journal articles or other academic sources. And the external links section is unnecessarily huge at the moment. But it's a solid article on a topic which is ideal for bringing up to featured standards. I have been planning to work on this article for a while, as Vesuvius is a Decade Volcano and thus included in Wikipedia:WikiReader/Decade Volcanoes which I created. I should be able to find time in the next week or so to give it a thorough editing which I hope will improve it a lot. Worldtraveller 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't check up on the sources themselves yet, but a lot of those external links are linked to as sources within the text and the Osservatorio Vesuvio local national park authorities and eyewitness accounts are all good sources IMO, even if not literally scientific. I'll contact you, so we don't do duplicate work. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

philosophy of mind

Seriously, I think this meets most, if not all, the criteria for an FA candidate. Any suggestions for possible improvement or things to avoid would be appreciated, however. --Lacatosias 11:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Overall it looks quite good from my quick glance. I am not sure about the tone it has been written in, it reads in places more like a popular philosophy book than a reference book; the section on The Mind-Body Problem in particular reads like the foreword of such a book. (I appreciate that it has been written so as to understandable to non-philosphers such as myself). The intro needs to be expanded to be a summary of the whole article, not a preamble that leads into the first chapter. But these are problems of presentation and otherwise looks hella comprehensive and referenced. It probably needs just a couple of pairs of eyes, and I'll give it a more detailed look very soon and leave my thoughts here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a moment (edit conflict).Here was my response to the first comment:

I appreciate the comments. I think you're right about the intro: I'm not used to writing summary-style intros but habituated to brief lead-off style essays and such. I'll try to adress that ASAP. As to tone, I'm not sure I really want to address that for fear of all-too-easily going to the other extreme.--Lacatosias 14:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The tone is not nearly so bad in the rest of the article that I have read, to be fair, but you really need to tighten up that Mind-Body Problem introduction. I sympathise with why you don't want to go to far the other way. I'll try and help some. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 1) mind-body problem intro needs to be de-popularized. Still needs to be addressed.

2) Intro has been expanded and I have attempted to make it as close to a full summary of the article as possible without blowing it up out of proportion. Take a look at this new version.

Okay, time for some more thoughts. These may not need to be answered, they are just questions that arose in my mind when I read the article.

1. Arguments for dualism - what do philosophers make of the first argument? Is it in favour?

• • This has been taken care of, I believe.

1. Interaction dualism - You probably shouldn't write it is clear that my mental states (desires, beliefs, etc.) or Descartes' argument obviously depends on the crucial premise that what I believe to be "clear and distinct" ideas in my mind are necessarily true., as in avoid self referencing. Unless, of course, this is conventional in philosophy. But you should certainly avoid self referincing in the context of the article as much as possible. see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_self-referential_pronouns

• • taken care of.

1. Interaction dualism - This idea is rejected by most modern philosophers. Why?

• • Taken care of, I believe: Answer now provided in artcile.

1. Behaviorism - Why is this a monism rather than a dualism?

• • taken care of, I beleive.

I'll read some more later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

These are some interesting question. The answer to number 1 is that this is definitely a consideration (not really an argument) in favor of dualism. Like most arguments (even relatively sophisticated ones), it is overwhelmingly rejected by modern philosphers. Are you suggesting it is vague or not very interstng as an argument. If that is the case, I can easily replace it with much more sophisticated arguments for dualism that I know of. Number 2 on self-referencing: yes, indeed, this is very common in philosophy (even philosophical encylcopedias) but it can easily be eliminated and is not neccesary to the article.With reagrd to the third point; this was actually a bit of careleness. I intended to write up a response to that argument, but then backed-off since I though it would cause an long cycle of replies and countereplies (the hard part of wiriting about philosphy arguments knowing where to stop becasue there are no final answers as in science or math). But either the question obsvervation should be removed or an explnation given. Behavorism is physicalistic monism because it claims that there simply are no mental states such as beliefs, desires (no inner mental life at all, therefore no mind) but just dispositons (or conditioned reflexes) to behave in certain ways. This might need claficiation. Thanks for the input.--Lacatosias 15:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

-1 it doesn't need to be removed, in fact as a position that the avarage reader would identify with I'd argue that it deserves a mention. Just clarify it is asupporting argument rather than a strong position. 2: I'd suggest looking at how they deal with it in other philosophy Featured Articles, free will, Omnipotence paradox and other wikipedia articles. (Oh, and the hard part of wiriting about philosphy arguments knowing where to stop becasue there are no final answers as in science or math yeah, it isn't actually that different from biology, except that for every rule in biology there is an exception.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've actually tackled the third point first and provided some powerful reasons that most philosophers reject the idea of "clear and disticnt ideas" in modern times. I hope that is satisfactory. The first two points will be dealt with right away: not a problem.--Lacatosias 15:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright folks, don't just criticize and run please. This is peer-review not FAC. How shall we get this thing up to FA status?? --Lacatosias 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Easy, tiger. The Peer Review process takes a week, and we all work to different schedules. However a quick glance at the intro - I don't think you are quite there yet. You should set it up so that the first paragraph describes the problem and the next two talks about the various solutions and philosophies. I should have more time to look at this tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The new intro is on the right track. I'll give it, and the rest of te article, a good look at tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Weighing in at about 90K??! and four paragraphs?? How the devil is it possible to explain the philosophy of mind in three paragraphs anyway. Am I supposed to be Steven Jay Gould or something?? Good heavens!! The FA German version has a two-sentence intro!!--Lacatosias 18:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I do sympathise, really. I am curently trying to get albatross through FAC and, well, there are gaps in what I have written that make me weap. I will try and help you, with my limited philosophical experience. Just remember that in the intro you can make sweepuing general statements that you don't have to back up in any way (as long as they are covered in the article.). Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My questions on dualism and Interaction dualism have been clarified. Good work. I'll do some more reviewing tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I very much appreciate your taking your time to follow up on your criticims of the article and not just leave a brief comment and run, as happened on my only previous occasion of Peer Review concerning my article on Jerry Fodor. "It's to long, break it up". Done. "It's too technical". Tried to clarify. No response for a month. Archived. Period. Anyway, you have been very helpful. The points you identified were indeed significant deficiencies. The intro, for example, is now much closer to what the standards require. I will look it over again and see what's missing or unclear.--Lacatosias 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, ploughing on through the article. Identity theory - I think I understand how token identity theory overcomes the challanges faced by identity theory that were mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, but it could possibly be a little clearer.

Functionalism - Putnam and Fodor saw mental states in terms of an empirical computational theory of the mind - as a non-philosopher I have no idea what empirical computational theory of the mind means, please link the somewhere phrase to somewhere relevant or explain briefly.

I have some more questions but I need to read it again to make sure I ask them right. Sabine's Sunbird talk 13:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. is this server working now?? I didn't link to computational theory of the mind because it's another one of the thousands of stubs that I'll probably end up having to expand myself. This could be a chllenge. I may have to simply delete the expression or create a more direct linkg to the functionalism article there. It's fairly well-explained in that piece. Or perhaps copy an pate a section out of functionalism. Ok, I'll see what's the best approach. It shouldn't be a problem to revise the identity theory just a bit to emphasize the distintion.--Lacatosias 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've linked to the stub article computational theory of mind, but it's almost useless. As usual, I'll have to expand to a few paragraphs, at least, myself. This would save space in this article.--Lacatosias 16:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The stub is fine, it tells you what it is without overburdening you with details. Possibly a gross oversimplification, but at a fundamental level I know what it is now. Anyway, I have pretty much reached near the end of the article. I need some time to try and digest it. My only concern, apart from a few small niggles like I have already brought up, is the way the whole thing flows, and I need to think about how and if that can be addressed, given the nature of the subject. I think I need to read it again, so bear with me, this is very different to teh usual stuff I edit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy IV

This article has been vastly improved upon since the first of the new year, and am interested in taking this article up Feature Status on behalf of all those who have dilligently worked on this article.

What issues remain that would keep this article from being a featured article? Thanks Much! Judgesurreal777 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Judge, I intended to give this a proper peer review (hopefully) tomorrow, but I'll mention a few things here for the mean time:

• Most important: more references!
• The ikelley reference is pretty weak, can you find a better source?
• The "White Wolf" reference isn't really needed unless it contains something you're using that's not listed in the game's credits. It might not hurt to keep it as an ext. link, though. And why does it say "White Wolf"?
• Add fair use rationale to all images.
  • I have added fair use rational as best I could. They are based on the ones I created for the Final Fantasy VI peer review. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see any need to bold character names, it's distracting.
  • I've removed the emboldening. >Gamemaker 17:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Work the important trivia points into the main prose and delete the rest.
• Are those large boxes at the head of each version pretty accepted? They seem like a little overkill.. This will also get slammed in FAC for having too many fair use images.
• The bulleted lists of changes should be rewritten as prose. I notice one bullet says "New events" — that's not very informative to the reader.

Pagrashtak 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Its a great article, certainly a favorite game of mine. A couple of comments:

*More references

• Further reading if possible. There must be some books out there devoted to the art of these excellent games.
  • There do not appear any books in print that I can find about Final Fantasy IV artwork in particular, though there are others of the later games Judgesurreal777 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

*I would like to see some further information about the fantastic music of this game, which has been recorded by other various artists I believe

• Over use of brakets. I don't believe examples have to be in brackets. For example, tt would be less jarring to read

In the original game, almost every status ailment and a corresponding item used to cure it. For example, Petrification and Poison would be cured by "Golden Needle" and "Antidote" respectively.

• • Please let me know if there are any other brackets that break up the text, I have eliminated about 3/4th of them. Judgesurreal777 01:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice article though, I enjoy all the pictures and details. joshbuddy^talk 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Thus far, References cleaned up, character names debolded, trivia incorporated, boxes deboxed, paragraphs de-listed. If anyone has any Final Fantasy art books are other things let me know! Judgesurreal777 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

The article is starting to look really good. It's come such a long way since the new year. Two things I'd really like to see are...

1. Expand the music section. I don't know how much that can be done without being too crufty. But if nothing more than a sentence can be written about it, I don't think it really deserves it's own subsection.
2. While I do think it's a good idea to display the various versions' respective box art, at some parts of the page, it looks very cluttered. The images should be made smaller and displayed in a more effective way.

Otherwise, it looks great! — warpedmirror (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Hibana and myself worked on trimming the story a couple weeks ago. Do you think it needs expansion/more trimming/copyedit? Deckiller 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I think a once over of the article text as a whole to check for readability since it has been much changed in the last 48 hours to comply with the peer review. Also, could we check about the fair use rationale? I added links at the bottom of the page to the rationals, and all of them have explainations on their image pages, is that sufficient?Judgesurreal777 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like that the different versions section has been split into its own article, since I think it decontextualizes the information. Moreover, moving that information away has removed most of the release information for the remakes. I'd like to see that information restored to the article in some fashion (preferably without having to shoehorn it all into the main infobox), and preferably in a quick-reference format, since all searches for these remakes (such as Final Fantasy IV Advance) are going to lead directly to this article. Either a table like this, or via "stacked" infoboxes like here. I personally prefer the latter, since I think the former is a bit of an ugly space-waster, but provided the information gets presented in some format, I'm not overly bothered. – Seancdaug 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I just wanted to shrink that section down, it was enormous. :) Could we go with the former setup? I agree it looks much better. Judgesurreal777 05:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If we must, I suppose <grin>. I really loathe those big horizontal tables from a design perspective, since they tend to grow very large and very unwieldy, and interrupt the flow of the page. But I've had this argument with other editors in the past, and I think I'm in the minority. Again, the most important part is that the information be there in some form or another. – Seancdaug 05:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I insist you do it YOUR way! :) I see your point, it is getting to be a very good looking entry, wouldn't want to uglify it! lol Judgesurreal777 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok, thus far we have addressed every issue except:

• Add a game version chart, possibly delete List of versions page
• Check on parentheses use, size of music section, number of pictures, fair use rationale.

ANYTHING ELSE? :) Judgesurreal777 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Call me crazy, but I may want to trim the story even further, perhaps by 3-4 sentences. Anyone agree? Deckiller 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  Personally, I'd trim it down by two or three paragraphs, myself, particularly if previous experience with the failed Final Fantasy VI FAC means anything. This much information on the fictional aspects of the game is liable to derail attempts to raise the article to featured status. – Seancdaug 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Deckiller 02:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

We should probably remove the ending paragraph, to free up space and all. Deckiller 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're making some good progress on the story, Deckiller. If possible, could you rewrite the first paragraph to create a spoiler-free paragraph that could be placed above the spoiler warning? Pagrashtak 02:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ^_^. Do you think it should include some of the info already in the first paragraph, up to, say, the whole Village of Mist incident? Deckiller 02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to add this but got an edit conflict: I think anything before the destruction of Mist could safely come before the spoiler warning. Pagrashtak 03:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How does the story look now? Deckiller 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

---

After a strong look, and various writing edits, does it look good? Everything ready for a Featured Article Submission? Speak now! And then, vote for it to be one if you are satisfied :) Judgesurreal777 01:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's wise to jump immediately into an FA submission, actually: part of the criteria for featured status is that the article be stable. In light of the massive changes resulting from this peer review, the article is not particularly stable at this point. I think we've got a better chance if we wait (at bare minimum) a week or two and make sure that the changes are going to stick. – Seancdaug 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I waited about 3-4 days to get the Patriots article into FA submission; then again, the peer review was awesome, but not as extensive as this one. I'd say at least 4-5 days. Deckiller 16:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about that table in the remakes section. If you put a sidebar up on your browser, there's about one or two words per line. I think there could also be a section discussing technological improvements from the NES games (use of Mode 7 during airship flight for example?), and there should be some mention of localization/censorship in the development section. I don't think the article would pass FAC at the moment. Pagrashtak 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

How are we doing now? I added what I could about super nintendo versus nintendo technology and its use in the game, and the other critiques seem answered.....what else do we need to do to make everyone say "Agree" when we put this up for consideration? Judgesurreal777 01:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm probably harping on this point, but while I don't think List of Final Fantasy IV versions should be a seperate article, that doesn't mean that I think the information contained within should be lost. I'd like to see it merged back into the main article, though it probably should be mercilessly edited down to a more digestable size (two or three paragraphs for each section, perhaps?). – Seancdaug 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Great thinking, I hope someone jumps on that :D I am not the best yet at the writing aspect of Wikipedia, so if any brave soul wishes to, please go for it, we are SO close :) Judgesurreal777 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one else beats me to it, I'll see about cobbling something together this weekend. – Seancdaug 05:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool, to get the release versions information, just go back in the Final Fantasy IV history, I had the versions page and the box art pages deleted as we discussed. :) Judgesurreal777 07:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Arminianism

Self-nomination. I spent a lot of time researching, writing, editing, rewriting, etc. to see this article come about. I spent a lot of effort to make sure it was clear, articulate, NPOV, non-original, and altogether wiki-friendly. I'd like to work towards featured article status, this is the first step. David Schroder 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I regret to say I don't want to actually read an article on Protestant theology (I clicked because I figured it was an oddly titled Culture of Armenia article, idiot, I know), but if you want to look towards featured status, you might want to revise with respect to Wikipedia:Lead section, and think about the article layout and three(!) portal templates. Some pix outside those might be nice, too, though the Arminius one does work fine at that teeny size. --zippedmartin 17:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I understand. Thanks for the thoughts, I'll work on adding a better lead, pictures, and am going to remove one of the templates. David Schroder 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• You may want to ease off the sub-headings in the "History" section which does not appear to require any, especially if it is a Wikipedia:Summary Style summation of the main article. The "Current Landscape" sub-section does not seem to fit in with the "History" section. Consider putting that into its own section - also that list should become prose (what about those people, what did they do be worthy of mention, what is their opinion?). With the titles of section, only capitalize the first word unless it is a name (eg. Current Landscape → Current landscape) and use the word "and" rather than "&". Aviod making self-references, like "They are examined in greater detail in the article for conditional election." Avoid having section without text, like "Theology". --maclean25 20:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Those were all good suggestions, I made the respective changes. David Schroder 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Monti, Iowa

I have been working on this article for simply ages, and would like some feedback, criticism, and general comments. Ideas for improvement? --Firsfron 22:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD, the refernces need to be converted to footnotes, see WP:FOOTNOTE and it needs a Demographics section to start and much expansion. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the several suggestions. However, the demographics section can't be added: it's an unincorporated community. Thus no official figures. As for expanding, what can I even expand it with?--Firsfron 01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics

Had a recent peer review, and a FAC done a day or two ago that I withdrew in response to stability concerns. Andjam 08:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Pics are far too small. They are barely noticable. That would be the first thing to fix. Also, the same one appears twice. Tobyk777 05:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • One is a stamp of Steven Bradbury, the other is a stamp of Alisa Camplin. What size do you think they should be? Thanks, Andjam 10:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• External links should be at the end. Also, I don't like footnote overload, but the article is rather light on inline citations (try to have at least oen per paragraph; I think that's a good rule of thumb). The last section with any major content (the paralympics one) has no footnotes at all. Anyone reading the article would wonder how reliable it is... Johnleemk | Talk 16:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't done inline for the Paralympics, but I've added a reference. I've also added a few missing inlines. How does it look now? Thanks, Andjam 12:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking better, but there's still some way to go. Good work so far, however. If you can get at least one footnote per paragraph (just a rule of thumb, no need to take it too literally), it should be good enough to go on FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fantasia (1940)

Second peer review: After a recent failed attempt to bring the page on Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation up to featured status, I am trying again with this, one of the most complete and excellent pages on a Disney film on Wikipedia.

I saw the movie on computer last month (and its 2000 counterpart on DVD around New Year's), and I could not possibly get away from either.

That's all I can say for now. Tell me how good it looks so far, and I'll check out on it when I have time. Perhaps I can add some screenshots? --Slgrandson 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is one of those articles I wish I had time to work on, but, alas, the real world calls. I can make some suggestions, however:
  • "Cast" should not be the first item we see, and it does not need to be in a table. Integrate it int the "Credits" section at the bottom of the article (there is already some overlap between both sections).
  • This article is not even hardly as in-depth as it needs to be about the concepts and production of Fantasia, especially when taking into account just how important this film is. Its post-history (that is, its legacy and re-release history) are covered in the most detail here. There is a big book on Fantasia by John Culhane that would be an excellent primary source, as would a number of other books on Disney films. The audio commentaries (there are two) on the Fantasia DVD, as well as the documentary, are excellent sources as well. There is so much to pick up on (processes used and developed, techniques pioneered, animation styles used, art direction, etc. I know the article is already at 30K, bt that section must be heavily expanded ot make a good article on Fantasia. Perhaps a breakout article for the credits and/or the re-releases would help make room.
  • Quotes from the creators (meaning at least Walt, if no one else) are essential.
  • Speaking of references, there are none. There are no screenshots, either. --FuriousFreddy 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, FuriousFreddy. That's all I needed to hear about it. Now I can start working on it as best as I can. Too bad I'll be able to finish it as such when America calls (I'm in Dominica)... --Slgrandson 03:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Iniki

This is one of the best tropical cyclone articles, and my fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones editors and I would like to get some feedback on how to improve it further for a possible FAC. — jdorje (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As biased as it is, I like it. One thing to be improved upon could be impact on Oahu. I haven't found any yet, but there might be some out there. Hurricanehink 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• The page could be easily transferred to the {{cite web}} citation format, as it already uses Cite.php. That is a minor thing that would surely be brought up in a FAC. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There should probably be Niihau impact, if it is known. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic; those people are a pretty reclusive bunch. Just my 2 cents. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK, the references are fixed. What more can be expanded upon? Hurricanehink 03:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the lead of the Impact section, but overall, it's FAC time. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What more should be put in the lead? Hurricanehink 03:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Just a short summary of the following sections on the first paragraph. You can add one-sentence summaries about the damage on Kauai and Oahu, and that should do. The second paragraph of the lead is fine. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree. Tweak that and then put it up for FAC. It's time. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 01:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Is that good for more lead? If so, I'm putting it up for FAC. Hurricanehink 15:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I put it up for FAC. The page is located here. Hurricanehink 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Scratching

On February 23 2006, a an unknown editor modified the content of the World of Scratching section in the article on Scratching, pointing out conflicting information. The dispute seems legitimate, so the article is being submitted for peer review. Folajimi 03:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While it's an interesting article, I don't think it's quite ready for FA status. The page needs illustrations, many more links, and in-line references to confirm the various assertions. It also suffers in places from non-neutral commentary. For example, the following line is quite out of place: this is SO wrong ,the wikipedia article on Dj Qbert states he is wrongly credited. Thanks. — RJH 16:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that the quote you are referring to is EXACTLY what prompted me to submit the article for review? What was the "FA status" remark about? What specifically about my submission gave you the impression that I had any interest in feature articles at all? Also, why on earth would I submit this article?

There are probably a half-dozen other questions along these lines that I could raise. My hope is that you will elucidate your remarks. Needless to say, I am completely nonplussed by your remarks — which has the look and feel of a Parthian shot. For the time being, I shall assume that your response, while unintentionally insulting, is well intended... Folajimi 19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, right. Per the introduction at the top, "This page ... is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." Given your inflamatory tone, I see no point in addressing your misplaced rancor. I have nothing further to add. Goodbye. — RJH

There are still those who believe that PR shouldn't just be FAC foreplay. I tend to agree. Otherwise, I think you both need to chill.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. ;-P — RJH 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Obelisks in Rome

I was concerned that our articles could not agree on the number of obelisks in Rome. Obelisks in Rome said 7 Egyptian and 4 Roman copies; Obelisks said 12 in Italy of which 3 are outside Rome; it:Obelisco listed 9 in Rome; and it:Obelischi di Roma had lots.

The external links that have been added confirm that there are 13 "historic" obelisks, in Rome, of which 8 are thought to date from ancient Egyptian times, and 5 are thought to date from ancient Rome, plus a few more modern ones. Having tidied the article up, I was thinking of WP:FLC.

Clearly I need references (the external links are they at the moment, but paper suggestions are welcome), and images of the missing ones would be good (there are examples in the other wikipedias). Any other ideas or comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Are you planning for this to be an article or just a rather smart list with some limited information? "Obelischi di Roma by Cesare D'Onofrio is a great book and you will probably pick up a translation (if you need one) on Amazon quite cheaply. Giano | talk 16:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on a smart list rather than an article, but now you mention it there is probably enought material here for an article. Is the book available in English translation (my Italian is rather negligible). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I can't find it on Amazon or the usual uesed book sites. I have read it, or to be truthful skimmed through it, a long time ago. I'll see if I can lay my hands on a copy - but it wont be in the immediate future - looking through the book sites I see this one [14] is about to be published - at that price it doesn't really matter if it's a load of rubbish does it? Giano | talk 13:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jane Fonda

I think this article has been improved significantly since Jimbo recommended priority cleanup last October. It appears to be NPOV and well sourced, and to cover the most important aspect's of Fonda's life, but I know there is still lots of room for improvement, and I would like some feedback. Andrea Parton 22:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Needs a bit of restructure, it's very politics biased, and (minor point) consider a bit of factual text under the main photo. Good work tho! --PopUpPirate 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• The introduction text is too short. -- Longhair 06:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, but there are some points that need addressing in addition to the above:

• The awards entries can be linked to the appropriate sub-pages of Academy_Award#Awards, Golden_Globe#Award_categories and Emmy Award. For example, the 1970 Academy Award Nomination can be linked to Academy Award for Best Actress. (The later page actually lists it as a 1969 award nomination, so possibly the award dates also need checking.)
• The references aren't used as inline citations. It's just a listing of references used.
• How come the films by year list doesn't match the films by name list? (There's an empty cell in the right-hand list.)
• The "Romantic relationships" section should just use normal prose, rather than a bulleted list.
• There's a sentence in "Ancestry and family" that begins with an "And": please fix it.
• The "Fun With Dick and Jane" link needs to be fixed--this page exists at Fun with Dick and Jane (1977 film).

Thanks! — RJH 15:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Giddens

I have expanded this article from stub to what I think is fairly comprehensive, feature lenght. As I have been reading about Giddens only for the past two weeks or so, I am sure there is room for much improvement, nonetheless I think this is close to FA level. What do you think? Note that I cannot find a single copyleft picture of him :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A few things:

1. Quotes shouldn't be in italics, see the MoS
2. The selcet bibliography seems to be a list of all his books, either trim it to the most important publications or change the name. Isbn's might be useful.
3. Biography seems a bit brief. It is missing some personal detials like his marital status, do we know his parents names etc. Apprarently he was the first member of his family to graduate from college.
4. Who are his intellectual peers and what are the criticisms of Giddens hypotheses - the article never presents his work in the context of other workers in the field.
5. I'm not sure the long summaries of his conclusions add a lot to the text, especially the summary of New Rules - which seems tacked on and unnecessary (However it'd be a good addition to an article about the book).
6. The image could use an actual fair use rationale. It might be worth asking the LSE for a larger promotional image.
7. His role in the Blair-Clinton dialogues could aslo be expanded on.

--nixie 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Done de-italicizng.
2. This is actually not a complete list - he has written over 40 books, not counting articles. I added some books I've mentioned in the article to the list, but it's still not complete. As for ISBNs, I agree, but I hope sb else will do it :>
3. I added the college info. I couldn't find anything about his parents.
4. That's a tough one. I included most of what I know in the article - it can surely use the help of more people.
5. I guess it can be moved, if such an article is created.
6. Added rationale. Good point about contacting LSE, I will do that.
7. Quite likely, but I know almost nothing about them (yet).

Thx for the comments!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

List of people believed to have epilepsy

Note: During this peer review, this list has been renamed List of people with epilepsy.

I would love some comments on this article. I hope it can become a featured list (which have their own criteria). Unlike many lists of "Famous people with epilepsy" you may find in books or on the web, this one has references for every person and does not include speculative retrospective diagnoses. Colin°^Talk 22:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not just called 'List of epileptics'? If it only includes known cases, there's no need for the weaselly passive. Mark^{your words} 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right; there is no need for "believed to" since the inclusion criteria are quite strict. I'd prefer List of people who have epilepsy. To quote The Guardian Style Guide: "seizures are epileptic, people are not … we do not define people by their medical condition". This does leave the problem that the title is present-tense, whereas nearly half the people on the list are dead. Also some of those who are alive do not have epilepsy any more – childhood epilepsy for example. Does anyone have any suggestions of a way to include all these? List of people who have or had epilepsy sounds a bit clumsy. I think it may be best, for avoiding confusion, to postpone any rename till after the peer-review period. --Colin°^Talk 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am an epileptologist by profession, and I have been watching this article since its inception. I created it with the name 'List of people believed to have epilepsy' for two reasons: 1) "Epileptic" is not a noun; it is an adjective, for exactly the reason the Guardian Style Guide listed above states. 2) "Believed to have" sidesteps two issues; a) the past/present tense issue, and b) the issue that the diagnosis of epilepsy is rarely made with perfect certainty (I'd argue that, before 1930 or so, it *could not* be made with certainty.)

I have very little to recommend to the article as it presently stands, as I've made what contributions I had to make already; but I will be watching this peer review with avid interest. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Including "belived to" sidesteps the tense issue, but jumps right into the speculation and original research issues. Pagrashtak 01:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You should take a look at the page, and its talk page. I was initially opposed to this page on the grounds you mention, and posted voluminously about that on its talk page. After that criticism, it evolved into one of the best-sourced pages on Wikipedia. If I had to nominate a page as an example of how to use sources to build an encyclopedic article, I'd pick this one. In my opinion, it should be linked to from WP:NOR.

The key point here is found in WP:V. The contents of articles don't need to be true - they just have to be sourced. Asserting that people have epilepsy is in most cases unverifiable. Asserting that a reputable source has published their beliefs that a person had epilepsy is an editorial task, namely a task involving the compilation of such assertions and their sources. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on about the title, but my first reaction on seeing it was 'VfD'. It's not really a VfD list, of course, but it's not a good first impression. Anyway, I would offer List of people with epilepsy or (if we're worried about not being 100% sure, which I don't think we need to be as long as we're sure enough to put them on the list) List of people diagnosed with epilepsy. Mark^{your words} 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The hairs that name would split have already been split on the article's talk page. The controversy revolves around who is to be considered qualified to render such a diagnosis. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been pondering on the name issue overnight (in ignorance of the above comments) and came up with the same argument for "believed" as Ikkyu2's point 2b above. I'm not convinced about the 2a argument but I'm no English scholar. There is a difference between a physician's "I believe you have epilepsy", which is a judgement made by someone that we trust to be wise about the issue, and the lay use of "believe" as a contrast with "know" where the purpose is to indicate (somewhat) ignorant speculation or doubt about the facts. I think this is Pagrashtak's point - there are other lists of people that openly admit speculation. This list can never be as certain as List of amputees, for example, but is a lot more certain than List of people speculated to have been syphilitic. You may be interested in the section "The Accuracy of Contemporary Diagnosis" on the talk page.

Ikkyu2 makes a comment about "a reputable source has published their beliefs that a person had epilepsy". I would not have used a reference that said "XYZ was believed to have epilepsy", no matter how much I respected the author. However, if a respected source (e.g. a biographer) said "XYZ had epilepsy" then I would allow that. I would assume from that language that the author wasn't speculating or working from hearsay, but I also accept that it is unlikely that they have read the person's medical records. My point is that just because we are relying on other sources doesn't mean we have to use the word "believed" – otherwise Wikipedia would be full of it. If a good source says "XYZ was diagnosed with epilepsy", "ABC had epilepsy" or "I have epilepsy" then I think we can repeat that assertion.

I note existence of the List of notable people diagnosed with dyslexia and wonder if Mark's suggestion of List of people diagnosed with epilepsy would satisfy both the physician's uncertainty and the tense issue. I would have thought that the implication was that a physician made the diagnosis even if this is rarely stated explicitly in any source. A "diagnosis" by a lay person, or one done retrospectively, isn't a diagnosis.

Having said all that, I am content to live with the current title. It doesn't have enough problems for me to insist on a change, and it does have its own merits. Ikkyu2 created it and has strong feelings for his choice of words so that has some importance here.

I'm not going to pack up my toys and go home if we find a better title; I did want to explain how the title got to be what it was. I originally created it as 'Famous people with epilepsy,' clearly not so good; I moved it later after a lot of thought and discussion on the talk page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to get some comments about the content? Should we include nationalities for everyone or not at all (I personally think it might make it tedious to read)? Do you think that there could be more said in the introduction. I wondered about a paragraph contrasting past behaviour (keeping it hidden) with today (where the epilepsy charities encourage famous people to be open and supportive). What points might get it rejected as a Featured List? --Colin°^Talk 09:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's ever going to be "comprehensive." -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that cases of historical or retrospective diagnoses should stay out of this list; as long as it is made clear (perhaps with details for individual cases) why such diagnoses must be considered speculative, they could give some more insight into historical perceptions. One other point: the entry for Neil Young mentions that he apparently learned to control his epilepsy via "mind over matter", rather than taking anticonvulsant drugs. That should at least be discussed critically, or perhaps better be kicked out entirely. We already have too much quackery of all sorts, and statements like this could possibly discourage people from following their neurologists' advice, which might be a deadly decision. Generally, a very fine list and worthy to be a featured one. Kosebamse 16:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'll see if I can find some alternative epilepsy-related info on Neil Young.

Wrt: retrospective diagnosis. There are some who are unhappy to see those two words together in a sentence! This is discussed on both this article's talk page and earlier on Talk:Epilepsy. I believe the current article is a list of facts. A "list of people speculated to have epilepsy" would be a list of opinions. We can include opinions in Wikipedia only if we attribute them to someone, ideally by quoting them. We must also take care whose opinon we care to quote (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). However, a list of opinons isn't as interesting, useful or encyclopedic as a list of facts. It is a bit like "Barry Norman's list of dead-cert Oscar winning movies for 2006" compared with "78th Academy Awards" --Colin°^Talk 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the changing perception of epilepsy, the diagnostic concepts and the evolution of today's idea what epilepsy is and what is not could be illustrated with historical examples; however this list may not be the best place to do this and I would not push it if there are relevant arguments against. Kosebamse 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please describe epilepsy in real articles. This is just another list of people who might have a certain disease. What's there to peer review? Please stop wasting PR-space on this.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments have been useful: they indicate (to me at least) that the title is not giving a good impression and fails to accurately define the inclusion criteria for the list. --Colin°^Talk 12:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This comment was useful. I've moved the article to List of people with epilepsy. Redirects were placed. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. —Encephalon 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Convent School (Jamshedpur)

This is just an article about a school that I attend. I am not sure if a peer review is the right approach . . . but I want to make it the best article possible. Any and all constructive criticisms are welcome. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a lead per WP:LEAD and references to start with. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice-looking, decently-developed article, with just a few areas needing enhancement. But I have a few comments.

• Could the introduction at the top be expanded to something along the lines of the FA-quality Caulfield Grammar School article?
• I looked through the entire article and nowhere could I find where it gave the grades supported. I did see 9th through 12th listed, but is that the full range? Please clarify this in the introduction.
• The list of annual events needs some dates, or date-range criteria.
• There are an awful lot of bulleted lists on the page. Can any of those be converted to prose or tables?
• The core values of the "Educational Objectives, Mission and Vision" is reading like a vanilla mission statement. It seems like this could be modified into neutral prose commentary.
• Finally, it's a minor point, but could the table at the top include the school colors, per Caulfield Grammar School.

That's all I have. I hope this helped. Thanks. — RJH 16:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to clear up these problems as well as shortening the table of contents so the Clubs don't take up more space than the academics. I got rid of a number of lists and consolidated them into paragraphs, and tried to create a decent WP:LEAD and make the Ed. Obj. section a bit more neutral (not sure if I succeded). As far as I know, we don't have offical school colours. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If there are no official school colors then you could always just say None. But based on the images I'd have taken the colors to be blue and white. So maybe that needs to be clarified? *shrug* — RJH 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have that listed under the "Schhol Uniform," so not sure if I should put them if they don't have any "official" colours. I will ask my principal and see what she says. Thanks. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi - please be careful that the article doesn't come across as a pamphlet advertising the school. You may wanna look at FAs about schools - Caulfield Grammar School, Michigan State University. Expansion tips: school in perspective of schools all over India, curriculum standards, examination systems, current issues, etc. Good luck! Rama's Arrow 05:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I am having some problems with that and I noticed that myself. I amtrying to work on making it more like an article and less like an advertisement . . . one of the problems I am having is that its the only school I have ever went to and don;t have much to compare it with. I will try to follow your suggestions though, although I know little of rankings in comparisons with other schools. I did try to touch on the exams . . . ICSEs . . . but it looks kind of naked. The clubs part I find is too long . . . E/C activities are important but I think the article makes them look *too* important and then I shoretend the list some. I will try some more. Thanks for your help! (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 13:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Always Be My Baby

Probably my second-favourite song of all time. I'd really like to promote this article to WP:FA, and welcome any suggestions, comments, and objections. Please note that the images are not registered under the fair use criteria. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, interesting subject. Some copyedits are needed:

• "ABMB is a song by Mariah Carey for her sixth album is missing a verb ("performed by" on her sixth) or "co-written" or something.
• "The mid-tempo pop number describes her handling a breakup well" ("describes her handling of a breakup" might be better)
• "as she knows that although" is awkward, drop the although
• "she and her ex" I think "ex" is slang, is there a better word?
• Unlike its predecessors, "Fantasy" and "One Sweet Day", (add "which debuted at number one, ABMB debuted at number two and ascended after four weeks, staying at number one for two weeks.
• You might add more information about the chart stay and position into the intro if this is a notable part of song's history.

Hope this helps, Kaisershatner 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Appalachian English

I'd like to improve this article to FA status, and I welcome comments, especially from speakers of Appalachian English who have had some formal training in linguistics. Brian G. Crawford 23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• It needs more sources and has too many small paragraphs/lists. Instead of lists and small paragraphs, the text should be reorganized into well written prose wherever possible. Pick an organization that lays out the material clearly in full paragraphs. The most important facts should be cited directly to the most reliable sources available for them. Where are all the examples from? Original research, or from the listed sources? Also the lead section is too long. If you read through the links from Wikipedia:What is a featured article, you'll see the lead section recommendation is for 3-4 paragraphs. My opinion is that you should also decide which presentation is better, are you going to focus on differences with the general American dialect or are you simply going to describe Appalachian? Finally, see User:Taxman/Featured article advice if you want more suggestions. - Taxman ^Talk 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'll act on your suggestions soon. Brian G. Crawford 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, compare with these for some ideas: WP:FA#Language_and_linguistics. Kaisershatner 15:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Emoticon

This is a fairly comprehensive article. I think it should be a featured article. Just need you guys input on what changes need to be made to this article before its ready -- Mercenary2k 02:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of interesting info here, but it is hampered by lack of organisation and uninspiring prose. Here are a few comments:

• The introduction states a fact regarding the etymology that is not backed up with any reference to an authority. This flaw is repeated throughout the article.
• The subheading "Internet usage" within History doesn't really fit. It has never not been part of the Internet. I think it would be better to discuss the progression from ASCII to images. The stuff about converting ASCII to images could be moved to the end Graphical emoticons section.
• The Purposes section is too short and repeats stuff from the intro. Just move this text to other bits.
• Western Style. Is the reader so dumb that they need to be taught how to view an emoticon? By all means mention that they are meant to be viewed sideways but don't teach.
• Basic Examples. This section begins "The following examples" but doesn't include any examples and is followed by a section at the same level covering Variants. This whole section contains unsubstatianted statements such as "often" and "lately". Really?
• Variants. The bit on the patent is worth its own section and doesn't belong in this section. The last sentence in this section is a mess and has weasel words.
• The organision of the text that discusses variations could be improved. There is repetition. Why not have a grouping discussing variant eyes, noses, mouths, foreheads, etc.
• Head and hands emoticons. The examples in the section contradict the section title and the intro sentence.

Colin°^Talk 14:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Sassanid dynasty

History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union

An excellent article that deserves a shot at FA status. Thorough, interesting, well-written, and well-illustrated. Lets start the process. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. Something like, "Within these territories the Jewish community flourished and developed many of modern Judaism's most distinctive theological and cultural traditions, including Hasidism, etc., etc., while also facing historic persections in the form of pogroms, forced settlement in ghettoes, and in anti-semitic propaganda such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Kaisershatner 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead needs expantion. More online citations would be needed, especially in the early sections, for such strong statements as 'Jews were not tolerated in the area of Muscovy'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• This should soon be an FA. Here are some comments to help it along.
  • More footnotes...I want to know where the specific parts of the article are coming from (pretend I'm a student who wants to research this further - the ten 300 page books in the reference section is over-whelming - point me to where I should go for to find what the article is talking about). The following could use footnotes:
    • "Documentary evidence as to the presence of..." (tell us which documentary evidence )
    • "estimated 2,000 Jews dead...estimated 70,000 to 250,000 civilian Jews were killed (whose estimate? These kinds of things are rounded off greatly and differ greatly between sources. Someone can just come along, claim these are wrong, and put in new numbers according to their source. So just source these numbers), same with "The Holocaust" numbers.
    • "the gates probably leading to which were known ...probably, Vladimir-in-Volhynia" ("probably" sounds like the writer is giving an opinion, if it is not known then say so)
    • "According to Lenin, anti-Semitism was an "attempt to divert the hatred...toward the Jews."" (reference quote)
    • "a gang of marauding Jews"; (seems to be a quote or referencing something)
    • ""30% (as of 2003 it was only about 1.2%). " (this is someone esle's conclusions to a study, provide reference to the source of where this was found.
    • stated that "national and racial chauvinism...repressed in the USSR."(reference quote)
    • Soviet Union did grant official "equality of all citizens regardless of status, sex, race, religion, and nationality." (is that a quote?)
    • In the 1955 UN Assembly's session a high Soviet official still denied... (might be neat to reference the UN transcripts)
    • "Stalin targeted "corrupt Jewish bourgeois nationalists," eschewing..." (quote?)
    • "In 1989 a record 71,000 Soviet Jews were granted exodus..." (ref numbers, is "exodus" the really best word?)
  • "Tradition places Jews in southern Russia..." - what does that mean? tradition, like the bible?
  • "...granted them by local rulers. (See also Shtadlan). These Jews were not..." - I'm not sure about this but please check the Manual of Style about self-refences
  • Last paragraph of "Jews and Bolshevism" seems to be a concluding thought to the previous paragraph, consider combining/merging them.
  • "After the October Revolution " gets sub-section happy, always be considering and re-considering the layout and structure of the article.
  • "That is, however, an oversimplification, since Stalin was just as brutal when..." - this seems like an opinion, please re-word
  • The paragraph "Emphasis on education and movement from countryside shtetls to newly industrialized cities allowed many Soviet Jews to enjoy overall advances under Stalin and to become one of the most educated population groups in the world." is just begging for an expansion and/or ref. Same with the paragraph "Over 200,000 Jews were also killed in battle fighting in the Red Army against the Nazis."
  • Consider re-naming the section "The collapse of the Soviet Union and emigration to Israel" as only two sentences actually involve that time period and that emigration action
  • Consider adding another sentence or two on Federation of Jewish Communities of the CIS, what they do, why they exist. I don't know anything about them but they sound important/influential to the subject.
  • The paragraph "Anti-Semitic incidents inclyde explosives aimed at the Jewish community, random acts of violence, and high profile cases such as the stabing of eight Russian Jews in a Moscow synagouge on January 11, 2006 by a man with neo-Nazi ties.": re-consider this paragraph as a whole, it seems out-of-place (sticks out from the rest of the article) and inappropriate (more current events than history). I don't see what it is adding to the article/section so consider just omitting it.
  • "It is hard to imagine Russian art without..." this tone and list format really sticks out, re-word it so it is more in tune with the rest of the article.
  • "Demographic data" is hurting - rename to "Demographics", convert ext.links to footnotes, re-write to avoid fragmented sentences/paragraphs into brilliant prose. --maclean25 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Great article. Here are some comments:

• After the overthrow of the Khazarian kingdom.. , Jews in large numbers fled to the Crimea, the Caucasus, and the Russian principality of Kiev. There is absolutely no historical evidence that proves this. There are several historical theories that speculate that this could have happened, but we should probably stick to facts here. Please, refer to Khazars#Khazars outside of Khazaria (as you probably already did) for more details. I would suggest phrasing similar to the one on the Khazars page: After the overthrow of the Khazarian kingdom.. , Jews may or may not have fled to the Crimea, the Caucasus, or the Russian principality of Kiev.
• Mikhail Khodorkovsky ... is also Jewish. This has been repeatedly stated in the newspaper coverage of his trial, most likely to identify him as the "other". However, while Khodorkovsky's father is indeed Jewish, Khodorkovsky himself never did anything Jewish in his life, and, most importantly does not self-identify as a Jew - which would make him a non Jew from secular standpoint. Halakhicly, he is not a Jew either, since his mother was not Jewish. I would suggest revising the sentence accordingly.

Hope this helps! CasualFighter 17:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Diane Keaton

I just finished a massive rewrite on this article, and am looking for general critiques/suggestions.--Fallout boy 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Add that she was Allen's paramour at the time they worked together; add to the intro that she won the AA for Annie Hall. Kaisershatner 16:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Images you are claiming as fair use need to have source information.
2. The dates for the films in the lead make the text much harder to read.
3. Something that might be an interesting addition, is how much money she makes per film. Was she ever the highest paid actress in Hollywood?
4. The article could mention a few more of her notable production credits.

--nixie 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy (video game)

This game is the quintessential RPG, and the article is in a high state of completion, but could use a boost of quality from you fine folks. So here it is; what keeps this game from being a Featured Article? Thank you much! Judgesurreal777 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A few things I see, and I can always help if I get some free time ^_^

1. Footnotes and more references are recommended
2. I'd say trim the lead section by about 5-10 percent.
3. I highly recommend reducing the amount of bulleted lists and replacing them with prose.
4. I recommend compressing the story section by about 10-15 percent. I can help with that. Finished Deckiller 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Recpetion/criticism/significance section; that'll help trim the lead a bit.
6. Perhaps some information on allusions and influences? Perhaps some citations and minor expansion. Deckiller 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this may be a bit too much/uncalled for/not right, but it might work. Deckiller 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• It might need a slight copyedit in some areas. Deckiller 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• There also seems to be a format issue with the references. Are they used in specific points in the article? In that case, we'll have to use the ref| and note| system. Deckiller 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• In agreement with Deckiller, it needs a copyedit. Layout looks great, it's not far off. --PopUpPirate 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

:Agree. I don't know if all the pics on one side look good on some of the higher resolutions (I see large white gaps). Deckiller 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC) *I'm not crazy about the cover art gallery: without some sort of contextualization, it's pushing the boundaries of fair use, and it's frankly not all that appealing aesthetically. Might I suggest moving the images inline, to the relevant "differences between versions" section? I'm also not mad about the release details table, but it may be a necessary evil: the information is certainly relevant, and I don't think it's a good idea to prose-ify it all, but I don't like the presentation. Ideally, information concerning the WonderSwan Color port of the game should be physically close to section detailing that version, not shunted off at the end of the article.
Beyond that, I think three whole paragraphs on the game's class system is a little excessive, and some of it is veering towards GameFAQs material (tips on what classes are the "best," etc.). In addition, the section is in desperate need of copyediting: a disturbing number of sentences lack subjects ("Can be upgraded...","Not a good fighter...", etc.). Also, there's a minor issue with abbreviations: there are a lot of unexplained abbreviations flying around the article (WSC, PC, GBA, etc.). These should all be spelled out in full the first time they appear, and, if they're going to be abbreviated from then on out, that abbreviation should be identified in paranthesis following the full phrase (in other words, the first time you refer to "WonderSwan Color" follow it with "(WSC)"). Additional footnotes and references as suggested by Deckiller wouldn't hurt, either. By and large, though, the article is looking pretty good, and I particularly like the descriptions of the various remakes and rereleases. – Seancdaug 00:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok, so far we need to: *Fix Cover art gallery

• Put remake boxes nearer remake section
• Find more footnotes and references...
• copyediting, trim down to 32k

What else needs fixing? Judgesurreal777 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Nice work! I'd say it's WP:GA status now!!! Deckiller 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) -We are nominated :) Judgesurreal777 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding List of Final Fantasy I artwork: no. Just no. This is far, far worse than before. Including the cover art in the article itself was ugly and a potential WP:FUC sticking point. This, in all likelihood, is a full-blown fair use violation; at the bare minimum, it's in violation of what Wikipedia is not. Articles which serve only as an image gallery are generally not encyclopedic, first of all. Consensus holds that articles which serve only as an image gallery for fair use images are in violation of our copyright policies: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots. We can only justifiably claim fair use for these images if we're using them to illustrate a point about the release of the game. That sort of information belongs in the main article, and if we can't include the images there, we shouldn't use them at all. More broadly, turning problematic sections into their own article does not strike me as an effective way of "improving" anything: I didn't like it when the version differences were spun off into a seperate article at Final Fantasy IV, and I'm not liking it here. Problems with an article are not solved by hiding the offending material in another article, and these subarticles generally do not have enough background information to stand on their own. The encyclopedia is not served by adding to article sprawl. It probably also bears pointing out that the game is not actually called "Final Fantasy I," but that's a minor complaint in any event. – Seancdaug 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Point taken. Please change it back to the way it was, but as to the issue in either article as to what to do with info like the super specific and hugte Final Fantasy IV versions information, and the large number of images in this article are a mystery to me as to how to solve, besides delete them. If that's our only option, ok, DO IT! :) Judgesurreal777 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• In view of Seancdaug's comments, I think it would be advisable to delete the box art page, are we agreed? As it is, in my humble opinion, they are extraneous and the screenshots serve as a much better comparison of editions than box art in Final Fantasy; also, there are already box art covers featured, do we really need a whole lot more? Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  I've refactored the entire "differences between releases" section, and tried to work some of the box art back in that way. Some of these images we really don't need, anyway: there's not that much difference between the three different Dawn of Souls covers, and most of the artwork from the various compilation releases can be presented just as well in the article for that compilation. I do think providing at least a selective sampling of box art is important, however: as an encyclopedia, we should spend as much time on the production and marketing of the product as we do on the experience of playing the game itself (if that makes any sense...), and screenshots alone don't do much to address that. – Seancdaug 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  Looks really great! Much improved, ugly chart gone, box art gallery gone, wording far better..... Judgesurreal777 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopkins School

• First Peer Review, Failed FA nomination

This is an article I've been working on for quite a bit. The first PR/FAC was before I was really familiar with Wikipedia. I've tried to really improve the section most requested through both processes, history, and generally spruce the article up. Any advice on what else to do before making a more serious push for FA status? Staxringold 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am not in the school-related article crowd here but I would suggest you place a request on the talk pages of a couple of participants from Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Participants to review this article. Also, you can examine some of the other school-related featured article candidates that have failed and learn from their mistakes: Haileybury College, Harrow School, Sydney Boys High School. --maclean25 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, but I feel like I've already done it. Hopkins, at least IMO, is no longer plagued by the traditional issues school articles face of thin history sections, short sections and subsections, and POV from current students. I'm looking to see if there's anything else to do before that final leap. Staxringold 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• In a quick look, I don't see any great problem. Personally, I like the idea of mentioning a few (but not most) of the famous alumni, in the school article itself, and include maybe just one picture of them. Discussion of sports acheivements, if its been covered might be good (instead of just listing off the sports). History seems to be well covered now. I think what could be improved, really depends on what media coverage the school has gotten in modern times. I would look for news stories on the school, and base it a little on that (without using transient information). Basically, I like to have an article look like it wasn't written by somebody from the school and is personally familiar with all its details (like the list of sport teams), but rather, somebody who has only read about the school, and only knows what's written about it. But, of course, accomoditating my opinion could easily make it worse in the eyes of others. --Rob 12:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• The summary for Famous alums is a good idea, although I tried to exactly follow the model of FA Caulfield Grammar School in that section. As for sports achievements, that is precisely the kind of stuff complained about in the first FA, that discussing small, local, largely NN events made the article too POV and non-encyclopedic. Staxringold 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very thorough and well-researched. It needs a good once over to make sure the entire article has the same tone of voice. Ambiguous phrases like "three somewhat divided" may be confusing to the reader. I would go for more definitive words such as "unofficially divided" or "informally grouped" or whatever terms fit the situation best. Davodd 19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed that example, and it's a good idea (I just need to find someone besides myself. :p). Staxringold 22:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through about half this article and tried to tidy the prose, which is awkward throughout. With details about what facilities are on what floor of what buildings you will have objections if it goes to FAC that this inside trivia really isn't encyclopedic and is inappropriate for our site. As for specific objections:

1. First, you should find out what the legal name of the school is. You mention "formal" situations that "grammar school" is still used.

It's Hopkins School. The Grammar School suffix is not used in any organized fashion, it's just occasionally used on school letterhead and such.

1. Second, the caption of the 1911 students mentions the headmaster. What is his name? You identify a future headmaster in that caption so why not him? And in mentioning Lovell, is he particularly significant?

Lovell held the office for longer than any other headmaster and has a building named after him. I'll ask the archivist about who the headmaster is in that photo.

1. Third, the history feels very superficial, particularly the modern history, which is mainly details about what building opened in what year.

What specifically? I'm still working on the earlier parts of the section which will clearly be the longest part, but how should I word the modern history?

1. Fourth, the prose for the mascot really needs to be completely overhauled. It reads very poorly.

Ok, I'll give it a shot

1. Fifth, give us a few words about who John Malone is. What year did he graduate, what field did he make his money in? How much has he donated?

This is covered in more detail on the famous alumni page. I'll add a note in the history that he's in telecommunications. As for how much he donated, I can try to find out but they tend to keep numbers like that private.

1. Sixth, give us the full names of the people those buildings were named for.

Ok

1. Seventh, the date of the founding section is confusing. The papers speak of the fourth day of the fourth month and some believe this means May? At the time under English law, the year did not legally begin until March 25th, Lady Day. But I'd have to check about the numbering of the months this way. It's confusing and not strictly necessary. If the consensus is the school began in 1660, then go with that until you can get more certain facts.

I'll remove the confusing quote, but it's from Chronicles of Hopkins Grammar School, which is a very reputable historical source.

1. Eighth, you mention an "unofficial seal". I don't know what you mean. A person or a corporation has a seal or they don't. I haven't any idea what an "unofficial" one is.

Official seals of heraldry had complex records under English law. Hopkins just made this one up out of the clear blue sky.

1. Ninth, subjects are not capitalized, e.g. "science". Only in speaking of departments, e.g. "the Department of Science", should it be in caps.

Ok

1. Tenth, you say the school is "infamous" in its scheduling? To anyone aside from its students? I'd never heard of the school itself until I was asked to review this article.

Ok

1. Eleventh, sports shouldn't be capitalized in the "athletics" section.

Ok

1. Twelfth, you don't have much about the formal governance of the school. Is the Fund the governing body or is it separate from a board of trustees? Who are the trustees? How are they chosen? Self-perpetuating? Elected by alumni? What's the head man of the school called? Superintendent, headmaster, principal? Who is that person? How is he chosen?

Yowza.. I'll do what I can but that's a huge level of detail...

1. Thirteenth, when did the turnover in leadership you mention cease? Have recent leaders enjoyed a long tenure at the school?

I am still expanding the history section

1. Fourteenth, you mention the school's endowment. How big is it? (Yes, I see it in the infobox, but it ought to be in the article too.) How does this compare to other schools?

Where would I put it in the article? As for a comparison, that wouldn't serve much purpose as there aren't very many northeastern, American, prep schools still around from that era. Yale is a college, so that would be unfair. Maybe Roxbury Latin School, but that article makes no mention of the endowment and what I can find only mentions "financial aid" money, not neccessarily the full endowment.

1. Fifteenth, how does the current enrollment compare to the past? Is 650 typical of the last century? Has it been expanding, contracting?

Wow... Well, up until the 1920's classes were no bigger than 30-50 kids, though I can't speak to more recent years.

I know I sound fussy. I am. But from shepherding numerous articles of mine through the gantlet of the FAC voting, I'd like to see others spared similar grief before they get there because there are people fussier than me who vote. PedanticallySpeaking 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed overview! Staxringold 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Would any one be able to review Scotch College? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'd try to merge some of the subheadings to keep everything at ==Level 2== if possible. Other than that, I've reviewed this article so much it makes my eyes water; we mus be getting close to an FA now. That bar is set extremely high, especially when compared to something like cities on FA, where many make the grade quite easily. Harro5 10:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• This article is massively improved since the last time I read it (I especially love the history sections). The only suggestion I have is to rewrite the lead so it doesn't read like a promotional brochure for the school. I'd also bring in more of the history into the lead.--Alabamaboy 14:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hymn of the Russian Federation

I been wanting to make an FA on a Russian subject, and due with me working with a user on a off-WP project related to this anthem, I got the encouragement needed to work on this article. I tried to make this article like My Belarusy, the Belarusian anthem (also an FA), and I also introduced a succession box for the anthem history of Russia. While, of course, y'all are welcome to comment and suggest about anything to your hearts content, but I wish to ask specifically if we should fork out the "adoption" section into a larger article about the Anthem debates and if the pictures I used are OK in the copyright department. Thanks again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I have a couple of comments:

• In the definition, you say: "Russian: Государственный гимн Российской Федерации, Gimn Rossiyskaya Federatsiya". I am not sure what you meant by "Gimn Rossiyskaya Federatsiya" - were you going for a transliteration of the Russian name? If so, it'll need to be corrected. Let me know if you need help with that.
• The translation of the anthem is very good, but it's not perfect - there are a couple of lines where the translation is inexact. For example, "Братских народов союз вековой" is translated as "Fraternal peoples, a union for the ages". It is grammatically incorrect (it should be "A union of peoples", not "peoples, a union") and inexact: "союз вековой" means a union that lasted for centuries, not a union that will last for ages.

Hope this helps. Please, feel free to contact me through my Talk page. CasualFighter 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I screwed up with the transliteration, but the translated lyrics were already there when I got to the article. I will ask the webmaster of Hymn.ru to see if I can use his translation (Vadim Makarov is a personal friend of mine). If you want to fix the translations too, that will be perfect, since I am only ru-1. Thanks again and if there is anything else I am missing, please let me know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll fix the translation if you won't be able to get a better one. CasualFighter 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation was put in, transliteration fixed by users fimilar with WP:RUS, so I think the article is ready now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 01:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. CasualFighter 17:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mega Man Zero series

Would like much critisism on making this article up to featured status, or at the very least Good Article status. Basic Information citations are there, but could use some elaboration and perking-up. Any comments are welcomed and would be quite helpful. Also please see the talkpage for more proposed ideas: here. -Zero^Talk 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just some random comments:

• Avoid specific numbers if they aren't important. "Three Cyber Elves", "Three element chips"...
• The lead should be expanded.
• How does the series differ from the other Mega Man series, particularly X, particularly in terms of the plot?
• "unaware of his and X's past..." Explain this. Seriously. In fact...
• Give some context to the article. Who Zero is, who X is, what things are the same from the other series, things like that.
• "But Elpizo is not all that he seems, as Zero soon discovers..." Discovers what? Don't write plot summaries like they would appear on the box. If Elpizo's mystical revelation isn't all that important, don't bother mentioning it at all. If it is, then please tell us what it is.
• Last sentence in the notes: "the Zero Series is on hiatus, according to Capcom." Mention this somewhere else, as it seems sufficiently important to go into the article itself. Also, "series" doesn't get capitalized. suggestion: "After the release of MMZ4, Capcom announced it was putting the Zero series on hiatus". Statement also needs citing.
• Needs more sections than just gameplay and plot. Anything on the importance or reception of the series?
• Inline citations are basically a necessity for good citations, particularly if you're pointing to websites. For example, the release dates of the games should point to the notes that say you got them from GameFAQs.

Hope that helps. Nifboy 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Madchester

Looking good, almost FA quality imo, but before a run at FAC, it needs a peer review.  ALKIVAR™ 14:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• No references, no fair use rationales, prose is average and needs a good copyedit. The lead doesn't provide a summary of the articles content. Information Factory records could be fleshed out (for instance it doesn't mention Tony Wilson, or the later fim about the scene 24 Hour Party People).--nixie 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote nearly all of what's there now. I'm happy that it's a decent article, but would have to say that there's some substantiation needed to it. A couple of points to make if anyone's thinking of editing the article. Firstly, when I first started revising the article there had been some confusion in it over the difference between Madchester and Factory records. For those not familiar with Madchester, the film 24 Hour Party People is about Factory Records. It's a great film, but it isn't (and doesn't hold itself out to be) in any sense about Madchester. Secondly, if anyone can add substantiation to the article, then that would be great, but please don't go through adding "Some people say that..." or such like. Ten times better to leave it alone. Glad to hear that my prose is "average", though - perfect for an encyclopedia. --Vjam 19:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

Salute to All - I request your help and advice in transforming this into a featured article. Rama's Arrow 16:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Looks mostly good/featurable at first glance. Please delineate the references used/cited in footnotes in a separate "References" section. If none of the "Further reading" sources were used to build the article, then you can also recreate that section. You should use "Patel" (his last name) throughout the article, not his first name (see WP:MOSBIO). Also, the positive/approving tone of the article needs to be somewhat neutralized. I've done some copyedits as an example of these and other hints. I'll post other comments later. Saravask 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Great job so far! Here are some of my thoughts and suggestions:-
  • Maybe this has been discussed in the past, but I just wanted to be sure - per convention, Indian personalities are mentioned by name and not title. Given the tremendous progress this article has made, are we too far down the path to move this article to Vallabhai Patel instead? Just a thought.
  • Per Saravask, refer to him as Patel and not Vallabhai or Sardar Patel in the article
  • There is an amount of verbiage and sentiment contained in the article that could be construed as being POV. I think the language should be toneddown somewhat to present a more dispassionate, comprehensive picture of Sardar Patel.
  • Per the point above, "Congress boss" should be changed to President of Indian National Congress, or a similar title
  • Appropriate in-line citations should be added to the Fighting for Independence and Personal Life sections.
  • "..Patel would be protective of his integrity and reputation as far as possible." How do we know this?
  • "Historians consider that Vallabhbhai Patel's most important contributions came to have occured in the period between 1946 and 1948"
  • "when over 5,000 people were killed in violence instigated by Jinnah" Do we know Jinnah instigated the violence. Sources will be needed, in the absense of which, this phrase may come across as POV.
  • (ironically, he was often portrayed with an anti-Muslim bias) We should not opine on behalf the the reader. Let us delete that phrase.
  • We will need to incorporate criticisms of Sardar Patel's political policies and his handling of the integration of India to present a more balanced image of the Sardar. Furthermore, phrases such as graciously accepted, raucous welcome etc should be done away with.
  • On the whole, very interesting read. Content wise, we will need to incorporate criticisms of Patel's policies, etc. Structure wise, we will have to go through the article with a fine comb to restructure/delete sentences that could give the impression of being POV/non-encyclopedic during FAC. Good luck! Since most of the work that needs to be done now is structure related, I will start helping with toning down the article. I think, quality wise, this is right up there and stands a great chance at becoming FA. AreJay 02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Some observations

This is one of my first reviews, so its more of an observation as I am myself not sure of the norms. Please go through them. If they are not relevant, ignore them.

1. The wikipedia policy on wikilinking years and dates is that they should be made into a link only when clicking on them will give some additional information to the reader. Here, I see that all dates and years of his birth and death have been made links, while the linked pages don't even carry any mention of him. For example, neither 31 October, nor 1875 mentions that Sardar Patel was born on that day, even though it can be added in a few seconds.
2. Other language pronunciations/spellings have to be provided to guide the readers. But here, I feel they have been overdone with 4 languages. The first useful word to a casual reader comes in the 4th line.
3. Congress Boss seems to be informal usage. Wouldn't it be better if it were replaced by As Congress President or Congress Presidentship.
4. Initially I was convinced with the actual hosting page, i.e. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, but after going through the template of Indian Independence Movement, I began to think otherwise. As far as I know, the Wikipedia policy is that the actual page should be hosted at the name by which the person is mostly known for. That is, what is the most common word that the user will type so as to reach the page in question. This is because it is suggested that the text at the top saying "Redirected from ..." should be encountered be least number of users. Now the template at the bottom suggests that his most common name is Sardar Patel. So shouldn't the original page be also at Sardar Patel.
5. In the first paragraph, Satyagraha is defined as non-violent mass civil disobedience, while in Satyagraha, it is defined as any effort to discover, discern, obtain or apply Truth. This definition clearly does not imply Civil Disobedience explicitly. While the satyagraha in Gujarat may have been civil disobedience, the phrase can confuse the readers that all satyagraha involve civil disobedience.

Hopefully my comments add value to this article. Looking forward to see this article on the front page. Best of luck. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Can we add some more photos to the article? The job may be tough.But from my experience of watching other people going through Wikipedia, a long article without a considerable number of images has a tendency of being subject to non-adherence, I mean people often start to skip reading, even abort reading, long articles without images!!This may sound trivial, but I think collecting some interesting images could br really beneficial for the article. Also, as per Ambuj, the translation of the name in 4 languages in the very first para seems inhibitory.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 20:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos should be easily available. Just look for photos published in India before 1-1-46. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Please use Indian English spellings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Concern

Unlike Lothal, the subject of this article has been widely written about. As such, I believe it would be prudent to look at sources other than Rajmohan Gandhi as well. For example, India wins freedom by Maulana Azad is one. imo, works by his contemporaries should be given prominence. --Gurubrahma 15:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I figured I'd use this space for pre FAC comments. It is very good of course. The only larger problem I see is it seems to promote the view that the indepedence was right and the British were wrong. Instead it should state the facts, which it does in large part, but not enough in places. It could probably be fixed with a fairly limited number of rewordings. The rest is details of wording, and I've left some comments in the text as that seemed easier than copying here and indicating where in the text the problems were. Also, in many places it refers to him being arrested for short periods, but not much explanation if there were any charges and often not explaning why he was let go. Why so many short periods of imprisonment? I didn't get to finish copyediting in detail, I'll see if I can't soon, but it's still ready for FAC once what I've pointed out has been addressed. - Taxman ^Talk 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some observations

moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Rama's Arrow 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Observations

Lead

• "Born and raised in the countryside of Gujarat, Vallabhbhai Patel was a self-educated, forceful and successful Gujarati lawyer when he was inspired by the work and philosophy of Mohandas Gandhi." - That sentence is bit awkward. Hmm I don't have suggestions to improve it though lol. Maybe replace "when" with "who was inspired by..."
• "becoming the most influential leader in Gujarat" - someone will probably question the "most", especially as Gandhiji was also based in Ahmedabad.

Early Life

• "Patel helped his father in the fields, and bimonthly kept a day-long fast, abstaining from food and water.[2]" - why did he keep a day-long fast? religious reasons?
• "Later, Patel called for Jhaverba — his wife, whom he married at young age —" Where was she? when were they married? I am guessing it was child marriage and he called her from her family? Might want to add that.
• "His wife bore him two children — Mani, a girl in 1904, and Dahya, a boy in 1906." - That sentence sounds terribly dry. I would suggest rephrasing "his wife bore him" with something simple like "She gave birth to two children."
• "Major surgical operation" - Do we know what she was having major surgical operation for?
• "Patel also made way for his brother Vithalbhai Patel to travel to England in place of him, on his own saved money and opportunity. The episode occurred as the tickets and pass arrived in the name of "V. J. Patel", and arrived at his brother's home, who bore the same initials. Patel did not hesitate to make way for his elder brother's ambition before his own, and funded his trip as well." This is tad confusing. He sent two brothers or are we still talking about the same brother in the last sentence?

Fighting for Independence

• "...Patel left his profitable practice, his large house and life of respect and comfort for the frugal living and hardship of the freedom struggle." This is not very encyclopedic. profitable practice, his large house, etc. etc. is too long winded and they all say the same thing.
• "Patel had initially made fun of Gandhi's habits and points of view in front of friends like Ganesh Vasudev Mavlankar. But Patel was instantly transformed when Gandhi proposed a demonstration to protest the arrest of Annie Besant, instead of a signed petition." - a) both sentences should be merged b) for some reason chosing to do a demonstration instead of a signed petition does not seem like an action that would transform someone overnight. Maybe rephrase? Was he really transfored by that single action or was it more of a "oh, maybe this guy should be taken seriously" and then over time (as the next sentence seems to suggest) he became his follower?

Satyagraha in Kheda, Borsad and Bardoli

• "Patel's first major participation was during the Kheda struggle." - I think it should be rephrased as "...first major participation in the independence movement was ... Kheda struggle in Gujarat."
• "Asking for one Gujarati activist to volunteer full-time to the Kheda cause, Patel raised his hand and stood up." - This needs to be rephrased to a more active form: "When Gandhi asked for a Gujarati activist to volunteer full-time to the kheda cause, ..." Note: reason for adding in Gujarat in previous sentence was to add a context to "for a Gujarati activist."
• Sarabhai family needs a stub for now - I will try to get to it tomorrow.
• A line needs to be added at end of the first paragraph that tells us what was the action that was going to be taken (I am guessing it was not to pay taxes) to better connect with the next paragraph.
• I did not see anything about Borsad in this paragraph. Also their was lot of general things that he did at the end of the second paragraph that does not fit in this section. Furthermore, I think the section name should be made more general and meaningful - currently it is a bit of a lazy heading. It should be something that summarizes his rise as a leader (in Gujarat) - bad example would be "Leader in making." After the section name is changed, the general causes at end of 2nd paragraph can be moved to the end of the section.

-Blacksun 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very valuable insight. A lot of these errors crept in becoz the source has been one book - a key problem I must rectify - and of my own admiration of Patel. I will correct all of these mistakes. Rama's Arrow 13:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

I feel that the lead image of the article is very hazy and stressful to eyes. Even if it is necessary to use it, use it later in the article, and not in the lead. Seeing it in the lead will be a big turn off for the reader. I don't know why the earlier image was replaced, but if the reason wasn't a major issue, I prefer that the images be swapped. The earlier one was perfect for the lead. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I added this pic to the lead image becoz it is a beautiful portrait of Patel in his prime. I understand your concerns about haziness, but I'd prefer to let it stand for some time until more feedback is obtained. Rama's Arrow 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Talk page is all about generating consensus. But I am not sure if enough people will be following up this discussion. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In 1-2 days, this article will go to FAC. We'll be able to resolve the question then. Rama's Arrow 20:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Coin

I have a coin with Sardar Patel's face on it. Will it be helpful to the article if I scan it and upload. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Rama's Arrow 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• "was inspired by the work and philosophy of Mohandas Gandhi."

How about replacing with Mahatma Gandhi (better known name worldwide)

• The first Photo. The photo is rare, but do you think it's of good quality? How about replacing with more well known photo?

Early life

• What is Pleader's examination?
• "he lanced a painful boil without hesitation, even as the barber supposed to do it trembled." —needed? Is it something legendary?
• "He made way for his brother Vithalbhai Patel to travel to England in place of him, on his own saved money and opportunity. The episode occurred as the tickets and pass Patel had applied for arrived in the name of "V. J. Patel," and arrived at Vithalbhai's home, who bore the same initials. Patel did not hesitate to make way for his elder brother's ambition before his own, and funded his trip as well"— same brother or different?
• "Patel also cared for a personal friend suffering from Bubonic plague when it swept the state."— can it be enlarged as "...swept the state of Gujarat, in the year..."
• Gujarat Club ??

Fighting for independence

• "Swaraj — independence" : Swaraj= self-rule
• caste discrimination - wikilink caste?
• what is national schools?
• "Patel led the satyagraha in Nagpur in 1923 against a law banning the raising of the Indian flag" what was the Indian flag in 1923? The Vikhaji Kama flag? Or Calcutta Flag? or something else? wikilink if needed.
• Gandhi-Irwin pact - wikilink.
• Round Table Conference in London - wikilink properly
• "Congress's" - is it grammatically correct. I am weak at grammar. Please check.
• "When World War II broke out, Patel supported Nehru's decision to withdraw the Congress from central and provincial legislatures, contrary to Gandhi's advice, but India would be divided in its response to the war." confusing line. Break up?
• "Arguing that the British were not interested only in the defence of their interests and not India, Patel stressed that the campaign start without any delay." - confusing line.

Independence and integration

• "When the British mission proposed plans for transfer of power, there was considerable opposition to both within the Congress." what both?
• Junagadh affair- mention some dates, when it happened.

This for now. Rest later.--Dwaipayanc 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Added more comments.--Dwaipayanc 18:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

addition

The last portion is very nice. But, Rama's Arrow, as I told you in the meassage, the paragraphs on Patel's early life needs work. It needs to be summarised, and also some tone down.--Dwaipayanc 19:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

I think someone else mentioned this too - despite being an image that many have probably not seen, its quality is rather bad. I would definitely use the more common image of vallabhbhai in the lead. I am not even sure if this image should be used anywhere else in the article but definitely not in the lead! --Blacksun 15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it appears that a consensus don't like this pic - I'll replace it with a better one tomorrow. Rama's Arrow 16:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi's death and relations with Nehru

• "But Patel did not help Nehru when he had purposely bypassed him, only later to need his help. Nehru attempted to oppose the will of a majority of Congressmen by suggesting that Governor General Chakravarti Rajgopalachari become India's first President. Nehru's arbitrariness and imposition angered the party, which backed its favorite, Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Patel did not help Nehru to win his way, and Prasad became the President of India in 1950." I dont like how the lead sentence is phrased in this paragraph. Its confusing and suffers from weak sentence structure. Also, instead of saying "patel did not help nehru to win his way" you can simply say "However, Patel opposed Nehru's candidate" or something.
• Again, I dont like the section heading. In general, I dont think section headings should have an "and" in them. This one can be simply changed to Relations with Nehru as it is mostly about two of them or if you think it is necessary to add Gandhi's death it can be Relations with Nehru after Gandhi's death

Also, I think their are some images in the article that have no real captioning except "sardar vallabhbhai." If the image has no other meaning besides that they should be removed. Their is an image that is making the "leading india' section heading indent to the right. This can be rectified by minor edition the image. I would do it but I think that image can just be removed from there and placed as the lead image. Otherwise, I think that article is ready for FA status. I dont think referencing is a big issue at this stage as their are plenty of other references besides Patel a life now. --Blacksun 19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Leading India

"pledge both India and Pakistan to a commitment to protect each other's minorities. Patel, amongst others saw this as appeasement.[56] Syama Prasad Mookerjee and K.C. Neogy, two Bengali ministers resigned from the Cabinet, and Nehru became a hated figure in West Bengal. The pact was immediately in jeopardy"

• Some rephrases I would suggest: "However, Patel saw this as appeasement."
• "...and Nehru became a heated figure in W.B. putting the pact in jeopardy."--Blacksun 14:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Drive to FAC

Hi to All - For May 1st, I request your review, advice and help in improving this article. I will start an intensive review and revision of the article on May 2nd, and send it to FAC on May 3rd. I thank everyone who has given their time to review this article, and I will incorporate their advice before finishing work on this article. Thank you, Rama's Arrow 00:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Few more specific criticism of S.P. would seal the FA status, imo. --Blacksun 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AreJay's Comments

Hi, I'll be adding my comments as I read through the article

• In the fight for independence section, it says Patel volunteered to lead the struggle in Kheda, but only after intense personal contemplation. Can we explain why? (In one sentence, or perhaps as an addendum to the existing sentence)
• When we talk about Patel stepping down from the election of the Congress presidency, we talk about Patel not having Nehru's "assets". Is this why Nehru won favor with Gandhi? If this is just an opinion, we can still include it, however we will need to add a qualifier (with appropriate citation) indicating that it is an opinion.
• Appropriate citation is required to support the statement that violence on Direct Action Day was instigated by Jinnah. Since you wrote the Jinnah FA, I'm sure you'll have sufficient literature to support this claim!
• I think some more criticism of Patel and his policies can be incorporated into the article to give it some more balance. His clashes with Nehru can be further elaborated upon. Also, criticism of his policy to annex Hyderabad should be incorporated. General criticism of his modus operendi vis-a-vis political integration can also be incorporated.
• "Iron fist in a velvet glove" — in-line reference needed
• Can we include a "Legacy" section. What legacy has Patel left behind apart from obviously, a united and independent country?
• On the whole this is a very well written article. I think the article can benefit from copyediting — grammar, tone, eleminating peacock words, etc. I'd like to volunteer for this particular task, let me know if this is ok by you.
• Also, we will need to use British spelling for India-related articles.

AreJay 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

FA Drive

Hi all - I'm sorry to renege on my earlier promises, but I need a little more time to prepare this article fully for FAC. I will finish the work on May 11th. Rama's Arrow 02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I know I'm a little late for Peer Review, but I had a few comments about the article anyway that I have been wanting to make for a while:

1. Try and tone down the style, which comes across as a little pro-Patel in the beginning. The introduction repeats the words of the introduction of Political Integration of India, which were deeply problematic. The words 'weld' and even 'nation' will leave the article open to needless dispute. I think that entire third paragraph can be dispensed with, and a reference made merely to his position in the cabinet; his leadership in the integration of the princely states; and his liberal position on economic affairs. I am surprised that the disagreements with Nehru about economic and religious policy do not figure in the introduction. That is after all the basis of Sardar Patel's continuing popularity.

2. Citations. Your citations are OK in certain respects, but other claims are passed by without referencing. In particular, nowhere does Rajmohan Gandhi or indeed, Sarvepalli Gopal in his biography of NEhru - say that the 'imposition' of Rajaji angered the party. Indeed, Sumit Sarkar claims that Patel actively campaigned for Dr Prasad because he was more sympathetic to Patel's hard line on Pakistan. There are several other such claims: "Patel, exasperated and" not wanting to battle Nehru, asked Gandhi to relieve him as he did not have Nehru's youth and popularity; he knew also that an open political battle would hurt India." (We do not have access to this information; this is pure speculation, and should be labelled as such.) "Syama Prasad Mookerjee and K.C. Neogy, two Bengali ministers resigned from the Cabinet, and Nehru became a hated figure in West Bengal." (!!) About Kashmir: "He did not want foreign interference in a bilateral affair." (That will get a lot of people on here saying that its a trilateral afair or whatever. Avoid.) "He was also instrumental in the founding the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service. For his defence of Indian civil servants from political attack, he is known as the "patron saint" of India's services." (You have to cite this. I have never heard it before. Also, how is he the 'founder' of the IAS? The IAS took over the processes, selection procedures and promotion bases from the ICS seamlessly. Ditto for the IPS and the IP. To talk of a 'founder' is very misleading. And if there were 'founders', they were the senior bureaucrats of the time, and not the politicians. The Rediff article you cite here is useless.) There are many more I could come up with, but you understand the problem by now.

3. Legacy section. Most major leaders should have one. Other than as a Gujarati icon and in administering the incorporation of the princely states, how did Patel leave his mark on India? What do Rajmohan G and Bipin Chandra say about it?

There is a lot of work to be done here. I am willing to come in and help every now and then. Hornplease 13:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not late, and your input is highly valued. I know there's a lot of improvements necessary. Rama's Arrow 13:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ramkasam

I sincerely and deeply regret being unable to finish work on this article's FA drive. My fellow Wikipedians, I'm very sorry. I am a big fan of Patel, and literally his student. I want to do this for him, and I swear by Rama to make this the greatest article on Wikipedia on May 15th. Please be a little more patient as I prepare to finish the work. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 01:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha its ok, man. Get it done when their is time. No need to keep giving dates and then feeling guilty when you cant make it. --Blacksun 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am gonna have to perform penance for breaking the vow to the greatest of all. Rama ji ki Jai! Rama's Arrow 05:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let that penance be finishing this article :) --Blacksun 03:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it will have to be stronger than that - it is high sin indeed to so flagrantly and carelessly violate the sanctity of a vow given for Rama. However, I'm happy to report that the work is almost over - a few hours of copyediting is necessary, dat's all. I'll put this article on FAC very, very soon. Rama's Arrow 08:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks done to me except for maybe some light copy-editing. --Blacksun 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments from me

As said to Nirav on his talk page, I have gone through the article. Here are some more comments. I have only been able to go through half the article yet. It is getting quite late (3:51 AM!), so I think I should go to sleep before some members of my house start waking up! Here goes:

• Fighting for independence - Satyagraha across Gujarat - There is something missing in the line "The revenue refusal was stronger than in Kheda, and many sympathy satyagrahas were undertaken across Gujarat." towards the end of the section. Where was the revenue refusal stronger than in Kheda?
• Leading the congress-Yeravda Central jail could be wikified.
• Quit India- "...full support to Britain if it promised Indian independence at the end of the war". Indian independence needs to be changed to "independence to India" or something of that sort.
• Independence and integration-The first line should be "Gandhi had declared Nehru to BE his "successor"..."
• Cabinet misson and partition - "When the British mission proposed plans for transfer of power, there was considerable opposition to both within the Congress" What does "both" refer to? Transfer of power? But that is only one thing. Should it be both plans - as explained in the next two sentences? Also in the same paragraph "...Patel also engaged the British enjoys and obtained assurances from the British enjoys that...". Should it be envoys? Or is there something called enjoys? In the next paragraph Jinnah could be unwikified as he has already been wikified earlier. Later on "I fully appreciate the fears of our brothers from [the Muslim-majority areas]". Why those [ and ] brackets? In the same quote chaprasis could be linked for others to understand what a chaprasi is.

I must briefly postpone the FAC to Sunday - I am anxious to tie up all loose ends, and I know there are some important issues to iron out here. Rama's Arrow 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I could have solved some issues myself, but am too tired. My eyes are drooping and hence would not help meet Rama's Arrow's need for fresh eyes to look at the article. I promise to read further tomorrow. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc

After a flurry of controversy and expansion, the article seems rather stable now and not too far from FAC. Please review and improve further. dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• A few of the glyphs are dead in the image and I'm not sure what the selected bibliography is doing there. A bibliography is usually a list of books by one author. Stephen King's bibliography would be a list of all his books. Calling a list of books on a topic the same is confusing.

Were they used to create the article? --> put them under the references header

Are they just further reading material for interested people? --> Put them in a further reading section.

I don't think there's a need to delete the links, they contain a wealth of useful info for anyone who wants to take a further look into the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• The lead should be longer. It's a large article and can't be adequately summarized in such a short space. The lead also needs to include something about what the symbols look like, are believed to represent and what other scripts they've been compared to. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• If you take a stab at the lead, I'll try reviewing the whole article starting in about 6 hours. Disclosure: "I've got an interest in old scripts and own at least 2 books on the subject." - Mgm|^(talk) 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, I'm delayed. Will give full review tomorrow instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• A quite comprehensive article. But perhaps the most prominent decipherment claims should be discussed and not just listed. In addition, I would like to raise two minor points: First, the four pictures giving a detailed view on certain parts of the disc (such as Diskos.von.Phaistos_Detail.1_11-Aug-2004_asb_PICT3372.JPG) are perhaps redundant. There are already two pictures of the disc, two pictures of its replica, and images of all glyphs. Therefore, the value of those four "middle-range" pictures is minimal. Second, it is not necessary to overuse internal links. For example, the term "Luwian hieroglyphs" links to Hieroglyphic Luwian whenever it is mentioned. I think it would be sufficient to make a link only when the new term is introduced. Tankred 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't want to overlink and link every mention (against WP:MOS), but a mention per screen so you don't need to scroll to find the link, would perhaps be a good alternative. - 131.211.210.16 11:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• I like this article alot. I wish more could look like this one, however I would like to see more known history about it, if it is available. Also, make the bottom matter a bit more visually pleasing. However, great work. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Terraforming

Well written in-depth article; listed at peer review as a first step towards FAC. siafu 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting article; it's a subject I've always found quite fascinating. Some of the elements of the article are more speculative than others—I'd like to see the speculative aspects have references. For example, the final paragraph in "History of scholarly study". In general the article needs lots of in-line references to back up the various assertions.

— RJH 21:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Biggest problems: There are no inline citations. Many images are marked with deprecated licensing tags. This article focuses too much on Mars and Venus as opposed to the general concept of terraforming. Random example of stuff that needs cleaning up: Mirrors made of extremely thin aluminized Mylar could be placed in orbit around Mars to increase the total insolation it receives. Sure, it could. Is this a widely accepted proposal? By whom? What are the alternatives? How else could this be acheived? Is it practical? Pagrashtak 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the mirrors proposal, the concern I would have is that they can be susceptible to displacement due to solar radiation, which would tend to knock them out of orbit. They'd need some type of compensating force to remain stationary, such as "tacking". Good catch. :) — RJH 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Place &nbsp; "non-breaking spaces" between the values and the units so that they are not word-wrapped (separated) onto different lines. Get some inline citations in there, preferably in the m:Cite/Cite.php style (see Hugo Chavez for an example of how this system works). Since this seems like an interesting topic use the inline citations to point a reader to where they can further research a topic, "Cloud-top colonization", for example, (seriously) where can I go to read about that? Consider [15] for some online sources, like Fogg who has written several papers and this for an Iranian summary. I'm not sure of the validity of the "Popular culture" section...might want to stick that in the "See also" section. Avoid those one-sentence paragraphs (not a sign of brilliant prose), some of those can form the introduction sentence to a paragraph (like in "Converting atmosphere"), and others can be merged as a phrase in the previous paragraphs (like in "Paraterraforming"). --maclean25 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting and informative article. But it still needs some work. In addition to the most serious problem of missing inline references, I would like to point to the red links. Should they have place in a potential featured article? As for the structure, space devoted to two prominent cases (Mars and Venus) seems to be disproportionate to the discussion of the concept itself. The “Other worlds” section is very short, though I guess it would be quite difficult to expand it in a meaningful way. Moreover, the “Paraterraforming” section does not seem to be very well integrated in the article’s structure. The introduction also mentions political and economical issues, though they are not addressed in the article at all. Finally, it would be perhaps interesting to think a bit about possible consequences of the terraforming process for any local human population (for example colonists living in earlier built domes). Are the two concepts of colonization reconcilable?Tankred 10:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sort out the image situation. Photo credits can be done on the image page itself, rather than in captions. If possible, get the one with the credit in the image in white lettering out of it (if the creator was a Wikipedian). Put a summary of the pop culture in the article. Sorry I couldn't actually read the text in detail, look over it once more, get more references, maybe contact a WikiProject, and then submit this for a FAC.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, inline citations. Secondly, concentrate on more than just Venus and Mars - how about Europa (I'm sure I've read this somewhere) - the article should be about general principles, with specific examples in sub articles. Lose the commercial pictures and credits. For each of the red links create a stub article. Throwaway sentences like However, all these bodies come with conditions that make terraforming difficult to imagine. need to be expanded or removed. The popular culture section should have a paragraph (maybe the lead from the linked article) giving an overview. Its looking good though, keep up the work :) - FrancisTyers 11:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

'Popular culture' section is now nothing more then a section see also. Expand into a proper section. More inline citations wouldn't hurt, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Number 1 (song)

A beautiful song by an artistic electronic group. I despise detail, but in the case of "Number 1", any suggestions, comments, objections and etcetra can be provided here. I am hoping to promote this article to a higher standard. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a decent page. However a number of questions came to mind that I didn't see addressed.

• For somebody who hasn't heard the song, did it have any lyrics?
• What were the lyrics about?
• Was some type of message intended by the song authors? Was it upbeat, cynical, or something else?
• Was there any specific critical analyses of the music you could relate? Why were the reviews mixed?
• Do you have any references to confirm this information?

I'd also like to see instances of top-ten, top-twenty, and top-thirty be hyphenated to eliminate potential ambiguities. Thanks. — RJH 16:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Redhot & Blue

Hi all, I'm a fan of this group and would like any comments and suggestions you can give regarding improvement of the page. The goal I have is to make the group look as good as possible without being a cheerleader or showing bias. If there are layout changes I can make to clean up the page a bit or if there are things you think I should add or remove, please let me know! Thanks a ton, -robbie

• To bring this anywhere near featured status you need to increase the length of prose in the article. It should consider different aspects of the group: makeup, history, repertoire, etc. You could integrate more pictures into the article and get some references. --Oldak Quill 12:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is no article to comment on yet, it is still a collection of lists. You could start by writing the group's history, how and why it formed, and what exactly it's been doing for the last 29 years. --Tsavage 06:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Olga Rudge

Olga Rudge had a spell on FAC here [16] where she was more or less ignored. One objection which was not actionable, and a couple of half hearted suggestions she came here - so here she is. What do you think? - all comments welcome Giano | talk 13:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Needs more sources, but you knew I was going to say that. The lead should be two full paragraphs; expand it a bit to summarize more of the most important things about her. The early life section isn't written nearly as well as the rest. It's choppy. As it stands it could be better as one whole cohesive paragraph, but it could be expanded a bit too. The first question that comes up is did her parents divorce, or just live in different places? Is there any more info on how she came to be a great violinist? As it is now, we just know she studied under one guy and then is suddenly a great violinist. Who says she's great by then anyway? The rest is good until the last paragraph of the first section in 'Alone in Venice'. We just finish talking about the daughter and then jump into Venice being tough to live in. Where do you know the epitaph from? Was it written in English or Italian? With those additions/changes the structure should be clean enough that it will pass if no major objections can't be found. A violinist will never draw as much interest from editors as a pop culture controversy, so you may have to ask people to review it specifically when you nominate it at FAC next. - Taxman ^Talk 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The writing I can manage, finding more sources? That will be harder, I think what is listed is probably all there are, she is not very well documented at all - that's why I chose to do her, to see what I could dig up - perhaps there is just not enough information to make a FA. If only she had put a few rings through her nose and and snorted a few lines - it would be so much easier! Giano | talk 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If that's all there is, then that's fine, just make sure there aren't any other significant ones. Various large library databases could help you find some more decent ones that you could get on an inter-library loan. Wouldn't books on Pound cover her some too? Even if other books have short mentions they help balance out the potential POV that a source just on her might have. I don't think you need to expand the article much at all, just verify the information from additional sources and make sure they don't differ on significant points. - Taxman ^Talk 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How legit are foreign (ie Italian) language references? Giano | talk 16:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Very, as long as they meet the same quality guidelines. I believe WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources have guidelines on them. Basically it's a little more difficult to verify them because a native speaker has to get a hold of the source, but for major languages that's not a problem. In short, English sources are preferred because of that extra difficulty involved verifying other language sources, but high quality sources from other languages can be very valuable, especially where English sources aren't available. - Taxman ^Talk 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help. OK - It will take a few days to lay my hands on some further references, but the page will becme far more musical as a result. I'm sure on one of my FAs somewhere, or perhaps someone else's there was an onjection because a couple of Italian reference books were in the list - perhaps that's all changed now - One can't keep up these days! What do you think of the extended lead? Giano | talk 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• The lead is good. Don't necessarily add more material unless it needs it. Make sure to keep it in proper balance to the important information about her. As far as foreign language sources we relatively recently hacked out the consensus on that, but even then, not every FAC commentor knows all the rules, and may sometimes simply be wrong. If there are no English sources that is a problem, but as long as there is a balance people have agreed that the better the source, the more reason to include it, whatever language it is in. - Taxman ^Talk 16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've thought for a while it was a little light on her musical side, on its original FAC someone wanted it merged with Ezra Pound claiming OIga a was not notable in her own right - while that (IMO) is rubbish, a little more detail about her own career would not come amiss to prevent that claim being remade. More information could be given on the relationship with her daughter, but as the daughter is still alive I want to cut a fine line between necessary act and scandal mongering - without losing human interest - difficult. I've ordered a book, all we need now is the Italian and British postal service to display a greater efficiency and co-operation than is normal! Your point of asking people "to review it specifically when you nominate it at FAC" - I thought that was frowned upon - spamming or whatever it's called - I've hesitated before even dropping subtle hints to my closes friends here. Thanks for the help Giano | talk 16:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well FAC isn't a vote, so it's not quite as much of a problem as say RfA or whatever, but of course don't ask 15+ people or something. I've gotten say 20+ requests to review articles, and I usually accomodate them when I can. If you ask for honest appraisal of the article that helps too, and If you get it beyond the first one or two commentors, for whatever reason you'll attract more. - Taxman ^Talk 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I read this a couple of days ago and reviewed the FAC nomination. I think JoaoRicardo's comment about merging with Ezra Pound was misinterpreted. Most of the article is spent discussing her relationship to Pound (how many paragraphs do not have the word "Pound" in it?) rather than Rudge as an independent person (eg. Relationship of Ezra Pound and Olga Rudge). I can see this is not an easy article to write and will require a lot more work than the more common (core) topics which have many potential sources. There are some sources on Rudge herself but you may have better luck picking pieces out of Pound-related sources (but that probably won't help the Pound-POV of Rudge). Anyways, at this point the article appears well on its way to FA status. --maclean25 06:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne University student unions

Article has been somewhat controversial and would appreciate some outside opinions on improvements such as article flow from those without any vested interest. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Would a article request for comment be more appropriate, rather than a peer review request? Thanks, Andjam 08:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now asked for a RFC. I was after both a review of general structure as well as specifics. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

Last peer review was over a year ago, but I really think this should be an FA. I don't see any problems, but I'm probably biased, and I'm not a great article cleanuper anyway. --Rory096 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple suggestions (I could be wrong):

• You might want to talk about all of the racial slurs that Anslinger used to incite fear of marijuana and discuss or mention that marijuana was initially made illegal due to a growing use amoung Mormans and the subsequent anger of the legislature of Utah, after which it is stated in goverment records that it was also an issue to keep Mexicans immigrants away.
• You may want to consider shortening the section on ingestion methods; this information is good but the section seems to have a slight amount of redundancy (or perhaps it is only because I am another "expert")...maybe descriptions of paraphenalia could be briefer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waywardprophet (talk • contribs)

OK, I removed the obscure methods out of the Smoking section. As for Anslinger quotes, I'd like to, but there's a lot of controversy over whether some are even true, and I'm afraid it could be taken as POV even if they are real. Do you have any good sources for quotes? --Rory096 05:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wish that I could be a bit more help but I'm swamped with so many other projects. Here's a link that I've got quite a bit of information from in the past...at the bottom of the page there are several more links to more reputable sources, perhaps you'll have some luck there: http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html --Waywardprophet 08:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are great, thanks. --Rory096 18:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cornell University

All of the changes since the last peer review have been fixed, so we're giving this another shot. I'd really like to shoot for FA. Let me know if you think it's ready. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• You may wish to browse through suggestions located at User:AndyZ/Suggestions.

• Fixed. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

• Fixed.Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Cornell emblem.png need(s) proper fair use rationales.
  • Isn't the {{logo}} template supposed to provide a boileplate Fair-use rationale? I've always assumed Fair Use claims were needed mostly for the {{fairuse}} and {{Non-free fair use in}} tags... Circeus 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This is what I always thought too. FAs UMich and Michigan State don't have additional rationales for their fair use logos. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 02:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Fixed. Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
• Thanks, Andy _t 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I still doubt the history section is properly summarizing the very long History of Cornell University.
  • It seems as though the land-grant act and Fixed. Willard Straight takeover are the only significant points which didn't make it into the main article. The land-grant status has already been covered elsewhere in the article, and the takeover is an isolated incident which doesn't really need a main article mention. What else ought we summarize? -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 02:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Fixed.You might want to revise the layout a bit as to avoit two headers directly following each other. This could also be corrected by adding a "buffer" summary. I would consider removing the "Examples of notable projects" header completely, though. These would be assumed to be some of the most notable examples anyway. Circeus 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I made the research overview into a buffer and added a little segue, but I'm still working on improving the other headers. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 02:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Now there are only 'double headers' on Campuses, Academics, and Student life... three areas which I don't think really need a buffer. They exist to organize the page a little more and keep something like International Programs as a second-priority header. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• From a first glance, it looks okay (I haven't read it in detail). However, I would suggest you look over the article closely and find instances of boosterism. No matter how many citations you use, if you only speak highly of Cornell (which seems difficult not to do so given the university's reputation) the article will fail FAC (at worst) or barely pass it (at best). If there are negatives concerning Cornell, list them as well. Pentawing^Talk 04:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The editors have been very careful about boosterism, and as far as I can see, we're npov. Let me know if you find anything questionable. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 04:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to Andy's point about dates: This task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. 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. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice tool, it caught three decade links that I hadn't with a search for [[####]] links. Do you have any other advice for this article? Would you recommend going for FAC? -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 16:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, it's got a ways to go to get to NPOV. Pretty much the entire article focuses on highlighting positive points about the university. Sure it's a very well regarded university, but saying that should be confined to a small section supporting the reasons why it is highly regarded. The rest should just describe instead of highlighting positive aspects. I can't overemphasize how important that is, and must note it's not close so far. UM and MSU probably both still suffer from too much boosterism that is hard to excise, but this article goes much farther. Now that those two articles are out there, you'll have to do better instead of worse. As specific advice excise all "more than..." and just give the number. Also the lead isn't a proper summary of the article per WP:LEAD but don't worry about that until the rest is fixed. - Taxman ^Talk 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wrote another paragraph for the lead, but it could still use some work. Any help or advice is appreciated. Thanks. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• I just spent about an hour copyediting the entire page, and I did find tons of pov and bad prose, which I fixed. Please see my changes here. It's improving dramatically but could always use more input. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• The wording changes are an improvement, but doesn't go far enough. There are still lots of superfluous "more than", "the most..", etc (I know those aren't all easy to fix quickly), and nothing's been done to address the fact that the whole structure is set up to highlight the university's positives. What about negatives? The sports section doesn't note how competitive (or not) Cornell is in most sports. My understanding is they don't win that much in general division 1 play, especially postseasons, championships, etc. Nothing in the article notes criticisms or shortcomings of the school. So in short, you're going in the right direction to reach FA, just keep going. - Taxman ^Talk 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The situation is still essentially the same. - Taxman ^Talk 15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• There are many references to criticisms of the university throughout the article. There just aren't all that many negatives or controversies worth mentioning. The athletics article is fair- it lists achievements, and any reader would realize that if there are few achievements listed (as there are), then few things have been achieved. What do you expect, something like "aside from the aforementioned successes, Cornell's athletic programs are generally poor?" And I've already eliminated all instances of "more than" and the remaining instances of "the most" are used properly. Please cite specific examples if you find further problems. As a side note, we are currently a FAC, you may want to object there if you feel it is appropriate. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I just re-read the article, and it still has substantially all the problems I originally pointed out in my comments on June 4. What do I expect? I expect the article to be NPOV. Not be a listing of achievements, but a description of the facts. Are the athletics programs really generally poor and fail to consistently compete for championships? Then yes, I expect that to be stated. That's neutrally describing the facts of the subject. If instead they are extremely good then you say that. The highlighting of achievements only really does still pervade the article. Just additionally adding in a couple negative facets doesn't fix it either, because that doesn't give the reader the right idea it just presents a polar picture. Just accurately describe the subject of the article. If you can't see the POV problems weaved throughout the article that might be a problem. You may need to recruit someone with the opposite POV to point them out individually for you. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do that, I just have to settle for pointing out the general problem. - Taxman ^Talk 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Please note the augmented first paragraph of the Athletics section. Thank you for your continued help. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am not sure about this, but there is something disturbing about the images. Perhaps there are too many, or perhaps they should all be on the same side. Or maybe it is because they seem to be different sizes. Just a thought. bobblewik 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I cleaned it up a bit. There were a few images that didn't contribute much to the article. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• This article is getting close to a FA status. However, I think it may get shot down dut to it's size of 71k. The article Germany was opposed for that very reason. I encourage to identify and remove redundent images or details that are not essential... either that or move material into daughter articles. That said, the main structure of this article is very good.--P-Chan 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Primate

Restarting this peer review. Old review has been archived. I'm still looking for general coments, though perhaps I'll work towards FAC. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some points:

1. A distribution map of non-human primates would be nice.
2. Comment on what kinds of habitats they live in and how loss of that habitat affects their conservation status.
3. Web references in Legal status section should probably be footnotes.
4. I'm of a divided mind whether the text focuses too much on "early" primates.
5. Someone should probably go through the article and add {{cite needed}} to suggest places where references published in print might be helpful.

Hope this helps. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Minor edits by UtherSRG (talk)

Certinly does! :)

1. I'll see what aid I can enlist to make some maps. I love what Pcb21 did with the cetacean articles.
2. Noted. I'll work on this, although it will take some time. Lots of habitats.....
3. I'll catch this tomorrow.
4. I'm mostly interested in taxonomic relationships, so this POV comes across a bit. I'll see what I can do to balance by adding other parts so that I don't have to remove. *grins*
5. I'll catch this tomorrow, too.

Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've done 3 and 5 for the most part. I think I should do something with the hybridization section, too. I'm looking to the other language 'pedias to see what information I can transwiki to improve this article. I think perhaps a section with more detail on some of the larger groupings would be helpful. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Diet

Could somebody put in something about diet here? Maybe this is too broad a page for that topic, but can something sensible be said about the general range of diets in (non-human) primates? Some are very highly specialized, some not, and I think it would be interesting to have a very brief overview and perhaps some references (and a bit more on some species specific pages). Abu Amaal 23:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some are herbivores, some are more specifically foliovores and fugivores. Some are omnivores. I'm not sure if any are strictly carnivores. I'll work on adding some information. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Geology of the Capitol Reef area

I've been working on this article on and off for a couple years. Late last year I greatly expanded and referenced it and more recently I finally found time to upload my photos of the place to commons and add those. What else needs/should/can be done before I put this through WP:FAC? I already plan to add a couple photos to the ===Chinle Formation=== section, switch the citation method from inote to <ref> and give the article one more copyedit before I nominate. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated. --mav 13:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things I can see:

• Footnotes are a strong requirement these day at FAC
  • Just noticed you use {{inote}}
• Most of the important formations seem to be red links, which I'd be iffy about (but the article itself is sound)
• Circeus 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Each formation deserves its own article, thus they are linked. That these articles do not yet exist is only an indication that Wikipedia has poor coverage in this area. I do plan to create articles for each formation, but only after I've written a few more geology articles for Utah. The reason is simple - formations are not monolithic; they differ in composition, thickness and even age depending on where you look. So in order to write an article on a formation one must be familiar with several examples of how the formation manifests itself. Comparing and contrasting these examples is part of what a good formation article would do. -- mav 05:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, though you don't have to switch the inotes, it's not required, though people will certainly comment at FAC. The only thing I saw is try to eliminate the short paragraphs wherever possible. Anything less than 3 sentences doesn't really stand on it's own well. I don't see any problem with the red links as long as they really are worthy of their own article. A lot of people probably don't remember the days when almost every link was a red link. - Taxman ^Talk 20:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) I went ahead and switched to the standard ref format ; doing so was very easy (two find and replaces). I don't like short sections either, so I combined two one paragraph sub-sections into larger subsections. I remember the red link and even question mark link days well. :) -- mav 05:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Another outstanding effort. I would have say that I too find the red links a bit too numerous, but it is a lot to ask that all of them be sub articled in sort order just to make them blue. I think we have switched from ref/note to cite/note style in a number of articles. The article is a good size and the images are excellent. I would try to condense the many paragraphs as well. I looked over the information and cross referencing the references provided, it appears accurate, I have two of those books. Be cautious about words that will need clarification for the average reader who knows little about geological terms. Words like "friable" may need elaboration. I would do a subarticle on monoclines and Cardonate rock...or is that Carbonate? Also, a few weblinks to NPS pages but their service appears to be down as of this post. Good work.--MONGO 02:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. :) See above about the red link issue, ref method and condensing. Part of my copyedit will be to give context to jargon and check links. --mav 05:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

With that done looks like a sure FA to me. - Taxman ^Talk 17:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know which area of the country Capitol reef is in, so I don't need to go to another article. -Ravedave 23:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. --mav 23:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I like that the article seems to consistently use a chronological organization, saving the structural developments for last, after the sediments have been deposited. I would watch out for passive-type sentences, such as "The passive continental margin went active when" or "then, as the sea deepened, limestone, resulted." (also a unnecessary comma there after limestone) Rather than red-linking to monocline, you could link to fold (geology), which defines what a monocline is, along with other types of folds. I think that link, along with a link to the geologic time scale, should be someplace in the article. When discussing the erosion resulting in the modern landforms, I would emphasize the work that flash floods and landslides/rock falls accomplish, as opposed to implying that the deep, straight-walled canyons and high pour-offs are the result of continuous, steady trickles of creeks and rivers (see gradualism vs. catastrophism). Also the mention of basalt boulders from Thousand Lake Mountain that "that were subsequently deposited over the park area by various processes" is confusing. Did the glaciers do the depositing over the park area? How big were these glaciers? Can we specify these "various processes" any futher without getting into too much detail?

One of my personal gripes about the articles on the southern Utah parks, and this goes back to what mav talked about above, is that all this detailed geologic information is found in articles attached to a particular park, whereas the formations do not stop at the park boundaries. Yes, the Navajo sandstone in Zion is different than what you find in Capitol Reef, but these articles all are telling the same basic story. Don't get me wrong, the work done on this article and others like it is great, but what I'd really like to see is a "geology of the Colorado Plateau" article, separate from Colorado Plateau, which summarizes the basic geologic history, and then talks about the geographic variations with links to the geology of individual parks. For example, I have done some work on the San Rafael Swell, which is a small-enough article not to warrant yet another detailed history of the last 400 million years. Ideally, I could link to a general article on the geology of the Colorado Plateau, but instead I've linked to this article (Capitol Reef), even though the Swell is not in Capitol Reef National Park. -- BlueCanoe 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed all the issues you mentioned in your first paragraph. Thanks for the feedback. :) As for the second paragraph; yes, a geology of the Colorado Plateau article is planned. But before I write that I want to get the geology articles of every national park and monument on the plateau fleshed out (parks/monuments very close to each other will share geology articles) and at least comprehensive geology sections for every Utah state park on the plateau written. I also want at least stub articles for most of the major formations and groups on the plateau created. Only then will I be confident that I could write such an important article. --mav 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please continue discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of the Capitol Reef area

Rapping

This article covers the topic completely. It is well written, accurate, sourced, and readable. I would like to recieve more feedback before I nominate it as an FA candidate.

1. Old peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapping/archive2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubdub (talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
   • Old old peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapping/archive1 Tim Ivorson 2006-05-28

• I started off the last peer review, and I'll start off this one also.
• See also First FAC

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.

• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• I think "History" can still be made more comprehensive

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though all of your concerns have been addressed, except perhaps adding to the history section. What would you want added there?--Urthogie 10:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The external links section describes the BBC page as a wiki. Is this accurate? Tim Ivorson 2006-05-28

The flow section has a link labelled "prosody", which points to a disambiguation page. I don't know which of the, presumably related, meanings of prosody is intended, but one of them is meter (poetry), which is linked from the next paragraph. If they both mean the same thing, only one of them needs to be a link, according to WP:MOS-L#Internal links.

In the same section, it would be nice to expand the discussion of metre. The article mentions Run-DMC as employing trochaic pentameter, but I found a web disussion, [17] which quotes Dana Gioia as using Run-DMC as an example of accentual metre (rather than accentual-syllabic metre, of which trochaic pentameter is an example):

Rap consciously exploits stress-meter's ability to stretch and contract in syllable count. In fact, playing the syllable count against the beat is the basic metrical technique of rap. Like jazz, rap extravagantly syncopates a flexible rhythm against a fixed metrical beat thereby turning a traditional English folk meter into something distinctly African-American. By hitting the metrical beat strongly while exploiting other elements of word music, rappers play interesting and elaborate games with the total rhythm of their lines. Here is a syncopated couplet from Run DMC:

He's the better of the best, best believe he's the baddest

Perfect timing when I'm climbing I'm the rhyming acrobatist

(14 and 16 syllables respectively)

. . . .

If rap were a written form of poetry, its complex syncopation would frequently push the meter to a breaking point. A reader would not always know exactly where the strong stresses fell. See how difficult it is to discern the four strong stresses in the first Run DMC couplet quoted, simply from the printed text . . . . Anglo-Saxon poets understood the problem inherent in strong-stress verse. That is at least one reason why they added alliteration to reinforce the meter. In rap the meter is also enforced by what its performers call "the beat," usually a pre-recorded digitally sampled rhythm-track. Traditional prosody describes the rhythm of poetry as the meaningful counterpoint of speech pattern against a fixed abstract meter. That same principle of expressive counterpoint is quite literally what rap does and its audience hears and enjoys.

I'd go ahead and edit, but I don't know how to tackle this. Tim Ivorson 2006-05-28

word. i'll try and add something that explains how much it varies-- but i'm not music theorist!!--Urthogie 18:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I can explain it in layman's terms...PCP MC 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

CS gas

I have recently re-written this article completely and would appreciate any improvements or feedback peope would care to give. I would like to get the article classed as a Good articles, it's not anywhere close to an FA... Cheers SeanMack 03:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The chemical synthesis and some chemical properties can be mentioned. Synthesis as I know starts from o-chlorbenzaldehyde and malonic acid nitril with a Knoevenagel condensation the CS is formed. Stone 10:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review - I've added some data from an american army webpage - so I'm assuming it's PD and therefore usable directly. It's been a while since I studied chemistry so I think I'd have to leave a more detailed picture so someone with more experience. I appreciate the time you took to have a look and make a suggestion. Kind regards SeanMack 17:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Rather than a bulleted list of chemical properties, I'd like to see the page get a table similar to that found on the Acetic acid page, which was an FA. Thanks. — RJH 23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The chemical property list (there is already a long list on the right side of the article)would be OK if the chemical abilities would be in the first place, but here the features of CS are more the point. May be a data subpage with chemical information will do. This is also done at the Acetic acid and othe chemicals pages. Stone 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you both for your comments. I invite you to check the page to see the changes I have implemented based on your feedback. Regards SeanMack 01:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

• Single-paragraph sections are already considered poor layout. so single-sentence ones? Consider merging them in "Elsewhere"
• "Production": Are there other ways it can be produced? Has it always been produced so? Who discovered the gas' properties? Can you buy it? Whatform is it usually found in? (spray cans?)
• How does the gas act on the body (e.g. why, physiologically, is it so effective?)
• Tear gas can remain stagnant in clothes and materials. There were complains in Quebec City after the Summit of te Americas there that several houses still stank of the stuff months after.
• The image in "decontamination" looks randomly added just so there'd be a picture there.
• Circeus 23:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Will add some refs for synthesis on monday (Corbson JACS 1928 page 2825 and Pande Org Proc Res Devel 2005 page 133) stone also patent numers for industrial production!--Stone 10:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• First the lead section should contain a summary of the whole article.
• Chemical production I will upgrade.
• Preparation should be renamed. To some what more specific. Should be also a full text.
• Colourless gas when burned – unclear - better sublimation or heated.
• History section with discovery and development and first use would also be good.
• The effects on humans should also be have own section, like physiology effects or so. With references!
• The section Non-lethal? Other title and the Uwe Heinrich paragraph can be short as the other ones.
• The table has not the same style like the chemicals from the project:chemicals .

--Stone 20:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Added new references for the long term effects of CS--Stone 19:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Universal pragmatics

To get non-philosophers to read and comment on the intelligibility of the article, and make creative improvements. Lucidish 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

After a brief glance I can see a few problems. First I noticed some jargon that wasn't linked so that users could look it up (eg. "program" in the first sentence"). I think the referencing leaves a little to be desired: you can still use Harvard but do this within the cite templates. Finally, there are no pictures or diagrams. --Oldak Quill 11:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Oldak. In addition, Wikipedia:Manual of style should be payed more attention to: section titles are rather too long, citations should be renamed references, there is a red category, bolded text should be unbolded, references need ISBN/ISNN, and from the middle of the article there are entire sections with almost no ilinks (1 or 2).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Air Tonight

a great song, as well as the first of many great songs released by Phil Collins. This song has lasted through the ages and is still consider a 'classic'. I'm hoping that this peer review will give me an idea about what still needs to be done on this article, or hopefully get Good article status. Hopefully not much :) . --Skully Collins 12:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure I share your enthusiasm for the song, but since I'm here... Firstly, I think the normal practice is to put a picture of the original single inside the infobox - did the original not have a picture sleeve or anything? It might be nice to have a screenshot to illustrate the section about the video too. The text itself looks a bit lacking in parts, particularly the lead, which should be a couple of paragraphs long (see WP:LEAD). The video section is just a brief overview of what happens in the video; maybe you include details of other performances or existing recordings of the song, as is done on "This Charming Man". The "Other pop culture references" section: many editors dislike such collections of trivia, so you may wish to integrate the important information into the main text. I also notice a couple of links directly to media content on other websites, which I believe is frowned upon - a link to the relevant page on the other website should be enough. It's not looking bad though, do make sure all opinions are referenced to the people who expressed them. Flowerparty■ 20:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey there -- Regretably, a lot of work needs to go into this article. Everything Flowerparty says is accurate, but to go further, more has to be about the song itself. What did the critics think of the song? Were there comparisons to Genesis, since it was Collins' first solo song? Of all of Collins' songs, there is probably more written about this one and its influences on 80s music, his career, etc., than any of his songs. Because of this, the article can't just be about the lyrics and video (although the video was probably important, too, since it was among the first 50 aired on MTV). The article needs to answer, why is this song important? Best of luck with the article. As an obvious fan of Collins, I appreciate the work being put into the article. -- BTW, as I previously uploaded a 30 second sample of "In the Air Tonight" for the Collins article during its FA nomination, I included a link in this article, too. --Ataricodfish 06:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard this song for the first time in 1988, and ever since it's been one of my fav. Phill Collins was a bit ahead of this time with the compression technique he used in the song. The lyrics, vocals and instrumental (drums) make the song a delight to listen.

Limerick

I'd like this article to be a comprehensive introduction to the city, Ireland's third largest. There are several large spin-off articles, including History of Limerick which is FA. But this root article should cover every general aspect of the city. Can anyone see any gaps or omissions? Seabhcán 14:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The red location dot is a gif, surely it should be a png? MGSpiller 19:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Image:Locationinireland.gif is used in hundreds of articles. Seabhcán 21:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves correct the reason i created the file as a gif was that the png had no tranparency in Internet Explorer, a png was created but has since being deleted. Djegan 00:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Derry's Ireland's third largest city. (Derry Boi 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

I guess he meant the Republic of Ireland, Derry Boi. Pauric 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Derry the island's fourth-largest city - those of superior size being Dublin, Belfast and Cork? Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Prion

I've contributed quite a bit to this article and although it's been given 'good article' status I'd like it to be as good as possible. It would be nice if it could be an informative source for scientists and medics who are interested, but also accessible to everyone, and it's difficult to get the balance right and still make it easy to read. I also was not sure whether it needed a section on prion strains - this is still a bit controversial so it would be quite speculative and maybe is a bit too academic for this kind of article? I love this subject so it would be great if this could be good enough for a featured article. --Purple 02:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I should add that that factually I think it's fine, it was reviewed by Nature and any errors have been corrected.--Purple 03:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice article. I think I'd also like to read about the research into how to revert prions. Also I believe there have been some results that show prions can also serve a beneficial role for some life forms.[18]

[19] Could you give the second illustration a caption? It is not immediately clear what it is showing. Thanks. — RJH 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There's another article on 'good' prions (fungal prions). Perhaps the main prion article could mention that side of things a bit more prominently, like in the intro--Purple 03:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC).

Speculation

[20]: Whoa. I'm glad I followed to the article on fungus. Those ruminations make me a lot more comfortable with my speculation about prions being involved in swelling. 216.234.170.74 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

More tangible results of my speculation are in this article about inflammation in Alzheimer's and prion diseases. 216.234.170.74 13:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone found the appropriate tag for speculation: {{OR}} Brewhaha@edmc.net 04:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rome

One of the world's most famous cities, and yet, the article is of low quality. It requires much attention and it would be absolutely fantastic to promote it to a featured article. All suggestions and comments welcome! —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The sections are mostly stubs and lists. Please go through some city featured articles for some ideas as to what to add. I'll review after meat is added. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tuatara

I recently looked up this subject on Wikipedia and was surprised to find a very well-written and comprehensive article. I've fixed all the obvious things, such as adding images, formatting references as inline, and reordering some sections of text. I'd like to know how you think I can improve this further. Thanks! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is very well written and very well organized. Specific comments first--

Together with Squamata (which is its sister group), the tuatara belongs to the group Lepidosauria, the only survivor of Lepidosauromorpha.

This is a little confusing, makes it sound like the *tuatara* is the only surviving member of Lepidosauromorpha, rather than Lepidosauria. Might want to re-word to clear that up. I changed that passage - does it read well now?

Testudines (turtle and tortoise) skulls were once believed to be the most primitive among amniotes, but newer research suggests this is not the case, as they might have lost the temporal holes in the skull secondarily rather than never having had them.

This is still controversial (though I personally tend to agree with it), and the placement of turtles as anapsids is used on most Wikipedia entries, so I'd tone down the langauge here to something like "...skulls are widely believed to be..." and "...some research suggest this may not be the case,...". I'd also include a cite for the relavent papers on non-anapsid turtles.

The real ribs are very special too, as small projections, pointing and hooked little bones, are found posterior of each rib (uncinate processes, also seen in birds).

A minor issue, but I'm not sure "very spcial" is the right phrase here. Something along the lines of "distinctive" or "unique", I think, would be more appropriate. I originally preferred distinctive, since the feature is also found in birds, but now settled for "remarkable". How does that sound?

A fossil of an ancient reptile called Homeosaurus looks very much like modern tuataras.

Minor--Homeosaurus is missing italics. Done. Slightly less minor--the two paragraphs on taxonomic history are a little out of place between paragraphs on anatomy. If you opt to add sub-headings, I'd find a way to combine these two paragraphs and the opening paragraph of the section into one subsection on classification. Made a start, do comment on flow if you have time!

Overall the anatomy sction is very comprehensive and fairly easy to understand. The only general change I'd make is the addition of sub-headings, since it is pretty lengthy. I can't comment much on the Natural History section, but I don't notice any errors or poor wording. The only other thing about the page I'd change is in the taxobox--a number of us (see talk pages such as Sauropsida and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life) have decided to follow more modern classification schemes and use Class Sauropsida in place of Class Reptilia, so you may want to change tha for the sake of standardization (though as the tuatara is a living reptile, I'd keep th link to Reptile instead of Sauropsid, using (Reptile|Sauropsida). Yep, agree and changed this.

Have some others look it over, but once a few changes re made I think this is a definate FAC. Good work!Dinoguy2 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I agree with all of them, and will put them into practice as soon as possible. I've also asked some other people to comment. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am both shocked & annoyed that you wouldn't consider me for peer reviewing an article to do with my expertise! Shocked, I tell you, shocked!!

Front side of coin with tuatara.

1) The article doesn't have an obvious piece of information: That the tuatara is on the new zealand 5 cent coin, set to be discontinued in october this year. That's a brilliant little detail - thank you very much!

Isn't that the back of the coin, the front has the queen on it. --liquidGhoul 12:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

2) Refs!!! 99 billion percent of the article is un cited! This is the biggest sin one could commit if attempting to get an article to FA status. If you find a piece of the information on here in a book or magazine, type it in the references! Anything! I'm telling you, finding references is the hardest thing you have to do & the most vital thing you have to do to get it to Featured status.

3)An easy task: Swap the external links & the references sections around, as refs should be above the external links. EG:

Refs section

Refs section should be here.

External links section

External links section should now be here, below the refs. Done.

4)Great work on the pics! Last time I visited the page, there were literally 2 pictures! However, the sketch/drawing of the tuatara towards the bottom is way too big compared to the other pictures. Further, the picture of a tuatara at Hamilton zoo is too small. Enlarge it slightly. other than that, great job. Done. Spawn Man 03:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC). P.S. Scrath out my list so you can keep track of what you've done. I'll help where I can.

I find the Anatomy section hard to read, it flows pretty bad. Most of it seems like a list of features, and there is a constant use of "it". It would be best if the beginning of paragraphs begin with "The tuatara". Once you get to the Classification section, the flow greatly improves. --liquidGhoul 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Zoos

Great page, which I'm not the best placced to comment on. I would say the list of zoos is certainly not comprehensive, and seems a little arbitrary, (1st page of google search found four other overseas zoos and two other NZ zoos with Tuatara), but this should be sorted out by someone who actually knows the subject. I found three overseas ones (Chester, St Louis and San Diego) and several NZ. If you can add the fourth overseas one, that would be great! I'll deep breately and not go on a personal rant about the use of the word primitive :-). Winstonwolfe 05:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "primitive" thing, I know... So remind me, what is the proper opposite of "derived"? Thanks. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The opposite of derived is basal, but that might need a ("primitive") tagged onto it anyway, since most people have never heard that term.Dinoguy2 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I looked at cladistics, and they call plesiomorphies "primitive or ancestral". - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just woken up and found all those comments - great and many thanks! Just to appease the more strongly wording of my reviewers: I didn't write the article, and I'm not an expert on the subject, so if you want to contribute references, great! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 11:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Coin subject

Hi, I submitted the comment about the tuatara coin above. However, if you read the liscencing on the picture itself, it says it "should only be used to show the coin itself, not any mural or thing depicted on the coin". Above, I only used the coin as an example to show you what it looked like. Sadly, it cannot be used in the article, as this would be in breach of copyright. So although the info can be included, the pic cannot. This matter would also surely arise at a FAC discussion too, so I'm just telling you now. Other than that, great job on completing most of my requests. Spawn Man 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC). As a side note, by references, I meant written, printed ones, as voters seem to dislike an article comprised only of external link refs.

I understand what you mean by references, but the fact is that I don't have any available to me.

As for the coin, I would like to avoid having a "trivia" or "tuatara in pop culture" section, as they're naff, attract nonsense, link spam and other vermin, and tend to get spun out into separate articles before too long anyway.

I'll have a think about the coin. Thanks, Samsara _contrib ^talk 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the fact that I want to create problems or that I want the trivia section. The fact is, is that it is the law. If you read the liscence on the photo, you'll see what I'm talking about. The article will not get featured if it has a copyvio. Believe me, I've written a FA... Spawn Man 19:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, saw you changed it after I posted... Spawn Man 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Two comments, (1)the article is badly in need of citations for the anatomy section, and there are other things that really dont need then (like the list of zoos with the species; (2) There is no point reinventing the wheel, there are several featured animals and they all use the same sections (which is useful for the reader and creates conisitency across Wikipeida), see White's Tree Frog Island Fox and Short-beaked Echidna for examples.--nixie 00:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Right. I've made a start on trying to shoe-horn it into that scheme. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• The "name" section should be titled "etymology".
• If I recall correctly, the Tuatara is significantly present in Maori, that should be in a section by itself, I think. Circeus 00:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Right now Sphenodon punctatus redirects to tuatara, but S. guntheri has its own page. S. punctatus should either be bolded in the taxobox and at some other point on the page or get its own article. Perhaps an explanation that the article is largely about S. punctatus is in order at some point. --Aranae 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae

After extensive resarch and editing, I believe this article to be very close to featured quality (if not there already). Although I have already spend much effort into making it verified, well written, clear, I feel that there is still room for improvement (which comes along with critcism). This is indeed a lengthy article, so I am particularly concerned with any grammatical/spelling errors I may have overlooked. If you find some, please point them out or correct them. Thanks! --Chubdub 12:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why are you placing this article on peer review when it is already on featured article candidates? It appears that this article is doing fine on WP:FAC, so I see no reason why it should be listed here. Thanks, AndyZ _t 13:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Feel free to archive this or remove this outright. I would be satisfied if this article would recieve more feedback however.--Chubdub 14:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

From personal experience, articles on FAC receive a lot more attention than they do on peer review. AndyZ _t

Fenix*TX

I have been doing a lot of work on the article about the band Fenix*TX and I was wondering what improvements are to be made for it to become a featured article. --HarryCane 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. I just had a couple of minor issues:

• Could you include some clarification of the expression "gleeful lyrics"?
• Please clarify the minor ambiguity in the following sentence: "the album featured ten more raucous and energetic songs than on their previous efforts". Were there a total of ten songs, all of which were more raucous? Or were just ten out of all the songs more raucous?

Finally, since the band members don't have their own pages, could you include some background on the key members? Perhaps in a members section after the history. Thanks. — RJH 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I cleared up both things and added a new music style section with samples. --HarryCane 15:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat (film)

I really like what I've done with this article. I'd just like to know if it is good enough for featured article status and, if not, what I can do to improve it. (Ibaranoff24 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

I think all the screencaps should have a rationale of fair use written for them and that the captions need periods at the end of them. Also the most important thing is that the article needs to have sources citied. For example the box office data. Underneath-it-All 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Screencaps: done. I also got some footnotes in there and my sources cited. (Ibaranoff24 04:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

• Try to find some non-web references. Check pretty much any history of animation and you're likely to find discussion of this film. A couple I recommend are Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age by Michael Barrier and Animation: The Magic of Motion by Charles Solomon. Leonard Maltin's got one, too: Of Mice and Magic or something like that. This is really important if you want to get this to Featured status, as many editors are questioning web references on FAC lately. — BrianSmithson 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Quadra 605

Article about an Apple Macintosh Quadra computer model - has a lot of information and references but I think there is still room for improvement. Any ideas? — Wackymacs 11:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's one of the best old Mac articles, and it has great technical info - but that's what it basically is, a datasheet in prose. It tells us everything aboutthe machine itself, but what I'd want to see in a perfect article on a topic like this is:
  1. Development: Who, when, where, how, why? Based on which prior models? Who designed the case?
  2. Marketing, target audience, and sales figures - was it a profitable model for Apple? How many were sold? How many built?
  3. Role in Apple's product lineup of the time - yes, pretty low-end, but what did it replace, or did it create a new niche? Which model followed it? What was it used for? How did it compare to other computers by other companies of the time?
  4. And what is its reputation, then and today? Is it remembered fondly? How long was it used, and is it still used?
  5. Is it collectible? What does a model in good condition fetch on the market today?
• There probably isn't a meaningful or important answer to some of these questions, but most of them will need to be adressed. In short, the real-world impact of the machine is almost entirely missing. But it's possible to pull this off, and in fact I'm more than willing to help adding the info if I can locate it. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Gloria

Another very complete tropical cyclone article by WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which has been previously assessed and is expected to be a Featured article candidate soon. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Things that are needed are a longer intro and possibly more structure to aftermath. Hurricanehink 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead, per WP:LEAD, should be expanded to a minimum of two paragraphs. AndyZ 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded it now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good article, but there are two one issues I need to bring up. First, I'm not sure that the paragraphs about Hurricane Bob are necessary. Second, although Image:H52 hurricane gloria 1985.jpg is from the Wikimedia Commons, it has no source so I may have to nominate it for deletion there. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind the second point. I just checked at the Commons, and it is a coast guard photo, although I don't know why I can't see that from here. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove the Bob information. The only reason why I put it in was due to the complacency left behind by Gloria, but I guess that's irrevelent. Hurricanehink 19:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Alizée

This article had a peer review earlier which has been archived.

The article has also had a self-review by the main contributors. Its a bit old but still is relevant to the current state of the article, in some parts. It can be accessed at Talk:Alizée/Review.

The article has changed a lot since its last peer review and is currently a Good Article. It has become quite comprehensive and is also in a pretty stable state. We would like if it becomes a featured article. To that end, any criticism (both positive and negative) and suggestions is more than welcome. --soum (0_o) 10:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I m game Ekna 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this does not seem to be generating any activity, I think I will take this to FAC. --soum (0_o) 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

United States Army

This article has alot of information and I feel that with a bit of tweaking it could be a Featured Article. Any suggestions are welcomed! Cheers! --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just a casual glance -- this article seems very listy, much of which ought to be expanded to prose paragraphs or moved to a different article. Tuf-Kat 06:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, tremendously list-oriented. :) You might compare to the British Army article for example, which is a bit less list-oriented. But I know some of that can't be helped. Still an attractive table or two could be used instead.

• The notable commanders at the top could easily be exapnded to at least a half dozen, I'd say.
• I'd like it if the first section covered the history of the Army, with say a paragraph per major war.
• The "Named Campaigns" section seems to over-emphasize the Revolutionary War and covers none of the others. That section seems like over-kill in it's current form and could be put on another page.
• I'm not sure that it's such a good idea to have so many external links throughout the article. Those could be difficult to maintain.
• The "Formations of the United States Army" could mention that this concerns the current Army only. Not historical formations.

Well that's all I had. I hope this was of some help. Thank you. — RJH 03:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• The intro doesn't look good. Its so short that it leaves a massive gap between it and the table of contents. Tobyk777 05:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the subject deserves a longer introduction, probably three paragraphs. I recommend branching off the majority of the lists into daughter articles and concentrating on the narrative. There seems to be almost nothing about its history. That includes not just campaigns but peacetime operations and United Nations interventions. Include major organizational changes such as racial integration in 1948 and the changing roles of female servicemembers. How about special forces? Don't ask, don't tell? I'd like fewer red links and more line citations. Durova 23:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not ready for prime time. The article represents a lot of work, but it doesn't flow well, and has some deficiencies. Suggestions:

• There should be at least two related articles, History of the United States Army, and Rank Structure and Insignias of the United States Army. Most of the pertinent material in the current article should be spun off into those related articles, and summarized in the main article. Histories of individual units should be covered in articles about those units.
• There should be at least one picture of a Soldier; probably two, one showing both a man and woman in dress uniform, and another contemporary foto of troops in combat uniforms.
• The sections Major Commands of the United States Army, Formations of the United States Army, US Units formed 1784 to 1821 etc, Structure of the U.S. Army and Organization all attempt to explain the structure of the Army, and together they're about as clear as a military phone book (notoriously easy for finding numbers if you're expert at the organizational structure). The article should should have a Ground Order of Battle, kept at the divisional level.
• The article lacks any discussion of doctrine.
• Likewise, Army culture and ethics.
• The training section is a stub.
• The article would be improved by a discussion of the people of the Army. There is no mention of Army government service civilians, nor of contractors who support the Army. The Army family is not mentioned. What are the demographics of our Soldiers? How long do they serve? What is the Army's recruitment goals and how well is it meeting them? The Army is a large organization of people; the article should cover the human aspect.

Tomcool 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Swiss Federal Council

A week or so ago, I've extensively expanded this article and would welcome your comments. I know that sources are lacking, but these are hard to come by in English on topics such as these. I'll endeavour to find more, though, including print sources. Sandstein 09:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• It'll need those pesky references for FA, though there's nothing against citing from [21] ;) --PopUpPirate 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the additions are very informative. Nevertheless, I have some minor complaints: (i) One small mistake: There are two vice chancellors (no mention of Corina Casanova).[22] (ii) Could you provide some examples for the "numerous constitutional conventions"? (iii) Regarding the immunity of the Councillors: One should also mention the responsibilty of the Councillors for crimes committed in connection with their office (article 14 of the Verantwortlichkeitsgesetz).[23]--Idefix 20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the useful input. I've tried to address all three points by extending the article accordingly. Sandstein 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• there's nothing about the origins/history of the council! Circeus 01:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the input. I'll try to address this. As to origins, I don't think there is much to say: it's an office created by the 1848 Federal Constitution. The history, on the other hand, is lacking in the article. Sandstein 05:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is much to say: it's an office created by the 1848 Federal Constitution. Then that should be clearly stated in the article. (though Imostly skimmed,so imight have missedit)
    • Well, it turns out that there were three paragraphs to be written about the origins after all. Next, history... Sandstein 16:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

I like this article and I was willing to work on it to possibly get it to FA status. Of course I can't do it alone so I wanted so get more eyes with different points of view on it.Nnfolz 17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Now here is an video game that can have lots academic references and critical analysis. Consider these sources here. Make sure to convert those external links in the body to footnotes. Consider reducing the "External links" section. Review failed video game FACs to see what went wrong for them, like Spira, 3D Monster Maze, Tecmo Cup, Paper Mario, Final Fantasy VI.--maclean25 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• All of the above, plus it's way too long, and the focus is pretty much entirely within the gaming world: what is not directly about the game environment and game play, is discussion from the POV of, essentially, the people waiting for, speculating about, and reacting to it. Putting it in a general real world context is important. Technical stuff like how it was developed, did it in any way innovate compared to other games, did it do anything new with the use of established actors and music. Business info like marketing, how much it made, etc. Social impact, criticisms, was it banned anywhere, that sort of thing. I don't believe there's any favored WP format for VGs, even among those that are Featured, but in general, "not just from a 'fan' perspective" is a good rule. --Tsavage 06:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Many video game fans need to get a life and learn how to view video games more objectively (I should know, I used to have that problem when I was a kid). --Coolcaesar 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Lead needs expansion. It should be a summary of the entire article.
• "myths and easter eggs" and "crossover" sections could benefit from summary style.
• One-paragraph sections are generally frowned upon. Besides, I don't think the subheaders under "san Andreas Worlds" are necessary
• Way too many external links subsections. There's 9 subheaders there!
• Circeus 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Scanger

The article is funny, but is not referenced and perhaps in its current form, doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. --Jason ^(talk) 12:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps a peer review wasn't the Wikipedia process i was looking for. --Jason ^(talk) 12:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? AndyZ 18:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've seen worse. The topic is admittedly not a general encl. article, at least not until such a group (or class) becomes more historically important than this, and much of the writing seems almost tounge-in-cheek enough that it could be a Bad Jokes Candidate, but that's for WP:AFD to recommend. Other parts of it seem pertinent and while it may need a lot of TLC, folks familiar with it's social context (Ireland, the U.K) need to weigh in 'here' before I'd definitely say it should be nominated for deletion. FrankB 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Van Halen

This article has undergone significant editing and revision in the last five months. I believe the main objections have been rectified and this article is very ready to go through the FA process again. --Chevan 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Could the paragraphs under "(Dec 2005 - Present) Hiatus Again..." be written like the rest of the article in prose, not in timeline form? I believe Hiatus and Again should also be decaptalized, per WP:MoS. Also, note Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked; years with full dates should be linked, like "October 7, 2005" (but not "1980" and "1981"!). AndyZ 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• My first suggestion would be to go over to recommendations through the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project. I noted that a review has been made of the page, and I agree with the suggestions. Just about all the new FAC music articles have some sort of sound sample. As well, the FMP noted there were no outside references, i.e. books, referenced in the article, although Van Halen has had numerous biographies, official magazines, and music entries over the years.

• Personally, I think the article is a bit wordy, and at times sounds more like a "VH1 Behind the Music" special than an encyclopedia entry. Some examples, "The commercial success that Van Halen reached with Sammy Hagar set high expectations — and fans everywhere were watching and waiting for the band's next move" sounds odd. "By 1980, Van Halen was perhaps the world's most successful and influential hard rock band" sets yourself up for arguments by fans of Led Zep, AC/DC, and others who might feel there were other more successful and influential hard rock bands. Similar unsourced opinions slip through the article, like "5150 is generally considered the strongest album of the "Hagar era." and "A left over track entitled "That's Why I Love You" found its way onto the internet, leaving fans to wonder why it didn't make the album." are two other quick examples, although there are others. Also, the article is very wordy, i.e., "By September, however, David Lee Roth and the rest of the band were asked to present an award at the 1996 MTV Video Music Awards. On September 4, 1996, the four original members of Van Halen made their first public appearance together in over eleven years, presenting an award at the 1996 MTV Video Music Awards." Essentially, both sentences repeat the same thing.

• I think that the article is there information-wise, but the writing needs a complete copyedit. Work on eliminating duplicate words, opinions, and POV. Otherwise, an informative article on a major rock influence.

• Hope this is helpful. Best of luck!

--Ataricodfish 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to discuss this more

Someone offer me some support. I've done major work, but progress is slow (The Elfoid 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Message me on my talk page if you wish for me to highlight specific concerns with the article, and I'll review it with a fine toothcomb. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Halo 2

(Relisting because of lack of responses)--Zxcvbnm 14:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Like Halo, this is also a huge article & famous game which needs a peer review.--Zxcvbnm 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• The lead definitely can be expanded, per WP:LEAD. AndyZ 00:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Random comments:

• Cite the "vista exclusive" thing, which I haven't heard of; Pointing at an official announcement by MS would be enough.
• What's the point of the "versions" section?
• Plot summaries should be written in summary style, not blow-by-blow accounts of each miniscule part of the cutscenes. That's what makes them summaries and not transcripts.
• Campaign section looks good.
• Multiplayer: "Live mode offers a unique and, some would say, innovative approach" - weasely. Cite it.
• I wouldn't begin the multiplayer section with an explanation of "traditional" Client-server architecture. I might word it more closely to "Players do not set up the server; Live pools players together before choosing a host."
• There's a three-line-long parenthetical comment explaining the benefits of being host. Take out the parenthesis.
• I would merge the powerups into the weapons article, to get it out of the way.
• "A common complaint" - cite it, if it's so common.
• Rename "criticism" to something more general like "reception" and include both good and bad.
• A copyedit would be useful. There's a fair bit of odd wordings, strange sentence order, etc, that should be fixed before going to FA.

Hope that helps. Nifboy 00:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Halo: Combat Evolved

Archive 1

After completely rewriting and heavily adding to this article, I believe it is coming close to featured article quality. Though I already plan on having it copyedited, I thought I should get some extra ideas on what to fix up before attempting FAC. Any suggestions are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Only problems I see aren't anything a good copyedit wouldn't fix. The only really bad sentence I saw was in the gameplay section: "the game is strongly focused on combat, and gameplay takes place almost entirely in the first-person perspective, while allowing the player to freely move, look up, down or to either side". It perhaps should be two sentences (especially given the prior use of a semicolon). The mention of shields replacing hit points is a little odd (I first thought it read "shields depleted of hit points"). Other than those few odd sentences, it looks really good. Nifboy 07:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll fix the things you mentioned to give the copyeditors less problems to deal with. JimmyBlackwing 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work. A few suggestions:

1. The last sentence of the intro (about Red vs. Blue) seems out of place.
2. That being said, to end the lead with criticism puts the emphasis in the wrong place.
3. "The player character is "Master Chief John-117",..." Reference? I don't remember him having been identified that way.

The article is very well-organized, but some of the prose is awkward. (Words like "being", for example, are good to avoid.) I'd say the criticisms of the first peer review, few inline citations and not enough reality-based information, have been well-addressed. -- bcasterline • talk 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to a friend about how halo doesn't make any sence. If there was a big ring like that in space, no matter how large it was, there would be no Surface gravity, since you would be pulled up just as much as you are pulled down. My friend suggested that the ring must be rotating. are there any sources for any of this, and could it be included in the article? Jon513 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A wizard did it (Read: Attempting to reconcile a fictional universe and real-world physics is an exercise in futility). Nifboy 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the responses. I'll get on this stuff right away. And I do believe Halo is rotating, so I'll dig up a source for that. JimmyBlackwing 00:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. JimmyBlackwing 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• It looks ready for FAC. However, I'm not sure how well citing lines from the game as soruces will go over at FAC. Tobyk777 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the idea from some of the featured articles on games. For example, Final Fantasy VI, VII, VIII, X and Final Fantasy X-2. Also some others, like Shadow of the Colossus and Chrono Trigger. So, unless some new decision has been made since those achieved FA status, I don't think there should be a problem. JimmyBlackwing 05:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read thorugh most of the article and believe it is very good. However some spellcheck is required, with typos and repeat words hiding in several places. I went ahead to reword/correct the "Gameplay" paragraph, but had not the time to fully check the rest. One thing that bothers me is the use of many short sentences when these could be easily linked, but this is probably something purely subjective. BTW, in "Gameplay" a section reads as follows:

"Halo features vehicles, ranging from technicals and hovercraft to giant tanks and aircraft, several of whom can be controlled by the player; the game switches to the third-person perspective during vehicle use. Halo is credited with presenting one of the first successful sets of controls for a first-person shooter on a video game console."

Is there a link between the presence of vehicles and Halo's lauded usage of controls? If so (as I believe it is), this should be explained better, otherwise the second sentence ought to be moved somewhere else. - Berserker79

Good point. I'll see what I can do about the placement of the "controls" sentence. JimmyBlackwing 11:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other suggestions/things to consider:

1. In "Synopsis/Setting" it is stated: "Halo takes place in an original science fiction universe." The extent of "original" should be explained, since there is a number of SF novels which have been confirmed or regarded as sources for the Halo storyline (see relevant paragraph in Halo (video game series).
2. Again in "Synopsis/Setting": "After a series of crushing defeats, the UNSC established the SPARTAN-II Project". I seem to recall this is what the game manual says, but according to The Fall Of Reach the SII program started before the war with the Covenant as a weapon to be employed against human rebels. This likely happened because the game was published well before Nylund wrote his novel, but personally I'd consider the novel's version as canon.
3. In "Synopsis/Plot": "Keyes has accidentally released "the Flood", a parasitic alien race...". This is not fully correct: the Covenant caused the release and Keyes merely opened one of the vaults. The situation is better explained in the novel The Flood, but in game a comment by 343GS also indicates the Covenant's fault, as he said something like: "I believe the other species on Halo are responsible for releasing the Flood, as they seem to be interested to enterany restricted zone." I believe this refers to the Covenant and their search of Forerunner technology to loot.
4. In "Reception" the section talking about the "Game Of The Year" awards is a bit messed up.

That's all for now, I'll try to look out for some typos now. Berserker79 12:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have taken care of your first three suggestions. However, I do not really understand the fourth one. How, exactly, is it messed up? Looking through it, I see no major issues. JimmyBlackwing 12:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if #04 sounded "obscure", fact was the following sentences had been written two times consecutively: "The game received numerous Game of the Year awards, including that of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences. Electronic Gaming Monthly, Edge and IGN also awarded it Game of the Year.". I've fixed that myself right now. Berserker79 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm not sure how I managed to miss that. Thanks for taking care of it. JimmyBlackwing 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Kolkata

The article has improved a lot in last few months, especially during the last week when it was the Indian COTW. The size has been greatly reduced from the previous monstrous size, forks have been created, new template has been added, references and relevant images added. However, the article deviates at some portion from the recommended Indian city formats, though the deviations are not unprecedented (compared to other city articles like this). The article yet needs some more references and maybe some more yet unmentioned aspects. Of course, Kolkata needs some copyedit also as errors continue to creep in. The language has been tried to be made NPOV as far as possible. Please help enhancing the article. Thank you.--Dwaipayanc 10:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. Some work on sections, like Utility services and Media would be apericiable. Other than these two sections all are nicely covered. Some images are licensed under {{PD-US}}. I am not sure with this tag, is it suitable to them. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Good start and I sincerely hope this article can get featured. But I have lots of issues with this article.

1. Lead needs to be smoothened. Avoid the use of specific figures."Done"
2. Lead should summarise the article. Copyedit needed.
3. Avoid specific dates in ==History=. "In process"
4. India's first railway was built between Diamond Harbour and Calcutta -- I'd like to see a credible source. -- "Provisionally removed as no credible source found"
5. The history needs a good rewrite. We can't just have the "firsts" in India. 1800-1870 seems to have escaped a mention. Comment: Having trouble rewriting the history. Need more references and a nice flow of language. Please help. Tried to include 1800s.--Dwaipayanc 03:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
6. city's port was bombed by the Japanese -- please reference. I've never heard of it. "Done".
7. Bengal Famine? "Yes. Bengal famine of 1943"
8. See also: Kolkata trivia -- remove. "Done".
9. =Climate= needs more references for figures. Extreme temperatures needed. "Done"
10. Mention the districts Kolkata comprises "Done (?)"
11. =Civic Administration= refer to Mumbai "Almost done"--Dwaipayanc 20:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
12. =Culture= section should not have subsections. "Please specify reason why Culture should not have subsections." Summarise and remove list material "provisionally done"--Dwaipayanc 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
13. remove list material in =Media= "Provisionally removed"
14. ==Tourism== section needs to be removed from the article. "Done"--Dwaipayanc 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Please remove all but the most famous institutions from =Education=. "Done".

Further review after completion of the above. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nichalp for your characteristic subjective objective and extremely specific review of Kolkata. We shall try to mend the defects you have pointed out. However, I have 2 points to ask:

(1) Why do you always make it sure that "Tourism" is not included? (I have seen you reccomending this before). Is it a Wikipedia rule?

(2) I disagree with you that section "Culture" should not have subsections. There are so many city articles with subsections in "Culture".For example, Canberra ( which is an FA). You would perhaps cite the Indian city format. But in any case, that is not a hard and fast rule! Please comment and help improve the article. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayanc 14:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The above post could very well be read as sarcasm. I really don't need to defend myself against "subjective comments" as I've always had the best interests in the improvement of articles -- me being a perfectionist. To answer your query: 1) =Tourism= is extremely subjective. We have a dedicated wikiproject, Wikitravel which takes care of the tourism aspect. The article is an encyclopedia and should not be read like a tourist brochure. Important points of tourism such as museums can be easily merged with culture. 2) I was asked to review the Canberra article by the nominator before it was featured. (Archive here) The subheadings were added much later and I supported the article without the subheadings. WP:WIAFA mentions that the ToC should not be overwhelming. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Nichalp, I am sorry if I have hurt you. Beleive me, the comment was not sarcasm as it seemed to you. I revere you as one of the oldest and most experienced wikipedian. And sorry for another mistake I committed , it was a disgraceful typo: I typed "Subjective" in stead of intended "objective". LoL. Please excuse me. And thanks a lot again for your extremely objective and careful review.--Dwaipayanc 19:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No grudges taken, but I request you to work on what I have reviewed. Those Culture subsections need to go, history made more fluid, tourism needs to go. On completion please let me know so that I can deep review. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a nice reference to bombing of Kolkata by Japanese. I have added that as a reference. Please also see this and the December 20 entry in this for futher references. However, nowhere it is mentioned that bombing was specifically done on the Calcutta port, whereas the personal account of Mrs Katyun Randhawa states the name of Howrah bridge. We can remove the word "port" if others agree. Thanks. BTW, deleted the info on first railway between Calcutta and Diamond harbour - as no credible sources available. --Dwaipayanc 14:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Many City articles, including FAs, have section "Tourism" or section like "Tourism". For example, Bath, Boston (under the subsection of "Sites of Interest', under "Culture"), Sarajevo, Sheffield (as a subsection "Arractions" under "Culture and attractions"), Louisville (under gross heading of People and culture) etc. I know the section "Tourism" is against the rules laid out in Wikiproject Indian cities. However, is that very strict rule? Or, is it possible to incorporate such content under other sections? Please help. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

From WP:WIAFA: 3) It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comments: Hi, pretty neat job so far. I'm going to list my concerns/suggestions below:
  • Can we expand on the Origin of Name section? Dosen't have to be by too much — just another couple of sentences would suffice.

"I don't think it is needed to increase for the sake of increasing. If somebody thinks that some vital/ important information has not been discussed under the section "Name" he/ she is welcome to modify the section."--Dwaipayanc 08:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I agree. The point that I was trying to make though was if there is more relevent, pertinent information out there that relates to the origins of the city's name, it should be included. AreJay 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• In history, The then ruler of Bengal Siraj Ud Daulah attacked the Fort William at Kolkata due to various percieved provocations by the British, such as improving the city's fortifications. What does this sentence mean? I can't understand what its trying to say...rephrase?

"well, this has a bit of history itself! 139.168.93.82 inserted the words "perceived" and some more ( detailed Here). Perhaps the anon wanted to make the view point of British clear. We retained his insertions after a bit of modification. This may need further rephrasing."--Dwaipayanc 08:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC) " Rephrased and removed debatable portion".--Dwaipayanc 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Kolkata is an unplanned city that developed as per the need of the citizen. Please rephrase and/or delete — this is a situation that most cities in developing countries face. I don't think it is specific to Kolkata. "done"
  • In transport, unbold Circular rail and metro railway. Create a stub for Kolkata Port Trust. "Done" --Dwaipayanc 08:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Transport section is a little choppy. Please merge 1-2 sentence paragraphs to promote flow. "Provisionally done"--Dwaipayanc 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What is an aggressive commuter? Can we rephrase and/or find a more suitable phrase? "Deleted due to rephrasing difficulty and relative unnecessity of the information"--Dwaipayanc 08:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please merge Utilities with Civic Administration a la Bangalore.

" Please specify why do you wanr to merge Utilities aith civic administrations. Thses 2 subsections have been kept seperate a la Mumbai "--Dwaipayanc 08:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The request to merge the two was bourne out of the fact that neither section, as it stood at the time of my review, looked comprehensive enough to stand independently. There is no harm in separating the two, provided both sections are adequately expanded. On the other hand, I merged Utilities within Civic Administration in Bangalore because the provision of utility services by the municapity and other governmental bodies falls under the Civic administration umbrella. AreJay 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Now the civic administration is undergoing some expansion. Utility services need more matter. If we fail to provide the Utility services with more fact, we'll definitely ponder over merging the two. Thanks for pointing out.--Dwaipayanc 03:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Add city development, infrastructural issues within the Civic Administration section. I found some info on Google that might pertain to this.
  • Create a Calcutta Stock Exchange stub and link directly to that. Don't link to external links within the article. "Done" --Dwaipayanc 08:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From an FAC standpoint, you might want to discuss religious/ethnic disharmony/tensions in the Demographics section, or in any other section you find appropriate. "Provisionally done, with reference. Please see"--Dwaipayanc 11:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Umm, you will have to dwell deeper into the matter. this seems to point to a lot more instances of ethnic/religious/communal incidents than has been discussed in the article. What about the Bengali refugees that the city took in prior to and during the Indo-Pak 1971 War..was there tension between them and the citizens? You can expand on Direct Action Day here..you may want to look into that. AreJay 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Direct Action Day has been covered under "History" and thought it would be a repeat to expand on it under "Demographics". That is why the words "after independence" were added along with the referenced comment on the relative communal peace in Kolkata. I do not have any ready reference, but I know that there was tension between the refugees and the residents during the Bangladeh liberation war. However, the tension never amounted to any siginificant sort of violence. It would be satisfying to include that piece of information, I am looking for a solid reference. The most brutal of the riots, i.e. the 1992-93 riots has been stated. Do you think more expansion needed on that? I do not think so as the article is already getting alarmingly bigger in size, as more info is being put. The only othet tension I found out was during the Naxalite movement, that has been touched in the "History" section, and that seems not be related to "Demographics" much. Please comment.--Dwaipayanc 03:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As a matter of fact, another smaller riot occured- after the killing of Indira Gandhi - directed against the Sikh community. I shall try to fit in the information, some reference would be helpful though.--Dwaipayanc 03:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • There is nothing in the History section about the city's history in the 1950s-60s as well as 80s and 90s. Some information needs to be added. "Done".--Dwaipayanc 07:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC) "History section needs a thourough re-write".--Dwaipayanc 20:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A nice map of the city would work wonderfully.
  • Sub-sections do not look appropriate for Culture. Please summarize and merge. "Done"
  • I am okay with the Tourism section so long as the verbiage is encyclopedic and the content is NPOV. Per Nichalp's discussion above, this section should be perged.
  • I will post some additional comments when these issues are addressed. Thanks and good luck y'all! AreJay 19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Follow up review

Great job, Dwaipayanc — I like the way things are taking shape. The biggest problem now with the article relates to copyediting. I will list the various issues below. Let us cleanup the article a couple of sections at a time. Below is my primary review. Thanks

• • Several factors like labour troubles since the end of 1960s such as the predominence of trade-unions in the industries, severe power shortages, limitations on raw materials, shortage of capital, a slow depletion of water volume in the Hugli River limiting the size of ships at Kolkata’s docks. led to the economic decline of the city in 1960s to 1980s Please rephrase this sentence. Perhaps break it up into two; there are so many commas in the sentence that one tends to lose track of what the central theme of the sentence being presented is. - Done
  • while there are some natural depressions in the area, probably dead river channels. I would break this up into two sentences as well...There are natural depressions in the area, which are probably dead river channels. - Removed
  • Human habitation has led to the establishment of mature trees and shrubs. Can we perhaps further explain the correlation between human habitation and the establishment of trees and shrubs in the region? - Removed
  • The approximate °F value for all temperatures must be noted. Done--Dwaipayanc 06:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The main seasonal influence upon the climate is the monsoon. I understand the idea that you are trying to present here, but perhaps it can be rephrased?- provisionally done
  • Mean ventilation coefficients... I would explain the values noted and wikify where necessary - "sentence removed, as this parameter did not seem much important and difficult to explain. Check out about what it is here" --Dwaipayanc 05:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Kolkata is an unplanned city and with an area of 185 km².. This gives the impression that the city just sort of came to be and is now growing, bereft of any planning..which is obviously not true. I do not know a whole lot about Kolkata but based on what I have read from the history section and the old Tourism section, there was some city planning involved. I don't know if I would use the phrase "unplanned city".- provisionally done
  • The North Kolkata...This would just be North Kolkata...or the north Kolkata locality..ditto for The South Kolkata and the Central Kolkata- done
  • Please address the commets noted above. Like I said, let us copyedit the article a couple of sections at a time. Thanks AreJay 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

More comments

• I've copyedited it a bit, but I still need you to go through the following before I continue:

1. I believe the Victoria Memorial documents the city's history pretty well. I'm sure there must be some good information available there.
2. The vehicle code(s) needs to be added in the infobox.
3. References needed for climate figures. Use non breaking spaces &nbsp; between a unit and its numeral. (I've done a few). Comment - All the figures in climate is taken from two references: This and that, and have been cited.--Dwaipayanc 06:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
4. I've found numerous errors in the article, I'll copyedit later. Stuff on the Calcutta High Court, the stock exchange etc.
5. Culture needs to be cut down. - "Started to cut down culture"

I hope that things are not cut down for the sake of cutting down. I am not from Kolkata and I really like the details in the culture section. It shows the unique aspects of Kolkata from other Indian cities. I reckon it can be made a little shorter but I am not sure how. Only thing I can think of is that the architecture section does not fit very nicely in there. However, since tourism was nixed their is no other place for that important information. Maybe in ubran structure? --Blacksun 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I've embedded a few comments in the text, please address it. I took care of one of the comments that I found--Blacksun 17:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More comment

I have a feeling that the article does not indicate the so many negative aspects of the city. For example, the poverty, the slums, the indifferent nature of the common man etc. The sobriquet "dying city" is also not there in the article any more. Can you suggest where to or how to integrate such aspects?--Dwaipayanc 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You can craft the most alarming or important negative aspects (slums, suicide, unemployment, etc) into a one-sentence description in the lead while relegating less important negative details to "Demographics". You can have a look at Chetwynd, British Columbia (note how they incorporate crime stats and other negative info). On the other hand, I don't think there's a big problem with "whitewashing" in this article — as long as slum stats, crime, poverty rates, etc are dealt with, you don't need to worry about including every negative epithet used for the city. Other than doing light copy-editing (I've done some) and the advice given by others, I don't have much to add. This is getting close to featured status, and we can have (LOL) three Bengal-related FACs (Bangladesh, Rabindranath Tagore, and Kolkata) up for review at the same time. Saravask 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Crime stats have been added, to some extent. Some "negative" statements like the depressive economy in 1970s and 1980s have been added. Unreferenced statement on people living in streets and footpath have also been added. Poverty rates could not be added due to lack of reference. Copyedits are going on. Please help!--Dwaipayanc 16:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I just have one comment. A city article should have a skyline picture.--ppm 19:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is we could not find out one good free skyline pic. There was one previously, but the quality was not really good. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 18:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have two small suggestions for the infobox. First, in population replace "lakh" with a raw number. No other figure in the infobox uses that combination of number and word, and as the infobox is supposed to be a quick reference tool (to avoid weeding through prose to get a simple figure) the "lakh" unit is not the most accessible form of expressing a number (but I suspect nearly everyone can understand what "1,400,000" means, opposed to "14 lakhs"). Second, the Density seems to be missing a unit. If it means 11,000 people/km², then say that. "People" is just as much a valid unit as meters or stones or apples. --maclean25 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Done--Dwaipayanc 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the present state of the article is fantastic, having at one point of time worked on the article single-handedly (and very badly may I add) myself. I have a few suggestions though.

1. The map in the infobox - is that part of the template for Indian cities ? I find the colours very distracting and unmeaningful. I would much rather prefer a map template as in Kharagpur, neat and immediately focussing the user's eye on the desired location.
2. A map of Calcutta with not too much detail, and which is not too touristy, listing the major neighborhoods, the bridges, the rail lines, and arterial roads of Kolkata and Howrah. (tall demand, I know - but it would be good even to get some approximation of this)
3. I read the conversation about subsectioning culture. I personally feel that the culture section is too much of a pot-pourri and should be subsectioned.
4. The article mentions 14 boroughs. Should that be spelt out with small annotations ? I think a complete article on Calcutta, in the section on Geography, should have a subsection on neighbourhoods. I think it should also spell out the five informal regions that Kolkata is made up of - North, Central, South, Salt Lake and New Town.
5. An iconic photo would help - skyline from Maidan or Hooghly, or even the controlled access ramp system and the Second Hooghly Bridge.
6. Dare I suggest this when I know so little about it myself - how about a section on Kolkata architecture ? Mix of the old and the new, the distinctive facading of British Calcutta, North Calcutta, South Calcutta and Salt Lake, the recent explosion of overbridges (this is one thing I did not find mentioned in the transport section), the historic facade preservation row, maybe these warrant a separate article, but a section would also be good.
7. I strongly think that trivia should be the penultimate subsection before References. A full trivia section could be a separate article, but more interesting and illuminating facts and figures could be touched upon. It helps end an article smoothly too, albeit at the risk of making it un-encyclopaedic. Currently, I think the article ends too abruptly.
8. Kolkata in art - should this be in culture or media. Probably maybe not even in the main article but in the subsidiary articles. But artistic depictions of Kolkata have led Indian urban artistic depictions, in much the same way NYC street photography led and still leads street photography the world over. Desmand Doig, Rathin Mitra, the Daniel(l) brothers or cousins or whatever.
9. Being very finicky as a photographer, I think the photograph of the Howrah Bridge should be slightly edited. It is a lovely shot - but to perfect it , it would need to be rotated and probably slightly cropped.
10. In the Utility Services section, the Fire Services should be mentioned. Since quite a few notable Kolkata heritage buildings succumbed to flames ( Bourne & Shephard, Firpo's, New Market) I think a brief mention of its lack of capability to tackle the difficult job of fighting fire in an old, unplanned city.
11. Calcutta University's turn of the century heritage should also probably be touched upon in the education section, and the reason for construction of BESU, JU and ISI. A short paragraph highlighting some information, rather than a list of college and university names which conveys little information. Such a list would be better off in the Kolkata - related topics box.
12. Copyediting - overuse of the article, particularly preceding proper nouns. Some of them can probably be done away with.

Again - overall, I think the present status of the article is just great! Keep up the good work! Pradiptaray 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Certain suggestions by you (like sub-sectioning the culture, adding trivia, adding Kolkata in art etc.)cannot be done as that would not be appropriate by the rule laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. The locator map, and a city map - we are working on that, as I have indicated in your talk page. Addition of fire brigade in the Utility and modification of "Education" will be done. An iconic photo will be a delight to add, but have not found one yet. Please feel free to crop the howrah bridge photo as you think necessary. The size of the article is a concern now, that's why we did not add info like the names of the 14 boroughs , neighbourhoods etc. Thanks a lot for your review. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)