Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2006

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

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


Contents

Narnian timeline[edit]

I created this page a few months ago. I consider it to be solid in its prose and complete in its content. References section is short, but it all came from one (a book), and there's a web site to back it up. Hoping to get this to featured status (incidentally – would it classify as a featured list?). Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Skimming over both this list and the featured list criteria, I'm going to tentatively say that there are no major barriers to FL status apparent to me. -Fsotrain09 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Guess there's nothing else to be said then. Thanks for the comments – low in numbers tells me there aren't too many problems! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • These two sentences are a bit awkward: "The serious railway accident of British Rail, as described in The Last Battle, causes the death of Digory and Polly, and this takes place in 1949. While they die on Earth, they are transported to Narnia, where they witness its destruction, Narnian year 2555." They could stand to be broken up a bit, because at the moment they have the feeling of being run-ons.
  • You probably also need a citation for the assertion that experts and fans consider the timeline to have a bearing on the series. MLilburne 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Abyssinia, Henry (M*A*S*H episode)[edit]

Hello. This is an article which I originally created and worked on regarding one of the more notable episodes of the TV series M*A*S*H. It achieved GA status after about a week and a half on Wikipedia, and I had a couple of questions regarding what can be done with it. First of all, since this is a shorter article, and one on a specific episode of a TV show, would this be a suitable candidate for FAC? The article is researched well in my opinion, and has 20 citations from 10 sources. And then, secondly, if this article is suitable for FAC, I was also wondering what improvements can be made or any suggestions you might have. Thank you very much for any and all advice and help. - Hotstreets 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks interesting. I have a couple comments and questions:
  • The reference to service points says, "See goofs". It's hard to find the comment about service points on that page, though. I'd recommend explaining in this article why the issue about service points was an anachronism, and then direct the reader to the article about goofs.
  • Did the writers decide to kill off Colonel Blake's character as revenge for McLean Stevenson leaving the series? Or was his leaving amicable on all sides? There's a question about this in the McLean Stevenson article, though it might not be possible to find a true answer one way or the other.
  • "Spoilers end here" should come before the "Reaction and impact" section.
  • I'd combine all the references to the Wittebols article into one reference, instead of having two different footnotes for it and one general reference. Also, I think the "Footnotes" section should be titled "References". You might want to look at Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard_appendices for some more information on this. (In fact, I'm not 100% aware of this myself.)
Otherwise, I think you have a good article on your hands, especially one that really made an impact in the series. (It's certainly more encyclopedic than any Pokemon episode, for sure.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I am in the process of addressing your comments and concerns. Thank you very much for the feedback, and I should be "finished" with the revisions this weekend. Hotstreets 00:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize for the long time it took, but I have done a variety of things to address your concerns:
  • Because the article List of continuity errors and anachronisms in M*A*S*H was very unorganized, I have spent some time reordering and reorganizing this article; while the process is not finished, the goal is for each season/episode to have space for goofs, and this currently has been done for Abyssinia, Henry. Now clicking on that "See goofs" link will take you directly to the "Abyssinia, Henry" subtopic of the goofs page.
  • Since I couldn't find much information about your second point (the writers killing off Henry Blake as revenge), I have not made any changes – while it was clear that he announced his departure long prior to leaving (hence the episode in general), I have not found any credible information suggesting that his death was a form of revenge by the writers.
  • The reason for the two separate references to the Wittebols book is that the later citation is from a later part of the book. In trying to be the most specific possible in my citations, I listed them separately since there is a gap between the material in the first cited section and the second.
  • Supposedly, according to WP:CITE, when you have a Footnote reference to a book/article, it is also suggested to have a complete Reference in a separate "References" section in alpha order, I guess I have always just followed this. I kept the section as is, since if other publications are used to cite the article, it would become more useful. However, if you still object, I can take it out. Please let me know.

On a sidenote, I have also fixed what automated review suggestions I thought applied to the article. Once again, thank you very much for your advice! Hotstreets 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Edith (1971)[edit]

This article about a Category 5 hurricane had been greatly improved in the last few days by User:Hurricanehink and is now a GA. What is needed for it to become an FA? CrazyC83 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't wish to earn the title of "Captain Obvious" but the "Aftermath" section seems a little slim? The rest of the article was a quite good read. - Tutmosis 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I know it's short, but there's nothing else about aftermath. Would it be better as part of the impact, and rename the impact section to Impact & Aftermath. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I would definetely support such a merge. Small sections kind of ruin the visual dispay of the article, and for a good article like this it would be a shame. - Tutmosis 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it looks much better now. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to link all of those dates in the article? IMO, they're unnecessary and somewhat distracting. Gzkn 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • We do that for all tropical cyclone articles. If I were to change it for this article, it would have to be done for all 400 other articles. Such standards have been in place for a few years now (linking every date). Would it be better to remove some of the dates entirely, or just remove the wikilinks? If you think such a change would be required for our 400+ articles, feel free to bring it up at our talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, thanks for clarifying. Wasn't familiar with that standard. What was the reasoning behind it? Or is there an archived page somewhere where it was decided that I can read up on? Thanks. Gzkn 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        • It's more just an unofficial standard the tropical cyclone project. We all just decided to link every date that we mention. It was never challenged, so that's just what we've been doing. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles Atangana[edit]

I've recently expanded and copy edited this article, and I'd like to nominate it to WP:FAC. Before that, I'd appreciate any comments on it. Are any terms too vague as to warrant explanation? Does everything flow well? Thanks for any help. — BrianSmithson 13:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I suppose I should provide a bit of explanation, since Atangana is not very well known. He was a Cameroonian leader during the colonial period (he served under both the Germans and the French). He witnessed the futility of armed resistance to the colonials and instead tried to work within the system to the betterment of his people. It's an interesting story, and I hope others will find it worth their time to read. — BrianSmithson 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Ran the Auto peer review myself before I submitted. Everything should be taken care of. — BrianSmithson 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an excellent, fascinating article, and well prepared for FAC in my eyes. I made a couple of formatting and wording tweaks, but the only real issue I spotted is that I would like to see a citation for the traditional education of Beti boys (at the start of the early life section). This is very well done, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. --RobthTalk 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits and comments! The traditional education of Beti boys bit comes from Quinn, "Atangana", 486, so it is included in the next citation (after the following sentence). I suppose I could add another reference, but people on FAC seem to get all hissy if the same referece is cited twice in a row sometimes. :) — BrianSmithson 07:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I see. It's really a shame we don't have some good way to indicate what chunk of text a citation covers. With the tools we have, however, the way you have it is good. --RobthTalk 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Amanita muscaria[edit]

There has been much less development of fungi pages than of many other collaborations i have been involved with. I figured Amanita muscaria was a page that could one day be a FAC though needs alot of polishing! I figured placing it here was a good starting points for ideas as I felt a bit at a loss at where to continue.Cas Liber 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, fungus just isn't a sexy content area to work in :)
  • There's a lot of images here for a relatively small amount of text, and most of them are just "another mushroom" - consider putting them in a gallery maybe? A side-by-side comparison of this mushroom with the edible one it's mistaken for would also be useful.

(tricky this. I would rather link to other mushroom pages than have images of related species on this page as there are other desirable images to have - odd colour forms/art/etc. I do agree about highlighting differencesCas Liber 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

  • The lead needs expansion, especially with where it's found geographically and where it originated - it implies Europe and North America but later suggests Siberia. Also, this is minor, but the phrase "easily exported" implies that it's done on purpose, which is probably not the intention.
  • Citations are needed for the locations of the varieties. A cladogram or some sort of evolutionary information would be nice if the research exists.
  • "Distribution and habitat" could use expansion.
  • The toxicity section needs references and some rewriting ("high rage"? that whole sentence sounds strange and possibly copied from somewhere?). In particular, only muscarine gets any mention of its chemical mechanism, but the claim is that other substances are responsible for the psychoactive properties. More on their mechanisms would be useful.
  • Popular culture is listcrufty and disorganized. The Santa thing sounds like a fringe theory and a lot of the other references are rather tangential without references (ie, Mario having similar-looking mushrooms isn't really worth mentioning unless it's known somewhere that this mushroom was the inspiration).
  • In lieu of the crufty stuff, more on the verified use of this mushroom in cultural or religious rituals would be a sensible expansion.

Opabinia regalis 01:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input started to reorganise images as there are lot of the same thing (an adult red-and-white mushroom) without adding anything to the article.Cas Liber 05:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, are there any images of the spores or immature stages? That might be more useful. Opabinia regalis 06:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking, though spores are white so not much to see (unless you use black paper!). There is one subadult one on the page in the pop cult bit. Will check out commons.It is spring here in Oz so can't take any photos of it till autumn. Cas Liber 10:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[[1]] - actually there's a bit to choose from here....Cas Liber 10:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Got a bunch of various growth stages, but would like them next to description section but can't make them go there. :( Cas Liber 10:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks dude ,gotta run as real life beckons for a few hours...............Cas Liber 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You are very welcome, Take care, Ruhrfisch 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

More Cowbell[edit]

The layout of this article is all rather messy, as is the extensive list of Pop Culture references. I'd like to see other's view on this. I think if this article was worked on enough, it could gain Featured Article Status. NauticaShades(talk) 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Can "References in popular culture" be converted to prose since currently it looks like a trivia section? - Tutmosis 21:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "References in popular culture" really *really* needs to be trimmed down. Bulletpoints such as "One of the fake loading messages in the MMORPG Auto Assault is "Adding More Cowbell" add little to the article. Also, inline web-page citations should be converted to the Template:cite web format. CloudNine 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cooch Behar[edit]

What do all of u think I can add more to enhance the quality of the article? Help me.

Amartyabag 09:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments. Please try to follow the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. There should not be sections like "Places to See" (can be incorporated in Culture, History etc), "Hotels".

Also, the article lacks inline citations. The article won't survive an FAC without those. Anyway, a really commendable effort for a town that does not probably have good number of web resource to work on. Keep it up. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment More citations would be useful. I know this is a work in progress but that would make it better. I also think that if you could add some pictures that would make it better. This is from a first glance, but I will tell you more once I read the article properly. Thanks. --Antorjal 13:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a great effort. A few photographs would make it more valuable. The red dots give an impression of unfinished work. Can these be removed? -- P.K.Niyogi 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Good work so far. I recommend a copyedit as some of the prose is awkward (Sport for example). Phrases such as "In course of time, Cooch Behar has been transformed from a kingdom to a State and from a State to the present status of a district, and Cooch Behar its district headquarters." feel awkward. Lead needs a little cleaning up as well. Some of the redlink subjects may already have articles; for example:

Besides mainstream Indian Television Channels, the town also receives Nepali Television Channels and Bangladeshi Television Channels.

There might be a article listing the television channels of those countries, but not necessarily under that name. CloudNine 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

List of British Columbia general elections and others[edit]

"Others" being:

I'm grouping these togther because they are all very similar in format and content, and so any comment which applies to one almost certainly applies to them all. Their peer-review sub-pages should re-direct here. I'm seeking general comments and sugegstions for improvements, in particular answers to questions like:

  1. Could / should there be more prose to accompany the list, or wuld this full outside the scope of the article?
  2. Is there any related information that is worth including on the page?
  3. Each list has a graph of seats per party for each election.
    1. Should this be full-size (like in the SK list) or a thumbnail (like in the others)?
    2. Should the bars indicate number of seats won (so the overall height varies according to the number of seats in the leglisaltive body, like this), or should they indicate the proportion of seats won (so the overall height is constant, like this)?
  4. Should the lists have most recent or oldest results at the top?
  5. How do the lists compare with List of Ontario general elections and Quebec general elections (which are in a very different style)?
  6. Is it worth having coloured bars to denote the winner, as per List of New Brunswick general elections?

For the record, the SK list is former featured list candidate (sub-page). It failed due to insufficient support.

Thanks in advance for any comments! Tompw 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. If this is helpful, ask on my talk page and I will run the program for the other lists too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Given most of the points are the same, I shall reply by point raised:
  • Infobox: Nope, none exsist
  • Length/comprehensiveness: As they are lists, relevant criteria are at WP:WIAFL... "the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set" - which is the case for all except the Manitoba one (which lacks only 19th century details). So, the Manitoba list needs completeing.
  • Footnotes/references: Added a specific references section, depsite there being only one reference used/needed. (Namely, the provinical election authorities)
  • Copyediting: I would say the prose in the lists is well-written, but it is hard to judge ones own writing. I would welcome someone elses comments on this one.
  • Length of lead paragraph: Oddly, AB and MB have this, but not BC or SK. I personally feel that the lead paragraph is of an apropriate length.
  • Section ordering: made sure "references" section was after "see also".
Thanks for all this. Tompw 16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ziff Davis[edit]

The Ziff Davis article has been on clean-up for about a year, and they are a pretty big company in the internet technology news field. I've tried to make some improvements in the past hour or so, and I'd like tips on how my fellow editors and I can improve it further. - CaptainAmerica 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • A fair-use representation of their logo would add some recognition at the start of the article. Mfields1 00:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A graphic showing their growth by decade or year, either in revenue or number of publications or some way to show the change in size of the company.
  • Make a link to Davis and start an article on him.
  • Overall more graphics that are not so busy, at the top of the article. You might have to look for better cover examples with different colors. They don't look good.
  • The article could benefit from some additional sources (non web-based).
  • The article leaves me wondering, what did Ziff Davis do from 1927 until 1938? That's a big gap. Then it seems a large gap exists until 1952. In the history section, it is subtitled 'Fiction and Hobbyist Magazines" but the last paragraph discusses broadcasting. Maybe that should be a separate subheading? If the company has split into two or more divisions (e.g. publishing and web-based) maybe there's a way to show this differently. It might be possible to discuss the changes by decades. Mfields1 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Peer review Habbo Hotel has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived.

Habbo Hotel[edit]

Relisting for peer review, as I received no response last time. I'd really like for someone to give this article a thorough review, if not, a short note pointing out some obvious errors. Input on the talk page is limited, so please, any input will be much appreciated. Kind regards, –sebi 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Box at the top: "This article or section is written like an advertisement.". That's no good. Plenty of pictures, good (although be careful with copyright, that's a lot of fair-use images). There appears to be a lot of content about the in-game world, although not that much about the game itself. I think you should shorten the "Inside the Hotel" section. i.e., you probably don't need to explain the four in-game games with a paragraph each, just give them a sentence (e.g. Wobble Squabble - an elimination game played on inflatables in a swimming pool in the Hotel). The image under "Habbo eXperts" flows beyond its section, killing the line under "Sponsorship", you should move that image up so its under the previous heading. There are some table cells missing in "Current Hotels". --TheJosh 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The only pictures that we can include that are relevant to the subject are in-game screenshots, which are fair-use images, and so there's not a lot anyone can do about that. The inside the hotel section is just about the main cause of that advert tag at the top of the page, I'll discuss that a little further on the talk page. And I'm planning to expand the Habbo eXpert section and the Sponsorship section, so it might fit after I've finished. Thanks for the review, though :) –sebi 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Giggy[edit]

Well, the advertisment tag isn't a good start.

  • The lead is to long and drawn out IMO - we really don't need that much of a gameplay analysis in it. Merge paragraphs 2 and 3, and shorten them both, so it's only a broad, broad summary.
I actually think the lead is a perfect size, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's because too much of the article is devoted to gameplay ;) If you shorten that and de-cruft it, you'll have to shorten the lead too! Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
But the lead only covers a short history, credits and furniture, moderation and management and achievements in a short summary; these are the most important points of the article. I personally believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lead right now. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Expand the history section - discuss the idea, the creation, any problems in its creation, etc. That's a much more important section then gameplay etc.
  • Remove the subsections in the features section, and merge the whole thing into one paragraph on features - avoid gamecruft, this isn't a game manual.
  • Same with the inside the hotel section - a few paragraphs could summarise the entire thing. Precedent: [2] The current article discusses gameplay, and instructs, way to much - shouldn't be a game guide!
  • You only really need one paragraph on mods and experts, not all the (I'll say it again) cruft.
IMHO, the mods and experts sections don't look like cruft to me, the information in them is quite valuable. If you could point out a couple of advertise-y comments in those sections, I'll remove them. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Moderators can be recognised by the prefix "MOD-" in front of their account name and by a Habbo Staff badge. - Does the article really need this? It's totally useless to someone who isn't/hasn't played the game. Habbo eXperts are given a badge next to their avatar to enable newer users to identify them easily - Same...and a lot of the gameplay based statements here fall under the same cat (only I don't want to cite the majority of the paragraph!) Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Expand on the sponsorship section, wherever possible. This is something that the article SHOULD discuss.
I have an idea on expanding the section, I'll make the changes later on. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This section could be merged into a separate list article.
Really? I wouldn't have thought so, the list isn't that long. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if you make a separate list article, you can discuss the hotels too, rather then just plonking them on this one. Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What is there to discuss? I think that everything about the Hotel can be included in this one article, rather than expanding to other articles; the scope isn't that large anyway. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What's with the external links - where's the link to the HH home page, etc.?
As there are 29 hotels with 29 different home pages, the Current hotels list has all the links to the websites. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a "main" hotel? Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all I've got for now...I've watchlisted this page, so ask any questions :) Giggy Talk 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
    • Nope, all pictures that could be of any use are copyrighted screenshots, so this can't be done. –sebi 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I know it sounds like a long shot, or just odd, but sometimes a picture of people playing the game is appreciated. Strange, yes, but most a few people ask for that sort of thing... Giggy Talk 07:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 23 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
    • "Wouldn't" wasn't found in the article, it was found in the html comment text, so I'm ignoring this. –sebi 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 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, Davnel03 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Xenomorph (Alien)[edit]

On behalf of User:Dark Kubrick, who asked me to help him write this: I'm going to try to keep an out-of-universe perspective on this article, but I need help in knowing what sections to add or delete. I'm planning on adding a "Depiction" section, and rewrite the Characteristics part for less cruft and speculation. Debate and Theories will probably go or be merged somehow. Plus I'll add a concept and creation section. Any other topics the article might need to cover? Thanks. Dark Kubrick. 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest when I read a while ago I found it very informative for something that doesn't exist. But yeah, I think it'd be neat to take the fictional information on it's lifecycle (which fascinates everyone) and condense it into it's own section, and get on with the creature's popularity. Wiki-newbie 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The featured articles on fictional characters already provide a wonderful (self-explanatory) outline: Appearances, Characteristics, Concept and creation. - Tutmosis 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Kinda obvious...I'm looking for more specific details...--Dark Kubrick 23:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Leonard T. Gerow[edit]

Need recommendations on what could be added to improve the article. Mfields1 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

references. - Tutmosis 23:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother Australia 2006[edit]

As I've said in a previous PR, Big Brother Australia articles don't get as much attention as other Big Brother articles, so any opinions or suggestions would be much appreciated. jd || talk || 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

University College, Durham[edit]

I feel this is a decent bodied article, that now needs a review to perhaps check on its writing style and what further information could be given. Is it possible for it to reach featured status (i.e. how close is it and is the subject notable enough to have enough relevant info?) --Robdurbar 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on what I'd personally like to see in the article
  • First of all the article needs a spell check, I corrected a few errors in the opening paragraph and there are more throughout.
  • I also didn't like some of the use of commas. Some of the sentences/clauses come across as very clunky.
  • In the 1st paragraph is it correct to say that University College is in the Castle when not all of its buildings actually are?
  • Comparison of this college with the other Durham colleges (academic & sporting maybe?)
  • More/better pictures of inside the college buildings
  • A map/plan showing where the castle and other buildings are in Durham in relation to the other colleges
  • Explanation of the origin of the crest and motto
  • 'Formal' in the picture caption needs replacing with 'Formal Meal'
  • Can there be more about what makes this college different from any other one, maybe college clubs, sports teams etc.?
  • The part about the buildings could be expanded, maybe taking some info from the Castle article. Is the inside mostly still castely or has it mainly been converted to look like more modern buildings?
  • How do tourist & students interact? JMiall 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank's for that. I've given it a thorough spell check and addressed one or two of the other issues bought up. I think it's fair to say that it is located 'in' the Castle - that's where its offices and reception are, for example - but I've clarified in the intro anyway.
The grammar/structure could probably do with going over; I tend to overuse commas/semi-colons and as I have written the vast majority of the text, it will have suffered from a lack of proof-reading etc. from other editors.
Crest/pictures are being worked on, at least that gives me something to focus research on! --Robdurbar 11:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ecco the Dolphin[edit]

I really feel this article could go all the way. It just needs a little push in the right direction. --Ppk01 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I may be mistaken but it appears that the article will require a complete rewrite. The intro gives the impression that the article is about the character. If this is what is intended, then the storyline and gameplay sections are overly detailed, and should only be found in detail in the article about the indivdual games. There also should be a section on the creation and developement of the character, as well as critical reaction to the character. There need to be a lot more references with inline citations, outside sources required for the critical reaction and the creation. Make sure the characterists section about Ecco follow the guidelines at WP:WAF. Jay32183 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Antioxidant[edit]

Peer review prior to a month-long editing collaboration has been requested. Thanks for all your comments. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Are these reliable sources? Health-Herbal.com, MotherNature.com Sandy 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I saw those in the article and thought they should be removed. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not that the content is bad so much as extremely lopsided. There's way too much poorly sourced or unsourced nutritional stuff and not enough about antioxidants in cell biology (but I'm sure you knew that already). Most of what's currently in the "nutritional antioxidants" section should probably be devolved to the corresponding list and cleaned out of the main article, and the lead should correspondingly be fixed so it doesn't spend twice as much time on nutrition as on anything else. The current biology section should be expanded so that the individual examples can sustain their own separate paragraphs/sections. Also, currently the nonbiological roles of antioxidants are not well covered. Opabinia regalis 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I second ORs comments. Pictures to show how they work in the cell would be a good addition, mabye someone could make a diagram like this. --Peta 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Animania[edit]

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Animania/archive1

It's been a while since the last peer review, the article has undergone a little change since then, I've added one image (still yet to trawl through the photos taken this year to see if there's anything usable), and I'd like to see this article moved as close to Good Article (at least) as possible. Besides the lack of images, the only main concern was a lack of pages linking in, and unfortunately without spamming I'm not sure how many articles I could validly add a link in.

In particular, I'd like to know which GA criterion the article currently passes, and which it fails (I appreciate that there's a lack of reliable sources, although I wouldn't mind being told where I might look for more). Confusing Manifestation 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Make Way For Ducklings[edit]

Make Way For Ducklings is a children's book set in Boston, Massachusetts. As little as a month ago, the article looked like this. With a little bit of research, ample information was found about the book, its sales, its history, and critical and cultural reaction. I believe this article would make a great FA, but of course, I would love a peer review. A review is especially important, as there are not currently any featured articles on children's books. Thank you so much for taking the time! — Scm83x hook 'em 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on the use of page breaks in the book needs references. I added one {{fact}} tag for one statement, but probably another 2-3 are needed besides that one. Good work with this article though -- that a children's book article even has a section on such a technical aspect of literary criticism is great. -Fsotrain09 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The entire section is from one source, which is cited at the bottom of the section. I will add another ref in the top paragraph to make it more explicit. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This looks very, very good, and I'll be glad to pay close attention and pitch in to help with any featured issues it might have in the future. A few suggestions:
  • For sales, perhaps some approximate sales numbers would be more useful than Amazon/B&N ones that change daily, if not more. I'll see what I can track down for you on it, but if you beat me to it, that might be useful.
  • I'm not confused by them, but to kind of tag along with the thought above, the footnote style is a little odd if you're not expecting it. I'm not sure how to fix it, but while you're properly sourcing whole sections, some people might not understand it.
Otherwise, I like! --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the input. I've used that sourcing style in the past with no issues in all of my previous featured articles, so I don't think this should be an issue. I certainly agree that hard sales numbers would be better, but given that the book has been around for so long and its genre, actual dollar figures don't seem to exist. I figured B&N and Amazon were the next best thing. Thanks so much for the input, and I appreciate your offer of further aid. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If you've had no further issues, then I don't see it as a roadblock. I'm used to political articles in that regard, honestly. As for sales figures, I bet we could probably get an approximate idea of how many printings, what edition it's in, and some approximate sales figures as opposed to an actual dollar value. I'll see what I can do and replace it if I find anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Found in two different references that it has sold over two million copies. Placed it in the sales section and the lead. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Silent Hill (film)[edit]

The Silent Hill film page has been GA for a few months now. The editors all did a great job and I'm looking to push its quality up higher, possibly to a higher rating or FA. I'm looking for any and all feedback and comments regarding the article.

Previous Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Silent Hill (film)/archive1

Plot is overlong. Move cast information and any minor stuff to a new section, ala Star Wars/Lord of the Rings articles. WikiNew 10:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Lead needs expansion. Quadzilla99 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the comments! --Beanssnaeb 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian language[edit]

I have just read the article Russian language that is a FA. I was thinking of improving this article to a similar quality, I am open for suggestions what to do. Thank you in advance. --Tone 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is uncited; the first thing it needs is inline citations. Be careful of comparisons to other FA articles, as they may no longer be currently at FA standard. Good luck, Sandy 14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The Russian language article was made FA in 2004! After a brief look I think it would fail on inline citations if nominated in 2006. With your Slovenian one you should cite more diligently if you want it to be FA. (Some random suggestions follow.)
  • It seems that there are a lot of sections that are stubs that reference other articles, you should expand those.
  • The map of distribution is not perfectly clear - the scale is too large and it is colour coded in 3 shades of green but with no explanation. Perhaps you should make the map smaller scale and explain the colour coding.
  • The last paragraph says: "Examples of the language in use are given at every topic in the Slovenian grammar article" - you should avoid referring to other articles so directly, instead give some examples and maybe do a {{seealso}}.--Konst.able 06:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

James River Bridge[edit]

Please comment on how this article can be improved. Thank you. --NE2 12:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


In section #2 History, I'd suggest that the year 1927 be referenced in the first sentence so that users don't have to click on the 7ref. Dharp66 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66

I don't know when the company was chartered, which means I need someone in Virginia to check the laws; I only have a reference that says that it was chartered by the GA. --NE2 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The L Word[edit]

Please give suggestions to make this article better. Any merging? Separation? Style Tips? -- TLW 07:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Most crucially, I think, the article needs to reorient its focus away from generally unencyclopedic content such as plot and character descriptions - which are all inordinately long and threaten to violate WP:NOT - and towards encyclopedic subjects such as real-world factors that have influenced the work, its reception by critics, the influence of the work on later creators and their projects, etc. The key guideline here is WP:WAF, which is highly recommended reading for anyone working on TV show articles. Of course, all the plot synopses could just as well be deleted as WP:OR, as they're unsourced. Also, per WP:TRIVIA, long trivia sections are bad practice. Sandstein 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for the information about the plot Synopsis. Most of this information can be reffered to TV Guide. I believe though then all of it should just be exported into new articles and citations added? -- TLW 00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Citations added, certainly. I'm of the opinion - though others might disagree - that, since Wikipedia is not a TV guide, TV show plot synopses that are longer than one or two sentences are unencyclopedic and do not belong on Wikipedia at all. See WP:WAF in this regard, too.

Hastings, Ontario[edit]

Please tell me your opinions on the content of the article, and any improvements I can make. If you are going to edit the article yourself, please list what change(s) you made below. Thanks very much.

Dhastings 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Soxaholix[edit]

  • This is my first article from scratch and so I'd like to see what I can do better in creating new articles. General comments and suggestions for reaching GA status will be very appreciated. Thanks. ju66l3r 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think GA isn't that far away. But the "Characters" section needs a total rewrite in the light of WP:WAF (I've tagged it accordingly). Sandstein 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. I hadn't even thought to be aware for something like that in creating the article. If someone is skilled about out-of-universe conversion, I'd love some help on the section; otherwise, I'll take a crack at it myself. ju66l3r 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't appear to use any reliable sources, uses blogs as sources, and the first source listed - the Soxaholix website - appears to be a blatant copyvio (Wall Street Journal), which means the Soxaholix site shouldn't be listed anywhere on Wikipedia (it violates copyright). See WP:EL. Sandy 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source? If the article's reference was simply to the WSJ "buy this article now" because it is subscription access only, would that be better? Or better yet, the citation could be plaintext and simply reference the issue and page number and force someone to go find a copy themselves? It's also difficult to understand the copyvio since only a link to the article and not the text was used here. The only blog used as a source is Deadspin (notable in its own right to have a wiki-article); the remaining sources are all independent (and in most cases, notable) awards for online sites. As for your contention that WP:EL demands Soxaholix shouldn't be listed, I can not find that passage anywhere within EL, can you please help me find it? I have spoken with the author of the Soxaholix website and referenced the Wall Street Journal article in our discussions and it did not seem to be an issue for him to have it on his website, therefore according to WP:COPY, there should not be a problem since I can assume there is no copyright conflict. From WP:COPY: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright." I believe that to be the case, but as I said above, the link can be moved from the pdf to the WSJ "buy this article" page or simple reference to the article. ju66l3r 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the link to the WSJ.com site and added the original publication date and page number for someone to look it up for themselves in microfilm/archive if they can not view the subscription-required page. I believe that's in line with Wikipedia policy for not linking to what you deemed to be copyright violation. I have also renewed contact with the website's owner as per above. ju66l3r 15:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My final comment on this matter unless there is discussion: I have an e-mail from the site owner stating that the author of the WSJ article gave him explicit permission to post the PDF for others to read from the Soxaholix website. He also told me that in an upcoming website redesign that is planned, he will be removing that PDF in any case (alleviating any concern that soxaholix.com is not allowed external linkage in your mind. ju66l3r 16:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest further checking into the exact wording of WSJ's copyright. I don't believe an e-mail from the site owner does it: I think you may need an e-mail from the WSJ. But I'm in over my head on that. If you want the article to attain FA, you may need to figure out where/who to run this by on Wiki: I haven't been able to figure out all the various copyvio fora on Wiki, but the last time I looked for them, everything I found had outrageous backlogs. One thing you might to in the meantime is just link to the WSJ for a fee URL, and then include only the relevant text which validates your inline citation as part of the inline citation. Good luck ! Sandy 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to add the relevant text from WP:EL: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. " Sandy 18:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now taken care of the link problem and also taken care of the in/out-of-universe perspective problem in the Characters section. If there are any other thoughts on this article, they'll be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll be submitting a nomination for this article to receive GA status soon. ju66l3r 18:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for running the script on my article. ju66l3r 02:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Geography of North America[edit]

This is my best article, please review it.Showmanship is the key 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Some more pictures would be good. People Powered 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article must clearly define the geographic boundaries of North America. Joelito (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A few things (nothing personal!):

  • Some of the prose is very poor. For example "Relif maps of the United States partially shows why they've come to exist." doesn't make much sense to me. Go for a copy edit, or at least run the prose through a spell-checker at the very least.
  • Fix the citations (and add more). They should be in numbered order and after all punctuation.
  • Only the first word of a title should be capitalized (see WP:MOS).
  • More images as North America is such a beautiful region! There should be larger images as well (Wikimedia Commons must have plenty).
  • The Bibliography and Reference sections should be merged
  • Clean up the lead. I'm not sure why the peoples of North America are mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead.

It's a promising article however. CloudNine 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Islam

Atomic theory[edit]

Kurzon 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it looks good. Nothing additional springs to mind in terms of content, since subatomic particles and quantum models of the atom are covered in greater detail by other articles.
  • Normally the introduction should provide a brief summary of the article.
  • There are only three inline citations and the article could use many more.
  • The article should clarify that "90 degrees" is an angle, rather than a temperature.
  • In the final section about quantum models, please use — rather than a hyphen for the em dash punctuation.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Pornography in the United States[edit]

The GA underwent a new part of edits. Feel free to indicate what should be done generally and added further. Thanks. --Brand спойт 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Do a grammar check. First sentence in the lead has subject/verb disagreement for example ("A and B has not existed..."). -Amatulic 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus[edit]

This article was a recent Wikipedia:Spotlight collaberation. We think that our changes have improved it enough to make it nearly ready for featured. We removed large sections and placed them in their own articles. Thank you for your consideration. Bastiqe demandez 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's at featured status yet, but Good Article quality perhaps. WikiProject Biography rates it B-class, obviously the assessment was before our changes, so GA-class isn't that much of a stretch. The issue of stability does come in here, though... it was subject to a more or less constant flood of vandalism before I semi-protected it, and of course it has, inevitably, been drastically altered recently – Gurch 02:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be unpopular with my Spotlight friends... I can't see GA yet, because I'm not fond of the references list. I'm picky, I'm allowed to be here. Feel free to disagree. I want to see all cite.php based references. *nod* Other than that, go ahead. Oh, can we stuff an infobox in there? I like infoboxes...pretty... :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am for all cite.php references as well... I will get on that, or you can as well! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
We considered an infobox at one point, but didn't think it would be particularly useful, so we didn't add one. But we could be wrong... if you can make one, then by all means go ahead – Gurch 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, looks like we have an infobox, and the Spotlight will work on those cite.php, we have all the websites in the proper format, but we don't have the books formatted yet. Give the channel a day or two! Also, I have done copyediting up to section 3 (on the voyages), I will finish copyediting in 2 days. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest extending the lead to comply with WP:LEAD and perhaps a few more references. Then it should be as good as gold for GA status. --Tarret 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead is too small. More inline refs needed: there are still entire paras without refs. Some sections can use more pictures. See also's should be incorporated into main article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam[edit]

Hi - I request the advice and help of all in making this a featured article. Rama's arrow 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Update the information. Much of the information from your sources are from the mid-1990s. Vietnam has changed rapidly during the last decade. DHN 02:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


I find it very interesting and some good information about the spelling of Viet Nam, the country. I'm trying to determine the origin of the spelling: Viet = People, Nam= of the south, meaning the Vietnamese were not the people of the north, the Chinese.

The one-word spelling seems to have come from Western journalists sending telex messages. Charged by the word, Dien Bien Phu became expensive, as did Ha Noi, Sai Gon, Da Nang, etc. To cut costs they made one word, the style manuals picked that up, and it stuck.

The Vietnamese are a humble people and would never tell a foreigner their spelling was incorrect. When they use the name "Vietnam" as mention for Nam Dan, it's simply a case of the Vietnamese knowing Westerners (mostly Americans) wouldn't recognize or understand the proper spelling, so they continue the myth and continue to make money.

For myself, I'm using the term Viet Nam, as the older people would. Younger Vietnamese might use one word, and the Viet-kieu (overseas Vietnamese) have been raised with the single word version. That's all they know.

Using Viet Nam recognizes the original and local spelling, and begins to offer Americans a new look at healing from the American war. The one-word name is associated with the war, and the national psyche immediately interprets that name into emotional issues. It’s like a case of national PTSD. I believe with a new (which luckily happens to be correct) spelling, Americans of the war era will develop new emotions and appreciation for the country, and slowly leave the war. With a new war in our lives, we need healing from the past in order to better cope with the trauma and lies of the present. Thanks for any discussion.

Thanks,

Ted

I would recommend
  • Much more detailed citations throughout the article, especially in the areas most likely to be controversial, such as whether the Nam Viet was independent or Chinese-ruled, 20th century history, political structure. Also cite a source for specific facts such as the numbers in the Geography and Climate section, and in the Economy section.
  • More detail on the organization of the communist party in the section on government and politics.
  • Watch out for weasel words, for example "perhaps one of the most important".
  • Watch out for duplicated links. For example, Ho Chi Minh City and Saigon are both wikilinked in the subdivisions section, but Saigon redirects to Ho Chi Minh City.
  • Cite statements like "this has amazed many people."
  • The Culture section needs copyediting for grammar.
  • One long paragraph in the Culture section could be split up into multiple smaller ones,

and links to several sub-articles (Vietnamese cuisine, Vietnamese music, etc.)

  • In the culture section, is more discussion of the various ethnic groups contributions appropriate?
  • Does the overseas Vietnamese community deserve a lengthier discussion?
The Photon 02:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Chile[edit]

This article became a GA, and I want to know how to improve it so it can become a Featured Article. Any tips are greatly appreciated. --Esteban F. (con.) 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about how it became GA with no inline citations? In order to approach FAC, the first thing you must do is thoroughly cite the article. Also, the lead will need to be 3 or 4 compelling paragraphs; sections and headings will need to conform with WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOS (there is currently something called miscellaneous which actually seems to be See also); short, choppy sections should be expanded or merged into other sections (example, National symbols, Language); and Foreign relations doesn't seem comprehensive and needs to be much longer. There are many sections that need to be more comprehensive: Culture is another. You can find some tips from other users at the bottom of WP:WIAFA. For comparison, you can have a look at Canada and Australia, but the first order of business is to expand the text and provide inline citations for everything. Sandy 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gorillaz[edit]

Resubmitting for peer review. Recently I've been adding citations and cutting down the fancruft. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what could be improved or expanded, notes on the interestingness of the writing and also whether the article meets Good Article status. - kollision 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. The "Fictional band history" section is much too long and should be trimmed drastically. It probably shouldn't need to be longer than 1/2 of its current length. This section also needs to be edited to have a more encyclopedic tone; its currently written a too stylistically and dramatically.
  2. There many very short paragraphs section "Phase Two: Slowboat to Hades (2004 – present)" and in the other sections to a lesser extent. These should be integrated into larger paragraphs and rewritten to allow better flow of the text.
  3. More inline citations are needed, each paragraph should have a few at least
  4. Material such as "This can be seen as the genesis of the musical style that continued into Gorillaz' first album" reads as original research and should be cited or removed
  5. The live performances section should be narrowed down to two or three of their most notable performances. If you can't write more than a decent-sized paragraph on a tour, it doesn't need its own section.
  6. There's a lot of speculation/original research/uncited material on the status of their website at various points in time. These really need citations from reliable sources, or else removed.
  7. Needs much copyediting - I'd save this until after the above issues are fixed, however. I highly suggest reading through the sections on eliminating redundancy and improving sentence flow in User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a and trying the exercises User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises. The prose doesn't need to be perfect for a GA, but this will certainly make it easier to get this article to a GA. Best of luck! Wickethewok 09:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mary Seacole[edit]

A remarkable Victorian lady who was born as a mixed-race free woman in Jamaica when it was still a slave society. She practised as a "doctress" in Jamaica, Panama and the Crimean War, and is sometimes called the black Florence Nightingale. She disappeared from public view after her death in 1881, and has only re-emerged in the last 20 years. Her life story is now taught alongside that of Nightingale in British primary schools.

I am going to be adding further references (particularly from the main source, her autobiography) and there are some academic sources that may be fruitful (details on request). Any comments would be welcome before I take this to WP:FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The lead is a bit brief, it should summarise the content of the article; the start of the second paragraph of the lead doesn't strike me as very logical. The recognition section is a bit disconnected. I'm not keen on the inclusion of dates in the section headings - since the sections are chronological it doesn't really need them. The notes would take up less space if you used the markup putting them in two columns. Otherwise, it's an excellent article. --Peta 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for a very prompt response. Yes, the lead needs expanding to about twice the size (I have done the difficult bit, which is the article, first; the lead just needs to sumarise it, but I am suffering from wood-for-trees at the moment!), and, yes, the last section is just a collection of snippets that needs organising (the sources mainly deal with her life, and are not strong on that aspect, but I think it is important). I put the dates in the headings, because the interest - and the detail - is so skewed to the period from 1850 to 1860. I would prefer to keep them in, to be honest. The two-column mark-up does not work in the classic skin, but I will investigate it for the benefit of others. Thanks for reading. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Virginia State Route 16[edit]

I would like to know whether I should add anything; I plan to use this as a general template for other routes. Thank you. --NE2 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A clear or a few clear maps. Other than that I'm having a hard time thinking up how such an article should look to give any more suggestions. - Tutmosis 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Trapped in the Closet (South Park)[edit]

I would like to hear suggestions on bringing the article to FA or A status, including prose, styling, sources, etc. Also if anyone has further sources for interviews please provide them. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • For my part I will attempt to work on prose and copyediting, but of course other help would be appreciated as well. I created a "to do" list, which we can use to focus our efforts towards bringing the article towards FA status. Is "A" status technically above "GA"?? I had thought that since GA required review, and A did not, that A was lower? At any rate, I think the article is already "A", and can be brought up to "FA" by implementing the "to do" list... Smee 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
  • The article uses a non-std. size of 200px, most television episodes use 250px. I personally find anything less at times too small. The infobox also violates MoS:L (South Park is linked in the lead-in and the infobox, they're almost practically right next to each other). The article also uses four fair use images. The Reviews section contains user reviews from IMDb and TV.com, these should probably be avoided, not only because they can change at any time, but because they're also not really very "notable reviews". You should seek out critic reviews (Try this search). The episode article is also in possession of a redundant "nav. box" (these are slowly being phased out), that should probably be removed. The plot section is well written, however (as I've requested prior (the request seems to have vanished, mind..)), note II will require a citation, "Tom Cruise locking himself in a closet is a reference to rumours of Cruise's sexuality", what rumours? How is it a reference? Television series titles also require italics (as per MoS:T). Finally the fair use rationales appear to be slightly weak in my opinion, episode captures should also state how they are fair use, e.g. "The image illustrates the scene in which x does y, this is notable because z[..]". Matthew 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The picture is 200 × 155, and increasing it any further might result in visible pixels. MoS:L isn't a policy, thus it can't be "violated". It also doesn't mention template linking, and there appears to be an acceptance templates are an external part of the article. I did not manage to find any non-user reviews which provide ratings, but I will look if there is anything useful to add from those who don't. There isn't a limit on the amount of images in one article claimed under fair use. Navigation box removed. Definitions don't require a reference, and the following sentence links to a section which provides references for each controversy regrading Tom's sexuality. All the series titles in the article are italic. The rationales don't necessarily need to explain the image's content, but rather an explanation on why is it important (e.g. "illustrates an important point of the plot which is being discussed inside the article and helps identify the characters"). Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Your answers do not address any of my (valid) concerns, addendum: "illustrates an important point of the plot which is being discussed inside the article and helps identify the characters" is a very weak fair use rationale and likely non-valid. Matthew 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe I've addressed all your valid concerns, and specified those which cannot or shouldn't be fixed. The provided rationale is quite a strong example; if you have anything to strengthen it somehow, it'll be very appreciated. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Images
  • I changed the images from 200px to 250px (excluding the infobox picture). Please let me know how it looks on your respective browsers - mine looks great actually... Smee 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
  • The reviewer meant specifically the infobox image. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thumbnail images should not include a pixel width, it conflicts with user preferences. Jay32183 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan[edit]

This article is very good, and I want to submit it for Featured Status soon. What does it need to be at FA quality? Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 05:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Feature Articles are usually a little longer, and include pictures. Wikipedia:What is a featured article? might be able to point you in the right direction. But, an interesting topic! Lankiveil 05:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A nice start for that kind of topic. Try search for some relevant keywords in Google Books. --Brand спойт 10:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree with the two previous comments- the criterion for an FA is not length, but rather comprehensiveness. Plenty of short articles have been promoted: the textbook example is Hurricane Irene (2005). Since this is such a narrow topic I think that the article is comprehensive despite its short length. I personally would vote support if this were put up for FAC, though I am not confident that it will pass. The most pressing need is a picture. Could you somehow get a picture of the chapel, or of Father Moretti? Borisblue 05:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with this, but there was a lot of opposition to that article being promoted, based upon its length. As I said, they're usually longer, and most FAs are more lengthy than this is. Lankiveil 00:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 03:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Increase Mather[edit]

Following several complains about the abysmal state of the previous version of the page ([3]), I tried to "clean-room" rewrite it to the current version. It's a big enough change that I'd appreciate more sets of eyes checking to see that I didn't inadvertendly make it worse ;). More specifically, there are a few concerns I have:

  • Completeness: Do I need to go into more detail on something specific, such as a time period?
  • Are the events mentioned arrainged understandably (One of the complaints about the original version was that it was confusing to follow)?
  • Did I cite all the stuff correctly? Mostly it's the actual citation formatting that I'd like others to check.

Anything else that comes to mind I'll listen to and see if they can be used to improve the articel. 68.39.174.238 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Bookgrrl sez: Definitely better, good work! Couple of comments:

  • To my eyes it's actually over-sourced believe it or not! For example, birth and death dates don't generally need to be sourced unless there's some conflict over them. Also, you don't need multiple citations for a single fact (unless, again, it's controversial) so quite a lot of the footnotes can be removed.
  • Reference format -- The individual references are good. However the footnotes in the text are numbered but the ones at the bottom are not numbered, which is confusing. You can use <ref> tags to fix that, see here. Basically the text of the citation goes in with the first reference, for example
<ref>{{cite web|title=Mather, Increase. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.  
 2001-05.|publisher=Bartleby.com|url=http://www.bartelby.net/65/ma/Mather-I.html|
 accessdate=October 12|accessyear=2006}}</ref>
After that you just use <ref name=citation_name/> similar to what you have done. Then at the end, instead of listing the text of the references you simply put <references/> and that will populate the list and number them appropriately.
  • To my eyes it's over-wikified as well. The purpose of Wikilinks is to link to articles that will enhance the reader's understanding of the main topic (in this case Increase Mather). As such, each and every date does not need to be Wiki'ed, and words that add nothing to our understanding of the man (e.g. "intoxication" "weather") shouldn't be wikilinked. Also, only the first occurrence of a term is generally Wiki'ed.
  • Still needs a little formalization on the wording (e.g. "he ditched that when it..." is pretty slangy!)
-- Bookgrrl 12:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply: I've removed the datesources, as the only real "contention" about them was someone's dyslexia. I've tried to hack at some other over-sourced stuff. I SRONGLY dislike the "new" references format. I've tried to cut down on the spurious wikification, and have cleaned up that sentence. Are there any other specific examples that need work? 68.39.174.238 09:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (I've also added a new source to clean up the confusion about his immediate family)

Scott Kolins[edit]

This is still a work in progress so I'm looking for suggestions whether of content or style. I'm fairly new around here. BTW, as an aside the article wasn't my idea - it was pointed out by a friend that though Scott was mentioned on many pages he didn't have a page. I thought to go about making one and had to seriously prove I wasn't being vain. FYI, this apage is about a comic book illustrator--Smkolins 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd move the examples of his work gallery to a lower section in the article; somewhere around the trivia of references section. Harryboyles 04:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. WP:LAYOUT. -Fsotrain09 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, but why? It's a page about an illustrator and his work is kind of the point, isn't it? I'm not saying no - I'm just tyring to understand. I traced the WP:LAYOUT, which didn't really seem to say much about how to use pictures, to Images#Image_choice_and_placement which while specific also says almost nothing about what is shown. I do see that the page is stretched vertically so I wonder about stretching the box more sideways than verticle but that may address what folks are suggesting.--Smkolins 20:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So the next challenge - the bibiography.... On the one hand it only makes general reference to the source(s) of data and on the other hand isn't complete. Anyone got a good example how to do this?--Smkolins 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Al-Manar[edit]

I've really been working on this article, adding information form what seems to be the only extensive non-Arabic source (the book by Avi Jorisch). I am planning on adding more info from the same source, but I thought I'd get some feedback here first. I was especially hoping for feedback on sections 1 (history), 1.1 (banning of broadcasts), 2.1 (programs), and 2.2 (religion and politics). Those are the ones I mainly worked on.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 11:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just after a quick look at the article, I found that it faces serious POV issues. You are giving exagerate weight to Israeli or Western sources, while using very very few Lebanese or Arab sources. In general here are the views that should be equally taken into account:
  • A Hezbollah point of view which sees it as a news, entertaining and religious channel.
  • A general Lebanese (or Arab) point of view which sees it as an ordinary TV station with some remarks about its political orientation.
  • A general Western point of view with ambivalent opinions about the station.
  • A Israeli (US for some) which views it as a terrorist weapon with high level of criticism over its programs and contents.
Anyway, you won't go far using only one book over such a controversial topic. You'll have to take into account (more than half of the article) Lebanese source. CG 12:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is I don't speak Arabic and won't really be able to do much with Lebanese sources.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 12:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Where and how is this POV expressed?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 12:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all, it is expressed by the glaring lack of Lebanese sources. Don't forget that this article is, before everything, a Lebanese topic. Imagine we write the Jerusalem article using only and only Palestinian sources and disregarding Israeli POV. Another expression: In the "Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) broadcasts" section, why did you display only the worst speech Nasrallah gave, and not the ones when he talked about Christians and Muslims understanding. Anyway this section does not belong here but in Hassan Nasrallah... and other things. I'll go over the whole article later, and make suggestions section by section. And finally, I know that the problem with these kind of articles is that most of the user speak English, however, I, and some other users, could help locating Lebanese sources. And with some search you could find Arab sources. For example, Al-Jazeera and the Hezbollah have both English websites. CG 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not write the section you are referring to. I was actually considering deleting the section and moving the links to the speeches to the external links. I don't think having only English-language sources is per se POV, but I agree with you that most English-language sources tend to be from a "Western" POV. The book I used is especially POV because it is primarily trying to prove that al-Manar like Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, which the US government should fight, so I had to filter a lot of its POV.
If you could help with Lebanese sources that would be great.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, like you said, it's not the fact the English sources that are POV but the fact that they are Western-biased. I also want to say that I would really like to see a lot more about internal politics (for example how the station gained popularity among christians when Nasrallah has made an understanding with Michel Aoun and stuff like that), which requires a lot of work and going through many many sources for such a controversial article (I can't repeat it enough). Anyway, I would be pleased to help you, but I'll be slow because I'll be busy this month, just watch out from my bad English ;-). CG 15:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A comment. I don't think that putting Hassan Nasrallah in the infobox is suitable. He's neither a shareholder, nor a producter, nor a talk show host (I imagine that :-P ). Could you remove it? CG 15:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Nasrallah should be kept in the infobox, because according to Beacon of Hatred by Avi Jorisch (pg. 20): "it [the Lebanese Media Group, the company that owns al-Manar] is operated by Hizballah members, reports directly to Hizballah officials, and takes its marching orders from Hassan Nasrallah's office." Jorisch cites an "Interwiev with Middle East expert granted to author on condition of anonymity" as well as this article in the Daily Star. I surely think Nazrallah is a key person, since he is the Secretary General of the organization that seems to control the tv station.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 15:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the case for nearly every tv station or newspaper in Lebanon. The case for Al-Manar is not that different or unique. I don't know if this is the case in US, but putting Georges Bush as a key person for an affiliated Republican tv station or newspaper is also inappropriate. Out of subject: I recommend you to visit the English site for Al-Manar where you might find the info you want. CG 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360[edit]

All images needing Fair Use rational were tagged, and redundant text was removed. Requesting new peer review as points from last have been fixed.123wiki123 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very nice article, that "Suggested retail price by region" chart, are those the suggested prices upon release? current prices? or am I just confused because since the launch of the system there was no price drop? - Tutmosis 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Current suggested retail price, all launch prices are in the launch article, TMK there has only been one price drop, a small one in the UK. I've clarified in the chart that it's current, and added a see also. Shouldn't be very relevant now, but once price drops come it will be.123wiki123 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Van Buren, Arkansas[edit]

This really isn't about the article, I'd like to know what others think of (mostly) my writing style as far being encyclopedic is concerned and where I (and the article) could use some improvements. akuyumeTC 05:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Something interesting must have happened in the history of this city more recently than 1862. The Photon 02:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You need to convert the lists into prose (also consider the importance of the extracurricular activities before listing them all.. I know Van Buren isn't a huge city but certainly something more important in education exists besides the extracurricular activities that the school offers. maybe pick the ones that Van Buren is known for). Also, like mentioned above, the History section needs to be expanded. drumguy8800 C T 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reviews (I'm still unfamiliar with process, so hopefully I'm replying correctly, also I didn't discover WP:RFF until after posting this.), I've decided that the list of activities should be moved to page on the high school, also I've found no citations towards the more recent times in the city's history, however I do know what you mean. Thanks again, akuyumeTC 02:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex Pettyfer[edit]

Minor actor, still could be FA quality though. What needs to be added or changed to get it there? Judgesurreal777 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very short certainly, and considering Pettyfer has yet to have a full career, I think it'll be a long while before it's FA. Wiki-newbie 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Bloody Sunday (song)[edit]

This article presents information about U2's 1983 protest song and single. It achieved good article status in June. Since then quite a bit has changed (diff), and I think it's time to test the waters here to see what needs to be done next. Some questions I have for general editors who might not be self-proclaimed U2 experts (as most of the editors of the article to this point have been):

  • The lead section. I've read over Wikipedia's advice on what an appropriate one looks like, and done my best to adapt the intro, but it still needs some work.
  • Images. Are enough used? Are they appropriate? Do they all qualify as fair use?
  • References. There are quite a few, but I'm certain more are needed. Where?
  • General layout and prose. I've compared the layout to other featured articles on individual singles, and I think they're fairly close. Is the information interesting and compelling? What still needs to be addressed? What parts of the article shouldn't be there?

Basically, I think it's pretty good, but it's been combed only by a group of U2 fans. I'm looking for the opinions of outside Wikipedians, I suppose. Thanks! McMillin24 contribstalk 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the lead, I find two substantiation (sp?) problems. "The song's musical style can be considered militaristic..." begs the question, considered by whom? If the answer is critics and/or fans, that needs to be cited. On the other hand, if the answer is the article writer, we should not ask readers to accept our artistic interpretations, so a rephrasing would be in order. Likewise "It is considered by some to be the ultimate protest song by U2 and has become one of the band's signature songs." Who are these "some", and can their considerations be referenced to reliable sources? Other issues: please convert the "Cultural references" section into prose, per the embedded list guideline. And finally, consider a transwiki of the Bono block quote to Wikiquote. You have done good work here! -Fsotrain09 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and hints! I've worked on rewording and adding citations to the two parts of the lead section you mentioned, trying to avoid weasel words like "some" altogether. The cultural reference section has been rewritten (vaguely drawing from the FA Buffy the Vampire Slayer), but I haven't addressed the long block quote yet. McMillin24 contribstalk 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Former municipalities of Norway[edit]

I think this list is useful (although there could be even more blue links), comprehensive (more so than the Norwegian version it was based upon) and factually accurate (good references). It is also stable and uncontroversial. I also reckon it is well-constructed, but I would appreciate feedback on the table - is everything understandable? The lead section provides a good background and overview, I hope it's not too long.

The table of contents criterion is not applicable to this list. Also, I don't know what images would appropriate here. Punkmorten 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pixar[edit]

I think this page is of good quality, possibly good enough for Good/Featured Article status. I have requested this review to point out any flaws that may need to be amended/removed entirely, before any nominations take place. RMS Oceanic 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Overall excellent content. However, the article needs significant grammatical/editorial revision.dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Recommend rewrite of lead section, eliminating repeating information (wholly-owned subsidiary of Walt Disney) and clarifying the most distinctive/notable aspects of the company (most notable for feature films or renderman?). Watch for similar stylistic gaffes throughout the article. An example is the lead sentence in Executive leadership section - in which Steve Jobs is referred to in an introductory tone - with a description of his position at Apple - followed by the verb "continued", implying previous reference. dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Recommend that the article uses last names for all references past the first as per WP:MOS. Watch out for repeating wikilinks. dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Review for repeating content (e.g. profitable arrangement mentioned twice within 3 sentences in "Disney & Pixar"). dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article could perhaps benefit by refactoring the History section and the Disney/Pixar section. The latter section details a lot of history regarding this strategic relationship, why is that not part of the history section? Concurrently, the History section contains "Early history" followed only by "Business in transition" - these do not appear to be parallel thoughts. I suspect that these sections could be combined and reorganized in a way that integrates the Disney relationship into the corporate history and describes its impact upon the company's business trajectory. dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
As per your advice, I have made a number of changes. Is there anything else you spotted, or perhaps I overlooked? RMS Oceanic 09:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Matrix[edit]

Next peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A groundbreaking film, both in story and special effects. Any tips please? Wiki-newbie 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Every statement tagged with {{fact}} needs an inline citation from a reliable source. -Fsotrain09 22:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So just the two? Wiki-newbie 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The two statements explicitly tagged as needing citations, yes, and any other statements of either precise and/or controversial fact. -Fsotrain09 22:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is amazing. You might want to expand your critical reception a bit though. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I am too new to the scene to advise you on formatting and house style, but here are a few comments on content. You have done very fine job on the Synopsis, although arguably it is over-long. Conversely I was disappointed that the 'Influences and interpretations' section was so short. You note that 'The Matrix makes numerous references to recent films and literature, and to historical myths and philosophy including Messianism, Buddhism and Gnosticism'. I would have been interested either:

In a few sentences outlining the comparisons between the Matrix pantheon and these schools of thought, and including both Vedanta, and Advaita in the list. (Especially the latter: 'Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal'), or

At least pointing to some such discussions along these lines elsewhere. If The Matrix has a value which is more than mere entertainment it is surely in bringing these ideas to a mainstream western audience, even if they are largely unaware of the parallels. Its only an opinion of course, but this to me is more pertinent than your assertion that in the 'first metaphor is hidden the most profound meaning of the entire film.' Ben MacDui 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like the plot synopsis can be thinned out; it seems overly detailed. The trivia section needs to go, merge relevant information in appropriate places and delete the rest. Jay32183 02:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

  • Plot synopsis is too long - consider creating a child article and making the section shorter, and an image to illustrate a part of the plot may be useful.
  • The lead should be slightly longer; you may want to mention the film's impact briefly in the second paragraph.
  • Remove or move trivia. For example, this should really be in the Carrie-Anne Moss article:

In 1993, Carrie-Anne Moss appeared in a short-lived science fiction television series called Matrix.

Good work so far. As a fan of the film, I'd like to see a good an article as possible :) CloudNine 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I second CloudNine on the Trivia section removal, but would add that if you decide not to remove it, the section at least needs to be checked for compliance with the embedded list guidelines. Good work on this article! -Fsotrain09 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The section on the significance of names needs to be sourced - otherwise it seems like original research. Trebor 10:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Henry Doorly Zoo[edit]

Just looking for some feedback. I've added a ton of pictures and added info about the major exhibits. I'd also be interested in any other good zoo articles on WP. The best I've found is National Zoological Park (United States).

What didn't the article tell you about the omaha zoo that you'd want to know? Cburnett 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with the Zoo, and I like the images alot. If you're shooting for a Featured Article level, the galleries will have to be trimmed and I suggest they all be placed in Commons, if they aren't already, and linked with a {{commons|Henry Doorly Zoo}} link to a category page where all the images can be seen there. This link goes into the top of the cited references section usually. I would expand the history and especially the genetics research sections...I do know the Zoo is heavily vested in work in species preservation related to animals from Madagascar so that can be expanded. I would ditch the admission section...seems too much like advertising. The main thing the article needs, however, is to incorporate all the lists into paragraph style texts as much as possible. Don't forget to mention the efforts to get Pandas there at the zoo and convert the references into cited references using the templates from here. I'll go ahead and make sure all the images are in Commons and provide a link for you in the refs.--MONGO 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Only two pics are not on commons and those were there prior to me "going to town" on it. I'll have to look into the genetics research more Ideally, I'd like to expand those species lists much further. Best case, I guess, would be a separate article List of species at the Henry Doorly Zoo with the notable species in paragraph form like you suggest. Thanks for the ideas. Cburnett 05:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I dug into archive.org and pulled out admission prices back to 1999. Maybe I'm weird and find that historical trend interesting. How about you? Cburnett 06:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There have been a lot of enhancements over the past 5 years that probably still make it a great value for the buck...but no doubt an almost doubling of the single person adult entrance fee in 7 years is a lot. Can we use cite.php for the references as the only way anyone can check most of them is to hit the edit this page link and cut and paste them into a new window. You have the makings of a potential FA here with some reorganization I believe.--MONGO 06:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You lost me on the cite.php bit. I can click the "[6]" next to the year and it jumps me to the references section which has the exact link I used to pull the prices from. I'm not sure where having to edit the page to copy a url to a new window is necessary... In short: I'm confused. :) Cburnett 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The first ref that links me to an external link i can then go to is ref #1 in the section beginning in Scott Kingdom of the Seas Aquarium. The ones above, I click them and nothing happens.--MONGO 06:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. At home I get a list of 17 references but at work I only see 5 starting with the aquarium and nothing changed between viewings so I'm apt to believe it's a wikipedia issue not a how-I-did-it issue. Open to suggestions though... Cburnett 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC) I now see all 17 at work so I dunno what's going on... Cburnett 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I put some comments on the talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience. A mcmurray 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I replied there but the jist here: yeah, I was a bit liberal in internal linking of units and I agree that admission prices are probably for wikitravel but I changed it to a historical look at admission prices instead which I think makes it more encyclopedic (draw any trends or conclusions you wish from the data) since the 1999 price does nothing to get you in the zoo now. Cburnett 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article reads like a list and picture gallery. The article seems to be useful for lookign up facts but the prose is so far broken apart by lists and galleries of animals as to be unreadable. Also you may want to re-check the facts "the Desert Dome's geodesic dome is also the world's largest". In fact it isn't even half as big as the worlds largest. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that's the world's largest glazed geodesic dome according to the zoo. I have fixed it. As for prose: agreed like I've said above. Cburnett 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Philippine National Railways[edit]

Just came by to see what I can do to improve this article. Although it is questionable whether it will reach FA status, especially due to a lack of information (unlike the more successful LRT and MRT articles, which are FAs already), it will be nice if I can get this peer reviewed, even for this article to reach GA status. Any comments (and additional resources) are highly appreciated. --Sky Harbor 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see Template:Infobox Public transit incorporated into the article. What do you think? - Tutmosis 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems fine with me, but I don't know where I can put it. --Sky Harbor 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Beside the lead. The images would have to go though. - Tutmosis 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay I put a little draft up on the talk page of how it would look. Further paramameters can be added though. - Tutmosis 15:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I decided to shift some of the pictures around and insert in the infobox. --Sky Harbor 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mohegans[edit]

I would like to get this article ready for the featured article consideration. Comments are appreciated. --Zonerocks 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some overall observations, without getting into the text itself. I see that the German version of this article is featured: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohegan. You could use this as a model for the structure of the article. Run it through a translator like http://babelfish.altavista.com/ to see how the sections are organized. Also, incorporate any images it uses. The History section should be broken up into sub-sections; it's quite long as it is. "Mohegans today" should be, chronologically, at the end of the article. There is an extensive bibliography but I see that it has been in the article for a long time, so likely those aren't sources that have been used for most of the article. For featured article consideration, you will need to engage these sources, and inline citations (WP:CITE) are required. In terms of the Wikipedia manual of style (WP:MOS), header titles should be in "Sentence case", and you have a link glitch in the "History" title. Hope this helps–Outriggr § 03:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I deeply appriciate your help. I will get down to it quickly. --Zonerocks 14:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This needs massive cleanup into proper English. Some of it is still in German, for example "Algonkian Sprachgruppe" is "Algonquin language". Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, what a gobbledy-gook babely mess. Just started to fix it, doing a side-by-side comparison with the German. Not a registered user (yet?) or frequent Wiki contrib (maybe my 2nd or 3rd) so there's typos, errors of link usage, and various other mistakes.

Since I know enough German to fix the text, I hope you agree with my strategy of giving that priority, to the point where I'm (for now) going to leave obvious typos, errors of link formation, bolding etc (which I'm still learning by observation) to others, in favor of translation work, which is something I can do. (If you don't agree, let me know, I'll change tack.)

Got thru the first 3 paragraphs. This is gonna be a ton of work, not promising to do it all, but will do what I can. Kudos to the Germans, by the way, for a good article. Mathglot 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Polar exploration[edit]

This article just went through the gauntlet of Wikipedia:Spotlight collaboration. Here is a before and after. Wowee. Anyways, sources should all comply with cite.php, and there are sections that have their own articles (i.e. Northwestern Passage). Enjoy, hoping to bring this on to be a GA or FA. JoeSmack Talk 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • "It is also a historical period" I dont see how since you said it dates back to 325 BCE. So how is roughly 1700 years a period?
The first sentence of the First Attempts section is this: "Some scholars believe that the first attempts to penetrate the Arctic Circle can be traced to ancient Greece and the sailor Pytheas, a contemporary of Aristotle, who, in c. 325 BCE, attempted to find the source of the tin that would sporadically reach the Greek colony of Massilia (now Marseilles) on the Mediterranean coast.[1]" ....who, in brief, got lost and went as far as iceland. That was the reference to 325 BCE. JoeSmack Talk 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Instances of "Some scholars/historians believe/think" should definetely be cited or an example of one notable scholar/historian be given.
  • "he may have been the first Westerner recorded to penetrate the Arctic Circle." please state someone who thinks so otherwise the sentence sounds as analysis (which basically means original research to me)
  • "1421 was not a peer reviewed work." is quite short, can it be merged or even deleted ?
  • "before finally escaping the frozen seas" can it be reworded to sound more encyclopedic?
"For several months they suffered from scurvy, total darkness and madness before the frozen waters were reduced enough to navigate back home." - is this ok?
Yea sounds much better. The one before sounded like something from a novel. - Tutmosis 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a cough*few*cough fact templates.

Anyway other than that, a wonderful article and I'm glad Spotlight turned out to be so effective. You guys should be proud. - Tutmosis 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea, the lead definetely needs works. It should summarize the article. Currently it just explains what polar exploration is and how old it is. - Tutmosis 01:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, WP:SPOTLIGHT will attempt to improve. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it's a decent start, but frankly this article needs more development. Here's a few comments that are hopefully of some use:

  • The sentence "Even still, physical contact with some remote areas such as the Antarctica continent has only occurred in approximately the last hundred years" is a little vague. Could this be more concise?
  • What is "journeying through these perils by sight"?
  • The article states that, "Some scholars believe that the first attempts to penetrate the Arctic Circle..." But what about the Ipiutak remains that date back as far as 2550, including a Point Hope, Alaska village dating to ~600 B.C.E.[4]? I strongly suspect that non-western people were the first to explore the region above the arctic circle, and to actually live there.
  • Why is there nothing about the Roald Amundsen expedition that was the first to the south pole, or the disastrous expedition of Robert Falcon Scott? C.f. South_pole#Exploration

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

F.E.A.R.[edit]

Plans are made to have it copyedited, and the issues on the to-do list are being taken care of. However, constructive criticism from the peer review folks before FAC never hurts. Any suggestions are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Another great video game article. I have one concern, the game seems to leave out music. Only thing I remember being mentioned is that the sound effects were physically made and recorded. Oh a mention that some critic praised the music/sound. Can more be added? Other than that I'll definetely vote support at fac. - Tutmosis 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Good catch. More information about the music has been added to the "Atmosphere" section. JimmyBlackwing 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestions. I've made the image captions more concise. I think the lead summarizes the article well as it is, however. In addition, I do not see any weasel words outside of quotes, and dates are already linked in the way you described. Finally, as I stated before, it will be copyedited to remove poor wording, redundancies and the rest. JimmyBlackwing 20:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian McDiarmid[edit]

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions. Would this qualify as a good article? Please let me know what can be done to improve it. b_cubed 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • First off, what the heck is up with the list of stage productions—why is there so much spacing? I'm going to remove that. Now, suggestions:
    • this article needs to be referenced heavily, with actor articles, this really isn't all that hard: Go find the IMBD or whatever listing of every movie he's been in then google every play annnnnd add a reference next to where its listed.
    • His life needs to be expanded a lot (biographical stuff)
    • Criticisms
    • Praise
    • Why is there an entire section dedicated to Star Wars films..?

Good luck. drumguy8800 C T 04:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Banksia integrifolia[edit]

Looking like its ready for FA just wanted to get some opinions and have the PR bot run over the article to check for any minor issues. Gnangarra 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Intresting tree article. Im sure it was hell diging up information on this. My only issue is the bolding through out the article of some terms, to my knowledge that isn't proper MoS. Would italics be better? - Tutmosis 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the easier species for information as its has such a large distribution area, Italics are used for taxa naming, i'll check on the bold it should be used for common naming in the first instance. Gnangarra 16:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Good work! I do wonder whether you should mention Joseph Banks et al. in the lead. It seems pretty trivial to need repition in the lead. If you do believe it necessary I think you should mention the aboriginal names first. As it is now it makes the European collection more prominant than the information that predates it. Also if that stays in the lead you should de-link the names repeated in the taxonnmy section.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Hadn't thought of it that way and chronologically that makes sense,I have never seen it written anywhere else like that....Might have a play with it.... cheers. Cas Liber 05:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Unity Church[edit]

I'm interested in learning what can be done to improve the article. As a member of the church, I know a great many details about it, but also run the risk of creating a non-neutral point of view. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The redlinks should be dealt with; create stubs or black them. More references, references, references! And those references you have should be used for inline citations, which are a must-have if/when you decide to take this through either the GA or FA processes. -Fsotrain09 03:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate [citation needed] marks. They might look messy, but they'll help me so that there won't be as many. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have adding a few. Please remember to sign your posts on talk and Wikipedia: pages. Thanks. --Fsotrain09 18:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Chalukya dynasty[edit]

Contributions requested are

  • Please review for grammatical accuracy, consistancy, citations etc.Dineshkannambadi 15:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is expected to be of FA quality. So I request the reviewers to please review the article for accuracy, presentation of the matter, WP:NPOV, overall style/format of the article, and any other criterion that is required for FAC. Thanks. - KNM Talk 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • After looking at the repetative structure of the article. I think that you need to split this with two daughter articles. One on the Badami and the other on the Kalyani. Then this article should focus on what was common of all the Chalukyas. But I am know nothing on the particular topic. I just find the structure of "Foo of the Badami" "Foo of the Kalyan" "Foobar of the Badami" "Foobar of the Kalyan" etc. to be a problem.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sir, thank you for your quick reply. These are my first thoughts. While seperating these dynasties into seperate pages does seem attractive, there are some concerns. I am concerned about a breakage in continuity of cultural idiom. Historically, the Kalyani Chalukyas have been considered successors of the Badami Chalukyas not just in chronology but also in the very essence of empire building.
  • In the field of architecture (for which they are both famous), the Kalyani Chalukyas produced a style of architecture called Vesara (originally spawned by the Badami dynasty), but with a gradual and growing inclination towards dravidian (south indian) building tradition. This is why their style is sometimes called "In-between" style, meaning a bridge.
  • In the field of literature, the Kalyani Chalukyas continued the Jain tradition (in Kannada language) that "perhaps" started with the Badami dynasty but with a gradual emphasis towards Shaiva and Vaishnava literature.
  • The Eastern Chalukyas during this period underwent their own cultural changes due to cross influences from Western Chalukya (present day Karnataka state) and Pallava-Chola empires(Tamil Nadu state). These influences are reflected in their language, literature and architecture. They are generally dealt with as a seperate kingdom, which is why an main article for them was included.
This was perhaps one of the big reasons to keep the matter in one article.
These are my thoughts.Dineshkannambadi 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Dear Birgitte, Thanks for reviewing it. You are right on daughter articles. However, the two daughter articles (actually in the article they have been referred as "siblings" :) ) have been already created. The paragraph introducing those sibling dynasties is:
These are the Chalukyas of Badami, who ruled between the 6th and the 8th century C.E., and the two sibling dynasties of Chalukyas of Kalyani or the Western Chalukyas and the Chalukyas of Vengi or the Eastern Chalukyas.
Eastern ChalukyasWestern Chalukyas and Eastern Chalukyas are two separate articles outside of this main article Chalukya dynasty and have been mentioned in this article a paragraph each for the reasons as mentioned above by User:Dineshkannambadi. More detailed information on these two daughter / sibling dynasties are covered under respective articles without going into too many details in the main article.
I hope it is clear now. - KNM Talk 00:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe KNM meant :::Western Chalukyas and Eastern Chalukyas are two separate articles.........Dineshkannambadi 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops! my bad. Corrected just now. Thanks for pointing it out Dinesh. - KNM Talk 02:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sister pages have been created. I went ahead and moved the "Foo of the Kalyan" and "Foobar of the Kalyan" into the sister page for Kalyani Chalukya. Now the main page for Chalukya dynasty contains info on the Parent dynasty, attached articles for sibling Kalyani and Eastern Chalukya dynasties. This was one of the main requirements by reviewer Birgitte as well as the automated response Dineshkannambadi 23:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Backgammon[edit]

First review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Backgammon/archive1

I am hoping to nominate this article for FA within the next few weeks, but I believe it still needs some work before going there. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions so I can take care of them before then. ptkfgs 15:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Very nice article, I loved this game as a kid but never quite understood the doubling cube before (and I remember re-reading "Hoyles" three times trying to figure it out). My only real concern is the lack of information under vareties is at odds with multitude of information given under history. These games either are similar to Backgammon to deserve being covered by the article or they are not. They cannot be derserving of detailed coverage in one area and not the other.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I think the best solution to this problem of balance might be to discuss some of the more backgammon-like variants here in the article. I'll see about coming up with a couple of paragraphs there. ptkfgs 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

HSV Senator Signature[edit]

Tell me anything that could make the article HSV Senator Signature a better and more injoyable one. Please fell free to add stuff or contribute to HSV Senator Signature, but make sure to add your references.

Um, you don't appear to have added any references, which needs to be done. It also focuses almost solely on the history of design - there's nothing on sales, popularity, critical review, people involved in design, etc. Trebor 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Medici bank[edit]

I've written a comprehensive and detailed article here. But I think I may not have integrated it well or just been too idiosyncratic in places - it hasn't been edited much by other people (or at all). It's a really important topic in history, so I think it deserves good solid coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There are some one sentence paragraphs which could be expanded or linked up. Conversely in the history section there are some uber-paragraphs that probably need breaking. It's 73kb and difficult to read all the way through - if the information is all worth keeping, create subpages and summarise them on the main page. I think it goes into too much background in general, I find it hard to understand what's going on. The diagram section is ugly as a long list, and probably not needed. The order of sections is also quite confusing, I would've thought the history section should go first. Referencing is fine. Could do with a decent clean-up, overall - probably from someone who hasn't edited it yet. Trebor 23:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As above, cut down on the information by moving to daughter articles. Also, the founding and decline headings seem a bit overreaching; could you divide them up in subsections? Lead needs to be longer for an article of that length. Bank heads should be a seperate section rather than a subsection. Does the section 'Organization and type's first paragraph need to be in there? CloudNine 11:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ray LaMontagne[edit]

Well, after getting The Fray to GA status, I decided to take it upon myself to give one of my other favorite artists that same distinction. I beefed up the article with sources galore (btw, if "References" appears blank, that's a bug with the gallery tag that will hopefully be resolved soon) and some more information about his life, but prose is still my weak spot. If you have any suggestions for how to expand the article, I'll gladly listen to them as well. Basically, I need someone with great English skills to do a copyedit of the article. Thanks in advance :) Teemu08 06:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I incorperated what I could from that. I would also like a human's perspective as well. Teemu08 06:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sparks (band)[edit]

Past review(s): Archive1

Resubmitting the Sparks article as it has been very stable for a long time and requires fresh eyes for its development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaptKos (talkcontribs) 09:27, October 21, 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

To do (based on comments below - please correct/add to)

  • Cleanup external links
  • Update infobox
  • Use listen box for samples
  • Complete/expand discography
  • Expand album pages
  • Fair use justifications/free use images, imporve image descriptions
  • Improve Inline citatations for Style section
  • Legacy/influence section
  • Improve lead section to conform to Wikipedia:MOS
  • Cp-ed to cleanup POV
  • Switch to a single ref style
  • Add appropriate witty quotes
  • Cp-ed to remove duplicate detail from different sections
  • Expand history/background detail

--KaptKos 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


  • The external links needed some cleanup (I just finished organizing them). Although the fansites might need to go.
  • I also updated the infobox to {{Infobox musical artist}}.
  • Could organize the samples in an appropriate section near the bottom. See Nirvana (band)#Samples or The Beatles#Song samples. (see Wickethewok's comment below)
  • The singles needs to be completed (obviously).
  • The album article pages need to be expanded (not directly related to this article, but would help improve this article's information).

 Heaven's Wrath   Talk  18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions for ya, nice work so far.

  • Actually, per Wikipedia:Music samples, samples should typically be in listen-boxes next to the paragraphs that mention them.
  • One thing I noticed about the language was that you use the phrase "[year] saw the release of..." a bunch of times in the article. You should probably switch up the sentence structure a little bit.
  • If you wanna get this to an FA, you're going to need to probably have some better fair use justifications or get some free-use pics.
  • The first several sentences of the style section should probably have some inlines somewhere, as the article makes some pretty specific claims/comparisons.
  • I don't know how much more info is available on this band, but it seems like there could be more detail. Did they have recurring themes in their music? Any particular legacy/influence on other bands?

Hope my suggestions are useful. Cheers! Wickethewok 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice article, enjoyed reading it. Just a few suggestions:

  • The lead should ideally comprise 3 paragraphs. Maybe the current lead could be split in two at the 'Despite the many genres' section, followed by a para on the current revival. Also Sparks have been hugely influential, and it'd be worthwhile in mentioning a few specific bands in the 2nd paragraph.
  • Words such as 'lush' and 'dramatically' could be seen as POV.
  • Add more descriptive captions to the images.
  • Change the references style to "div class="references-small" (looks tidy). Also consider using a standard <ref name="X">{{cite web | author= X| year= X | title="X" | work=X| url=X | accessdate= October 21 | accessyear=2006}}</ref> format for all refs.
  • Perhalps the "style" section should come after "History". This is no big deal, and there's no 'rule' as such, its just more usual.
  • Both Ron and Russell are quite witty in interviews, try incorporating quotes into article, where appropriate.
  • Just a comment: If your going for FA, and you should, the preference for sound files seems to be towards the 'Sound sample box' format. That said inline is sometimes used as well.
  • Disog. section is disproportionally large compared to rest of article. If you want to expand the History section, maybe subscribe to Questia or Rocks back pages for a month and see what you can dig out.

Other than that, great work! - Coil00 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My impressions:

  • In the lead, what kind of 1960s music does "60s homage" refer to? I've also added links to the other genres you mention — you might want to check if I've interpreted them all correctly. Also, "uniquely crafted artistic pop songs" could mean a lot of different things, in my experience; the description of lyrics and arrangements work better to convey what you might be describing, but I think this part could be more descriptive.
  • Claiming uniqueness twice in the opening seems a bit overreaching, no matter who you're talking about.
  • The "Style" section seems to duplicate a bit from the "History" section (sometimes verbatim, eg. "a major influence on artists such as Depeche Mode, New Order and The Pet Shop Boys"). Also, it introduces some aspects of their history in vague details before the history section discusses them more specifically; maybe you could put it after the history section, and thereby be able to refer back to details of their history more concisely.

The rest of the article looks much better formed in comparison, so I mostly focused on these sections. –Unint 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Wow! Thanks everyone for the great response, all very contructive and helpfull, much appreciated.
  • First off, the POV problem has to be addressed, I could try but I think at this stage it would be better for someone else to cp-ed the suckers out
  • Fair use images is a big issue, any suggestions gladly accepted
  • I'll try to address the layout, duplicate detail, MOS, ref format and sample issues raised as ongoing tasks
Thanks again for the fantastic response--KaptKos 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines Flight 1476[edit]

I've started and working on this article since October 3 (first day of the incident). All kinds of comments will be appreciated, also contributions will be great. My biggiest concern is about article is about hijacker(s) part. At first press thaught that there were 2 hijackers, and in references and reports its like ANSA reported that police detained both hijackers. What can i do about these parts, i guess best way is using as plural because at that time all presses were thinking there were 2 and reporting like that. Thanks --Ugur Basak 00:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very good. What would add significantly to it in my opinion, would be to add a picture or two: perhaps a map showing where the plane was hijacked etc (I remember seeing a map like that on the news, although I can't find one in any of the external links to use as a source) or a photograph of Ekinci (the BBC has one [5], although it will likely be copyrighted, and I don't think fair use would cover that). Failing those, a photograph of the star victim - the Pope - may do. We have many free photographs of him.--Rudjek 11:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've copyedited the article per suggestions from peerreviewer, also used it again. I'm not sure only about issues, lead and copyedit parts. I also add a picture of the Pope. Rest of the article needs a living peerreviewer. Thanks --Ugur Basak 11:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Immune system[edit]

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

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

  • The lead of this article is too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • The lists, especially under "Surface Barriers and Mucosal Immunity", make the article harder to read; please convert these to prose (paragraph form).
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[2]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[3]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 22 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • For an article about a very important system, I think more different references can be placed into the article; this is the first time I've seen notes for a single reference reach up to bb.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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



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

Complement System

Main article: Complement system

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

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

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

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

Gilles Villeneuve[edit]

I'm looking at improving this up to Featured Article status (it's currently at GA) - any suggestions on what needs to be improved upon, clarified etc. will be appreciated. Thanks, Alexj2002 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • One thing I haven't (dared!) approach yet. Criticism of GV. Nelson Piquet and Keke Rosberg are both on record criticising his approach to driving, as are some other, lesser, drivers. If this could be worked in sympathetically it would, I think, improve the balance and depth of the article.
  • Re-reading it I think the language is also still not neutral enough - not quite encyclopaedic in tone and rather partial in places. Hope this helps.
  • The section on San Marino 82 also probably needs a clearer description of what actually happened in the race. 4u1e 23 October 2006
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Out of Mind[edit]

Looking for ideas and suggestions on how to improve the article. Perhaps one day for FA status. The Filmaker 21:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, we should probably hold off on seeking GA/FA until the season 5 DVD comes out. Perhaps Rooster Teeth will have some out-of-universe commentary on this. We need to find out who the voice actors for Delta and York are. Other than that:
  • We should probably follow the convention of recent video game FAs, in which Synopsis is divded into "Setting and characters" and "Plot" subsections.
  • It seems that we might be assuming a little too much background knowledge about the main Red vs. Blue series. More context would help to make this a better standalone article.
  • Screenshot(s) of the main characters would be good.
That's all I can think of for now. — TKD::Talk 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with TKD. However, I don't see why we couldn't move for just GA after this peer review. More information that will probably be on the season 5 DVD set can be added after its release, and then we can go for FA.
Also, OoM is currently listed as Start-class; I think it should be B-class since it doesn't need substantial editing, though screenshots and voice credits are considerable elements that are yet to be added. —Cliff smith 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • References other than the official site are needed. See WP:RS. The Background section should go before the plot. CloudNine 16:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, excellent points, especially about third-party sources. I've found a couple: [6], [7]. Not much, but then again the mini-series has only been finished for a couple of months. Depending on how many more sources come in, it may be better to disperse the content here to the other Red vs. Blue articles. But a wait-and-see approach is probably best for now, especially since the mini-series was really meant as an interlude into season 5, which is still in progress. — TKD::Talk 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the Plot section should probably be condensed. There's only about 20 minutes of material here. — TKD::Talk 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

DuMont Television Network[edit]

I would like to get this article up to Featured Article status by the end of the year. I know references and such will be needed soon, but I'm more interested in obtaining feedback on how the article might be improved in terms of things like clarity, layout, consistency, WP:MOS, etc. Feedback (positive or negative) appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I would remove "This would come back to haunt DuMont later." doesnt seem encyclopedic, leave foreshadowing for fiction novels.
  • Words you use I do not understand: "signed on" and "signed off", "hookups", "experimental" when referring to a station, "station-to-station link", "sign on", "coaxial cable", "radio network", "five-station cap", "go dark", "distressed" when referring to a station, "call letters". Search for these using CTRL + F
I suppose most of those should receive wikilinks. They're common terminology in "broadcast speak"; I'm glad you were able to point out areas that wouldn't seem clear to the "average" reader. I will certainly try to provide better explanations for their meaning, either in the article or by wikilinking.
  • Added {{fact}} templates, please replace with footnotes.
I will certainly do so.
  • "received a network license" what is a network license, and who gives them out? experimental stations dont need a license?
The FCC awards licences, but only awarded three for DuMont, five for each of the other networks. Part of this article tries to explain why this helped lead to the company's downfall, so it's really, really important.
  • Why through out the article is CBS and NBC constantly mentioned as comparison? Seems kind of pov to point thing out so much about whose better/faster/richer than who when?
I'll try to remove any POV, but it's not point of view to state NBC and CBS were companies with deep pockets: that's a fact. DuMont had no money, which, again, led to the end of the company.
  • "DuMont was an innovative and creative network" How?
The very next sentence explains how: "DuMont programmers had to rely on their wits and on connections in Broadway to provide original programs still remembered [today]."
  • "DuMont also holds another important place in American television history." again not encyclopedic but essay-like.
  • Some words that start a sentence bring down the encyclopedic tone: Instead, before then, Nevertheless, Also, In any case, etc.
  • I dont like when facts are crammed into brakets = " (including a fully-functioning theater)" please make them part of the sentence.
Easily done, thanks for pointing that out.
  • "Among some of DuMont's better-remembered programs:" Better remembered by who?
By the few people who remember the network at all.
  • Whats "Big Town"? no description for that program.
Will fix.
  • "so their programs got clearance only if the primary network" clearence for what? dont each network have its own channel?
No. As the article states, there weren't enough TV stations for four networks. In these earliest days of US television, the four networks had to compete for air time on local channels: whoever had the best-looking shows, and whoever had the most money to throw around, got the most air time. Most cities only had two or three television stations, which is why it's so important to note the wealth of NBC and CBS (see above).
  • The section titles seem very essay-like. Also i would put Programming, Halted at the start, The end in a "History" section. I would Put "Halted at the start" first. I would rename "Halted at the start" to "Beginning" or something less descriptive. I would also rename "The end" to "Closure"
Very good suggestions. I'll try to impliment them.
  • Very random sentence even though I undestand its ment to give an overal description of why it closed but still something you would put into an essay. "The FCC's Dr. Hyman Goldin said in 1960, "If there had been four VHF outlets in the top markets, there's no question DuMont would have lived and would have eventually turned the corner in terms of profitability. I have no doubt in my mind of that at all."
  • I think the article suffers from no path. The company time periods are scaterred around. Also a lot of analysis. Encyclopedic articles arent about analysis but about stating facts. Example most of "The end" section.
  • "What about the DuMont stations?" should be merged into a new or "The end" section.
  • "List of DuMont affiliates" better off as a wikilink in "See Also" or merged into existing section.
There is absolutely no way the list of affiliates will fit into this existing article: it would make it far too large. I can certainly change it to a See Also section.

Not trying to bring the article down but give suggestions. Good luck. - Tutmosis 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I appreciate all of these suggestions. Thank you, Tutmosis. I'll try to impliment your suggestions into the existing article. Thanks for also adding the fact templates where you feel further references are needed. I'll work on all of this. I've commented more above. Again, thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks, semi-automated Ruhrfisch! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome - I am not a bot, but AndyZ used to do this with a bot and the suggestions are javascript generated so I use "semi automated". Anyway, hope it is helpful and of use, Ruhrfisch 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It is very helpful, thank you. :) I'll work these suggestions into the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Great article! Lead section could use a little more information about the network apart from its history - perhaps a notable show or personality associated with the network. If nothing else, note the network's innovation and creativity in the lead section. Recommend that you rewrite the informal/folksy portions of the lead section ("never found itself on solid ground financially","signed off for good") with clearer descriptions. Did they declare bankruptcy? Sell their assets? If unknown, perhaps "ceased broadcasting" Be on the lookout for representatives of the ASPCS (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Semicolons). Every one of your semicolons should be replaced with a colon or a period. dpotter 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Dpotter. I appreciate your suggestions for expanding and improving the lead. Your suggestions have been very helpful, because I already knew the lead was short, but lacked ideas on how to expand it. I did an automated search for semicolons, and found it used in only threesentences. The first one, DuMont began with one basic disadvantage; unlike NBC and CBS, it did not have a radio network from which to draw revenue and talent. can certainly be changed from a semicolon to a colon. The second one, DuMont aspired to grow beyond its three stations, applying for licenses in Boston (or Philadelphia, depending on the source) and Cincinnati; this would have given the network five stations, the maximum allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the time. doesn't make sense to replace with a colon, although I suppose it could be split into two sentences. WABD became WNEW-TV and later WNYW; WTTG still broadcasts under its original call letters. also would be strange with a colon. Anyway, thanks for the helpful advice. I'm working tonight to incorporate these suggestion into the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the lead needs to be expanded in order to fit in with guidelines at WP:LEAD. Titles such as "What about the DuMont stations?" seem a little chatty to me, and more inline cites would be nice. Interestingly enough, if the article was to get to FA status, it would be the first article about a television network to do so - but crib some tips from other GA network articles. CloudNine 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I will work to expand the lead. I can change the title of the heading to something like "Fate of the DuMont stations" or something like that. There are already 43 in-line citations in this article. At some point, the footnotes become intrusive, and I'm not sure how many more reliable sources I can find for a forgotten network that has been dead for more than 50 years. Anyway, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclogenesis[edit]

Listing nomination nominator didn't complete fully, and notifying him. I think, generally, any comments would be appreciated. How the article could be improved, or if there is something that might need explaining in simpler terms. – Chacor 04:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Is there anything missing that needs to be covered? Is everything described in enough detail? Is there enough wikification? Thegreatdr 07:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
At points, the text needs a bit of clarification. For example, in the Warm waters, instability, and mid-level moisture section, it talks about "Average ambient atmospheric conditions" A description of what is "average" would be beneficial to the non-expert reader. On the Coriolis force section, it talks about "gradient wind balance" - while I get the idea of what the article is saying, a reader not familiar with the text won't grasp it. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to read the rest of the article as it stands, as I haven't had the time, but that's what I've seen so far. Titoxd(?!?) 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've accounted for the wind forces mentioned in the article, which should be stated simply enough to be understood. I also introduced a couple "Main article" lines to lead the reader to the wikipedia article which has a more in depth explanation. Will have to do more searching for average atmospheric conditions aloft...all I could find initially was tropical tropopause temperature. We really need the average 500 mb/hPa temperature for this article, or a tropical sounding profile. Thegreatdr 04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears the opposite was needed. The tropical cyclone article was in error by saying tropical waves are the main focus for tropical cyclogenesis. Tropical waves are only important in Atlantic and some northeast Pacific tropical cyclogenesis, according to the references found in this article. Tropical waves forming from Africa are not known to survive very far into the central Pacific, let alone the western Pacific ocean. The articles should now be more similar. Thegreatdr 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
After re-reading tropical cyclone, I went ahead and moved two sections from the tropical cyclone article into this article and reformatted appropriately. Thegreatdr 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Changes have been made to remove the title of the article from section headers, correct the one case where the reference at the end of the sentence was not immediately after a period, and removing the articles "a" and "the" from the lead of the headers. Also, the citation needed for Vamei was added. Thegreatdr 14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dental caries[edit]

Please review for breadth of coverage, spelling/grammar errors, and the general writing style. - Dozenist talk 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since caries is apparently singular and plural, I think it would be helpful to establish this, either explicitly or implicitly (by starting the first sentence "Dental caries ... is a disease..."). I would also suggest the use of the two alternative names for the disease more often: the phrase "dental caries" occurs five times in the lead. A sentence like "Compared to coronal smooth surface caries, proximal caries progress quicker and takes an average of 4 years to pass through enamel in permanent teeth." confuses the pluralization issue too!
Since we all know this subject as "cavities" (well, that's an assumption I'll make for North America, at least), using that term occasionally would be helpful. For example, "An estimated 90% of schoolchildren worldwide and most adults have experienced dental caries" becomes simply "An estimated 90% of schoolchildren worldwide and most adults have had cavities". Maybe it sounds less "clinical", but that's not always a bad thing.

Overall the article is very good and comprehensive. –Outriggr § 05:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, here goes. Because I know what a great contributer you are and how high your own standards are, I'm going to be really picky;)

1. Animals. You knew this was coming -- yes, they're uncommon in companion animals, but what about other animals? FR says that for "For most non-human mammals, the presence of caries is evidence of bad general health and nutritional deficiencies." No citation is given there, but this needs to be addressed.

2. Prevalence in developed World You talk a bit about them being more common in North America and Asia and less so in Africa. It would be nice to explore differential rates in different developed countries. And when you say:

"In children aged 5 to 17, 80% of dental caries reside in 25% :of the population"

this holds only for California. Is it the same world-wide? Significantly different?

3. History FR gives a bit of uncited data on the origin of human caries. This is important. Here's a free translation:

[Human] Caries probably appeared in the Neolitich (7000 years :ago in Europe), perhaps related to the consumption of flour when populations became more sedentary, abandoning hunting as a :primary food source. Human teeth dating from this period that come from groups who were still hunters and gatherers (including sweet berries) do not contain caries.

4. Causes What about Tobacco use? And medical disorders such as Hyperthyroidism and Hyperparathyroidism? Perhaps a bit more on the potential vaccine (though not much; it has its own article)

DE says that there are "several theories on the development of caries. Today the chemo-parasitical Theory of W.D. Miller is generally accepted. Thus, caries result from several pathological factors causing the desctruction of dental tissue in several stages."

Maybe you should go into this more, though I can't comment further on it (due to my ignorance)

5. Images Would these images help illustrate the article?

6. Pseudoscience. I know this article shouldn't get bogged down by crank theories about caries. But a mention of the most prominent ones is in order.

You've done what looks like an excellent job so far. I hope these critiques will be helpful as you *hopefully!* try to bring this article up to featured status. --Zantastik talk 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone SO MUCH for all the ideas. It took forever to try to address as much as I could. Here is a summary of what I ended up doing:
  1. Created article about dental caries in animals and linked to it at the top of the page.(Got the idea from the featured article, Pneumonia)
  2. The 80/20 stat was not just for California, but I found a better ref stating the the ~80/20 finding in the U.S. and Europe.
  3. Found more information concerning the distribution of the disease around the world.
  4. Found and cited information about the history.
  5. Specifically mentioned other influencing factors that cause tooth decay, including dry mouth and tobacco.
  6. I do not really know if those images would really be helpful. They look a little basic and the information is in the article, but if some of ya'll would like it in the article, then by all means we can stick them in somewhere.
  7. I really do not know if there is much "crank theories" about caries, but in the history section the tooth worm idea is mentioned.
  8. I expanded the lead section to conform to WP:LEAD.
  9. Headings were modified to conform to WP:MOS#Headings.
  10. Reordered the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  11. Citations were found for all the {{fact}}s.
  12. And thanks to Jersyko for doing a copyedit.
-Dozenist talk 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, though I don't recall if I've done a copyedit to the rest of the article (aside from the history subsec). Brainrot, you know. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph W. Tkach[edit]

This article has reached GA. I would like to know what is needed to get this to FA. Any suggestions are welcome. RelHistBuff 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Additional graphics would definitely improve it. Can you get a better picture of Tkach?
  • I would like to see more detailed biography of his early life, and family life. The article only touches on this lightly.
  • The article seems slightly biased against Tkach. It may be that such a figure would be difficult to present in NPOV. Mfields1 01:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I will look for some more photos and expand the earlier part of his life. Concerning bias, the sources on him tend to paint him as either a saint who saved the WCG or a demon who brought down the WCG. I tried to keep the article down the middle course. If you see a bias somewhere, please let me know where and I will try to fix it. Is it the part concerning his legacy (the message there is pretty negative)? RelHistBuff 08:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was the section that caught my eye as being negative. Maybe there is a different section title that could be used, or in some way, could the positive aspects (if any) be presented first?

I added two more photos and more details on his early life, in particular his family's interest in the WCG and his conversion. As for the final section, detailling the collapse of the church would at first appear to be a negative assessment of Tkach to most people's eyes. But interestingly, the details of the collapse are from sources that are supporters of Tkach. I have tried to show this dichotomy of views on the collapse so that this section will be appear more neutral. RelHistBuff 11:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the renaming and rewording of the last section. IMHO is is balanced. Is there a way to add a graph of church membership by year, or church income? I think may add to the article. For the lead photo at the top, is a color photo available? I'll try to think of a few other ideas that would help get the article to FA. It looks well researched. Mfields1 21:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea about the statistics. I'll take a look into that. I am not sure if a color photo exists though. RelHistBuff 21:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I found a color photo which is taken from the same source as the b&w one in the lead section. Unfortunately, the resolution isn't very good so I think it's better to stay with the b&w one for the moment at least until I can find a better one in color.
I have taken a look at the sources for data in order to make a chart. Unfortunately membership data is inconsistent. For example, concerning membership, sometimes the numbers refer to US membership, sometimes to worldwide membership, and sometimes it is unclear. The revenue numbers are better though as the articles refer to audited financial reports. I have uploaded a chart, but unfortunately the data for 1995 is missing (due to late publication). However, one can easily see the fall starting from 1990 and continuing through 1997. RelHistBuff 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I got the 1995 data from another source. The graph is now complete. RelHistBuff 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple thoughts...

  • I would remove some of the duplicate wiki-links for items like "Herbert W. Armstrong" and "Worldwide Church of God". They really only need to be wiki-linked on their first appearance in the article.
  • A pronunciation guide to the last name Tkach would be helpful.
  • A link or wiki-source to the full text of the Christmas Eve Sermon would be a plus.
  • Considering the importance of the doctrinal changes implemented by Tkach, it seems like the section Changes brought by Joseph Tkach should be expanded with more details. A couple questions that crossed my mind was if these changes were made unilateral or did Tkach consult the elders, conduct a study, etc? In particular, I'm curious about details of what maybe provoke these changes. A somewhat related question on the section title, instead of listing these as "changes" wouldn't "Reforms" better describe them?

Overall I think this is an excellent article on a difficult subject. I think with more details to flesh out the subject it could be well on its way to FA status. Agne 11:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I implemented the first two. For the third, the link was there already in a footnote at the end of the paragraph, but it could be easily missed, so I footnoted it directly on the first reference to the Christmas Eve Sermon. As for the fourth, I will expand it over the next day or two. RelHistBuff 12:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, I didn't realize that link was to the full text. It just appeared to be an excerpt. Thanks for clarifying. Agne 12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added an explanation of what triggered the reforms and some details of the decision-making process. The feedback has definitely helped to improve the article and I am open to more suggestions and criticisms. RelHistBuff 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add a cover from The Plain Truth to the page? It would add something to the description. Mfields1 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I will look for a relevant cover page. RelHistBuff 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I found some covers, but unfortunately they aren't really relevant to Tkach (most are on prophecy and current events). More improvements in the article have been made recently. Additional suggestions on how to get this to FA are welcome. RelHistBuff 10:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fin Whale[edit]

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Fin Whale/archive1.

A link to this article appeared on Wikipedia's main page on October 23 in the current events section. It has been cleaned up significantly and in-line citations added since its last peer review. I'd like to get an idea of what it would need to push it into good or featured article quality. An older version of this article was listed as a featured article candidate and time hasn't run out on that yet even though I don't think it's getting many eyeballs any more, so I'm not sure if I'm doing things out of order by requesting another peer review at this point. Neil916 (Talk) 07:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • One comment I'll add in response to a question raised during the previous peer review is why the common name of the species is capitalized. The article falls under WikiProject Cetaceans, which has decided to standardize the capitalization of all species common names. Neil916 (Talk) 08:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Cetaceans project or not, "fin whale" is a sufficiently common-sounding term that it looks awkward capitalized. What's the reasoning behind that standard?
    It's a long debate, and I agree that it looks awkward. See some of the historical discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna), Talk:Spinifex Hopping Mouse, and other places. It's not a standard that I support, but for now it's the community consensus and I have not been able to generate any consensus to change it yet.
  • The phylogenetic tree and Image:Fin whale.jpg clash on my screen, so that the lower image is pushed to the right, leaving an unslightly leftmost gap.
    When I view the article at 800x600 resolution, I see that the taxobox and the phylogenetic tree get squished together, so I get several one-word lines mashed between the images, but I don't see the problem with the Image:Fin whale.jpg image, which is in the next section. What browser are you using and at what screen resolution?
    1920x1200, Firefox under Windows. I still see the problem at 1600x1200 though. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hmmm...I don't think I have a system available with the horsepower to handle 1920x1200 to test it myself, but it would explain the problem since the paragraphs would be very wide and shallow. In HTML markup, there is a way to add a tag to say "don't insert this picture until the left/right/both margin(s) are clear" or something to that effect, so I'll try to figure out how to implement that in Wikipedia. I had been assuming the problem you were describing was a result of your screen resolution being too low. Neil916 (Talk) 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, I've experimented with inserting breaks between sections and repositioning the images. Can you check if this is still a problem on your browser? I don't have a system that can display greater than 1280x1024, and it looks ok on that resolution and lower resolutions. Neil916 (Talk) 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you know what exactly the branch lengths on the phylogenetic tree represent? (Genetic distance or assumed time to coalescence, or nothing in particular?)
    As I understand it, the lengths of the branches do not mean anything. The branches represent evolutionary divergences, not timelines. So, for example, the Rorqual phylogenetic tree shows that the Bryde's Whale has a closer evolutionary relationship to the Sei Whale than the Southern Minke Whale.
    OK - sometimes these are plotted with an explicit axis; just wanted to make sure it was correct. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why the size difference between hemispheres? Is the magnitude of that difference statistically significant?
    I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying size in terms of the size of the North Atlantic Fin Whale vs. the size of the Antarctic Fin Whale? Are you referring to the size of the existing population? The size of the habitat range? The primary reason why the three main groups of Fin Whales (North Pacific, North Atlantic, and Antarctic) are described is because they are generally recognized as different subspecies that do not interact or interbreed.
    I was referring to this sentence: "It reaches lengths of up to 24 meters (79 ft) in the northern hemisphere and 26.8 meters (88 ft) in the southern hemisphere". If that's referring to the northern and antarctic species, it would be clearer to name the species rather than the location; I read it as implying regional variations. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    I believe it's an inconsistency resulting from different sources that referred to the regional variations in terms of location rather than subspecies. I'll work on that section. Neil916 (Talk) 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "The whale has a series of 56-100 pleats or grooves along the bottom of the body...." - any chance of an up-close image of this?
    I doubt it, due to the difficulty of photographing this fast whale. The image of the whale shown on the stamp does depict the grooves, and the diagram on Baleen whale also shows the grooves, but I'm not sure if including that diagram would be too redundant on this article. What do you think?
    That's fine - I think the other diagram might be extraneous considering this has quite a few images already, but I don't have a strong opinion. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The prose could use some minor work; in particular there's a lot of switching between singular "the fin whale..." and plural "they..." (eg "The Fin Whale was relatively safe from most whalers due to its quick speed and the fact that they prefer the open sea")
    Thanks, I've been hunting down such inconsistencies.
  • "most hunted cetacean in history" is a big claim without a footnote, even if it may be implicitly supported by the next sentences.
    Agreed. I have removed it until a source can be found.
  • I don't know anything about whaling, but 10 whales per year for a widely distributed species doesn't sound like a lot. Some sense of scale (eg, a corresponding number of some non-endangered and plentiful species) would be useful here.
    I'm not sure that the article is trying to imply that 10 whales per year is a lot and I've taken care not to imply whether it is good or bad per se, it's simply providing information of the current status of whaling for Fin Whales.
    There doesn't have to be any implication one way or another; it's just hard to have a sense of scale on the subject. Compared to the earlier numbers (750,000 in 74 years? wow.) it seems like a miniscule "why bother" kind of number. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    I think the relevance is that this whale is still listed as "endangered" by several international agencies, so any commercial hunting of the animal is still very controversial. I've uncovered more sources containing information about different causes of mortality for this whale, natural and not, so I'm hoping to expand/rewrite this section in the next few days.Neil916 (Talk) 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is there a redlink in See also for Restaurants in Iceland?
    It was a nonsense addition from an anonymous user last night who has a history of adding nonsense to that article. I removed it an left a note on the user's talk page.

Opabinia regalis 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Neil916 (Talk) 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I forgot to come back to this. The image conflict problem is resolved now. Looks very good! Some of the recent material, ie in the abundance section and the lead, could use a quick prose run-through (for example, "This shows a substantial recovery compared to a survey in 1976 showing..."). IIRC naked years don't need wikilinks, and somewhere there's a mention of the "2007-2008 season" where only one of the two years is linked. The abundance section has a lot of great data - maybe a table would help to keep track of which trends are in which places? Opabinia regalis 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Finnish Civil War[edit]

This one had a peer review before which didn't receive that much feedback but during the GA nomination it was improved greatly. Now it is a GA and quite nice article overall. Now before possible FA nomination we'd like to have some reviewing. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive! For FA nomination, I would focus your efforts on the lead. See WP:LEAD. This is a long article, and the lead does not adequately summarize its contents. Only two paragraphs, and one of them uses most of its words to describe alternate names for the war. In a very summarized form, I suggest answering the big questions of the article: what was the background to the conflict? The results? For example, it says "The Civil War was in many ways a major catastrophe for the Finnish nation and society" toward the end of the article. That's something the reader would want a brief explanation of in the lead. I'd suggest four paragraphs (others might say three).
Have an independent party review the prose to find improvements in sentence structure (always a good thing). I could offer some assistance, but it's probably too big an article to do it all. For example, A renewed attempt of russification began which was called "the second period of oppression 1908-1917". is awkward, and since it's in quotes, who called it that? Surely they didn't tack on a date range at the end? In general, there are a lot of date ranges in the form "during 2000-2006" which might be better written as "between 2000 and 2006".
Minor details: Full dates should be linked so date preferences can format them; years by themselves should not be linked. See WP:DATE.
With a bigger lead, you will do well in FAC. –Outriggr § 11:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts...

  • The tags on Image:Civil War Prison Camp in Helsinki.gif, Image:Suojeluskunta.jpg, Image:General Strike Helsinki 1917.jpg, Image:Peasants in finland.jpg and Image:Tampere war victims 1918.jpg are obsolete and needs to be replaced.
  • In the section Background the line "Hence, the country was already divided many years before the Civil War" and the rest of the paragraph sounds very "essayish" in contrast to Encyclopedic (especially with the absence of an in-line cite to a source with such a summary). My recommendation would be to re-write and merge the content of that paragraph into the paragraph right above it.
  • I would be aware of "POV Buzzwords" like the "unfortunately" in the line "Unfortunately, the social divisions and the heritage of the old regime led to a severe power struggle between the Social Democrats and Conservatives.". Fortunately (no pun intended) these can easily be reworded or removed without radically altering the content. Similar is the "merciless" in "The battle in burning Tampere was the first "city war" in Finland, merciless fighting, the Whites advancing house by house and the Reds retreating street by street.".
  • Also with POV is the "assessment" of point of views being included in the article with lines like "However, this view is one-sided, an even more relevant cause being that since autumn 1917 there was no politically sound government which could use these means of control in the country."
  • There are a couple areas that would be served well with an in-line cite. I've added a few tags to help out.
  • I would work on the red links with at least stub article creation. Pertinent topics like the massacres mentioned in the section Red and White terror should have a little more context because of how much they relate and support understanding in this article.

Overall, I agree that it is a great article. I would be very aware of POV which I think will be scrutinized in FAC because of the sensitive subject matter. Agne 12:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A bigger lead is now in User:RelHistBuff/sandbox/FCW. It's too long at the moment, but hopefully it will be modified to an appropriate form. Other changes made in the art. also, according to your review, thank you. --Ilummeen 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Finnish Civil War/archive1

Hello! Here are my observations so far:

  • Lead now seems too long (I notice above it used to be too short). The first paragraph (quite long) summarizes the whole article nicely, but then the next paragraph goes into the background leading up to the war and stops, instead of succinctly summarizing whole article from background, through war, to the result. Perhaps work on that first paragraph, splitting it up into 2 or 3 paragraphs and adding to it just a tad, and cutting out the rest and merging anything it had with the main article below.
  • In the lead: "both as troops and weapons" is a tad confusing. Do you mean both countries contributed both of these? Also "as" should probably be "with" and should be switched around thus: "with both troops and weapons"
  • "The Civil War is the only conflict in the history of Finland that has caused a major dispute even on the name of the war" -- assuming this is saying that this is the only conflict to have a major dispute in naming the war? If so, perhaps re-word to "The Civil War is the only conflict in the history of Finland that has caused a major dispute with the name of the war"
  • "Finland had been a northwestern part of the Russian Empire since 1809, autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, led by the Russian tsar and priviliged, Finnish estates with no democratic rights for the common people" seems like it has some incomplete clauses in there.
  • This sentence is a little confusing "The general strike of 1905 (due to defeat of Russia in the Russian-Japanese war) did not solve the problems as the Tsar could still regain his power and withdraw the power of the new Finnish parliament, established in 1906, based on broad universal suffrage." It doesn't really establish cause and effect and seems to start saying one thing, and then finishing off with explaining the Finnish parliment. Did the strike cause the establishment of the parliment? If so, state that first, and then say how this didn't solve the problems as the Tsar could, etc., etc.
  • Not really sure what this sentence is trying to say: "The Russian Empire faced heavy pressure from the other European mights, the power policy resulting finally in the First World War in 1914." pressure to do what? and do you mean power struggle instead of power policy?
  • "Economic problems such as unemployment and lack of food increased the fewer among the Finns." "increased the fewer" doesn't make sense
  • "By the beginning of the year 1918, a "dual power" and "multiple sovereignty" had been formed in Finland and the Guards had become independent means of power even within their own policies" part in bold doesn't make sense to me.
  • "As a result, the social conditions, standard of living and self-confidence of the workers rose slowly, but consistently between 1880-1914, socialism, nationalism and liberalism as the political tools" doesn't really make sense; seems to include partial clauses
  • Which English spelling style is the article choosing? It seemed mostly American, so I corrected spellings with that in mind, but I also noticed a few UK spellings...
  • "In 1917, the Finnish people stood at the crossroads where the old regime of the estates was slowly changing to a more democratic society accepting the power of the common people also, but the direction of the development was still uncertain and became a matter of heavy political dispute and fighting" is rather awkwardly worded.
  • "Conservatives aimed at keeping power endangered by the new revolution in Russia" doesn't quite make sense. Do you mean "Conservatives aimed at keeping power that was endangered by the new revolution in Russia"?
  • "Furthermore, the Battle of Tampere was the ultimate example of a civil war with "brother rising against brother", Finn against Finn" this declaration seems a little strange, since that is the definition of a civil war
  • "The Germans initiated the attack on February 18 having demanded "requests for help" from the smaller countries west of Russia beforehand in order to provide an excuse" attack on whom? Russia? Might want to make that clearer.
  • "At the same time, a moderate non-socialist, the eventual first president of Finland, K.J. Ståhlberg, elected July 25, 1919, struggling for parliamentarism, wrote" I know what you're trying to say here, but it's an awfully long list of qualifiers before we get to what he wrote. Not sure how to rewrite that....

Also, might want to mention that the universal suffrage was not limited to men-- it was the first European country to grant suffrage to women, if I remember correctly.

All in all, great job though! --plange 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you --plange for the great comments and a special apology for forgetting you ladies with suffrage to women in 1906. I'm glad you noticed it, if you had not, I would be soon attacked by a female "flying detachment" of my own tribe at home :):) --Ilummeen 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Are you Finnish? I lived in Kerava for about 10 months back in the 80s :-) I was an exchange student (from America). I remember while there several things the Finns were proud of (and rightly so) about their history, and one was female suffrage, and the other was gaining their independence (and keeping it through the second world war). I thought I remembered something about soldiers on skiis but couldn't remember which war... This was an interesting read for me as I didn't realize there'd been a civil war. Moi moi! --plange 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton[edit]

This article (which deals with a town in England), has been developing for some time now, and is possibly at it's endgame in terms of contributions by the local editing community.

I (as a significant contributor) would like this article to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status, and feel a peer review would be the most appropriate step for assistance with this. Therefore, constructive comments (personal and automated) that help in this respect would be highly appreciated. Jhamez84 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

December 2006[edit]

Now in December 2006, I am re-entering the article for a peer review (automated and manual) in an effort to further the article.

I believe the previous suggestions have been met and thus hope to receive new recommendations for moving this article towards WP:GA. I believe the format of the article is fine, it is any objectionable statements or other such entries which could be brought inline with the more obscure policies of Wikipedia as soon as possible, which I am looking for. Thanks, Jhamez84 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Brain-computer interface[edit]

Hi, this article just passed a GA and I'm hoping to eventually try for FA, but having worked on it for a while, I'm starting to get blind about the overall impact it makes. I'd really appreciate your comments on whether it grabs your attention, is consistent and keeps you reading. Grateful for your opinion on whether the summary style works and whether all the style manual components are correct. Cheers--Saganaki- 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty decent and I enjoyed the subject matter. Here's a few comments:
  • Some FAC reviewers seem to like an article to be relatively self-contained. But when this article uses terms like "motor cortex neurons" and "phosphenes" without clarification, it requires the reader to fork from the main article for clarification. The second paragraph of the "Prominent research successes" section, for example, does a good job of explaining the terms without need for a drill-down.
  • Errors: "defintion", "targetted"
  • Some additional terms could be usefully linked: integrated circuit, retinal implants, visual cortex, macaque monkey, algorithms, mathematical filters, neurophysiology, zucchini, congenital, stroke, laser, peripheral nerves, dura mater, scar-tissue, epileptics, and quadriplegic.
  • In the sentence, "from an integrated circuit to a silicon chip," aren't these currently redundant terms? I'm not sure that there is a digital computer that doesn't rely on an IC circuit on a silicon chip.
  • "very existence of BCIs suggests that consciousness and mind can be reduced to the physical qualities of the brain, posing great questions for modern philosophers of the mind." This is perhaps debatable, but from a purely logical point of view I'm not sure I agree with this sentence. The existence of an interface to the brain does not require that the consciousness be a purely physical quality. The brain already provides the requisite interface between the physical sense and the mental consciousness. Beyond that, however, does this really raise any new philisophical issues beyond those that are already up for discussion regarding the physical nature of the consciousness? This topic is also not covered by the remainder of the text.
  • The terms "explosive" and "amazing", where they occur in the text, are too non-neutral for an encyclopedia article.
  • First section, first paragraph--please use an em dash rather than a dash. HTML code: &mdash;
  • The term "optic-nerve cuffs" is used but not defined.
  • This statement is ambiguous: "He also found that dispersed groups of neurons in different areas of the brain collectively controlled motor commands but due to technical limitations was only able to record the firings of neurons in one area at a time." Was this a problem in the lab or a limitation of the monkey brain? Undoubtedly the former, but it should be clear.
  • I had some difficulty understanding the sentence, "real-time reconstruction of complex motor parameters using recordings from neural ensembles". Perhaps it could be clarified for the average, non-specialist?
  • Comma needed in "...hand manipulation skills, making them ideal..."
I hope these were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an excellent critique. Get working on improvements right away.--Saganaki- 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Something else came to mind:
  • Have there been any ethical discussions or criticisms of this technology? If so, a "Criticisms" section could be an interesting addition. This could also cover potential military applications and clarify concerns about mind-control or other potential abuses, &c. — RJH (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. — RJH (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that and it sounds like a good idea. The way I'd approach it is to write a summary and then link through to ethical talk in Brain implant and mind control. Here's why. Currently, there are relatively few criticims of BCIs because:

  • the research is focused on fighting disability
  • there has been no special attention from animal rights groups
  • BCIs have are being used to acquire signals to control devices rather than the other way round. The exception to this is vision research.

This could change in the future, for example today's brain pacemakers which aren't considered BCIs could become a lot more sophisticated. Neurochips could also develop further, for example the artificial hippocampus. I would say that the ethical considerations related to BCIs will be very similar or the same to those as for Brain implant and mind control where a debate has already begun. So because the BCI article is already v. long and to avoid duplication I'd suggest creating a preamble then linking to these pages for the full story. Think that works?--Saganaki- 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes that sounds good, assuming that there are suitable references. — RJH (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added the ethical considerations section - intend to source it better if I get time. There are also a couple of loose ends to tie up (for example the one sentence claim about Philip Kennedy being the first to develop a wireless BCI). I wonder, after that, whether its ready for a FA review, but my gut feeling is its probably worth encouraging more peer review here first? --Saganaki- 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Arabian horse[edit]

I would like to get this article to a place where it could be a featured article. Please review in particular the use of citation, citation format (please fix anything that's improperly formatted!), use of images (I'm not happy with the quality of the photos, but they're the best I can find that's GFDL or otherwise available so far), comment on length (but please don't cut any major sections without discussion, it got so long for a reason!), and look over the "controversies" section (almost everything in there is a result of a disagreement of some sort).

I don't know if this article can become a featured article or not, but I'd like to see what non-horsey reviewers think. Arabian horses are, for some reason I can't quite fathom, a rather controversial breed, and many issues have to be handled delicately to avoid upsetting those who care. Montanabw 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Shadowfax. Erm, a larger lead for one, and I'd like to see a photo rather than a painting in the infobox.Wiki-newbie 19:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Will work on the lead, have yet to find a good enough photo in the public domain to use as a headliner of GOOD breed representative. Montanabw 04:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my view: (This is all I had time for, I'll come back later.)

  • "It is one of the oldest breeds, with ancestry dating to the ancient world."
    • Redundant, something needs to be done.
  • "Arabian bloodlines are found in the ancestry of almost every modern breed of riding horse."
    • Try "The Arabian horse is related to most modern riding horses."
-See the repetitive redundant and clumsy wording pattern? I will go on.
  • "The Arabian developed in a desert climate and lived in the desert in close association with humans, often being brought..."
    • try to combine the verb: "The Arabian developed in a desert climate. During this time, it was often greatly cared for by its human owners."

Serious work here needed:

  • This closeness to humans helped create a breed of horse with a good disposition, quick to learn, and willing to please. On the other hand, the breed is also classified as a "hot-blooded" breed of horse, and this same sensitivity requires Arabian horses to be handled with both competence and without abuse.

Notes: Contradictory. To fix this, specify that although it is a horse of good disposition, it requires respect and sensitivity from its owner.

All for now. --Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see where you are going with this. Given that this is the lead, which needs to be simple and concise, some material is well worth changing, though some is in the "terms of art" realm (the ancient breed stuff, and the fact that Arabians are not merely "related" but are the foundation stock of most modern breeds especially) and has to be edited with caution to not change the meaning--or to make such a broad statement that the anti-Arabian people start charging in and screaming that the article is POV-pushing <sigh>. So I welcome your ideas and I agree that "un-clunkifying" the language is necessary. Montanabw 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland[edit]

I would like to know what could be done (major changes) to promote this article to FA status. Please refrain from putting that a certain sentence doesn't have a closing parentheses or doesn't have a comma, because that can be done by yourself! Thanks, Booksworm Talk to me! 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Booksworm. Take a look at Cameroon, a featured article candidate, and Japan, a recent featured article to learn what is appropriate for a featured article on a nation. Try and adhere as closely to the formatting of those articles as possible. Also, take a look at the arguments made during the nomination process which should give you an idea of what people expect. Having looked at Switzerland, my first response would be to point out the lack of inline citations. This is my recommendation for sourcing articles before entering them for FA status: See User:Zleitzen/Citations criteria.-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The changes from the previous PR have not been completed. There would be no point in reviewing it again. — RJH (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

D1 Grand Prix[edit]

I have requested a peer review as I would like this to be peer reviewed as I feel there are plenty of people who know better about this subject than I am. Also there needs more than what is featured. Do bear in mind this is my first request, thanks a lot. Willirennen 16.10 25 October 2006 (utc)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Web operating system[edit]

We're discussing sources as well as content. The general need in this article is to cover both the well verifiable uses of the term as well as numerous popular uses of the term. A previous article, WebOS started out on the subject of a particular project at UC Berkeley, and then over time it meandered into the various popular uses of the term -- but without a clear and concise presentation for the reader. The objective in this article is to make this presentation covering all aspects of the use of the term. - JohnPritchard 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Merged WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system[edit]

It's been tough to realize the collective opinion on the subject of these articles. It's my estimation that it comes down to merging WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system into one. Such was far from my first choice as individual articles seemed nicer hypertext, but with such strong reactions to individual articles covering these subjects it seems clear that this is the will of the community in the neighborhood. - JohnPritchard 04:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, "will of the community" is also at debate. Naturally. - JohnPritchard 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a former Afd (closed) as well as a deletion review on the topic of this name Web operating system. - JohnPritchard 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

  • Comment: I got to be honest with you, I've got zero clue about what the article is talking about. - Tutmosis 02:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, taking one sentence at a time, where is the first place that you feel "lost"? - JohnPritchard 11:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Umm the first sentence, I dont understand what are "network services for internet scale distributed computing". - Tutmosis 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. I'm starting to get the picture. We'll work on it. - JohnPritchard 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad Religion[edit]

Hi. Someone nominated this to be a featured article, but I don't think it's ready yet. However, I think with some more work, it can get there. This is a band with a long history who should have a good article to represent them.

From what I can tell, the intro paragraph needs some fleshing out, and I have some ideas as to how to do that, although any takers would be great. The biggest problem is that the article lacks references. Where can we get them besides BR fan sites? I don't think that they're any more reliable than anything else out there, so anyone with previous experience working on another band's wikipedia page would be most helpful. I'm going to start looking, but if I find something that's deemed unworthy, it'll be an exercise in frustration.

I reshaped the Influence and Tributes section out of a cluster of small paragraphs, but now I'm not sure if people will balk at it because it's so "listy".

Any ideas, suggestions or other forms of help are most appreciated. Thanks in advance, m13b 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A good way to get some solid references are band or band member interviews. Search around, im sure there are a bunch. --Beanssnaeb 01:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be stuff on who influenced them as well as who they influenced. On the dvd jay bentley cites Adolescents as an influence anyone know of any others?86.138.164.207 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually found an article this morning quoting Bentley about the Adolescents, as well as other influences.  :) m13b 14:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It should explain how they got back together86.132.211.64 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Took a shot at it. Kinda wish I had more references though, I hate reusing that same page. Then again, it is an excellent article, so I really shouldn't complain. m13b 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, worked on a lot of that stuff, subsequent runs of the script look much better. m13b 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey State Constitution[edit]

This is the second peer review for the article. I was just dissapointed with how little look-over it actually got. Please make your comments; fresh eyes welcome. Any general status comments wanted!Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Previous Peer Review

  • Can the Defunct Versions section be expanded? Secondly I would like to see some information on how it was adopted. Also it needs a copyedit because some parts dont make sense, example: "Paragraphs traditionally in Article I, eg, the banning of ex post facto laws is in Article IV "Legislative." First it makes no sense, then why can't the footnote be at the end of the sentence? Why is an abbreviation used "eg"? Also some unsourced statements come off as analysis, example: "New Jersey's constitution is often a target of criticism." - Tutmosis 00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mount Tambora[edit]

Since a couple of days, I have made a revamp of this article. It was full of misleading images and unsourced statements and very long quotes. I have put well-defined references and removed some unverified statements. Here, I would like other opinions from reviewers about this article. Any suggestions, critics, corrections and direct copy-editing are very welcome. Thanks in advance. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 12:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the introduction, and I think it is very good (links all work, refs are good). Also, really like the birds eye view graphic. Only question from intro is “explosion sound was heard until Sumatra” - perhaps you meant in Sumatra, suggestion would be to “explosion sound could be heard in Sumatra”… ... ? just a suggestion Dharp66 19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66

Response: Thanks a lot, Dharp66. I have changed the intro as you suggested. I'm going to ask some people to help copyediting the article. — Indon (reply) — 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article looks great. Could the one lonely bit of trivia be incorporated into the text somewhere? User:Wayward might accept a request for copyediting if you ask him. --Peta 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: Thanks, Peta. Yes, the only trivia is a bit lonely. It was put by someone. At first, (s)he put it in the main text and I put it later at the end, because I think that it is a non-notable information. I was going to remove it, but I don't want to get into an edit war with him/her. I'm going to wait for other contributors/reviewers to copyedit that information. Perhaps, I'm going to put it in the footnotes. Oh, and thanks for pointing me to Wayward. I'm going to ask him. — Indon (reply) — 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have added notable quotes at the end of the article. Could somebody please make a review of the article? Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes normally go on wikiquote. Mabye a few could be worked into the section on the eruption? --Peta 04:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I've taken two quotes and embedded it into the section. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: Do you think that the article is eligible for the WP:FAC? — Indon (reply) — 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've read it. It's a cool program. I have fixed the unit of measurement, a heading started with "The", and some redudancies. The only things left, when I ran again the script, are wikilinks of months and days, and wikilinks of full dates. I don't think if I put all dates from chronological history of the eruption into wikilink, then it would be wise and makes a better readability to the article. Also that the year 1815 is repeated over the entire article and it wouldn't be good to have all wikilinked. Or am I wrong about wikilink of dates? Is this issue harmful for submitting this article to FAC? — Indon (reply) — 14:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand that you only wikilink dates if they are month day and year. Also, you only need to wikilink the first time something is in the article (so I would not link 1815 and even if I did, I would only link it once or at most once per section). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, that what I meant. So wikinlinked only the first appearance important years (1815 and 1816), the date of the eruption 10 April 1815 and some years in the table of selected vulcanic eruptions. — Indon (reply) — 16:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Sounds good to me - you can link just years if they are important, of course. DIdn't mean to say otherwise above. Take care, Ruhrfisch 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about volcanos, but are inactive volcanos "extinct," as written in the first line of the 1815 section, or are they "dormant" as I've come to understand the term? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
An "exinct" volcano is one that will never be active again, a dormant volcano is not active but could be - whether one can be sure an inactive volcano is one or the other I don't know. however I just recently changed "thought to be non-volcanic" to "thought to be extinct". (i have presumed it was known to be of volcanic origin - all mountains in the Sunda arc are) Ie, the statement has more to do with its perceived state at the time rather than its actual state (which hindsight was indeed "dormant"!). THe other point is, did the locals at the time no about a distinction between "extinct" and "dormant"? Maybe the article needs to say "for long a time dormant,..." if we can find a good reference. --Merbabu 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, the statement of "long thought to be non-active" is in the source, cited at the end of the sentence. — Indon (reply) — 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, but to nit-pick, in technical terms, non-active volcanoes are described as either "dormant" or "extinct", depending on their state. Thus i suggested "For a long time dormant,..." lol - maybe it is not that important. --Merbabu 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
For me, it's all right to replace the word, as long as it has the same meaning. I was just to reply your remark: "if we can find a good reference". Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Liaquat Ali Khan[edit]

I want people to review the article I have made. Make suggestions for the improvements that can be made. I still believe that the article has a scope for expansion even after I have added considerable ammount of information. (Gambit pk 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

I just read the section about the death. Some comments :

  • The State dept release provided as the reference to this section (ref.9) says that he was killed on Oct 15 while this article and Saad Akbar says Oct 16
  • the security forces immediately shot the assassin : differs from the reference which says twice that crowd killed him (that is the story that I am also familiar with). Which is the right one ?
  • real culprit behind the murder. Is this a guess, or has it been established that Akbar did not do it on his own ? Tintin (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not feel that the lead adequately summarizes the article. There is nothing in the lead about his legacy or criticisms of him, yet the article has an entire section on those topics. -Fsotrain09 04:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Indiana Jones[edit]

A really iconic character. Any suggestions? Wiki-newbie 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between real archaeology and what Indiana Jones does

I recently got into a debate with an anthropologist user here, who changed the term "archaeologist" to "antiquarian" in the articles on Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones 4, and Harrison Ford. I reverted these edits and put a warning on his talk page. He took offense and a debate ensued (see User talk:68.101.67.16).

I pointed out that the films present the Jones as an archaeologist. This user said Jones doesn't perform archaeology; rather, he's a treasure hunter and grave robber. The user felt that antiquarian is closer to what Indiana Jones actually practices, although the antiquarian article also needs some association with grave robbing.

I have to admit, this user has a point, and the distinction between real archaeology and what Indiana Jones does should be made in all articles about Indiana Jones. =Axlq 15:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly believe that at least a section of the Indiana Jones articles should deal with the real life distinction between what a real archaeologist does and what Jones does. No matter what the film represents Jones as, the differences should be noted. I admit that grave robber maybe a little harsh for antiquarians, as it was the educated class taking artifacts from sites with no regard for the context nor culture it was associated with. They didn't do it always for personal gain in the same way grave robbers did. Antiquarians was a form of archaic archaeological thought focused only on the antiques themselves. In this way, Indiana Jones exemplifies antiquarianism rather than archaeology. I think it is important to note the distinctions between the two. 68.101.67.16 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Now moved to Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/Archive 4#Indiana Jones

I guess that's fair enough. Can anyone recommend good sources on Indiana Jones as an influential pop culture icon? Wiki-newbie 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi[edit]

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

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

Very nice in generel. Some remarks for further improvement:

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

The Colbert Report[edit]

I am trying to promote this article to FA. Problems mentioned in the previous nomination for FA status include prose and references. ISD 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead should be two sentances, with a new sentance for "stars comedian..."

Truthiness should probably include Colbert's comment: "I don't trust books, they're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Let's face it folks, we are a divided nation.... between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart."

The "wrist violence" section should be renamed "wrist violence and painkiller addiction" as the latter seems a parody of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycotin addiction.

Should definitely include a section about the White House dinner speech and President Bush's response.

It might be worthwhile to include a comment about Colbert's interview of Presidential candidate Ron Paul. It seemed to me that in that interview, Colbert slipped out of character to show his genuine personal admiration of Paul's perspective, but then went back into his schtick.

The Charlie Rose interview is superb, showing more about the character and also about the real Colbert. http://youtube.com/watch?v=OvLS4Jv6Tpw&feature=PlayList&p=969C7A105381484E&index=0

Happy to particpate in bringing more wikiality and truthiness to our understanding of this foremost flagaphile.

VisitorTalk 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Óengus I of the Picts[edit]

I would appreciate a peer review of this article before submitting it for FA review. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to mention an article published by Woolf. There is a revision of the Nechtan v Óengus passage. Essentially, the exactatores of Nechtan are not his tax-collectors, but the "oppressors" of Nechtan. That changes the whole interpretation of these events. The article was published this year. I shall email you a pdf version. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much. Incoporated, now needs to be added to Nechtan, which I'll do today. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I know how hard it is to bring together so many sources pertaining to such obscure figures and commend everyone involved in the work. I am ready to vote for the article when it is nominated and my advices are very few. Could we find more images? If the name of his capital is known, we could show our readers how it looks today. I would like to see the style of ISBNs unified. Some external links should be merged to primary sources: Bede is a source, whether he is online or not. I'm not sure whether Gaelicisation may be called an "artifact" but perhaps my poor command of the language is to blame. The word "greatest" in the last sentence is inherently POV (even if sourced) and should be replaced with a more specific term. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • ISBNs formatted and Bede added to the refs. I'll add a map showing roughly where things were. The picture at Escomb Church shows the sort of thing Nechtan and Óengus were having built in eastern Scotland. I don't think there was anything resembling a capital at this time; important forts and religious sites, but no towns or cities. Other points have been fixed, I hope: no more "great" and no more "artifact". Thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a very interesting article, but I find it quite confusing. I think you might need to give more background into the whole political situation in the British Isles at the time as well as Picts in general.
    • Maps would also really help. Alot of the article depends on understanding the geography of Northern British Isles right now.
    • Also are there any clan symbols that you could use as images?
    • In the section on St. Andrews you mention David be choosen as he was a usurper, which implies Óengus was a usurper as well. But who did he usurp?
    • At the end you say his son is the first Pictish king's son to become King. Why was this odd, were they matrilineal?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll certainly add a map, and I can expand the background. Sorry to say that there aren't any symbols.
Who did he usurp ? Everyone else who thought that they should be king, I suppose. The Talorgan son of Drostan who was drowned in 739 [if he was the same person who is called Nechtan's brother in 713] perhaps. Alex Woolf doesn't actually say who he has in mind, but in Ireland anyone whose great-grandfather had been king was considered a candidate. In Northumbria in the 8th century the succession was disputed among various families who claim descent from Ida of Bernicia, who died in the 6th century, none of which had provided a king until the 8th century. There are many apparently Pictish-related people who are named in the annals in the early part of the 8th century of whom nothing is known: Fergussan son of Maelchon; "the son of Artabláir"; Finguine and Gartnait, sons of Deleroith; Congal son of Dargart; Cináed son of Der-Ilei; "the son of Mathgernan"; Simul son of Drest; Talorgan map Han. Given that the people who appear in the Irish entries are kings and princes, bishops and abbots [but these are usually distinguishable from other people], and sometimes poets and historians, we can assume that most of these people are Pictish kings or their relatives. It's plausible that anyone notable enough to appear in the annals was a king or would have claim to be one.
Pictish matriliny used to be a popular idea, not any more. Bede mentions it, but the current belief is that he does so because Bridei and Nechtan, the sons of Der-Ilei and Dargart, claimed the kingship through their mother. No genealogies of Pictish royalty survive, and the annals almost always give a name and patronym only, so identifying the grandsons of kings is very difficult. It is only the existence of Irish and Welsh genealogies which allows historians to make sense of lists of kings which would otherwise seem to include many unrelated kings.
Thanks for the comments ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Map added. Hopefully it helps with background. Thanks again for all comments ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Heraldic visitation[edit]

This was recently upgraded to a Good Article, and I think that it can be an FA with a bit more work. I wasn't the main contributor to the article, but would be glad to implement any suggestions that others have. It is a unique and interesting topic that is not covered very broadly elsewhere on the internet.--dave-- 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The article is generally short compared to most FA articles, but the long thing is typically frowned upon.. and as I'm not familiar with Heraldic visitation, I wouldn't know how to expand this article. The one thing I can see is that it probably needs another image. drumguy8800 C T 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a map showing the numbers of visitations per county. --Dr pda 14:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A few more sources would be nice to back up the facts. Another picture would be good. It would also be good to flesh out the national differences in visitations. 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It might be nice to have a table listing all the counties, the dates they were visited, and possibly by whom. I've seen such a list somewhere while looking for info for other articles, possibly in Noble's History of the College of Arms or an old edition of Burke's Peerage. A mention of the fact that Clarenceux King of Arms has heraldic jurisdiction south of the river Trent, and Norroy King of Arms north of it would probably be worthwhile. Also, wasn't there someone (a herald-painter?) who pretended to be a herald carrying out visitations? Are there any well-known examples of people who were using arms unlawfully? Dr pda 00:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The list of counties, etc. might make the article too long. There were a lot of visitations, weren't there. It would be good to quote evidence of a case where arms were defaced during a visitation. How was the power to visit enforced?--Forlornandshorn 18:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've found the list I was thinking of, it was in the 1937 edition of Burke's Landed Gentry. A quick count reveals there were about 150 visitations, which would indeed be too long for a table in the article. Maybe it would be better as a List of English heraldic visitations which could be linked to the article. I'll need to find a PD source though as simply copying the list from Burke's would be a copyvio. Dr pda 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting to know from the visitations what houses have blended / assimilated other houses and what are the current representations of the 'say - early' visitations. For example, was a coat of arms awarded to a house known for being an excellent brewer? If so, is the current representation of that coat of arms one of the fine beers we enjoy today ? Dharp66 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 03:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Slipknot (band)[edit]

November 11, 2006 Review here
March 14, 2007 Review here
December 23, 2007 Review here

I'd like somebody to give a review of this article. I have spent the past few days working on this article and I submitted it as good article nominee, which it achieved. Ultimately I would like this article to be a featured article and I would like some peer response and input on how either me or other editors could get this article up to that standard. Rezter (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

J Milburn[edit]

Well, I've found a few minutes, and, as promised at WP:HMM, here's my review.

  • "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, during the recording process of which; guitarist Jim Root replaced Josh Brainard, which was the final line up change of the band." That sentence is rather clumsy- perhaps it would be better to say something like "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, before reaching the final lineup of _______________ during the album's recording."
  • "Since which the band have released a further 2 albums and are expected to release a 4th album in 2008." Perhaps name the albums, so as not to lean towards recent events? Also, perhaps "since which time" instead of "since which"?
  • More information about the pre-formation Slipknot would be good if it is available- it's currently just a list of names. What did they do? Could it be bulked out enough for its own subsection? At the moment, the freestanding paragraph looks a little out of place, especially as single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon.
  • Grammatically, the sentence is a little odd (I'm not going to say it is wrong, as I probably don't understand semi-colons as well as I should) I would phrase it as "Early formations of a band were beginning to form as early as 1992 with the core band members, Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini and Paul Gray, enlisting the help of guitarists Donnie Steele and Quan "Meld" Nong." Also, repeating the word 'form' twice jarrs a tad.
  • "The band continued to develop their vision of what the band would be," Perhaps "The members continued to develop their vision of what the band would be,"?
  • "band Sipknot after" Why is that italicised?
  • "after their song"- after which song? Maybe "after their song of the same name"
  • "(which subsequently evolved in to (sic) which appears on their début album)" Song name in speech marks.
  • "until they thought the band was ready" Repetition ruins this line. Perhaps 'until their music was fully developed.'
  • "By this time the band had a lot"- By what time?
  • "to make a recording," I'd delink that, looks like over-linking to me.
  • "local studio, SR Audio with Sean McMahon." You need to close the parenthesis with a comma after 'Audio'
  • "April 4th Slipknot"- I'd add the year, and then link both the date and the year.
  • "to realise again" I'm British too, but this is an American topic, so the spelling should be American- 'realize'.
  • "released Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. on Halloween." More details about the release- date and year (on top of the fact you say it is Halloween) and label.
  • Is that considered the band's debut album, or an EP? Perhaps you could make that clear?
  • Why are all the references clumped at the end of the paragraph? Doing that kind of defeats the point of footnotes.
  • I've just noticed the complex heading hierarchy you are using. I would personally remove the sub-sub-sub headings- ('first recordings and live performances', 'more changes and growing popularity', etc) compare to other featured articles on similar topics (Slayer, Nightwish, Tool (band)...) and you'll see that most articles don't do that.
  • Actually, now that I have said that, I see that it would probably be best to rename the first history subsection to 'Early years (pre-1998)' so you can bulk that first lonely line into a paragraph and put that as the first paragraph in the section.
To give an idea about what those two above changes look like, I have implemented them in my sandbox if you want to take a look.
  • "being heard by the right people" That isn't NPOV. Say who these people are, not that they are 'the [adjective] people'.
  • "By the summer of 1997 Slipknot went back to the studio, they were constantly honing their craft and writing new material and they were writing music which required more vocal melody." Again, seems a little POV, plus, seasons vary by nationality. Try- "By mid-1997, Slipknot had returned to the studio having developed new material requiring more vocal melody." As that is still rather subjective, a reference is definitely needed.
  • "band Stone Sour, this" Link? Also, a full stop would be better than a comma.
  • "The gap on percussion was the filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts who was to become the first and only member to be fired from the band, again there was a spot free on percussion it was filled by Chris Fehn." Another clumsy sentence- try "The gap on percussion was th filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts, who subsequently became the first and only member to be fired from the band. He was replaced Chris Fehn." More details on the firing would be nice, too.
  • What does "attained numbers" mean? That's not a phrase I am familiar with.
  • Again, it would be better to put the citations after the facts, rather than at the end of the paragraphs.

Right, I will have to finish this review another time. Overall, the article looks to be well researched and have excellent potential, but needs to be tweaked at a structural level, and needs a thorough copy-edit. I can see this article reaching featured level with a little more work, and if this review gets a couple of editors having a good sift through the article, I suspect that it won't take too much more work. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, LaraLove did a copy-edit of the article and I have adjusted the article along with some of your recommendation's. I would like to see what you make of the rest of the article if you ever have time to finish your review. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Found some more time, so I will finish the review now.

  • "In July 2001, Q magazine named Slipknot as one of the "50 Heaviest Albums of All Time"." I would call the magazine Q instead of Q magazine, as that is the accepted title. Also, the magazine name should be in italics.
  • This may be a little rich coming from me (I overuse them) but you continually use commas in a way which I do not think is correct. For instance, this line really hits me- "The band had created a huge fan base and the expectations for their follow up album were great, Slipknot went back in to the studio in early 2001 to work on a new album." Why is that comma there? It seems to be two separate sentences- it should be treated as such, or perhaps just stick an 'and' in there. In any case, the sentence is a little vague.
  • "In the same year Slipknot released their second visual output with the released of their DVD Disasterpieces." Reference?
  • "2002 also saw the first serious musical projects outside of Slipknot." Make it clear that this means side projects of the members. As it reads now, you mean any serious musical project at all, whether related to Slipknot or not.
  • "their band Stone Sour" Link?
  • I'd lose the accents on 'début'. They don't seem to be needed in English- [8].
  • "Root, Taylor, and Gray also contributed to the album. In 2006, Root and Taylor once again returned with Stone Sour releasing their second album Come What(ever) May. Jordison drummed for several bands while on tour including; Ministry (2006-2007) and Korn (2007). He also produced 3 Inches of Blood's third album Fire Up the Blades which was released in early 2007. Later in the year Crahan revealed a new side project in the form of Dirty Little Rabbits." That whole section is horribly unreferenced.
  • "Slipknot are known for their often chaotic and energetic live shows" Reference?
  • ""[are] not generally quotable on a family website"," According to whom?
  • "The band is known for its attention-grabbing image." Reference?
  • "The members wear matching uniform jumpsuits and homemade masks." Ditto.
  • "The masks have been subject of much criticism, generally thought of as a gimmick to try sell their product." Reference? If you are hoping to get this to featured article, everything is going to need to be well referenced.
  • "several band members" Repetition of this phrase needs to be dealt with.
  • Section title- "Band Members"- decap 'Members'.
  • References in regards to dates and numbers would be good.

Right, I have now gone through the whole thing. I am happy to continue with general comments (for instance, I really would reccomend not just sticking all the paragraph's references at the end of it) if you like. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I have looked over review and here's what I've done/think.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Sourced
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Sourced
  • Sourced
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • A lot of criticism comes from supposedly "true" metal fans. I can't be sure of what is considered a reliable source for this, I have added one from Urban Dictionary
  • Done
  • Done
  • Could you be more specific?
I have actually order two new books [9] and [10] on top of the one I already have [11]. Once I get both of these two books I intend to resource as much as possible. I was thinking of using a system similar to the one used on the U2#References article were they list the books and foot note each statement with a page number. Do you think this is a good system or do you know of a better one. Thansk again for your help. Rezter (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Today I received my two new books and I have resourced the majority of the "pre-1998" section and a few misc sources throughout the article. The only thing I haven't addressed on your list is "References in regards to dates and numbers would be good." which I don't completely understand so could you be more specific please? Rezter (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Urban dictionary is not a good source, at all- I'd remove that. I like that system of citing books in footnotes. Sorry about the number and dates thing- I was working down the article, and so it was obvious to me (at the time) that I was referring to the discography section. Sorry about that, I was probably rushing to finish. In any case, I was referring to the release dates and the sales figures in the discography section. I'll have a quick glance over the article now. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The very first paragraph in the article is a single line- why not just make that part of the next paragraph?
  • Sorry- I have just realised that the number of albums sold (or, at least, the certifications) are cited.
  • I wouldn't bold the awards they have won- I would just tack "(winner)" on the end.
  • Yeah, just to repeat now I have seen it in the context of the article, the new reference system looks great.
  • Great to see the number of footnotes in use, as well as the fact that they cite the specific fact rather than the paragraph- the article is now looking great, but I haven't reread the prose yet.
  • Sorry, I've just realised I misinterpreted my own comment too- no wonder you did! By 'dates and numbers', I meant the dates which the members were part of the band, and the numbers which the members have on their jumpsuits.

Well, I have not gone over it in as much detail as I did last time, but it is looking far better, and certainly doesn't seem far from being ready for FAC. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review by LaraLove[edit]

By request, I've reviewed the article. As a copy-editor, I went ahead and took care of that along the way. In my changes, I removed the album cover image. Fair use only applies to such images in the article specific to the album.

Some additions I feel should be made include:

  • Did they have any musical influences?
  • Why was Welts fired?
  • When did they sign to Roadrunner Records?
  • The article states "mixed reviews", but does not include any negative reviews. Rather than two good reviews, one positive, one negative.
  • Has there been any controversy with any of their songs or performances?

References should not be placed mid-sentence. It should come immediately following punctuation, no spaces before, no punctuation after. Also, it isn't necessary for the lead to be referenced as it is a summary of the article and any information should be referenced there. If the reference that I moved to the infobox that was reverted is going to stay in the lead, it needs to be moved to the end of the sentence.

If you're going for GA, you may want to discuss changes made by the reviewer on the talk page before reverting them. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any questions. LaraLove 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help with this article.
  • I could try find sources which state the artist's musical influences if you think that it will make the article better. Do you maybe have an example of an article that has this so I could have more of an idea of format and structure.
  • I have added why Welts was fired.
  • I'm having trouble finding out the exact date that they signed to Roadrunner records.
  • I have removed the "mixed reviews" section as most reviews are positive.
  • The only incident I have heard of is this: [12] personally I don't think it's worth mentioning as that is the only story I have heard of.
Thanks once again for all your help and any more suggestions are always welcome. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway[edit]

A lot of unverifiable work has now been removed etc, not by me much. I was hoping to ask how else this could be improved in order to reach Good Article status. Also, does the Future section present any problems? Simply south 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Some comments:
    • The prose in the lead is a little choppy and could do with tightening, as the sentences there are rather short: "The DLR system is undergoing constant expansion. There are also almost 40 stations on the system."
    • Some questions it might be useful to answer in the article: What voltage is the power supply? How did the corporation acquire the land to build track and stations upon? Is it profitable? How many passengers use it daily? Has it received praise or condemnation from various groups? Any similar systems elsewhere?

Hope this helps, BillC 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • My comments:
    • I suspect that the GA reviewers will want to see more citations; one per paragraph for the body of the article is a good rule to aim for. It seems that most of the sources that you're using are produced by the DLR itself. Are there any outside sources, books, newspaper articles that you might be able to cite? I agree with BillC that it would be very helpful to have some information about how the public and outside commentators felt about the DLR. Was there any controversy about its construction? I know there was quite a bit of controversy about the Docklands project generally.
    • A source that I just found, which you might want to take a look at: http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/transport/index.html
    • Personally I don't see a problem with the "future developments" section, but some GA reviewers might object to the list of stations in the middle of the article.

Let me know if you have any further questions.MLilburne 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of stations is a bit controversial as it also is under List of London Underground stations. Even though the system is completely seperate, many things are shared with the LU and so it was decided that for these reasons, the stations should stay there. Simply south
Would it make sense to leave the stations in the LU list, but also to have a different list that consists of only DLR stations? Seems to me that would be a reasonable compromise. MLilburne 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Scars (band)[edit]

I don't want this article to be of Featured Article status. I know the criteria behind Featured Articles and know this band's relatively short background would not accommodate a Featured Article status article. I just want it to be a good article, an article that will befit the high quality of talent behind this group. And yes, I'm speaking from a biased perspective, but I do think that sometimes fans can create awesome things. Anyway, this isn't about fanhood, lest this run afoul of NPOV, but rather QUALITY. And that's what I'm aiming for -- a quality article. (Krushsister 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

  • The intro paragraph is very long
  • The article uses jargon that may be unfamiliar to a reader, especially non-native English speakers. What does "Steve McLaughlin was pounding the skins for the band at around this time" mean?
  • The overall tone of the article seems a bit like it's written more for a tabloid newspaper than an encyclopedia. It's a bit on the casual side. Neil916 (Talk) 11:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I made some minor edits, in order to bring the table of contents to the top, and to make the text flow a bit better. I hope you don't mind, and feel free to revert it if you want.

  • I agree with Neil that some of the wording is ambiguous. Could you rephrase the "pounding the skins" line?
  • Could you also add some more sources? You obviously know a lot about this band. I have never heard of them, and would like to know where the info came from.
  • I think you're doing a great job with this. Thank you for contributing to Wiki.Jeffpw 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs expanded lead, which should act as a summary of the article and affirm the band's importance, however minor.
  • Trivia section needs general cleanup - either accommodate the information into the body of the article (providing it's encyclopaedic) or remove it.
  • Generally needs more inline cites. Also, they need a cleanup - author, article name, magazine/website name, date of publication, last accessed date etc. LuciferMorgan 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Underground (stories)[edit]

  • Reading through this article, it seems clear to me that it is not yet FA status - really just looking for feedback on exactly how it needs to be improved to reach that, and for feedback on which parts of the article need strengthening in general. Phl3djo 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The sections are often only a paragraph long - try to expand them or else link them up under more general headings. Trebor 23:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mousepad[edit]

I've been having some minor conflict with an anon user who's introducing some of what I consider overlinking/redundancy/stylistic problems into the article. (Take a look at the history to see the full extent of the situation.) I'm not sure how to make 69.108.115.193's edits into better ones, but I don't want to discourage someone from editing; I think a peer review would be helpful so that somebody uninvolved in this conflict can step in and take a look at actual content. I don't think I need mediation or anything, but a fresh eye would be appreciated. Switchercat talkcont 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, this article still isn't the best, but I figured it'd get more response here than on the talk page. Switchercat talkcont 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


The article needs to be referenced throughout.

It's unclear in places, such as: The invention of the mouse pre-existed the invention of the mousepad by about seventeen years - does that mean the mousepad was invented 17 years after the mouse? ...and published in 1979 - what (was) published in 1979?

Some of the sentences don't show encyclopaedic quality: The Corepad Deskpad XXXL, possibly the largest pad on the market, is a massive 90cm x 45cm. - the use of possibly doesn't inspire the reader to have confidence in the rest of the article. The use of "massive" is unnecessary (and I suppose slightly point-of-view).

The lists within the text are inelegant, not especially useful and incomplete so cut them down to the main ones (I'm looking at the ones of manufacturers and possible materials).

I think you've dealt with anon correctly so far, and should continue trying to talk to him, but also clean-up or revert his edits as necessary to keep the article decent. Trebor 20:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sustainable Development Strategy in Canada[edit]

  • Hello, I am the creator of this article and I am requesting a peer review. I was hoping that at some point in the near future I could escalate the article to a FAR. Octopus-Hands 00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi, I believe we've met. :) You mean an FAC, not FAR. Anyway, here are some suggestions:
      • The article currently focuses on simply listing the aims of the SDSC. There are many more kinds of information required to give a complete view of the topic:
      • What is the history of the SDSC? For how long has it been in effect? When was it first proposed? And by whom? Is the SDSC the result of a law that has been made? If not, who enacted these directives?
      • The implementation of the SDSC is somewhat vague. What is actually being done at the national, provincial, and local levels?
      • There are a lot of very short sections. Some of them may be merged together. This will make the table of contents shorter.
      • Does the concept of the SDSC have its critics?
      • The only sources used in the article are the official websites of the Canadian government. This means only one perspective is given in the article.
      • In fact, a lot of the material seems copied directly from the Government websites, with the wording changed only a little.
      • Has there been press coverage of the SDSC?
    • As I mentionned, this is a very strong first effort, but it will need to take a much broader view in order to become a featured article. Andrew Levine 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • After a quick look there are a few things which stood out to me.
    • Picture is too big and crowds screens, and I am not what it has to do with the topic.
    • Too many sections. Most are only one paragraph. These need to be combined into a simpler structure.
    • I did not see a section on any oppositon to this program.Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Gaetano Bedini[edit]

This article require cleanup :) Please help me ;) --Genovese 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Prison Break[edit]

This article recently became a Good Article. I'm looking for feedback that would make this a featured article candidate. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there's much, if anything, that needs to be edited before going after FA nomination. The article is concise, very well-referenced, and is devoid of any fancruft. The article is currently a GA; I think it deserves A-Class status after this peer review if the future FA nomination fails. —Cliff smith 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think that there's one thing that could be significantly improved—the references. There's plenty of them, but their appearance can be improved by using the notes and refs technique employed by other articles like Red vs. Blue, which is a FA. Check it out and you'll see what I mean. —Cliff smith 05:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very comprehensive article, in fact, I was looking for who to thank for writing it. I guess it's just an example of the positive side of Wikipedia (collaboration). :) 67.181.63.245 01:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

AC/DC[edit]

This article reached the GA status about a month ago and now I'd like to know how it could be improved. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. No-Bullet 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading the Article, this is what I found that should be changed:
  • Per WP:DATE the only time a date should be hyperlinked is if it is one of significant importance, or if the full date is used
Done. No-Bullet 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 of the smallest sections are influences and discography, the Influences should talk about who influenced them, and possibly who they influenced. In a Band article, the influence section should be one of the biggest sections. see Pink Floyd for an example of this. The discography should have the album covers for all major albums, as for what qualifies major is up to you.
Added covers to the discography section. I didn't find an influence section on Pink Floyd, but I'll try to expand it. No-Bullet 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Consider copyediting the article. I diddn't look for spelling or grammar, but a copy edit is a good thing to do.
  • Consider expanding the history section into it's own article with a good couple of paragraphs that gives the reader a good understanding of the general history.
  • Some things to reference:
  • From Early years "...was sacked after passing out on stage (reportedly because someone spiked his drink)..."
  • From Continued Success "It was their sixth album, Highway To Hell...that propelled them into the top ranks of hard rock acts..."

Hope I could help, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) No-Bullet 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All direct quotations from any bandmembers need inline citations.
Done. No-Bullet 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Any observations on the band's success/lack of, their legacy etc. would need inline citations also. If they weren't inline cited, this'd be accused of original research (when I believe the nominator wants this as FA). LuciferMorgan 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Carbon nanotube[edit]

This article seems like it deals with many areas of the subject. Could you please provide some comments/feedback for how this article could be improved. Any help will be appreciated! Snailwalker | talk 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest thing that stands out here (and also the most annoying to fix, thanks to cite.php) is the references; linking individual articles is good but the full citation should be written out, as static links can change/die/etc, and it is useful for people familiar with the field to see at a glance who or which paper is being cited. There are also some references in the text in the (Soandso, 2002) format, but they aren't and can't be linked to the refs list because the names aren't given. Other stuff:

  • The lead says "recently discovered" - even the 1991 date isn't really that recent.
Well compared to the history of graphite, diamonds and other carbon based types, I'd say that 1991 is pretty recently
  • The first image caption says "three types of carbon nanotubes" - I don't see three types in that image, I see two orientations of one thing, which is kind of a generic hollow pipe. I don't think this image is especially explanatory. The second, animated one could also be slowed down a bit.
First one done, I'm not that good at gif-images, so I don't know if anyone else can update the image?
  • The history section is very name-heavy, which would be fine for a review where readers could be expected to know the people involved, but for an encyclopedia article they can be devolved to the references.
  • Add a 3D image of armchair vs zigzag tubes?
Done
  • Some sections are very stubby - fullerite, thermal properties, laser ablation, etc.
Some done
  • In the properties section, there's a sentence about nanotubes being one of the strongest materials known to humans. I know nanotubes are a favorite of the futurist/scifi/etc. people, but this just sounds strange, like there's an expectation of stronger materials being known to some other species.
Changed
  • Some numerical data is uncited (magnetic moment of nanotori, nanotube density, etc.)
Done
  • Applications section is obviously listy - it would probably be more useful to choose a few important applications and explain them in prose - especially the bike, since the image at the bottom kind of comes out of nowhere. Perhaps create a subarticle for applications.
Done
  • History/timeline section should have its own subarticle.
Done
  • More information on the chemistry, rather than the industrial processes, of nanotube formation would be useful. In particular, what molecular events trigger the formation of nanotubes vs buckyballs, single-walled vs multi-walled, etc.

Opabinia regalis 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments, I'm working on them right now. More comments would be appreciated. What do you mean be the references? Snailwalker | talk 11:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice work (especially the applications section)! I like the new header image, with the question of whether it would be better to leave the animation in the top right corner and put the new one with the explanation of the nomenclature? Also, now that the history timeline has its own article, the history and discovery sections can probably be merged into a single section with only prose.
The reference problem comes from the fact that there are just static external links to the articles being cited, but no standard citation giving the authors' names, the title, the journal, etc. This makes it impossible to connect the nonstandard parenthetical citations with the references list, and presents a problem if Nature for example ever changes the internal structure of its website and breaks the links. To fix it, you'd have to a) convert the parenthetical citations to be consistent with the rest of the article, and b) give the standard citation format in addition to the link. (There is a template {{cite journal}} used for formatting journal citations like those to Nature; IMO it's obnoxiously long, but it gives you an idea of what parameters are needed.) Fixing it would be rather tedious since the references are in cite.php format and therefore scattered throughout the text rather than concentrated in one place, but there may be a tool floating around for extracting the references that would make it easier to work with. (My opinion: I wouldn't bother fixing it unless the goal is GA or FA status. But that's just me.)
References updated Snailwalker | talk 11:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The most significant content omission I see in this article is the lack of chemical or molecular-level information. For example, the article says "Under high pressure, nanotubes can merge together, trading some sp2 bonds for sp3 bonds", but there's no mention of the chemical mechanism. The same goes for the reasons nanotubes specifically are formed under the conditions used in the industrial processes. I'd like to know what causes the "curl" in a flat sheet vs a single-walled tube vs a parchment-scroll multiwalled tube, and whether the production conditions can be tuned to give more of one type or another (assuming they don't produce homogeneous results already). Also a comparison to the internal electronic properties of helicenes would be interesting if the data is available. Opabinia regalis 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm the way I understand it, it seems that scientist don't really know what makes the nanotubes, they just add a lot of heat and hope it'll work. That's why when you make carbon nanotubes you'll get a lof of different tubes in various lengths scattered over a large area, you can't really control the process.Snailwalker | talk 11:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A topic of current interest with nanotubes and other nanomaterials is environmental and health impacts. You may consider adding a section regarding these issues. Leeannedy 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Electric Six[edit]

I've done a lot of work on this article, and it is currently listed as a good article. My perception is that it isn't ready for the Featured Article process; I want to find out what it needs to attain that status, but I realize that wasting everyone's time by nominating it for FA isn't the way to find that out. Thanks! Dylan 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks - I've incorporated what I can from that. Dylan 04:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd like to see some more content in the article - at the moment it's mostly album releases and line-up changes. For example there's nothing in the article on any notable tours that Electric Six have had or on major festivals they've played at. Also pictures haven't got Fair Use rationale which means they don't meet the FA criteria (and shouldn't have passed GA!). Alexj2002 20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The two images (Image:ElectricSix 2003.jpg and Image:Electric Six band.jpg) do have fair use rationales -- they're underneath the licensing template - click the links to see. Thanks for the recommendation on how to fill out the article -- I'll start working on that. Dylan 23:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian views on contraception[edit]

I'd like to get this article really tight and submit it for good article review and status. Here are some things I am thinking it would be good to have reviewed for

  1. Where it might currently grade as per Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment.
  2. Is anything important being left out? Emphasized wrongly, too strongly, or not enough? Etc.
  3. Does it make good sense to a non-expert?
  4. Etc.

CyberAnth 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple of things, mainly regarding aesthetics:
  1. I don't think the lead is quite appropriate - it sounds like the opening to an essay, rather than to an encylopaedic article.
  2. Shouldn't the "Catholic Collaboration Effort" box be on the talk page?
  3. It's strange to have Main article: XXX piped to redlinks.
  4. The TOC seems oppressive to the visual flow of the article. If it could be moved to the right, it may look more recognisable as a Wikipedia entry.
  5. Is "as one can historically trace" normal prosaic style? "As can be historically traced" is probably more objective.
  6. The long quotes in the pictureboxes should be moved into the body of the article, with the picture there merely as a reference.
  7. Reference #44 appears to be broken.

Hope some of this helps! Seegoon 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks tons! This is extremely helpful!
Anyone else have any other helpful points like these?
CyberAnth 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple of things:
  1. The article seems to rely on blockquotes a little too much. Could you summarize more of those quotes?
  2. There doesn't seem to be anything on the attitudes of the Orthodox church towards contraception. Orthodoxy is a very significant branch of Christianity, and the article will be incomplete without a discussion of Orthodox views.

Hope these are useful to you. MLilburne 09:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Protestant section samples viewpoints from moderate to conservative, but I don't see any liberal Protestant denominations or clergy mentioned. Durova 02:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks much. You have both made excellent and helpful points! CyberAnth 03:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In my quick read I saw no mention of christian views on ecological concerns. Where is the debate (to use the language of Genesis) about the possible conflict inherent in human 'multiplying' and in exercising appropraite 'dominion' over creation? (Just nigel 15:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Hamilton-Burr duel[edit]

Lead, addressing issues related to failed featured article status.Sabar 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So much work to be done. I lost what I had written earlier. Everything I write will be somewhat hasty, so I apologize. Keep your citations behind your period and quotation marks. Put the intentions of either dueler before "The duel". Mention Burr's killer intention first. A sentence like "Burr's intentions, simply, were to mortally wound Hamilton." This would be fine. Then add your detail about him being a good shot, and wanting to shoot Hamilton in the heart, etc. Use your templates.

can be used here: "rubbed his face, lips, and temples with spirits of hartshorn, applied it to his neck and breast, and to the wrists and palms of his hands, and endeavoured to pour some into his mouth." Hamilton revived a short time later whereupon he remarked on a still undischarged pistol in the pistol case and claimed that he had no intention on firing at Burr. Hamilton remained silent except for answering questions. The last of the letter says Hamilton informed Hosack that "his lower extremities had lost all feeling, manifesting to me that he entertained no hopes that he should long survive." [18] And here:"I have resolved, if our interview is conducted in the usual manner, and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thoughts even of reserving my second fire."[21] And here:"General Hamilton says he cannot imagine what Dr. Cooper may have alluded, unless it were to a conversation at Mr. Taylor's, in Albany, last winter (at which he and General Hamilton were present). General Hamilton cannot recollect distinctly the particulars of that conversation, so as to undertake to repeat them, without running the risk of varying or omitting what might be deemed important circumstances. The expressions are entirely forgotten, and the specific ideas imperfectly remembered; but to the best of his recollection it consisted of comments on the political principles and views of Colonel Burr, and the results that might be expected from them in the event of his election as Governor, without reference to any particular instance of past conduct or private character."[11] So use them.

The difference between "Background" and "Cause" is blurry at best. Either substantially differentiate them, or merge them. Your lead, which has already been discussed by my predecessor, is sloppy and the posterboy of run-on sentences. Again with the intentions thing: your coverage of the fact that in no way Hamilton planned on killing Burr is shotty. Please state this fact first, then cover details. Can we have a picture of where Weehawken is? Like you did with the shot of the monument by overview. Get the place of Weehawken like that, and find a suitably licensed picture of the monument. It's out there. --Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 11:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I did some cleaning up. I need to think on the wording of how to place the men's intentions before the duel, since one of the sources of his intentions comes after the fact. Sabar 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I started this over the summer and likely won't have the time to finish it any time in the next year. It is based on my cursory readings of primary and secondary sources. Really, someone just needs to assemble all of the primary accounts of the duel, as they were given over the next few decades, and read a few of the most recent secondary sources (Fleming, most importantly) if you want to make this featured. I don't know who initiated the last featured article candidacy, but needless to say, it was premature. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead could use expansion. This is probably the most famous duel in United States history. It's certainly the only one to involve a sitting vice president. Greater depth on the background is probably appropriate. If I remember correctly, Hamilton actually received the greatest number of electoral college votes in 1800 and Burr was second. Hamilton broke the congressional deadlock by throwing all of his votes behind third place Thomas Jefferson. Then (I think this was subsequently) Hamilton campaigned against Burr's unsuccessful bid for governorship of New York State. It ought to be explicit that Burr actually spent the last eight months of his vice presidency on the run from felony arrest warrants in two different states. To expand the aftermath a bit, this duel is the origin of the rivalry between Columbia University and Princeton University (Hamilton was a Columbia man, Burr was a Princetonian).[13] Also, has historical analysis of the duel or its participants shifted over the years? Durova 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Zoophilia[edit]

A failed featured article candidate. Needs a check on neutrality (frequently disputed, see talk page) and how this can best be improved. Further points of interest are if the terms zoophilia and bestiality should be in one single article or two separate articles as the terms are not synonymous as some people incorrectly assume and what images would be fitting for such an article as some see the current artwork as portraying a too colorful and unrealistic image. Any comment is welcome though! BabyNuke 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is 110kb and a mess. I am not even going to try to read it unless it is considerably reduced. The order of sections at the bottom (notes, external links, category template) is also wrong - look at a featured article to see it done correctly. Trebor 23:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Try to break it into more article and just a summary in the main article. For example points related to Mythology, History, Religion can form a separate article  Doctor Bruno  00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Old peer review can be found here --> Wikipedia:Peer review/Ilaiyaraaja/archive1

Sri Lanka[edit]

I request the help of all in making this a featured article. Rama's arrow 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Very excellent article : links that I followed are good & layout is fantastic ! one of the first things I noticed is how that the coat of arms looks to me like it could be more of a public monument. Is this perhaps part of its history ? Dharp66 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66

Condoleezza Rice[edit]

This article has been a GA for a month and a half. What improvements need to be made before it can be put up for FAC? In particular, thoughts on the "Criticisms and Responses" section would be appreciated. Thank you. -Fsotrain09 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • How about placing North Korea in Regional issues a bit higher due to recent nuclear tests? --Brand спойт 19:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You really should consider trimming the article down, especially in the pre-politics area and the stance on political issues. A seperate page with further details would be better than having an extremely long section. Germany has/had the same problem, last I checked. The citations are excellent, except that last "blAck news" thing. What was that? You should look into it as a reliable source. You have some vandalism problems- I suggest a low-level lock (anons and new users) would be appropriate. Still, you have an amazing piece of work as an article. NPOV is in order, as far as I am concerned. Please though, you have many unsourced statements in the Criticisms section. Citing an urban legends site for this is simply inappropriate. I suggest finding a better source for this, or simply remove that. Hope this helps. --Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is too much text which doesn't have inline citations, and the article is chock full of external jumps, which should all be eliminated. External websites belong in external links. Sandy (Talk) 20:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 03:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know that this article can ever become an FA, because it describes a current politician and is subject to change (and therefore unstable). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota[edit]

This article has undergone much work in the last few months. As of June it only had one reference [14] it now has 52 of them and has been significantly edited, expanded and vastly cleaned up. It has passed GA and I am hoping to make it to FA soon. What I am looking for review on:

  1. What would make it fail FAC?
  2. What are the biggest things to fix?
  3. Where does the prose need work?
  4. What needs to be expanded/reduced?
  5. what is it missing?

Thanks, -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I went through and standardized the reference system (you should stick to something standard preferably) and... cleaned up the state symbol box by removing the bottom line and consolidating the list of nicknames. I like that the font is smaller in the external links box.. The only thing I've noticed is that it needs more pictures in the lower sections (transportation (maybe the 35 tunnel? (i think its 35.. I wouldnt necessarily know).. education (a university), perhaps a picture of the governor, and perhaps a copy of the cover of one of Minnesota's prominent newspapers (I recently added a Dallas Morning News cover to the Dallas, Texas article)). drumguy8800 C T 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you thinking of the Lowry Hill Tunnel on Interstate 94? I added a picture of that, as well as the Hiawatha Line. I also added a picture of Pillsbury Hall at the U of M, though I think a picture of Northrop Auditorium (or maybe Northrop Mall in general) would illustrate it a little better. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • err, perhaps. I remember it looking cleaner. But again you'd know better than I would. drumguy8800 C T 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Could we do a picture of mayo instead? I would prefer not to favor the UoM over the other universities in the state. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a picture of a flour mill to the "Industry and commerce" section -Ravedave
  • I re-arranged pictures to make them fit better and removed the I-35 pic as there were two on one short paragraph. I also added a pic of hubery humphrey to the politics section. I also improved the population map by cropping and removing the key and moving it to the cities section so it could be displayed in a clearer fashion. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 07:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(help name my baby) 20:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Moved auto peer review by User:False_Prophet to the minnesota talk page for brevity

Most of them have been corrected, only a few small items remain.-Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You asked for an update in regards to pictures: I'd add a picture to the History section and one near the bottom, perhaps sports/rec. Good luck! It's a great article. drumguy8800 C T 04:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, APR was already run and placed on the Minnesota talk page. Whats left is as far as I can tell false hits. Have any Criterion 2a suggestions? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 20:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I am working my way through all of the Peer Review requests, so I don't look at the talk pages. I can try when I get a checne to read the article closely. Ruhrfisch 02:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice article. Would it be appropriate to highlight the different regions: NW, NE, SW, SE? The fifth area, the Twin Cities metro is already well covered. They each have a unique contribution to the state. How about mentions of institutions like the State Fair and WCCO radio, which dominated broadcasting for decades? Isn't the Old Log Theater unique in some way? Longest running something or other? There are probably other examples. It looks like Crystal Sugar has no article and probably deserves one; it could be mentioned along with sugar beets, which perhaps should be linked (along with soybeans and corn). I especially like what has been done with the "Popular culture" section. It lacks the cruft that collects in so many other articles. Is it worth mentioning that Sears, Roebuck and Company got its start in Minnesota? (Probably not.) JonHarder 02:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll see about mentioning regions, maybe I can change "cities and towns" to "regions" or somthing like that. I'll try and cleanup ag mentions a bit and I'll see if I can work sears and crystal sugar in. Thanks again. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal computer game[edit]

Current Good Article, which I'm working on making a Featured Article. I'd especially appreciate any stylistic changes that need to made, as well as suggestions for content that may have been missed (it's a top-level article, and so has an enormous scope). Checking for NPOV in the controversy section would also be helpful. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 04:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note I've been working from automated suggestions for the last week or so, and have edited the article significantly from that information. The suggestions can be found here. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 11:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of thoughts/suggestions:

  • It seems that naming the article "PC game" may be more useful, as that is a more likely search term; the current title is very unlikely.
    • PC Game redirects to Personal computer game - is this a good solution? It seems better to have the actual article named in full, while people will still be able to access it with a more common search term. --Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't really have a strong opinion on this; it's just that "personal computer game" sounds like it would be spoken by the sort of person who would say "I require gasoline in my automobile." Opabinia regalis 04:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it seems that the current title is preferable. Although there's an argument to be made that they're usually known as PC games, not personal computer games, I think the benefit of spelling out the full meaning of the acronym in the title is preferable to using the acronym. Since either search term will work just fine, I guess it's best to leave it just the way it is now. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 04:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead needs clarification and expansion. It doesn't really summarize the article at the moment, and the content it does contain seems oddly chosen. Also, the first sentence of the second paragraph implies that all PC games have console versions. Specifically mentioning Alienware seems a bit biased or ad-like.
  • The industry crash section suffers from lack of context. I assume that what you mean is that sales of PC games fell during this period along with console game sales, but computers themselves were not affected. But I wouldn't expect computer sales to be affected, because at the time, few people bought computers purely for gaming. The section would also benefit from a mention of what reversed the trend (any one particular innovation? economic improvement? better computers could run better games?)
  • The contemporary gaming section is awkwardly organized. First, it begins 11 years ago. Second, it devotes more text to physics cards (currently a minor curiosity) than to graphics innovations (major selling point of many games). There's no mention at all here of online gaming or MMORPGs, which are a major part of contemporary games (yes, this is mentioned later, but omitting it here entirely is wrong).
  • No mention of MUDs anywhere?
  • "Game development...is undertaken by game developers" - duh. Needs rewording and expansion. There's mention of open-source engines but not their features (or lack thereof). Again, more text devoted to mods than to mainstream development techiques; vague "written by an internet nerd" implications.
  • I didn't even think till I got to the mention of PopCap's shareware distribution model that there's very little attention devoted to puzzle/timewaster games, which AFAIK account for a large percentage of the total time people spend playing computer games. You also missed mentioning subscription models; their use in Warcraft makes them worth mentioning.
  • In such a general article, I'm not sure the specifics of Steam's distribution model merit discussion; just include it as an example of online distribution.
  • Genres section is extremely stubby; either expand or merge to another section such as "contemporary gaming". Again, no mention of MMORPGs, and no mention of the differential popularity of this genre on PCs versus consoles. The only mention of MMO style play at all is in the technology section, talking about the necessity of high-speed connectivity (which has not always been true, of course).
  • There is mention of the usual controversies over video games but no general commentary on the sociology of games - this isn't really the place for detailed discussions but you could at least comment on the demographic distributions of game players and how they have evolved over time. (Eg, the involvement of women in puzzle games and in social online games like The Sims is notable.)
  • There's essentially no mention of platform specificity (well, unless you interpret the title badly) - there should be some mention of the fact that many games are often developed for Windows PCs and how Mac and Linux users try to get around this (also any notable semi-recent games existing on another platform).Opabinia regalis 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would add more about MMORPG's as they are quickly becomming popular. Mention of founding titles and blockbuster ones might help to improve this section. World of Warcraft (god I hate that game) has sold more copies than any MMORGP to date. Sitava 18:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've not read through the whole thing, but as an avid PC gamer, I couldn't find a single instance of the word patch anywhere in the article. These were one of the defining things found in PC games and not in console games up until very recently. - Hahnchen 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Shawn Graham[edit]

This is an article I would like to eventually nominate for featured article status. I have not done this before and am hoping that I can get some viewpoints from other Wikipedians as to its quality and make any necessary improvements before nominating it as a featured article. Thanks very much. - Jord 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead is short, even for an article of this size. Try to mention each section of the article, even if it's just a couple of words, as per WP:WIAFA. There are some references, but some sentences are still lacking, such as "...became one of the most vocal and popular critics of the government of Bernard Lord." Also, convert them to inline citations as suggested by WP:WIAFA. There are a number of redlinks - consider whether they are all worthy of their own articles and if not, delink them. If they are, try to create them (even as a stub), wherever possible. The first image (in the infobox) has a dubious copyright statement - it purports to be low-resolution but allows a high-resolution download. Trebor 23:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for this, I will try to address these issues. - Jord 16:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mourning Dove[edit]

I am considering eventually nominating this to be a featured article. Do you have any suggestions for improvement or other input so this could be made better? Also, a user brought up issues with prose in my previous FAC, so please comment on this article's prose. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Please include a range map for the species. I will add a formal review later today. Joelito (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments from me:

  • Columbidae "includes doves & pigeons" - well, in fact, it is nothing but doves & pigeons
  • Suggest you list the 5 subspecies in the taxobox, also source the subspecies info
  • Probably a good idea to give an outline of the range in the lead
  • Can you cite a source for the origin of the name?
  • Is the stuff on pairing habits, brood numbers etc important enough to go in the lead?
  • Lots of the paragraphs are very short - personally this doesn't bother me, but its a bugbear to some. Suggest amalgamation if you can't find material for expansion
  • Range description - suggest order should be largest to smallest areas
  • "It is presumably Canadian birds which ... " - unsourced speculation
  • "Most Mourning Doves migrates" typo
  • Directions of spring & fall migration are the wrong way round
  • Can you source "Some authorities describe them as a superspecies"
  • "The ranges of subspecies overlap somewhat" - this would be unusual for a bird, is that really what you mean?
  • Clarian typo
  • "more darker" (!)
  • which term should we use - beak or bill?
  • with the comparisons of the subspecies, I'm not sure whether we're comparing to the nominate, or to the preceding?
  • Can something be notoriously flimsy, and if so what does that mean?
  • is "squab" a term only applied to Mourning Doves' young, or other doves too?
  • up to six broods / six or more mismatch
  • Best to source the statement that Mourning Doves are the only birds to have this many broods per year
  • Ecology & Behaviour 2nd para - Mourning Doves / It mismatch
  • Mourning Doves eat the largest range of seeds / are picky - kind of a mismatch
  • "of least concern" is a technical term that should be highlighted somehow or wikilinked
  • the comment about Michigan's usage shoudl be sourced (what is a "state bird of peace" btw and do other states have them?)
  • Ken (Kaufman) has two ns
  • Some of the "Fauna of" categorisation will get picked up at FA nom stage, no doubt.
  • one more suggestion - take a look at some other animal FAs and see if they have any major sections which aren't included for Mourning Dove

And can you send another one over to Britain some time please? :-)

SP-KP 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Respones to SP-KP:
  • The lead has been rewritten
  • Typos and grammar issues have been fixed
  • Least concern is now linked
  • Additional sources have been added, and some paragraphs have been changed to remove unsourced statements.
  • Michigan's symbol is now sourced.
  • The number of categories has been reduced.
  • The paragraphs abut food have been changed.
  • Subspecies are noted in the taxobox as "See text"
  • Overlapping ranges has been tweaked.
  • The term squab is explained in dove.
  • Mismatched statements are fixed.
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Zenaidura? Could some clarification be added for this genus name? Every book I have names the genus as Zenaida. Is it a proposed genus? Joelito (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Response to Joelito's second comment:
Could you please clarify your request for clarification? The source (look at note 45) says: "Mayr & Short (1970), Goodwin (1983), and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Zenaida auriculata and Z. macroura, along with Z. graysoni, to form a superspecies; these three species were formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in a separate genus, Zenaidura, but most subsequent authors have followed Goodwin (1958) for its merger into Zenaida..." and later "...More recent genetic data (Johnson 2004), however, suggest recognition of Zenaidura may be required, because "true" Zenaida may be more closely related to some Geotrygon species."
Also, Zenaidura is still sometimes given as the genus name: see the Columbia Encyclopedia (3rd paragraph). The article says "...sometimes classified in the separate genus Zenaidura." At least one older field guide I have, the Golden Guide to Birds of North America, gives the genus as Zenaidura.
If you like I can change it to make it more clear that the name Zenaidura was used more often in earlier times. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's all wonderfully explained in the reference but not in the article. It should be explained that Zenaidura is not used and why it is not used. Furthermore the taxonomy section does not even mention that the Mourning Dove belongs to the Zenaida genus. Nor does it mention new research on Zenaida taxonomy (Johnson is the primary researcher in this area). Joelito (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph in question now says:
The Mourning Dove is closely related to the Eared Dove (Zenaida auriculata) and the Socorro Dove (Zenaida graysoni). Some authorities describe them as forming a superspecies. These three birds are sometimes classified in the separate genus Zenaidura. The current classification of those three birds, including the Mourning Dove, has them all in the genus Zenaida. While those three species do form a subgroup of Zenaida, using a seperate genus would interfere with the monophyly of Zanaida by making it paraphyletic.
I didn't add anything about research into Zenaida taxonomy because I think that would be better placed in the Zenaida rather than in one of its members. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well written and well cited, some more external links would be nice, if u have some spare time to search using Google, that would strengthen it. Good luck Octopus-Hands 00:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a link to a USGS page and to videos at the Internat Bird Collection. One other link that was used as a references was taken out, though. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this link of use to you Audubon Octopus-Hands 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't because it is about the Zenaida Dove, not the Mourning Dove. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lotta good stuff here. In general style terms, I would combine some of the many single sentences into paragraphs of related statements. As it is, it is dizzying to look at. Other than that, it is pretty impressive to my new eyes.Harborsparrow 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Russell Cave National Monument[edit]

Three days ago, the article on Russell Cave National Monument was quite small. I began reading about the topic and have researched it extensively other the past three days. I think the article is pretty good after the expansion but I would like the input of others. Thanks for your help. Leeannedy 13:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks good. I have a few things
    • The creation of the rock is explained but the creation of the cave is less clear.
      • I will add a couple of sentences explaining the formation of the cave and pertinent links to the articles on cave formation. Leeannedy 14:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I have now added a explantion of the cavern formation. It is brief but has the pertinent links to other Wikipedia articles. I think it is enough but let me know what you think. Leeannedy 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Archeology and History need to be combined they are too repetative.
      • I have attempted to address your concerns in this area. Upon reviewing the area, the repetition was quite obvious. I have moved almost all references to the lifestyle of the native peoples to the history section. Now the archeological section only contains information about the surveys that were performed (dates and extent of surveys) and information regarding the analysis of the artifact distribution. I think this eliminates the redundancy but I would like to get your opinion again. Leeannedy 14:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I dislike the tone of the Visiting section. Also you could give more info on the "available activies" (but don't call them that). When was the vistor center built? Who paid for it? Was there anything controversial? Who extablished the birding trail? Is there and annual bird watching event? How many rangers are stationed there, have they been reduced because of budjet cutbacks like other National Parks?
      • I now use the phrase "diverse range of attractions" to refer to the features of the park. Does this sound better? Leeannedy 14:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I will focus my attention on this section and try to provide more details regarding the attractions and where applicable their history. Leeannedy 14:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The Visiting section has been retitled Visitation and completely reworked. I like it much better now. See what you think. Leeannedy 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Any ideas were I can find staffing levels and funding information for national parks. I have been all over the NPS site but find almost nothing. Still seems to be a taboo matter. Leeannedy 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a couple small changes. Also I found two sentences unclear in the intro:
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I did not contribute the introduction. I only made a few small corrections to it. I will work to clarify these two sentences (you are definitely correct about their ambiguity). Thanks for your help. Leeannedy 22:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your style updates to the article. They are appreciated. Leeannedy 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"In addition to the Main Entrance, inside Russell Cave National Monument, there are several other entrances to this cave, including the Pig Entrance and the Canoe Entrance." - Does this mean that there are entrances not in the park? If so, it should state it more clearly (who controls these entrances?)
Until I can find more clear information, I have modified the sentence to reflect the fact that the cave has several entrances but have left their names and locations with respect to the National Monument boundaries unspecified. Leeannedy 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"As with all historic areas administered by the National Park Service, the National Monument was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966." - this could make it appear that all Park Service sites were added to the Register on one day. Should be reworded. Rmhermen 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It does appear that several were added simultaneously on this day with an act authorizing the National Historic Registry but explaining this in a succinct manner (for example, distinguishing between existing monuments in 1966 and newer monuments) seems excessively complicated for an informational tidbit. I have chosen to simplify the sentence to eliminate the possible confusion. Leeannedy 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Formatting of units of measurement has been changed to utilize standard abbreviations for converted quantities. Non-breaking spaces have been introduced between the magnitude and units of measurement.
    • One date in the text was linked to the appropriate day and year. One date in the references was linked to the appropriate day and year. All access dates for websites in the references were changed to the ISO date convention YYYY-MM-DD which automatically produces the appropriate links.
    • Additive terms have been removed from several locations. I believe that all others are key to the meaning of a sentence or aid substantially in the flow of the article. Please feel free to comment if you see remaining additive terms that should be removed.

Leeannedy 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion in Indonesia[edit]

Two weeks ago, this article was an Indonesian collaboration article, but it had not improved significantly. So since last week, I have tried to expand the article, of course with some other editors. I'd like people to comment on the flow and the content, as well as the quality of English used. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- Imoeng 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"It is arguably the most important foundation of the country's culture, including food and society..." is the first part of one sentence in the lead. I'm unsure of what it means, mostly because the phrasing is rather odd. I could guess, but encyclopedia readers shouldn't have to. There is also a {{fact}} tag in the lead: it, and the others, need to be replaced with inline citations to reliable sources. Thank you. -Fsotrain09 04:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I have put one citation there, and I couldn't see any other {{fact}} tag. So what about the rest of the article? Cheers -- Imoeng 05:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest combining the "Protestantism in Indonesia" and "Catholicism in Indonesia" into one larger, more comprehensive "Christianity in Indonesia" section. About the only reason I could see for discussing the denominations in two different sections is the existence of Catholicism in Indonesia, which is part of another article series. But there really doesn't appear to be any reason beyond that to separate them out. -Fsotrain09 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. The reason I separated them is they are two different religions in the country. Also is it good to mention there are six religions, but I only have 5 subheadings? Cheers -- Imoeng 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts...

  • The Image:Transasia trade routes 1stC CE gr2.png has a note that it maybe deleted for redunancy with another Common's image. I would look into that.
  • Though I love the usefulness of the Religion map in the lead. Another editor noted in the Indonesia article the improper shading of Papua New Guinea. I would get with the map's creator to try and modify it to make it more accurate.
    • Several changes need to be made to the map. North Sulawesi is shown as muslim, despite being majority christian (Protestant). Most of the Malukus likewise are shown as muslim-majority despite the old (pre-1999) province of Maluku being 45% Christian (again, Protestant). Finally, Borneo shows no sign of the large Christian-majority areas there, especially in Western Borneo/Kalimantan, but also along the border with eastern Sarawak.
  • There is a warning template on Image:Bedugul.jpg that should be looked into.
  • I am confused about the classification of Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions when they are just different denominations of Christianity. It look like the Indonesia Constitution does separate them like this but then the question of "why" jumps in? Is there a particular facet in Indonesian religious culture or in the particular incarnation of Catholicism and Protestantism in Indonesia that makes them so fundamentally different that they have to be considered two different religions?
  • There are some areas that would be served well with a cite tag for WP:V sake. I will add them to the article.
  • I would be aware of a slight "essayish" nature in the article with lines like "Islam in Indonesia is in many cases less meticulously practiced in comparison to Islam in, say, the Middle East region." Note that the "say" in the line is not needed.


But overall I think the article provides a good summary of the different religions in Indonesia. Agne 12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Agne, I appreciate it very much. I will work on these things and probably I'll get it back to you. Thanks again -- Imoeng 08:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re FSotrain09 and Agne's problems about the separation of Protestantism and Catholicism , please take note that Imoeng is quite correct and should be taken note of!

They are considered throughout Indonesia as separate religious identities - not as parts of one - they actually usually have in many places separate "territory" of followers within the Indonesian landscape - they have a range of differences as to how they translate the bible and have separate liturgical usage- and to worry about them simply being separate denominations and to bother about why is not the role of the current article - there are indeed aspects of Indonesian religious culture that treat these communities as separate. If the article is to adequately reflect the reality in the Indonesian Constitution and practices of the last 50 years - they need to be identified as such! SatuSuro 11:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, SatuSuro. If Indonesia's constitution classifies Catholicism and Protestantism as different religions, then yes, they should be discussed separately, but that constitutional logic should be noted. This is primarily because non-Indonesian readers of this article are probably not aware of the designation -- we as writers of this encyclopedia should not assume that our readers possess that kind of prior knowledge. You are right, of course, that there are significant differences between the two denominations, and the typical English-speaking encyclopedia reader is most likely familiar with them. What they will not likely be familiar with is how that situation is reflected in Indonesian constitutional law and Indonesian religious identity. Lastly, my suggestion to Imoeng was precisely that, a suggestion. I made it on the basis of what information I read at the time. -Fsotrain09 16:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree fully. It is fine if the Constitution treats them separate but for the curious reader there should be some details about the constitutional logic or the aspect of Indonesian thought that separates them. Agne 18:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The founding of the Indonesian republic and the particular events that created the structure of the constitution are not my speciality - but during sukarno old order and in suharto new order there was always in public discourse the importance of living by those principles and the details to the law - that should be sufficient without going into the detail. If the curious reader needs to know more - then someone needs to either find the article on the indonesian constitution or write it - ratther than in this article- it is not a simple story! oh - thanks for your considered responses SatuSuro 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I will try to find the information about these things. More is better than less, I reckon. Thanks again -- Imoeng 07:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about my earlier posts - an example might be - the crux is that an article about Catholic culture cannot simply reduce monasticism into one section - it should deal with benedictines and redemporists separtately for example if it is to be a good article - or at least point to another article about monasticism that does separate out the two separate traditions and ethos. In Indonesia - Islam cannot be adequately explained unless NU and Muhhamadiyah are adequately explained - and if it is not explained adequately in the article - it should at least point to another that makes a good distinction between the two. A serious issue about the founding constitution of Indonesia and religion is the absence of any consideration of the kejawen/mystical grroups within the main framework of the 'official' religions allowed

(in the suharto era, when I travelled in Java - I was always asked "what is your religion" within the first two minutes - as the imputation of Indonesian citizenship (I wasnt one but had a kitas one time) at that time was that you must believe in god and therefore belong to one of the official religions - if you didnt you were atheist and therefore communist - many foreign travellers were naive enough to not adequately disguise their western secularism! It is my belief that such an epistemology (ie necessity to believe in god is what gained your identity card) was quite capable of sustaining a logic and practice that separates the protestant ffrom the catholic in the same climate. SatuSuro

  • Informative and well written. I thought that there could be a section on animism because many of the regular practices and rituals irrespective of the present religions follow from that. Then I found that it is already on the 'To do' list. Once this is added, it would bind the pieces together. -- P.K.Niyogi 03:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

Singapore Changi Airport[edit]

I'd like to see the article become a bit more streamlined. In its current state, its very unpleasing to the eyes and looks very plain with all of the images and tables on the right side of the page. Perhaps some fiddling with size is also is in order.

Also, I'd really like to see something worked out for the first paragraph. It's extremely cluttered and is almost unbearably painful to look at, let alone read. In my opinion, the Airlines subsection should be moved up to its own section and reformatted, but I'd like some feedback on that.

Hopefully we can get it in shape enough to be a good article candidate! thadius856talk 04:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther[edit]

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

  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and yesterday might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[4]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.[5]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.[6]
  • 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==.

*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[2]

  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • 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 provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • 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. [7]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Eyu100 03:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There are quite a few short paras, they should be expanded or merged. There are other paras missing references - please add inline citations. It also seems that 'Luther views/influence on...' sections are mixed with biography; they should be split into two disting groups. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The story about the 95 theses on the church door seems to be disputed. I just read an article concluding that it is a complete myth.[15] (in Danish). It would be nice with a little more information about this topic although we also have the 95 theses article. Do we have any good German / English material for this topic? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Swedish literature[edit]

Hi. I still have a lot of work to do about contents, language, and the lead section, but I'd like to ask Wikipedia's experienced contributors a few questions before I continue.

  • I am worried about the references being to specific and plenty and distorting the view of the article as a whole. Is this an issue, and if so, what can I do about it?
  • I realized that the article is very lengthy in its history section. Would it make sense to put part of the article under a title such as history of Swedish literature?
  • Suggestions about what image to put by the lead section will be appreciated!

Thank you. Fred-Chess 12:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't consider myself an experienced contributor, but I'll give my opinion anyhow. The references are fine (in my opinion). I do not see the point of history of Swedish literature since this article in a sense is exactly that. But there is a possibility. You can split the article basically into History and Modern literature and give a very large emphasis on the modern section. Therefore it would look reasonable to cut down and fork past history to allow this article to concentrate on modern literature. Regarding the image, I would put a template up similar to the one at Norwegian literature and add the Swedish flag or something of that sort. Anyway thats about it, I wont critique the text itself since you still working on it. - Tutmosis 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. / Fred-Chess 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What immediately strikes me is that the name "Finland" doesn't occur even once on the page, and Runeberg is mentioned only in passing. With the definition given in the beginning, the Swedish-language literature of Finland belongs together with that of Sweden, including that after 1809. I don't know exactly which authors are canonical enough to mention, but at least Runeberg should be given more space, and Zacharias Topelius, Edith Södergran and Tove Jansson (who was mentioned by someone on the talkpage) should be included. Perhaps more general sections on the Swedish literature of Finland (according to whatever periodization is used in standard handbooks) should be included for the post-1809 period. up+land 13:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Those authors are actually mentioned on Finnish literature, but okey dokey.
I'm going to rewrite the article anyways, because it focuses too much on the history and too little on literary periods and styles.
Fred-Chess 14:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The more references, the better. If article is approaching 100kb, consider splitting some subsections, otherwise don't worry (others may be more stricter on that, but I like large articles). Image for lead: what's the best known Swedish book worldwide? I'd vote for Pippi Longstocking.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have now incorporated all your suggestions, so there are fewer sub-headers, Finland based authors are mentioned, a lot of history has been removed, etc. FYI the article currently has about 40 Kb of prose, 50 Kb total text, 25 images and 87 inline references. It mainly uses three standard references -- two in English and one in Swedish .
I have more or less finished with adding prose now. Some parts might need better coverage but... I am still confused about whether the article has too much history. I have for example added birth and death year of all authors. It is possible that the article should mention the works more than the authors. Unfortunately I don't have anything to compare with since English literature, British literature, French literature, German literature, etc, are so differently written.
The prose is also flawed in parts, partly because of my confusion what I should mention and partly because I can't write brilliant prose anyways.
Well, if you have any other suggestions....
Fred-Chess 18:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
History is good, and I really can't see how the article could be written without it; all authors worked in a specific historical context. Birth and death years are good, for the same reason. Don't worry too much about size just yet. At some later point it may be possible to cut back on this article and move some stuff to period-specific sub-articles ("Swedish Romantic literature" etc). The article could probably be improved in details by looking at some other general histories of Swedish literature to get alternative views, and some more specialized studies of individual periods or the most important writers. In the end, you may need somebody who is an actual historian of Swedish literature to look it through and check for any obvious omissions or mistakes. I have noticed that Nostalgia swe (talk · contribs) has made some very good contributions on Swedish theatre. You may ask her to take a look. I have pointed Bish at this PR, but she is busy burning down London at the moment. Once she is finished with that, you could perhaps ask her to take a look. up+land 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now restructured into sub-articles. So it would be nice if you again went back to review it.... / Fred-Chess 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I also got another book, Tigerstedt's Svensk litteraturhistori, 1971 (fourth edition). Thorough and factual, imo. I've also skimmed through Göran Hägg's Den svenska litteraturhistorian but this is mostly treated as a curiosity in academical circles so I won't use it as a reference.

Also, I think that it is now time for comments about the language of the article (I said at first I didn't want that). So any comments about language, structure, references, images, copyediting, lead section, possible omissions, etc are appreciated. / Fred-Chess 13:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Minnesota[edit]

I've been working on History of Minnesota for a while, along with other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of Mulad and Appraiser. The article has recently passed good article review, and I'm eventually hoping to bring it to featured article status. I'd like feedback on the following:

  1. Does the article reflect a complete and comprehensive view of Minnesota history?
  2. Is there any copyediting needed, or any suggestions to make it brilliant prose?
  3. Does it reflect a fair viewpoint of Minnesota and its people?

I'd appreciate suggestions on these questions, or any other suggestions you can provide. Thanks! --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Definetely needs a redundancy and grammar copyedit. May I? - Tutmosis 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Go ahead. You don't need my permission -- this is a Wiki, after all. In fact, I'd encourage it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Skimmed through it and it looks quite good. Couple of thoughts: the many red links will have to be addressed for FA (you already knew that) and the lead is weak. The lead should summarize the whole article and probably should be a bit longer. The first sentence doesn't get the article off to a good start ("dates back" is redundant), but I don't know what to suggest. The first three people I thought of are not mentioned: Alexander Ramsey, James J. Hill and Henry Rice (who deceived the Ojibway into signing away their land). Highlighting the prairie pioneers by keying off of Laura Ingalls Wilder could work well for the article too. Did MN formerly do a lot of farm equipment manufacturing? Minneapolis-Moline, for example? Another way to beef up the history of agriculture is to mention Oliver Hudson Kelley and the Grange movement and subsequent develpments like the National Farmers Organization (NFO) which caused some tension in the 60s and 70s. Then getting farther affield, there is the decline of "Machinery Hill" at the State Fair (big equipment replaced by lawnmowers) balanced by FarmFest making its home on the Gilfillan estate near Redwood Falls (but that's original research!). JonHarder 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll see what I can do about the lead -- it should definitely give more of an overview of the state's history and more of a summary of the article. As far as the red links go, some of them definitely deserve articles or at least stubs. (I can't believe that Josiah Snelling doesn't have an article yet.) On the other hand, there are a few redlinks that probably aren't notable enough to need articles of their own yet. I might just delink them until we can come up with articles. And you're right about naming some of the famous people. I asked a few people at Sunday's Wikipedia meetup for ideas of people who should be listed, so I have a list now. I don't want to make the article too long or make it just a list of names -- it's going to be a balancing act as far as what to include.
As far as agriculture goes, you're right about mentioning Oliver H. Kelley and the Grange movement. I'm not sure what I'll be able to find about specific farm equipment manufacturers, though. The references I'm using don't say a lot about farm equipment manufacture, other than the fact that equipment got more specialized and more modern over the years.
I don't think I'll be able to get these changes done right away, of course, but these are good suggestions and they'll help with the article. Thanks. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament[edit]

Comments, criticism or otherwise to improve this article are welcome. Thanks Globaltraveller 12:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A very good article in general. I would add an image of the Scottish Parliament Building in the relevant section. And is it standard to include the latest election results in an article of this type? I don't know, it seems slightly strange to me. But other than that, nothing jumps out at me to be improved. Trebor 23:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, that's fine - I didn't look at similar articles at the time. I think it's looking very good at the moment, nice work. Trebor 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush v. Gore[edit]

Seems like an issue of some importance or interest (at least in America). I'd like to know what I can help improve. SilverStartalk 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a mix of citation styles, some are inline, some are just external links - they should be standardised. There are no citations in the "Issue" (or anywhere in the second half of the article) section but some sentences really need them, such as:
  • The court had to resolve two different questions to fully resolve the case
  • The court, especially the majority, had trouble with the timing
and also the specific quotations in the text. While these are (probably) true, they do need to be cited.
Also, there aren't images anywhere in the article - it would be good to break up the text somehow. Trebor 18:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've refactored all the citations into endnote style. I also went through the specific quotations, and summary of criticism and praise in the Decision section and sourced it all. I'll look for some pictures, but I'm not sure what would be appropriate, and find citations for the Issue section. -- SilverStartalk 05:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice work, it's looking better. Pictures for court cases are hard - if you can't find anything better, maybe add in a photo of some of the people involved (like in Lawrence v. Texas). Trebor 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a picture of the SCOTUS at the time of the case, and a timeline of prior events. There's also PD images for Bush's counsel, but I'm not adding it until I can find one for Gore's counsel also for NPOV. -- SilverStartalk 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point. For the citations, the date the websites were accessed should either not be linked, or be linked twice: one for the day and month, one for the year (e.g. January 1, 2000). It just prevents a lot of needless redlinks at the bottom of the page. Trebor 15:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - I unlinked the dates. And I've sourced all the relevant law, issues, and claims now. Content-wise, I need to still add the details of each opinion, concurrence, and dissent (although they are already summarized) and find some images. Any other suggestions? -- SilverStartalk 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to add this: Bush v. Gore had a previous featured article candidacy that was rejected: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bush v. Gore/archive1. The objections stated have been either (a) covered above or (b) fixed before I posted the PR. -- SilverStartalk 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, read through the whole article again to see what I could pick up on.
  • were only the Due Process Clause, which ensures that: - did you mean to/are you going to finish that?
  • It was seen by many as a departure from the stare decisis principle. - a bit weasally, it could do with sources.
  • The end is still looking a bit odd. I changed some of the names to fit in better with WP:LAYOUT. I'm not sure what the "Criteria for Late Filing" section is really doing there, "see also" has only one link and "external links" doesn't exist yet. I'll try to help a bit, if I can. Trebor 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, part of the problem is the "full criteria" doesn't link properly from the body of the text. I'm not sure how to correct this. Trebor 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I commented on this on the Talk page recently. This article is incorrect in calling the decision a 7-2 decision. It was 5-4, and only 5-4. All four dissents were dissents only, not concurring in part in the per curium opinion. It is usually Bush partisans who try to push this POV, which started the night of the decision after lay media tried to figure out the decision and picked up on the line toward the end of the majority opinion about "seven justices of this court agree that there is a........but we disagree on the remedy." People who understand how SCt opinions are written looked at it and saw that it was 5-4, but it was too late to stop this theme from being pushed by those who want to lend greater credibility to the Bush position and outcome. To call it, even in part, a 7-2 opinion or 7-2 decision is a misreading or misrepresentation. Frankly, the repeated overemphasis of this incorrect idea in the article, even in a graph, makes me seriously question the writer's POV (I almost expected the last sentance to read: "Did I mention it was 7-2?"). I would propose to edit it.-JLSWiki 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Please ignore the stricken sentance. I went too far. I apologize. I have no idea why this was written this way, and will assume the writer's good faith. (Thanks to the wiser and more experienced Wikipedians who are pointing this newcomer the way.)-JLSWiki 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert[edit]

Soliciting feedback on this article, which I'm hoping to improve to FA eventually. The article has had a previous peer review here; it was listed by another editor when I was on a bit of a wikibreak, so unfortuately I was unaware of it and unable to respond to comments. I've improved the issues that were raised since then, so hope you'll give this a second look. Thanks in advance, -- Bailey(talk) 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Great job, personally I did not find any problems with the article. Good luck at FAC! - Tutmosis 19:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, good job. But check Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For the most part it's free of flaws, but for example you should avoid double hyphens (--) when you should be using an em-dash (—). -Amatulic 22:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone, including Andy Z's hardworking script. I'm going to start working on those automated suggestions tonight, and the em-dashes too. -- Bailey(talk) 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Zhou Tong (Shaolin Monk)[edit]

I think I've gone as far as I can for right now. I do have more info, but I'm waiting on outside sources to verify it for me. I'm looking for others with more info on the subject or just those who feel the page could be laid out differently. How is my grammar? (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 11:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Very intresting, I dont see this kind of articles (real yet mythical people) discussed too often so my suggestions will be limited. First thing I would suggest renaming "Fact or Fiction?" to → "Historiography" and placing it last. And the section "Modern Day" definetely has a name which doesn't fit it, I would suggest renaming to "In popular culture". Also the thing I found confusing is everytime you refer to a book you use the chinese letters, quite confusing for an english speaker. Anyway good luck with the article. - Tutmosis 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. I can't change "Fact or Fiction" to "Historiography" and put it last since it lays the foundation for the historical aspect of Zhou Tong. I put this section first to introduce the various Yue Fei biographies that he has appeared in. If I put it last, people wouldn't know what I was talking about when I mentioned the names of Yue Fei's biographies. I will change the Chinese letters of the biographies to English. I appreciate your input. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 11:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

Alcoholics Anonymous[edit]

Feel this controversial article could still do with some real help. I feel it is biased in favour of AA. I am in an edit war, which is kind of pathetic. I would really like someone to review it, and if possible get involved. I dont think either I, or the other regular editors, are capable of being NPOV on this matter. PLEASE HELP 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really asking for a review for the path to featured article, but ways to improve this article. This article has a little bit of controversy, with a group of people claiming that AA is a cult, overly religous, it's validity, etc. I would like to find the best way to cover all aspects of this in the article, but it's already kind of long (with lots of great information). I'm looking for ways we can restructure the article, reorganize things, and make sure all points of view are addressed while still NPOV. Thanks!--Twintone 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I think people saying that AA is a cult are probably wrong - Alcoholics Anonymous is a self-help group, well, as far as I'm aware. Any questions, ask on my talk page. --SunStar Net 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AA has had accusations of being cult-like from a fairly wide variety of sources. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. If it is, then it is one of the less damaging ones (though that is not to say not damaging at all). I think a thorough examination of both sides of that argument would be useful. 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

on Dictionary.com they say a cult could be any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. Now, Bill never said he had "sole" insight into the disease, but that is just "usually".
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. While AA is not bound together by veneration of the same person or thing, AA is definately bound by an ideal. Now, I don't think AA will ever order an attack on a subway with Sarin gas. I know they wont ever order suicide by drinking Vodka and taking Phenobarbital and then putting plastic over their head.-- ¢² Connor K.   20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AA does have some religious tenets, and the supreme court in America described it as such (as detailed in the articles "coercion" section). Similarly, Bill W's teachings are often held in such high regard that to question will bring a similar reaction to that of a satanist in an Easter ceremony. Read "AA Horror Stories" for examples of when these tenets have been corrupted and then exploited by cult like factions of AA, or look into the "Midtown AA Group" in Washington.

Interestingly, Bill kind of did imply that he had a "special cure" for alcoholism, with the following from the 12x12: " Any willing newcomer feels sure A.A. is the only safe harbor for the foundering vessel he has become." Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 35 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have read, there is a considerable insistence that AA's methods are the only effective way to control excess drinking. In fact, other people do seem to succeed by other methods (without appeal to a higher power, without total abstention, etc). Insisting that their way is the only possible way, contrary to the facts, is a cult-like behavior.
Having said that, I don't think that throwing around the word "cult" is very useful -- but it would be good if properly cited critics were properly explained. Subsolar 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could not agree more. Was hoping to get some "unbiased" (which excludes me!) editors to do a bit of work on the AA page. I would be happy to advise, as I am sure would other regular editors on the page. I think we could do with someone interested in learning more about the subject, who is experienced with wiki, to make this article give a balanced view of AA.82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Informed AA members do not insist "that AA's methods are the "only" effective way to control excess drinking." p. 20-21 of the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous describes moderate drinkers who can take it or leave it, hard drinkers who, given "sufficiently strong reason", can stop or moderate, and then there are "real alcoholics" who have both the allergic reaction cited in the Doctor's Opinion (Silkworth) and the obsession of the mind mentioned elsewhere. The basic text says its solution is fitting for those who have progressed to the point where they are beyond human aid. Informative websites can be found by searching for "primary purpose group". Many AA members are quite willing to say, "if it works for you, great! But, if you're a real alcoholic, my experience..." user:Don Karabelnikoff Don@Karabelnikoff.net 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Many AA members do state that AA is the only way though. I have witnessed it myself. It is well documented by others (Stanton Peele, Charles Buffe, The Orange Papers website). Comments in the big book imply it strongly, such as "you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer." or "At first some of us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else." 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Stanton Peele is at the extreme end of the academic community, Charles Buffe has only been published by 'See Sharp Press' (in the publishers own words: "a cause-driven small press" with a mission "to make available radical books and pamphlets that would otherwise not be published, especially in the areas of anarchism and atheism.") and 'The Orange Papers' website is one anonymous guy in his bedroom who hates AA. Of course this encyclopedic article doesn't read like their opinion!

Unfortunately this article is frequently marred by the insistence by a few individuals (who are easily identified by their refusal to sign in to Wiki, their repetitive insertion of conspiracy links and their contribution to Wiki being solely arguing on the discussion page rather than actually editing the article), that the AA article is biased unless it mirrors these conspiracy theories.

Ongoing Peer review would certainly be valued, but not all the comments from the previous peer review have been incorporated yet (the 'deeper structural' editing for example). Perhaps we could do with more editors and less conspiracy theorists! -- Mr Miles 11:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment Ok. This article will now be ripped apart my critique:
  • "The stated "primary purpose" of A.A. members is to stay sober and help other alcoholics do the same." Grammar needs work, try this: "The official "primary purpose" of Alcoholics Anonymous is to help dipsomaniacs become sober.
  • "A.A. teaches that to recover an alcoholic should abstain completely from alcohol.[1] and offers a community of recovering people who help each other and "work" the twelve steps." What ever happened to capitalizing after a period/not starting with the work and? Try: A.A teaches dipsomaniacs that complete recovery requires complete abstenance from alcohol. In place, it offers a community for recovering alcoholics who mutually assist their peers in reaching complete sobriety."
  • This article uses alcoholics and A.A WAY TOO MUCH! In place of alcoholics, switch some up with dipsomaniacs, and in place of A.A, switch it up with Alcoholics Anonymous.
  • "...listed as “nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship”[2])." Order of words to be changed. Citations after quotes and/or periods, periods inside quotations. Ergo, it should be like this: "...listed as "nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship.")[2] Besides this, the following is wrong, the bold comma must be inserted into the real passage: "alcoholics (aside from 7 out of 21 members of the A.A. Board of trustees, who are listed as “nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship”[2]). The previous clause is way too long not to have that comma there. Generally, 3 words in any prepositional phrase/clause requires a following comma; a good message for this article.
  • NO DOUBLE DASHES!!! It's ugly and unencylcopedic. Here's a sampling of when this article does this: "Silkworth meant Jesus Christ--advice Silkworth had also given..."; "A "phenomenon of craving" -- with the first drink the alcoholic..." Stop it. Also, either put Great Physician in quotations or just come out and say G-d. It's extremely POV and horribly religiously offensive to say Jesus Christ in this sort of article. Remove this.
  • Right here's a mess of miswritten code: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/621 Varieties of Religious Experience] Silkworth had also read this book which contained many conversion accounts. Bill spent the better part of the day pouring through its contents and concluded that his experience was like those reported by James. Dale Mitchel, The Little Doctor Who Loved Drunks, Hazelden. Silkworth advised Bill that had undergone a genuine conversion. In A.A. Comes of Age, Wilson states that Dr. Silkworth "reminded me of Professor William James's observation that truly transforming spiritual experiences are nearly always founded on calamity and collapse."

Half of that was in italics, and the link should be a citation. Why is that extra ], I don't know. Fix that. I think I gave you enough work. Drop a message by when you're ready for more. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Austin Nichols[edit]

Ok, I've made the article comprehensive, well written. There is nothing on the Internet that could tell you more about Austin Nichols than this article does, I think! So, is there anything else I ought to do before I send it to FA? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OTHER REVIEWS WOULD BE APPRECIATED Dev920 (Please vote here) 00:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Things I noticed:

  • "Nichols was raised in Austin, Texas, where he was a good student" - good student? In what regards? Seems fairly vague, a specific detail (GPA?) would be useful as well as a source.
  • "Nichols has been a competitive water skier," - tense is all over the place in that paragraph
  • "Nichols then simultaneously co-starred in two box office successes." - considering the article goes on to explain this, it seems a bit of a wasted sentence
  • There are quite a lot of short sentences which break up the flow a bit - perhaps they could be linked
  • You may want to try to find a free use image (or you might have already)

Other than that, it's looking pretty good. The refs are pretty thorough, it seems complete (although is also fairly short for FA - dunno if anything can be expanded a little) - nice work. Trebor 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, if there's more information out there on Austin Nichols, it's not for want of trying. I've gone through ten pages of Google hits, stripped AustinNicholsfan of everything it has, and sat on IMDB til my eyes hurt. I have contacted his agents for a photo, but have not received a reply. I've changed the tenses in the paragraph you mentioned. The superfluous sentence is there as a lead in to the next section and also so the guest spot on She spies can be mentioned. I felt it added to the flow rather than took away from it. I can't as yet find a ref for the good student quote, so I've removed it, and rearranged it a bit. Howsit now? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol, I'm glad to see you're working hard for the article ;) I'll take your point about the lead in - it's okay as it is. The sentence beginning, "Nichols' latest film is The House of Usher..." is a bit disjointed with all the clauses - perhaps split it into two. A few of the paragraphs are fairly short I suppose (it doesn't particularly bother me but people often bring it up on FAC it seems). Can't think of anything else, it seems generally fine. Trebor 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've played around with the sentence, it looks much better now, I think. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Instead, Nichols moved to LA to pursue a career in acting. "Instead" is an awkward transition there. Maybe, "Because of his injury,".
Well, that wasn't why he moved to L.A. as explained later in the article. I've changed it to "shortly afterwards".
    • but is most notable for his film appearances. Careful when stating things like "most notable" or "most famous" as that is often up for debate. There are probably readers out there who have only seen the TV shows he has been in. Try "but is also known for his film appearances".
Done.
    • Instead, Nichols has been a competitive water skier. "has been" makes it seem as if he still is. How about, "Instead, Nichols turned to competitive water skiing"?
The Instead is a reference to his being rubbish at basketball. I've changed "has been" into "was" - that OK?
OK, but an active verb may be better there than passive voice.
    • Nichols has wanted to be an actor for much of his life Weird tense to use there. "had wanted" might be better.
"Nichols has stated he wanted to be an actor for much of his life."
    • intended to attend...I don't know why, but for some reason this bugged me. Any synonyms that might make this not sound like a tongue twister? :)
Changed to "wished". :)
    • Although Nichols had guest starred in Sliders, Odd Man Out, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Family Law, Watching Ellie, and Wolflake By when? His graduation? Unclear there.
I don't know. IMDB dates seem to indicate before graduation, so I'll put that in.
    • Rachel Griffiths' sex addict's lover Two possessives in a row always make for awkwardness. Consider rewording or just deleting one of them if it's not essential (perhaps "sex addict's"?).
Changed to the chracter's name.
    • As Trebor alluded to above, the prose has a lot of short sentences that break up flow. Consider combining some of them.
The problem is, my sentences then become wildly convoluted. ;) But I can try.
    • The first successful film role Nichols played was playing a stereotypical basketball-playing fratboy in 2003's The Utopian Society "Successful" how? Critically? At the box office? Also, there three instances of "to play" in that sentence. "fratboy" is two words.
The film is described as having won several awards and some critical acclaim. I think that is slightly better than no reviews at all. I've changed and linked frat boy, and removed two plays.
Oh, I meant just clarify what type of success ("The first critically successful film...")
    • though it only did reasonably at the US box office I think this is missing an adjective...try either "did reasonable" or "reasonably well".
Added well.
    • Need to make those quotations by Pat Cash fit into the sentence the better.
I've tried.
    • Nichols himself was in awe of tennis players who have to go out on court for real Hmm...there are better ways to transition to quotations. Perhaps, "The role gave Nichols a respect for tennis professionals."
"Nichols himself discovered a new respect for professional tennis players"
    • After this success, Nichols co-starred in a pilot for 1/4 life, a TV series about 20 somethings living in New York, but which was developed by a network. Huh? "but which was developed by a network"?
Woops, missed out a not there...
    • Lenexa, 1 mile, a film that tells the story of five childhood friends during their last summer together in Lenexa before college, when disturbing secrets come to light. Seems like this was pulled from somewhere. Citation needed.
Damn, you're good. I've changed it.
    • "twisted, terminally ill, fucked-up guy" <-- pretty unnecessary quote, IMO.
Well, I can't claim Roderick Usher is disturbed without proof, can I?
    • Besides his acting career, Nichols maintains a strong interest in film Umm, since he's an actor, one would assume he has a strong interest in film, no? "Besides his acting career" is superfluous.
Not necessarily. One might not watch films in between roles. Few actors go to film festivals like Austin does. That's why I said besides his acting career. He is genuinely interested in every aspect of the filming process.
    • Last paragraph is full of disconnected sentences.
Yes, I was trying to avoid one-sentence paragraphs. I've moved it around a bit.
    • Hope this helps. In my opinion, while well-sourced, the prose is not yet FA quality. Lot of simple sentence constructions and problems with tenses. Unfortunately, like Trebor said, it's a little short for an FA, too. Perhaps try shooting for GA first. Good luck! Gzkn 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not necessarily too short for an FA (see Hurricane Irene (2005)), I just wanted to make sure it was fully complete. If it is, then it can still become an FA . Trebor 07:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to deal with all your points. What do you think now? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Additional responses added above. Gzkn 01:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Reference 13 isn't really a reference ("no individual reviews of Austin's role in the day after tomorrow exist"), and it would be effectively impossible to verify 100% that that's true. It seems a bit awkward to me, I'd advocate removing it and just linking to the collective reviews. Seraphimblade 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added "however general reviews were quite positive for the entire cast". That better? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem remains that you cannot be completely certain that individual reviews do not exist - you might just not have found them. I agree with Seraphimblade, you may as well remove it and just link to the collective reviews. Trebor 07:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have removed it. Anything else? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 16:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Other reviews will be replied to immediately...[edit]

Go on, review it. You know you want to... Dev920 (Please vote here) 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest paying a visit to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography. You may find posting requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment to be helpful. Gzkn 09:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added it. But I would appreciate more reviews from here: Bio peer review seems to be the sole domain of yannismarou. :) Dev920 (Please vote here) 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape[edit]

We want to know how RuneScape can be edited in order to attain FA status. It has already passed a GA nom.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead section could do with some polishing. The second paragraph, about Gielinor, looks fancrufty. Consider jettisoning the paragraph, moving useful information to the third paragraph (which then becomes the second paragraph). It wouldn't hurt to add another paragraph which summarises the history of the game, reviews it has received and/or its impact on the world/Internet/MMORPG industry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We already have those things you mentioned in your last suggestion. There's a paragraph on it's history and development and one on its reception. The reception paragraph covers the impact on the world, internet, and MMORPG industry, although more info could be added on that. I'll see what I can find. Also, I'll make the changes to the lead section right now.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
When I wrote paragraphs, I meant paragraphs in the lead section. Sorry for not explaining clearly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine. I'll get to it ASAP.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I got the lead paragraph that you wanted done. Any more suggestions?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahbag[edit]

This article has come a long way, and is almost ready for FAC. Please, lend a hand in polishing the article to Wikiepedia's finest standards. Aditya Kabir 16:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • What about the administration of the area? Municipal wards, thana (which is Shahbag thana, as the article states) etc? I see that the infobox contains such information, but how about creating a section that will state the administration in some more detail, and also address administrative problems or uniqueness, if any? The section can be named "Civic administration" and could include electric supply, telecommunication, sewage, transport etc. I just found that Dhaka does not list Shahbag as a thana, why?
Explanation: The information in the Dhaka artcile must be dated. Number of thanas in Dhaka has incresed twofolds in the last decade. Aditya Kabir 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: I have put a note on Talk: Dhaka asking for a change in that article, but haven't made the required significant change to that FA right away. Aditya Kabir 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What about geography and climate of the area? (data can be taken from Dhaka, mentioning that the neighbourhood does not have a separate met office and utilises Dhaka met office, if that is the case). In geography also can be mentioned any water bodies, or any other special geo feature (like the garden, if it exists still).
  • The web references need date of retrieval.
Update: Done. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • First look
  • cite the 7th century claim.
Update: Done. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "with the decline of mughal power"--nothing before this prepares use for this sentence. Atleast one sentence abt when Mughal rule started in Dhaka should precede this.
Update: Done. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Garden of the Kings" -- though this is introduced in intro, do so again. The intro is meant to be a summary of what in the rest of the article. In fact that whole para is problematic: "lost splendour", we haven't told about any splendor before this point.
Questions: It is written four sentences befor the splendor thing that - ...Shahbag or the Garden of the Kings became a forgotten project - is it falling short on clarification? Aditya Kabir 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: Copyedited to accommodate the issue. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "first office of Bangladesh Betar" -- is this then a post 1971 event? Date this. "the Bangla Academy during the Language movement. " the bangla academy article says it was establised in 1955, after the lang movement.--ppm 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: Done. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • More comments

"Urban layout" and "Civic life" are not well organized. The later has stuff that should be in the former. "Urban layout" on the other hand, almost solely focuses on three old mansions, which do not dominate the current urban design. "platform for all political-cultural movements" -- "all" is streatching it. "The Bangla Academy initiated the first Boishakhi Mela ... is also sponsored by major cell-phone and carbonated drink brands. " -- last part quite unnecessary

Request: Can someone lead me to a couple examples of appropriate content of Urban Layout and Civic Life sections? Aditya Kabir 12:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Look for similar stuff--ppm 17:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Review by Nichalp
  • Copyedit needed
  • 7th century -- spell the number (same with 1st etc.)
  • Map should be svg. Is it scaled?
  • Echo above concerns on urban layout.
  • collector --> wikify as district collector
    • Done by now. --Ragib 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Mr. Walters --> remove Mr.
Request: Can't locate Walters' full name in any of the sources I am currently using. Can someone with an access to Raj Records help me on this? Aditya Kabir 12:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this Walters is Henry Walters , per this page from censusindia. Added that. --Ragib 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • double decker buses should be right aligned
    • Done by now. --Ragib 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • khanqah --> meaning needed so that a user does not have to click on the link
  • 14 April --> wikify
    • Done by now. --Ragib 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neighboring Thanas --> I believe Bangladesh uses British English?
    • Done by now. --Ragib 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • in early 19th ??
    • Edited to "in the early 19th" --Ragib 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • then powerful --> how powerful?
  • DHAKA UNDER THE EAST INDIA COMPANY --> remove all caps
    • Done by now. --Ragib 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Format all references & notes using standard cite templates
  • What is Syed Muhammed Taifoor doing under ==See also==
    • Removed now. --Ragib 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Review by Niaz

I have gone through the whole article and found some of the parts that should be improved. Besides, this article demands some of the points to be added in order to give it a complete touch.

  • This article started in a nice way but ended up with a messy style. I didn’t found any organized conclusion and I just felt all on a sudden it ends.
  • Shahbag’s importance related to our liberation war can be arranged with a separate sub heading. It will be more appropriate if we can provide a picture of Banga Bondhu’s 7-e March Speech on Ramna Rasecourse.
  • I personally felt this article demands two special pictures, 1. A picture of Dhaka University, if it is ‘Aporajeo Bangla’, that will be the best. 2. A picture of Ramna Park.
  • Ramna Bomb-explosion can also be a sub heading as it was (or is!) one of the burning issues related to this place. We should also mention terrorist’s fate and current undergoing investigation by the law-n-order force with in one or two lines.

Other than those parts, overall article is well written. Niaz bd 05:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I do disagree about giving prominence to the recent incidents per WP:RECENT. The 7th march speech of Sheikh Mujib is still under copyright, and hence we shouldn't use it here. Does Aparajeyo Bangla fall under the Shahbag thana? --Ragib 08:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It does (see the map), but is more relevant to Dhaka University. The article has enough images as it is. Aditya Kabir 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Review by Arman
  • The article once says that Paribanu was the daughter of Khwaja Salimullah (History Section) and later says she was his sister (Urban Layout Section). I'm not sure which one is correct. Could someone please check and correct it?-Arman Aziz 11:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Integrated Guided Missile Development Program[edit]

This article need to be improved to the level of a featured article. Need suggestions.

Chanakyathegreat 16:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article looks quite comprehensive, but it is going to need both more citations and a very thorough copyediting before it passes FA (or GA, for that matter). One citation per paragraph is a good rule if you're aiming for GA status; you may also want to see whether there are any books on the subject, as it seems like you mostly have internet references (although some very impressive ones). You may want to have a native English speaker look the article over, as there are a lot of odd points of phrasing. Here are some copyediting points (not a comprehensive list):

  1. "IGMDP or Integrated Guided Missile Development Program was initiated by India for developing a range of Missiles" Don't start with an abbreviation. Much better to say, for example, "The Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP) is an Indian program for the development of a comprehensive range of missiles." Note that "missiles" should be lowercase.
  2. "The Current President OF India,A.P.J.Abdul Kalam is considered the person responsible for the success of IGMDP so much so that he is called "The Missile Man Of India".Too many capitals, and awkward phrasing. It could read "Many commentators consider A.P.J. Kalam, the current president of India, to be the person most responsible for the success of the program. (?) called him "the missile man of India."" As you'll see, you'll need to say who called him that.
  3. "During the fight against the British Troops, Tipu Sultan's Army, used a number of improvised weapons which included rockets to thwart the British invasion." The second comma is not needed. There are quite a few other superfluous commas in the article.
  4. "In 1970s Indian government decided to manufacture the anti-tank missiles under license from France," This should read "In the 1970s the Indian government decided to manufacture anti-tank missiles...". Be careful where you put your "the"s.
  5. "However, by this time, DRDL developed the infrastructure and facilities to undertake the design and development of missiles" Should read "DRDL had developed..."

I hope this is helpful. Best of luck with the article. MLilburne 17:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I hope you don't mind difficult suggestions. First, you ought to be clear about the subject of the article (thinking about its categories should help). It looks like IGMDP is the umbrella for all indigenous missile development since the 1980s. So is the article about the government program, or modern Indian missiles? And Tipu Sultan?? The content looks to me like it should be placed as the lead article in Category:Guided missiles of India - so why not call it Guided missiles of India? If you choose to stay with IGMDP then I think the text needs quite a bit more about the program and its politics. (There's a bad US program example at DD(X).) Best of luck! Mereda 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Barraux[edit]

Could the whole article be reviewed???Chris5897 10:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm very mistaken, hasn't much of the article being copied verbatim from [16]? Trebor 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes it looks like a significant portion of the history section is a clear copyright violation. The page can be subject to a {{copyvio}} template unless this is re-written. — RJH (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • See the talkpage. Chris5897 claimed permission, and I've sent a request for confirmation which was positely replied to (and included permission for the images). The Wikimedia OTRS permission address has been emailed, but I've gone ahead and restored the article until they can respond. It's still going to have to be rewritten though, since it's not very encyclopedic right now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Toyota Camry[edit]

This article has a good description of history including sales status in other countries outside the US. Each model (generation) from 1982 has sufficient information talking about the changes made as well as the platform and engine. There are also plenty of pictures in this article. To me, this article seems ready for GA nomination. However, I want to know what really needs to be worked for a GA nomination and in the future, a FA nomination. Starcity ai 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The most obvious problem is the lack of references. Guettarda 15:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignore trying for GA status: that appears to have become an example of a tempest in a teapot with no intent of ever offering help to editors in improving their articles. Your time would be better spent getting this article to "A status" & then applying for FAC. -- llywrch 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Stevia[edit]

This article has undergone many improvements over the past few months, and is now fairly stable, receiving only a minor edit now and then. Please comment on anything that might prevent it from qualifying as a Wikipedia good article. Eventually I would like to see it reach Featured Article status. Thanks. -Amatulic 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Some sentences don't flow. "It has recently seen greater attention with the rise in demand for low-carbohydrate, low-sugar food alternatives, and is widely used as a sweetener in Japan, and is available in the US and Canada as a food supplement." It's hard to see what the main focus of that sentence is - it's sort of pieced together with double use of 'and is'. The first section is entitled "uses" but seems also to be a mix of history and science, jumping about different countries and dates. The facts are there but aren't presented very logically, in my opinion. Are the "health concerns" worthy of half the article (I'm not saying they aren't - I've never heard of the plant before and health concerns may be the main reason it's notable). The lead should reflect the whole article (and attempt to touch upon each section, however briefly) yet does not mention anything about the health concerns which is the majority of the article. Trebor 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Trebor, I addressed some of your concerns above, indicated by striking them out. The lead should be much better now; I moved some sentences from "Uses" into it and renamed the "Uses" section to "History and use". Stevia has been the subject of much controversy as a sweetener, with FDA actions suspected to be motivated by sweetener industry interests, so the health concerns section is indeed worthy of a good portion of the article (just look up stevia on google and you will find hundreds of inflammatory anti-government anti-industry articles about it; I tried to cite only the ones with scientific basis). There's so much information on that topic that I can't figure out how to make it any more concise! -Amatulic 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. The lead is definitely better. The article as a whole is written quite well, but there are quite a few 2 sentence paragraphs which possibly could be expanded or linked. The health concerns section is referenced well, but the history could do with a couple of cites. The order of sections at the bottom doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT (just look at another featured article and copy how they do it). And it could probably do with a couple more pictures. But it's looking pretty good. Trebor 07:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia[edit]

Hello. I was hoping to use the peer review process to improve the Lostpedia article. It recently survived an AfD. Several editors of the article are new to Wikipedia and may not be 100% familiar with all the policies and guidelines. Thanks in advance! --Jabrwocky7 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Tamil Nadu[edit]

This article on the history of the Tamil Nadu state in south India covers an extensive period of time - from pre history to modern times. Tamil Nadu is an ancient land with very rich culture and history. The length of the article may be a bit larger than that recommended, but I think the subject warrants such a length. I would like to request comments on improving this article further. Thanks - Parthi talk/contribs 10:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  1. One thing that immediately strikes out is the possible use of neologisms and POV words in the subtitles. Take "Evolution of Dravidian politics" - does this mean that the politics of the Chola/Pandya years were not "Dravidian?" Titles like "Dawn of History" and "Dark Ages" need to actually be used by historians - must not be individual interpretations of that chunk of history. "Dawn" is especially a bit dramatic - omit please. "East India Company?" Which one? There the title should be "European colonisation." Also, please use only Commonwealth English. Rama's arrow 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In the heading 'Evolution of Dravidian politics' the word 'Dravidian' has been deliberately highlighted to note that the exploitation of the Dravidian label was a political move by the Justice party and its off shoots in the early part of the 20th century. I have changed Dawn of history to 'Early history'. Dark age has been used in books on history to denote the lack of information during this period. East India company ihas been deliberately linked to the dab page to denote that all the major players (Dutch, French, English, etc) were in action in Tamil Nadu. - Parthi talk/contribs 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Shorten the lead, as per WP:LEAD.
  2. The NASA satellite map of South India is not a good first picture - where is the distinction between the Tamil-speaking areas and the rest of South India?
I will try and find a suitable replacement. - Parthi talk/contribs 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Awkward wording, improper sentences: Tamil Nadu provided its share of revolutionaries and martyrs for the Indian independence struggle. - provided its share? Very awkward. An indigenous 'Dravidian' movement arose during the 1930s to demand secession of Tamil Nadu from the rest of India. - the use of indigenuous and Dravidian? Btw, I don't think this should be in the lead, for as far as I know, this demand for independence was from a Dravidian fringe group which did not develop further. As far as I know, the DMK never called for independence. Rama's arrow 16:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the lead para. - Parthi talk/contribs 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. IMO, the entire subsection on the impact of the LTTE insurgency in Sri Lanka needs to go. Granted that this has affected TN, but this can be summarized in a few sentences in the prior "Dravidian politics" section, which is in fact the only uniting feature between TN and the LTTE. Instead of this Sri Lanka insurgency mention, I'd like to see more information on economic development, the AIADMK-DMK election wars, etc - more relevant to TN and not Sri Lanka.
I disagree. The Sri Lankan episode is a major watershed event in the recent history of Tamil Nadu. It is still showing its impact in the politics of that state. - Parthi talk/contribs 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Sri Lankan conflict subsection

Present: On going ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka resulted in the first Eelam War (1983-87) in 1983, following an ambush by Tamil guerrillas on the Sri Lankan army. The news of the ambush caused widespread outrage and a violent backlash against Tamils in the south of the island resulting in a large numbers of Tamils fleeing to the north, and from there to Tamil Nadu. The sudden appearance of over one hundred thousand displaced, embittered Tamils resulted in a surge of political support from the Dravidian political parties of Tamil Nadu. They exerted pressure on the Indian government to intercede with the Sri Lankan government on behalf of the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. The two rival Dravidian parties aligned themselves with the corresponding rival groups fighting the Sri Lankan government. The Indian government of Indira Gandhi supported the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka by sponsoring various militant groups. The Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord of 1987 resulted in the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployed in the north of Sri Lanka and brought India directly in conflict with LTTE, one of the main Tamil militant groups. The deployment ultimately proved to be a failure and the IPKF was withdrawn in early 1990. Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister during this period was assassinated in May 1991 by an LTTE operative while campaigning in Tamil Nadu. This act and the war between the IPKF and LTTE caused a considerable cooling down of sympathy in the Dravidian parties towards the Sri Lankan Tamil cause.

Problems:

  1. "Ealam War" - is it an official term?
  2. "sudden appearance," "embittered Tamils" - dramatic generalization.
  3. Too much info about the conflict in Sri Lanka as opposed to what was happening in TN.
  4. "Two rival Dravidian parties aligned themselves with corresponding rival groups" - which groups? Awkward sentence and awkward use of "corresponding."

Here is what I'd include: On going ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka large numbers of Tamils fleeing to Tamil Nadu. The plight of Tamil refugees caused a surge of support from Tamil political parties. They exerted pressure on the Indian government to intercede with the Sri Lankan government on behalf of the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. The then-Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in Give exact date by an LTTE operative for his role in sending Indian peacekeepers to Sri Lanka to disarm the LTTE. This act and the war between the IPKF and LTTE caused a considerable cooling down of sympathy in the Dravidian parties towards the Sri Lankan Tamil cause.

  1. There is no need to go into depth of the conflict in Sri Lanka when an article link is already provided. Stick to what happened in TN in response to the problem in Sri Lanka.
I have made the changes recommended. - Parthi talk/contribs 05:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"Dravidian"
  1. Although you are more knowledgeable than me on this subject, I think there is a distinct problem in using the term "Dravidian" for grouping political parties, etc. The term "Dravidian" includes people of all southern states, while this article is solely on TN - a distinction is necessary.
  2. "Dravidian" in political terms is also a POV - Periyar and DMK are pushing for south Indians to be identified as "Dravidians" as a ethno-nationlist argument. Use "Dravidian" to describe historical details on culture, ethnicity and languages, but be careful of its use in political terms. Rama's arrow 18:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have renamed the heading to 'Evolution of regional politics'. I think this removes the emphasis on the Dravidian tag. - Parthi talk/contribs 05:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
added 3 fact templates for first half of the article. Could those be taken care of? - Tutmosis 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Citations added - Parthi talk/contribs 21:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments. Hmm, looks like I forgot to hit save on my comments. It looks very close to FA overall. The coverage is pretty well balanced accross timeframes, which is hard to do. The biggest problem is the lead section is a bit hagiographic. Don't editorialize, just give us the facts. - Taxman Talk 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the lead. I'm not sure whether I have fixed the problem. If you can highlight some specific suggestions for improvement, I will incorporate them. Thanks - Parthi talk/contribs 02:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments
  1. Kattabomman and Maruthupandiar, who fought against British 50 years before the Sepoy Mutniy should be mentioned
done. - Parthi talk/contribs 05:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Chola Empire extended to South East Asia also. Please Use that map
done. - Parthi talk/contribs 05:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. I have edited a para in the Evolution of Regional Politics  Doctor Bruno  01:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you please change the very first line of the article to something, errrr, more "profound" Tintin (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten the first sentence. Do you think it looks profound enough? ;) - Parthi talk/contribs 09:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) Tintin (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-Independence Period

  1. There is no information on socio-economic development, general public life in this section.
  2. An overemphasis is placed on the Dravidian movement, DMK politics. I suggest toning down of language, trimming of the section. Defer more information to the appropriate forks instead of explaining everything here.
  3. Dissolution of the Madras Presidency?
  4. Kaveri dispute?
  5. Development of Chennai? Rama's arrow 19:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I have included a few sentences on the socio-economic changes and the dissolution of the Madras Presidency. I have also reduced the extent of the text on the Dravidian politics. I'm not sure whether the Kaveri Dispute or the development of Chennai would be appropriate here. I'm open for any suggestions theough - Parthi talk/contribs 04:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just two small suggestions, which you can feel free to ignore if you think they don't add value to the article:

  • In my opinion, the kutavolai (குடவோலை) system merits a mention in the section on the Chola dynasty in mediaeval period. That village officials were actually elected rather than being appointed by the king is unusual enough to make it sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the main article.
  • The sentence "DMK eventually abandoned this secessionist agenda" is a little vague - their secessionist agenda was at the time seen as a significant threat to Indian unity, and the reasons why they abandoned the agenda in my opinion merit inclusion. I suggest rewording it to read "The Tamilisation of the Congress Party in Madras during the late 1950s and the strong pan-Indian emotions whipped up by the Chinese invastion of India in 1962 led to the demand for Dravidistan losing some of its immediacy. Consequently in 1963, when the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of India, precluded secessionist parties from contesting elections, the DMK chose to formally drop its demand for an independent Dravidistan, focusing instead on securing greater functional autonomy within the framework of the Indian Constitution.[8]" (there's a reference included in the text, which you'll find if you view the page source). -- Arvind 15:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have made these changes. I will add a citation for the chola elections today. - Parthi talk/contribs 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Citations added. - Parthi talk/contribs 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Meenakshi Temple

Just a minor suggestion for now. The caption under the Meenakshi Temple of Madurai says it was "built by the Nayak king". There are many sources that say the main body of the temple was started by the Pandyas, perhaps in the 13th century, and the inner sanctum of the temple is thought to be much much older still. Perhaps for npov, ...the temple, renovated by the Nayak king or something along those lines? Wubbabubba 09:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Caption changed to reflect this suggestion. - Parthi talk/contribs 09:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Computational phylogenetics[edit]

This article is a recently failed GA. Although the review was not terribly...detailed, it makes the good point that the article is very dense and technical. There's also the problem that I'm essentially the only author (before my first edit it was a one-sentence stub), and that's never good for either comprehensiveness or accessibility. Any thoughts from knowledgeable non-experts (or of course anyone familiar with the subject) would be great. (I'm guessing the tree rearrangements are a particularly sticky spot?) Opabinia regalis 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just made some comments at the article thinking I was still reviewing it for GA. Feel free to move those here if this is more apropriate. --Aranae 05:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article races into jargon a bit too quickly. I think the lead of an article should be a description that one could read to a room in a nursing home (or 8th graders) and most of the folks would be able to follow what is going on. You might say what the purpose of CP is and what methods there are to approach the problem. You can then introduce the idea of the different methods (all in one sentence) and then expound on each of them with the detail you have in the lead. Foreshadow what the article is going to say and add a little bit of color. In the second lead paragraph, you mention progressive sequence alignment as a new idea without any context. If there is a common usage of this (for paternity testing?), it might be good to mention this, or even who does this kind of work. --Chrispounds 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a couple of examples to the lead to clarify what types of problems these techniques are used for, though I don't think the subject will ever be interesting to 8th graders and grandmothers. Although these techniques can be applied to pretty much any data that has a natural tree structure and discrete characteristics, there are relatively few problems that have that form, so there's not much practical application. Paternity testing doesn't have that formulation; you just need a kid and a few putative fathers - I suppose you could try plugging in sequences from a bunch of family members and attempt to reconstruct how they're related, but there probably isn't enough useful variation in the sequences to bother. Opabinia regalis 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The X-Files [edit]

I would appreciate comments on the page overall, with special focus on the plotline and references. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 20:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Trivia section is generally not good style, consider merging the info in it into other sections. Influences seem short, and limited only to the television and film; I'd very much like to see a section on larger cultural influences. More references are need, both in term of inline and more academic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Several notes/suggestions (apologies if this is overly long):
  • Overall I'd say this is a decent article in it's current form, but looking at the large (but attractive) infobox at the bottom I see there are many other articles relating to the subject. Regardless of my notes here, it's possible editors may wish to adapt this article into more of a survey approach, similar to how the main Star Trek article current exists (i.e. 1 paragraph on each major sub-section with a link to the main article regarding that subject). Any subject so attached to an active fan base has a tendency to attract non-encyclopedic article creep, so it might be best to tighten up the "main" article into the broadest possible overview of the subject and accept that whatever article creep occurs is focused more on the sub-articles. (My comments from here on are more nitpicks and suggestions/light critiques of the existing article)
  • After mentioning Chris Carter uses the term "mytharc" the article goes on to use this term throughout, which isn't advisable. Avoid neologisms for encyclopedia entries not to mention that use of terminology specific to this show may be off-putting to the casual reader as it does not conform to an out-of-universe approach.
  • The Legacy section seems to be awash with original, or at least uncited, research. I'm sure many of the shows listed were indeed influenced by the X-Files, but without citation a reader must assume that enthusiastic editors simply decided that such-and-such show reminds them of the X-Files for such-and-such reason. Also I'd remove the Buffy the Vampire line since the Buffy movie came out the year before the X-Files aired. Might be best to remove this whole section in toto until it could return with verifiable footnotes.
  • Influences seems more solid since it specifically states that Chris Carter or "the producers" drew upon those influences. Needs to be cited though.
  • In general I like the History section as it equally addresses both the plot and the creators involved, particularly for seasons 1-3. I'd like to see more discussion of notable writers and creators in the following subsections since after all there is a link to the individual episodes for those who want more details on plot matters.
  • The long quote in the Fight the Future section is unwieldy, particularly since there is a link to an article specifically about that movie. 1-2 sentences recapping the gist of that quote is more than sufficient.
  • As mentioned by a peer reviewer above, Trivia sections are to be avoided, particularly for a subject like this. Editor enthusiasm has a tendency to cause Trivia sections like this to expand exponentially.
  • The Taglines section seems to not add much particularly to this article. The catchphrases of the show are mentioned in the introduction. I would say that's enough, and those who want more details can follow external links.
  • I'd say shrink up the VHS section of the Merchandise section to 1-2 sentences about how they were released and that's it. As I assume none of these sets are currently for sale (except on E-bay or other used goods sales sites), the VHS versions of are historical interest for their existence...but not essential to a casual reader wishing to know what media are available regarding the subject. At the moment 30 or so lines of text are devoted to a list of items that are not available to be obtained or viewed by most readers.
--Markeer 17:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Recycling[edit]

Following a concerted effort to make this a featured article, the drive slowed and refined editing has become stagnant. The authors come from mainly technical backgrounds and would appreciate feedback on improving it. To compliment the waste management section and ongoing recent peer review of incineration a peer review of this article would be welcome. Thank you for your help in advance --Alex 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment A decent article; could be made a bit better, and make sure it represents a worldwide view. Has potential for expansion, but no need for massive re-write. --SunStar Net 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Could be a lot longer: how do countries put recycling into action? Wiki-newbie 18:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It does need cleaning up. There are incomplete sentences (see the criticism section), and I just moved two recycling techniques under the proper heading, out from under "drawbacks". The article may be stagnant, but it's not yet finished. -Amatulic 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple of things:
  1. Is it necessary to make clear the difference from "reuse" in the second sentence? The lead should probably be more concentrated on the subject matter, and less on semantics. For more, see WP:LEAD.
  2. I don't see a table of recycling rates around the world, showing the highest rates to the lowest. If properly cited, that would make fascinating reading. That said - it would be impossible to list the rates of all countries in the world, as such a massive table would be oppressive to the article. If you could compile one, or one as full as possible, and paraphrase it in this main article, that would be ideal.
  3. References need to be cleaned up to Wikipedia's citation style. See here, especially "cite web". Likewise, 13 separate citations is probably insufficient for an article of this size.
  4. The "Criticism" section could be expanded.

Hope some of this helps. Seegoon 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Old Louisville[edit]

Article still needs a copy edit and I'm still doing some general work on it, but let me know if there's anything glaringly confusing about it, still needing a citation, or any other serious problems. --W.marsh 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The first peer review for November - Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Never mind, looks like you already beat me to it :). I agree that it needs a copyediting: look at "Culture":

After years of decline with abandoned buildings and high elderly populations, in more recent years the culture of Old Louisville changed Old Louisville has a changed culture. New residents were [are?] not just college students using the area as housing, but also young professionals who wanted [want?] to live in Old Louisville, whomwhich the Courier-Journal's Velocity weekly has reported see the area as a hip, emerging center of culture in Louisville. This change is reflected in numerous coffeehouses, restaurants and bars opening in Old Louisville in the 1990s and early 2000s targetinged at the younger crowd .[2]

Old Louisville is one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Louisville, as evidenced by the General Election results in 2004, where itthe residents voted for John Kerry by a 60% margin and 66% voted against a proposal to amend the state constitution to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" by a 66% margin (which passed 75% to 25% in Kentucky).[20] AZ t 01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The article could use some copyediting, as mentioned. A map of the area would be useful, possibly with icons showing where the neighborhoods and/or landmarks are located. Also, a couple of the pictures (like Image:Picture 1025.jpg and Image:Picture 1003.jpg aren't really horizontal, which is kind of distracting. Image:St James Art Fest.jpg doesn't add a lot to the article -- it just looks like a bunch of people visiting tents. The picture doesn't distinguish between an art festival in one city versus any other. On the positive side, the article does a good job of explaining the development of the area, its decline, and its resurgence. I'm most interested in the preservation interests and in its nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. (By the way, I mentioned this peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, in case anyone there has any input.) It's an interesting article, and with a little bit of work, it could be A-class. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. On the pictures, regretfully myself and another editor, neither of us particuarly good photographers, provided most of them... they really don't do the neighborhood justice and I've been trying to improve them, but I've always hoped an actual photographer would come along with better images. Feel free to rezise any of them as appropriate. I will probably remove the art festival image if this goes to FAC, since you're right that it doesn't add a great deal. I'll get to work on a map too, that would be helpful.
As for the preservation, that's largely the neighborhood associations concern... right now my understanding is that it's hard but not impossible for developers to rezone and modify the older buildings (a relatively well preserved mansion was recently converted to condos, to much dismay from preservationists). I'll see about adding a section for preservation eventually, or integrate it into revitalization (since preservation was what initially sparked interest in professionals moving to the area and preserving it, rather than just converting it to cheap housing). I remember reading about the Hational Register of Historic Places campaign, nothing specific off the top of my head, but I'll add that when I find it again (the information, not the top of my head). Anyway, thanks again, this is all very useful. --W.marsh 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a new image on Flickr to show the art fair a bit better. Also I found a bunch of images on Flickr I didn't know where there, if anyone with a better eye for design than me wants to pick out some good ones to illustrate this article, have at it: these should all be CC-by-2.0 and usable by us --W.marsh 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some good photos in the Flickr set. Here are a few good ones: Amazing, Houses, Stone and Glass, and Someone's Home. I also edited the two photos already in the article to straighten them out, so they looked more horizontal. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thaddeus S. C. Lowe[edit]

This article seeks nomination for Feature Article.--Magi Media 06:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)



Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I award you this condign and well-deserved barnstar for all your outstanding contributions to the many Biography articles - Anas Salloum 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially on your amazing contributions to the Thaddeus S. C. Lowe article. Good job Mike! ANAS - Talk

Ch'onma-ho[edit]

Just need a review to improve the article. This is not meant as a review for a featured article candidacy. I just want to get it there - I plan for many peer reviews. Any help for improving the deployment section especially would be appreciated! Thank you! JonCatalan 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Only skimmed it briefly, but a couple of things stood out. The lead is a bit weak - it's too specific, doesn't give enough of an overview. One of the cites is to another WP article which shouldn't be done. The website in the references should be hyperlinked - check a featured article to see how they do it. The first 3 sections look quite good. Trebor 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I worked on it a bit. All the units, except the ones I missed, should have the space between them, and all the stuff the automated peer review suggested has been followed except the weasel words, since a lot of the times weasel words had to be used given the lack of information. Nevertheless, I will go into a more thorough review of what I wrote at a later date to reword what I can. I changed around the lead, although I still don't think it can be considered strong, and I linked all the references to the websites which are referred to. Regards, JonCatalan 21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a tricky article to edit fairly because of the ambiguity surrounding it. Quick question surrounding the pluralisation of the word: should "Around 90% of the Ch'onma-ho is indigenously produced" be "are"? Trebor 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, 90% of Ch'onma-ho is produced within the context of 90% of the parts that make up the tank, as opposed to 90% of total tank production. JonCatalan 23:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh, okay. I read it completely wrong. Trebor 07:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like really good work overall, on a very difficult subject. Your references look very solid, although I'm not really in a position to judge. I think the biggest problems which this article currently faces are style and tone. In particular, adverbs and phrases like "certainly" seem out of place, given that the article's subject is only sketchily known. Also phrases like this:

Between 1939 and 1953 much of Spain's armour fell into disrepair due to its age, and the same could be true for the North Korean military.

are skirting the edge of a WP:NOR violation, and should really be either sourced (tell us exactly who has speculated thus), or removed. Again, congrats on the good work with this article! -- Visviva 07:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Paulins Kill[edit]

Thank you all in advance for your reviews and suggestions. I am seeking general suggestions for improvement with the intention of recommending this article for Featured Article status. I am the chief contributor to this article, expanding from a few line stub to its current look. Please be as brutal as possible, especially with suggestions for copyediting and reduction of any redundant or superfluous text (i'm notorious for that). I thought about first seeking good article status, but I feel that this article more appropriately meets the featured article criterion. User:Ruhrfisch had run the automated peer review script within the past 24 hours (located on the article's talk page) and I believe I have addressed most of the concerns raised by it. However, I am looking for further recommendations. Thanks again and I look forward to your commentary. —ExplorerCDT 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a fine article but I'm a little concerned with the amount of spliting of 2 sentences into their own paragraph. The article seems to be full of 2 sentence paragraphs which could be combined together to make a healthy weight paragraph. The lead might also need expanding since its made up of 3, 2 sentence paragraphs. Also the insect section is quite bare, could it be expanded? Last thing is the font size for the ToC and References might be a little too small, 95% is quite standard through out. Thanks. - Tutmosis 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the sentence thing and combined a few two-sentence paragraphs to create larger paragraphs. I'm tempted in the Flora and fauna section to just combine the content in each section into one paragraph each, rather than have one- and two-sentence paragraphs. I might just go ahead and do that, the paragraph breaks are rather illogical anyway. I'll work on seeing if I can improve the introduction and on including more insects (yeah, more bugs!). As to the TOC and References, I've noticed other Featured Articles (i.e. Michigan State University) use 80% and used their example. I would think at 95% you might as well just not reduce it at all, Given that a 5% reduction of a 12-point font is only a reduction by 0.211666667 millimeters. I doubt my eye would even pick that up. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. —ExplorerCDT 14:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review[edit]

portions that are struck out I think I've taken care of, as of this posting.—ExplorerCDT 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[4]
    • Noticed only a few usages of "today" and "recently" (the latter I kept because it is irreplacable).—ExplorerCDT 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.[6]
    • Done a few days ago.—ExplorerCDT 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
    • Renamed it to "In literature and popular culture".—ExplorerCDT 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • 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).[9]
      • All weasel words are cited.—ExplorerCDT 17:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Tried them, cleared out a few passages.—ExplorerCDT 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 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.
      • Several remaining "severals"/"variety of"/"many" are connected to lists, and seem to be needed. —ExplorerCDT 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
    • Doesn't apply, all footnotes that I see conform.—ExplorerCDT 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.[7]
      • I think I've copyedited as much as I am able given my connection to the article. I've asked others to do so, to see if I missed anything they'd see better parsed or rephrased. —ExplorerCDT 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Good suggestions, article meets or exceeds those applicable, IMHO. Thanks for running the script, Andy. —ExplorerCDT 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

More comments[edit]

I have done some copyedits to try and fix minor typos and tighten it up a little - please revert them if they make errors. I have some suggestions that I hope to enter here later today as well. Ruhrfisch 16:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, here goes. Some general comments first. I like all the refs added recently, but there are still some statements that are not (obviously) referenced and which will need to be for (or during) a FAC. In a related vein, ibid. is not used in Wikipedia refs as a later edit may insert a new ref between the original and the one referring to it via ibid. (which would be confusing). Instead, I would use the <ref name = 'something'>Blah</ref> the first time, then later instead of an ''ibid.'' ref for the next Blah cite, just cite <ref name='something'/> .
  • Course and Tributaries: The USGS cite (for the name) also gives the latitude and longitude for both the source and the mouth. The source is near Newton (in the marshy area). I think I would say this and start the description of the course there, then go downstream and also briefly describe or at least mention the major tributaries as they enter (so the current start of course would be moved down a bit as it is the first tributary, I think). The list of tributaries is OK, but might be clearer if it were listed in a geographic order (Wikiproject Rivers suggests upstream order, i.e. starting from the mouth) instead of alphabetic. I would also add the general direction of each section of the Kill and each of its tributaries in every case (already for the Kill in most instances, but at the start it does that "one long curlicue south, east, north, west, and southwest" to quote the recent comment on the talk page).
  • Valley: What mountain / ridge is the eastern border (only the western is mentioned)? Also "the valley of the Paulins Kill" is OK, but seems awkward when repeated often. Can you say "the Paulins Kill valley" or how about "watershed" instead of "valley" a few times? One place where I would use watershed is "The Paulins Kill and its watershed share the Mamakating valley with Papakating Creek, which flows northward to the Wallkill River..." Otherwise it is confusing which valley is meant (the larger Mamakating valley or the Paulinskill valley). Statement about the closeness of the Paulins Kill and Papakating Creek needs a ref.

More later, hope this helps Ruhrfisch 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll change the citations in question to "op. cit." because I am uncomfortable using the ref name thing.
  • Course & tributaries:I folded the tributaries into the course section of the article.
  • Valley: The article mentions that the eastern boundary of the valley is the NY-NJ Highlands, which is a string of hills and elevations, many of which are unnamed. I'll title the section "valley and watershed." I added a few mentions. Does that statement about their closeness need a ref...anyone who is interest could just look at a map (which would be what I'd cite).
P.S. Thanks for your copyedits, I look forward to your further suggestions. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - sorry I missed the Highlands. Here are my final comments.

  • Origins of the name: On a talk page you said the name is also officially recognized by the state of New Jersey - would it mke sense to add that here? I would rearrange the order of the paragraphs to be a better flow. Keep the first paragraph (The USGS...) as is. Move the second (The Paulins Kill was originally known as the Tockhockonetcong...) to last place. Keep the third paragraph as is (Local tradition says that the Paulins Kill was named for a girl named Pauline...). Move the current last (7th) paragraph here (A village named Paulina located...). This is followed by the current fifth (Two other possibilities for the naming of the Paulins Kill...) and sixth (Local tradition does place an Indian village named Pahaquarra...) paragraphs, with the Tockhockonetcong paragraph now last. This would put the Pauline / Paulina stuf together, then switch to Native American names, with all the P names first, Pauline/Paulina together, and the different T name last.
  • Other random comments: Where did the Military Road run - along the Paulins Kill? This was not clear to me. The Munsee were a tribe or phratry (love that word) of the Lenape. This is clear once place, not in another. In the opening section, is 'emigration' the right word to describe people moving from Phila. elsewhere? I like the flora and fauna section and would keep it as is, but is "listy" and someone may argue to split it off into a "List of flora and fauna of the Paulins Kill" (sub)article. Might also say too many subheaders in that section (can always go to bold). I thought See also listed related topics not linked in the article - so the viaduct and counties would not be listed there if I am correct. Finally, these are all suggestions. Change as you see fit. Take care, Ruhrfisch 21:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Origins: Moved around the paragraphs, but i keep the Paulina one where it was in the order since the Paulina reference has nothing to do with a girl's name.
  • Random: Military Road crosses the PK at Baleville in Hampton Township. Elaborated on that and it's significance. Munsee (like the Unami and Ulachitago(sp?)) where a tribe/phratry of the Lenape. I just hate that they keep perpetuating that bullshit about the phratry's using animal symbols, that has been disproven so many times by Herbert Kraft, C.A. Weslager, and people who actually knew something about the Lenape. etc. I'll leave the Paulinskill Viaduct link there just because it's a notable structure, and it should be a "see also" The counties are out. As to emigration, dictionary says "To leave one country or region to settle in another." (emphasis mine). As for flora and fauna, would the section work better without the subsection headers, as one big block? —ExplorerCDT 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry that I edited the article before I saw your comments above, especially about the Paulina paragraph move (this was not on my Watchlist then). I put the Flora and fauna subheaders back in as bold items (so they are not in the TOC, but still there to break up and identify the text). That section seems light on references. Is the bridge in the postcard for the Military Road (also at Baleville)? I am fine on emigration. I just did some more copyedits, but am otherwise done for now. Let me know when this is in FAC, and take care, Ruhrfisch 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's where the Military Road crosses the PK. Actually there are two bridges there, the area is shown on maps (though in Baleville) as "Twin Bridges." I'll figure out some references on the flora and fauna.—ExplorerCDT 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Cool - it was just a guess on my part - is that worth noting in the postcard caption? Ruhrfisch 03:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Good guess, that it was. It's probably not worth noting, without having to expand the caption to a paragraph or so. It's mentioned in the article, so I think that might suffice, unless you feel differently.—ExplorerCDT 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
            • If anything, I would mention it in the article itself "(the bridge is visible in the 1905 postcard, above)" but even that is probably not needed. I found it helpful to watch the FAC page for a while before I nominated Larrys Creek to see what sorts of things to expect once an article is nominated. I've enjoyed this review process and it has given me some ideas for my next 'big' creek article - thanks and let me know if I can be of assistance. Good luck, Ruhrfisch 04:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't stop ;-) - just reread and made a few more minor copyedits. The unclear Munsee / Lenape sentence I was refering to (in a previous version) was "The Paulins Kill was originally known as the Tockhockonetcong by the local Native Americans who were either Munsee, or Lenni Lenape." (my emphasis, since changed, thanks). Hope these suggestions were helpful. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Promiscuous (song)[edit]

A fine song, and I think this article's notability is deserving enough for it to reach FA status. Please dive in and offer your thoughts. Velten 18:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Footnote 1,7 and 8 have no information. Can this be fixed? - Tutmosis 02:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Anything else? Velten 02:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well using the wonderful "Article content" section from Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs I have a couple pointers. Personally I feel the article is incomplete especially the "Background and writing". I want to know more about what the lyrics talk about, I think "describes two-sided relationship of promiscuous girl" explains little. You mention in the lead that Timberland co-wrote, and produced the song. Can this be discussed more? Except the fact that she wrote with Timothy Clayton because his an intresting guy, can more be mentioned about the writing process? When/where did they write it, what inspired them, what they trying to convey in the lyrics? Why was Timbo and Danja listening to "Talking Heads, Blondie, Madonna, The Police and Eurythmics" while producing? Also what do you mean "The reference was considered good-natured"? Was the song an influence on popular culture, like say were there any skits on Mad TV or something? Good Luck. - Tutmosis 19:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • These are excellent suggestions. Velten 00:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest nominating for GA first and see whether it'd pass. The FA song "Fuck the Millennium" may suggest some ideas to improve the article. LuciferMorgan 11:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tagged a few statements with {{fact}}. If you're aiming for FA (although I feel this article is currently some way off) you'll have to move to inline citations rather than relying on the general references section at the bottom for some of the information. I think the lead is a bit thin (see WP:LEAD) and also the "Background" section doesn't really set the scene - not knowing much about Furtado I came away feeling none the wiser. That said, this is well above average and I personally would consider passing it for GA once the {{fact}} tags are dealt with. --kingboyk 12:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ioannis Makrygiannis[edit]

I'm considering submitting for GA, after, I hope, adressing all the issues raised in the previous peer review. Please point out any reason why I shouldn't submit it. :D Druworos 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good article and appears to meet the GA criteria, but I found a few minor errors that need correction:
  • There are some spelling errors (opression, apointed, untill, ommisions and halucinations) so I suggest running it through a spelling checker.
  • "guerilla styled" needs a hyphen.
  • irreverend => irreverent
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I ran it through a checker, and corrected everything. Druworos 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice article. I don't think it will have any problem with GA. Some remarks for further improvement (not necessarily GA orientated!):
  • I think you should use italics and not quotations for Memoirs of General Makrygiannis (per WP:ITALICS).
  • The lead could be a bit more expanded; maybe one more paragraph per WP:LEAD.
  • "Ioannis Triantafyllou ... was born in the village of Avoriti, in the vicinity of Doris (Makrygiannis (Long John) was a cognomen he acquired due to his tall stature). He was born into a poor family." Repetition of the same form of expression. An example of prose improvements needed (not for GA, but for any future FA candidacy).
  • "He probably joined the Filiki Etaireia in 1820." Because of the "probability" I'd like a citation here (I'm a citation-freak, as you know!).
  • "In late 1821 he left for Mesolonghi, but there, according to his memoirs,[2] he fell seriously ill until March 1822." Try to have citations at the end of the sentences. Keep them in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary.
  • I think that in "Activity during the War of Independence" one of the most obscure parts of Makrygiannis career, his controversial role during the civil wars among the revolted Greece, is underanalysed.
  • Who are klephts? I may know, but not everybody. When you need such terms, offer a short explanation. A wikilink is not always enough!
  • "For his leading role ... When summoned to the palace and asked to denounce all the conspirators of 1843, he refused, saying "I am not a slave". This part in "The Reign of King Othon I" looks like a digression in your narration. Assessments for previous and current events all mixed and an interruption of what you were telling. Maybe you could create an "Assessments" or "Legacy" or "Fame" or something like that section, where you could include this part enrivhed with more material.--Yannismarou 19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I did use Italics throughout my re-write, but that one in the lead was left over from the previous version, and I somehow overlooked it, thanks for pointing it out! The rest of the issues I will try to adress ASAP. Thanks for all the comments! Druworos 20:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I worked on the lead, I hope it will do now. I reworked the born sentences into one sentence, and I changed "he probably" to "according to..." etc with a citation. I also moved the citation you pointed out to the end of the sentence. I changed "klephts" to "irregular bands of klephts", with a wikilink to Irregular military. Hopefully, that should make it clear enough. I dont want to digress on the klephts any longer, but I dont want to remove the word either.... I agree his part in the civil war is underanalysed, but that's all I can do with my sources at present. As for your last point, I'm looking into what I might do. Druworos 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I reworked the above ("For his leading role ... "I am not a slave") and integrated it into the following paragraph. Hopefully this makes it fit into the overall text better. I'm afraid creating a separate "Legacy" section is beyond the scope of my abilities, at present. Druworos 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I checked for weasel words (coming up with nothing, thankfully), adjusted the dates and one header, and added a persondata thingy, as per the suggestions. Thanks! Druworos 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy[edit]

Plan is to get this up to FA: It's a controversial article, but I've always been impressed at how well it's done. All suggestions welcome, though please don't just shout about howwe're all going to Hell. It tends to offend. Adam Cuerden talk 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, an intresting read. Although I think it in a way its a little one sided. Reading it, it seemed to leave out scientific arguements against creationism, rather talk about what creationists challenge in evolution. In another note, I also not too fond of the History section full of bulletins. I would go as far as suggest it being removed. - Tutmosis 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It's an awkward article in some ways: It has to maintain a balance whilst making clear Creationism isn't scientific. This isn't easy to balance, and I think it manages quite well in a difficult situation. Could possibly stand to be a little stronger, though. Adam Cuerden talk 00:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
We'll I'm not saying the article is bad, don't get me wrong. Its just was a random comment about a small impression I got. Article definetely doesn't violate Neutral Point of View. My main concern is the bullet "History" section which looks akward and out of place. I wish to see it become prose and maybe even merged with "Ramifications of the controversy". What do you think? - Tutmosis 01:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This article gives as more respect to creationists then they deserve. Any more skewing would misrepresent the actual facts.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talkcontribs) 11:15, 24 November 2006

True... it HAS undergone a certain drift in the wrong direction since I first found it. I shall try and redress this. Adam Cuerden talk 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help assist bringing this article up to FA status, it looks like an interesting project. I want to thoroughly review both article and talkpage, as well as the Review (so far I've just skimmed them). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Glee Club[edit]

I have been working on this article for a bit. I think it's concise and well-enough written, but I want to improve the flow within the subsections and I'd like to improve the references and see-also section but I'm not totally sure how. I don't want to link to the group's website over and over again. I would like feedback and fixes from people who are totally unrelated to either the group or the school in general but who appreciate its significance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmz5 (talkcontribs) .

  • I'll give this one a run-through in the next few days. Looking at your contribution history, I also notice you're fairly new to Wikipedia (kind of like me!). Welcome! Just to let you know, on Wikipedia, it's a good idea to sign your posts. Just add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post, and the signature is added for you automatically. :) Cheers, Gzkn 13:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overall, this is a pretty well written article, and the structure makes sense. With some work, I think we can approach good article status.
    • First, did you get a chance to read through the automated review? It has some good general advice about the article.
    • Citations Tutmosis pointed out above some handy links that all Wikipedians should be familiar with. And all the citation templates, including citeweb, are incredibly useful, in my opinion. Are you affiliated with Harvard? If so, do you have access to the libraries? That should probably give you enough different sources (and printed ones, too) so that we won't have to constantly link to the group's website. I did a quick search through the HOLLIS catalog and the results looked promising. Also, the Crimson's archives might be useful. I note, too, the sentence "the Glee Club's archives hold a number of long feature articles about the tour in a variety of newspapers". If you have access to those archives, that would be incredibly useful for expanding the History section.
    • The lead, as mentioned in the automated review, could be expanded per WP:LEAD.
    • ...they also hold appointed positions such as Manager, Financial Manager, Sales Manager, and so on... Who appoints them? Also, why "and so on"? Is the list of appointed positions very long? If so, pick and choose some important ones - no need for "and so on".
    • Each tour and major project, such as a large concert or recording project, has its own manager Repition of "project".
    • ...taking care of virtually every fact of the group... "Aspect" might work better than "fact". Or did you mean facet?
    • The Glee Club rehearses in Holden Chapel in Harvard Yard, one of the oldest college buildings in America (built in 1744). How about The Glee Club rehearses in Holden Chapel in Harvard Yard. Built in 1744, it is one of the oldest college buildings in America.?
    • The group performs most of its concerts in Harvard's Sanders Theatre, which is renowned for its excellent acoustics. Sentence seems lonely and out of place :). Could it be integrated in a paragraph somewhere?
    • ...to become Glee Club conductor as well. "As well" is unnecessary.
    • 1921 saw... Avoid starting sentences with a number/year. How about "The year 1921..."?
    • Like I mention above, consider expanding the History section using the Glee Club's archives to include more details. It seems like they have quite an interesting past.
    • In the past few years alone... No need for "alone".
    • Might the last sentence in History be better suited for the About the Current Group section?
    • Use some synonyms for "repertoire" in the beginning of Musical tradition, as the first three sentences all contain the word.
    • Second paragraph of Musical tradition is only one sentence, and should probably be incorporated into the first paragraph.
    • The logo could use a caption saying what it is, when it was adopted, etc. Also, could we perhaps get an image of the Glee Club in concert to replace the promotional material one?
    • I actually happen to think the See Also section is good enough as is. I'm wary of making articles too "listy", as it invites people to include numerous random links that are peripherally related to the topic.
    • The most glaring issue is the lack of citations. Working through the article and incorporating inline citations will take a good deal of time and patience, but it's well worth it.
    • Hope this was helpful. If you have any questions/comments, let me know. Good luck! Gzkn 03:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

University of Illinois Observatory[edit]

Looking for review help to get this to GA or FA status. A mcmurray 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The lead doesn't do the article justice (in size), also the exact adress has to go (unencyclopedic). "housed in the Observatory building" makes no sense, how can a building be inside another building? Can "Other discoveries" be converted to prose? Also I didnt catch any information regarding why it closed and if it was replaced by another observatory. Thanks. - Tutmosis 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tips so far, I have made a few changes but have noticed more that need to be made. A mcmurray 09:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Blondie (band)[edit]

How could it possible be improved, as I hope for it to get to FA status. Thanks, KiloT 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The prose is generally good, but by the end seems to have a lot of 1-2 sentence paragraphs which could be linked or expanded. There are some cites, but more are needed (e.g. "They remain the only American act to reach number one in the UK singles charts in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s"). Another couple of images would be good as well - particularly some more recent ones. Trebor 19:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

National emblem of Belarus[edit]

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? Bastiqe 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)

IPod Shuffle[edit]

I think this article is good, but may still need expanding. I will try to expand it, but will need help. Thanks! Jmclark911 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article suffers from a lack of inline citations. Some random examples:
    • According to Apple, owners of existing iPods had often left the music selection to "shuffle", and the new iPod shuffle was a way of implementing that in a much more cost-effective fashion.
    • The first generation shuffle weighed only 0.73 ounces.
    • It plugs directly into a computer's USB port (either 1.1 or 2.0), through which it also recharges its battery, which has an expected life of around 12 hours between charges.
    • Apple branded it as the "world's smallest MP3 player".
    • The Impact section definitely needs some more sourcing. Some parts of it look like original research right now.
    • Due to its small size (8.38 × 2.49 × 0.84 cm or 3.3 × 0.98 × 0.33 inches), Apple's web site declared first generation iPod shuffle "smaller than a pack of gum and much more fun," with the footnote on its American web site: "Do not eat iPod shuffle." Go to archive.org to find that version. Same with the next paragraph
  • Lead could be beefed up. Describe its operation (the fact that it has only two modes, no LCD screen, etc.). How successful has it been for Apple (units sold, etc.)?
  • The iPod shuffle is designed to be easily loaded with a selection of songs and to play them in random order. Sentence makes it seem as if the shuffle can only play songs randomly, which is not the case.
  • weighed only 0.73 ounces metric equivalent?
  • iTunes offers some new features for iPod shuffle. Is "new" the right adjective here? Perhaps "unique" may be a better fit?
  • lone 1 GB model at US$79, UK£55 or CDN$89 Pick one currency, then put the others in parens.
  • Link NPD to the right company, not the disambiguation page.
  • Numbers like 5th and 3rd should be "fifth" and "third".
  • No need to link those dates.
  • Those one sentence paragraphs can be combined with others to improve flow: "The main program that supports the iPod shuffle is iTunes, which is bundled with the product and can be updated from the Apple web site. Users can download music from an online music store and use the iTunes software to upload it to the device.". Also, the Criticisms section can be one paragraph.
  • Some clunky and ambiguous prose. A few examples and ways to improve:
    • and the new iPod shuffle was a way of implementing that in a much more cost-effective fashion --> and the new iPod shuffle gave consumers a more cost-effective way of doing so
    • The unit also comes with a lanyard that attaches to the iPod shuffle via an attached cap and this allows the user to wear the iPod shuffle around his or her neck. --> "The unit also ships with a lanyard that attaches to the iPod shuffle's cap. This allows users to wear the shuffle around their necks."
    • offers such things as --> "offers items such as" Gzkn 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Poppers[edit]

I personally think that the references section of this needs a good clean, but any ideas on the article as a whole would be extremely helpful! HawkerTyphoon 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Hawker, what is a "good clean"? Is the section too large? If so, can it be moved or archived? The only concern I can see if it's moved or archived, is that it may be difficult for new Wikipedia users to understand how to access the information.
The only idea I have on the article as a whole, is that it needs to be as factual as possible. I was drawn to the article earlier this year, and have watched it grow into a much better article since then. It goes through stages where the opposing sides try to slant it one way or the other, but there are several people who seem to be watching out for that (myself included).
There's been an effort to encourage people to provide accuarate support for anthing they say in the article, and that's been useful and has resulted in a far more authoritative article. An example of what should be avoided is the insertion of statements making claims that are not supported, such as the one made today by Hank Wilson that mixing poppers and Viagra® has caused a number of deaths. That kind of statement is pretty strong, and should be supported before it's allowed to be posted.
There's also a never-ending effort to be on the look out for spammers and vandals, such as the one who inserted a range of what appeared to be popper brand names today.
There is one sometimes disputed link that comes and goes in this article. It's the one for http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/. Some people hate it, and others think it should be included. I've reveiwed the site, and although it seems to be pretty stongly pro-poppers (Note that it also contains anti-poppers information), the information it shows seems very credible.
Thanks for helping out on this article.Lt. Dan 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to reply: I've been involved with the article for a while - not as long as you though - and I'm just concerned that about 60% of all the references are all coming from a single site. I don't feel it's WP's place to Analyse studies; rather, that should be left to the people who read them. I think we need to
      1. Slim down the references without sacrificing content
      2. Re-order the sections, to perhaps make it more 'scientific' and the like
      3. Include a more worldwide view, including use in other countries, especially China and the far east.
Thanks for helping with the article too, no doubt you've done much more than I have!HawkerTyphoon 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Hawker: I agree. When I got involved, it seemed almost everything listed in the References section came from a bibliography which contained what appeared to be a number of studies on nitrites. I think it actually may have been more than your 60% figure. Reading this list, one got the unmistakable impression that the compound is very dangerous. But, if you Googled, or did other searches on "poppers", or the alkyl nitrites, there wasn't much to be found that pointed to any significant danger with this compound, other than items which almost always are associated with a small group of anti-popper (and, coincidentally, "anti-HIV virus") proponents -- almost all of which are tied to the list of references in the References section. It's like a loop of the same people saying the same thing over and over. I've also seen a lot of anecdotal data that leads you to believe this compound is relatively safe. The article was much too one-sided then. Now, with the study analyses, and additional links to sites that aren't so anti-popper slanted, there's a better balance. The goal is to get to NPOV.
Regarding your suggestion about sliming down the References section "without sacrificing content", how would you suggest doing it? I respectuflly don't agree with your comment that it's not WP's place to analyze these studies and that, rather, it "should be left to the people who read them". I have two concerns about that (aside from the fact that WP itself does not analyze anything): First, it's unlikely that many will read the studies. And, second, if you're not trained to understand science, pharmacology, etc, you won't be able to understand the studies. The analyses that have been done are a welcome addition to the article because, among other reasons, they help with POV, as well as give us, as lay people, insight into each study and what it means.
With regard to your suggestion that the sections be re-ordered, to make it 'more scientific', how would you propose that be done? In what order? FYI, I'd once suggested creating a "Further Reading" section, which could be a repository for links to sites and articles that are both pro and anti poppers. I think I actually may have created such a section earlier this year, but can't remember. If I did, someone long ago deleted it. But I still think it's a good idea, as it lets the reader see the scope of viewpoints on this chemical and its various uses, especially when used as 'poppers'. (Which I believe is the only reason this article even exists in Wikipedia.)
I agree with you that including a 'more worldwide view, including use in other countries, especially China and the Far East" is a good idea. It appears these products are sold and used in many countries around the world, and, in my research I recall having run across Chinese and Japanese language sites for poppers, but I don't have any clue as to what those sites said. Do you have any information that's in English?
An ultimate goal for the poppers article, is to see that it one day becomes as professional and credible as the [17]LSD article.200.91.90.34 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: I forgot to log in; this is Lt. Dan.)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There are some good ideas for improving the poppers article to be found in the automated peer review suggestions.

The automated peer review's most notable suggestion, is about the Lead. Per Wikipedia, they state that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."

Anyone care to dig in and give it a try? Lt. Dan 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I have a sinking feeling that no one wants to step up and help with rewriting the Lead on this article.
I would be happy to give it a go, but time is an issue. However, if this article is to be one of the best on Wikipedia, it needs to be done.
I was checking nominated FA sites, and one that's getting huge positive reviews is on the London Fire[18] The Lead on this article is getting lots of attention as being among the best on Wikipedia.
The poppers article needs a well written Lead. So, I'll take a stab at it. But I can use all the help anyone can give me! Lt. Dan 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is a first pass at what I think is an enhanced new Lead for the poppers article. Per the Wikipedia help pages, this new version encapsulates the information in the existing article, including the ‘basics’, ‘usage’ and ‘legal’ sections -- but not the 'health hazards' section. In the interest of POV, the input on the 'health hazards' section needs to come from more than one person. Wikipedia recommends 2-4 paragraphs, well sourced, in a good Lead (see FAC). If the attached new Lead remains essentially what I've created, there will be room for another paragraph or two to cover the 'health hazards' section. I'd prefer not to write a discription of the current status of the 'health hazards' section by myself. I think both sides of the debate need to participate in that process.

Here is the proposed new Lead:

  • "Poppers" is the street term used for nearly 50 years to describe the use of inhaled alkyl nitrites in a recreational context, primarily to enhance the sexual experience, and are particularly popular in the gay and avant guard heterosexual communities. These compounds imitate Amyl Nitrite, a drug that has been safely prescribed by doctors for a century and a half.
Amyl nitrite has long been marketed both as an over-the-counter drug and as a prescription drug, in thin-walled glass ampoules covered by cotton mesh and used primarily for the treatment of angina. Crushing the ampoule to inhale the fumes of the volatile liquid makes a popping sound, thus the term ”poppers”, a nickname that’s still used today, even for the non-ampoule varieties, which are typically small half-ounce bottles containing various different alkyl nitrites, and which have been sold around the world over the past 40 years as liquid aroma or liquid incense room odorizers in thousands of bars, bookstores, boutiques and on the Internet, the most common of which is called RUSH®, Liquid Incense. They are regulated by a variety of federal and local regulations and legal restrictions, though the status of the common cyclohexyl nitrite — technically not a member of the class of alkyl nitrites encompassed by the law — remains in question in the United States, as a result of the Federal Analog Act. When inhaled, alkyl nitrites almost instantly relax the body’s smooth muscles, inducing a euphoric ‘head rush’. A major lure of these products is their reputed value as aphrodisiacs. They are said to heighten and prolong sensation, especially orgasm. Nitrite users tend to be adults rather than adolescents.Lt. Dan 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Hawker, after discussion, and per your suggestion, I inserted the new Lead I'd written. However, within only a few minutes, you began editing it, removing important information, as well as inserting unsubstantiated statements, without first allowing for any discussion here or on the poppers Talk page. Would you be willing to kindly not make deletions or substantially edit the work until discussion has ocurred first? Too, please provide citation for any statements you insert. Your comment that poppers are commonly used by minors appears to have no basis in fact. I am attempting to stablalize the poppers article and work with others to hopefully arrive at consensous on content and design, for possible nomination as a FAC. Thank you. Lt. Dan 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hawker,

Would you be kind enough to discuss , either here in the Automatic Peer Review page, or over on the poppers article Talk page, any significant changes you're contemplating before making them? This gives other interested parties an opportunity to comment before any significant changes are made.

In the edit summary for your deletion of the mention of RUSH being the most common brand, you gave as the reason for your deletion the following: "removed reference to Rush - is it the most popular? we can't prove it, as people are hardly going to keep records of buying the stuff!"

The reason I noted that RUSH appears to be the most common of the bottled alkyl nitrites was because when you Google poppers, or rush poppers, etc, it becomes readily apparent that it's the brand that seems to be the one most talked about. There are numerous mentions on web sites where poppers are sold that RUSH is the most popular brand. Also, the Wall Street Journal printed the claim in it's front page story on poppers (In the piece, they claimed that both RUSH and Locker Room were the most common brands). And, it's common knowledge that "Rush" is one of only a few street names for poppers; it's actually synonymous with the word poppers. When a brand name becomes synonymous with the category of product, then it's one of the more common brands, if not the most popular. This would hold true for any category of product.

IMHO the Lead should give, as a point of reference to what these products are, at least one brand name so the reader is better informed. RUSH is the most obvious brand name to list.

That's why I think the sentence should be reinserted in the Lead. Lt. Dan 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I've added what could serve as the final paragraph in the lead section.
All the information I've added has been thoroughly fact-checked, cited and is fully supported.MDwife 07:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Good Job! This is more concise and helpful now.Toejam34 22:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead is good. Consider adding some reference about recent upsurge in youth using poppers in a dance/rave context.The concern in the UK where poppers use among youth has resulted in the website www.iabuse.org . The use by youth appears to be popular because of the immediate light headedness effect and increasing in sensitivity to sensations of sound and ...like in dance music. While use tends to be adults, it is relevant that youth use does occur and in non sexual context. I look forward to the lead being restored. And then on to the current controversy about risks, research, and relevance, especially to gays, bisexuals, navigating in the context of the AIDS epidemic.

209.244.188.83 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson209.244.188.83 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity (philosophy)[edit]

This article has apparently been getting a lot of needed attention from an expert in the field (certainly not me) but I thought it should get looked at by a broader set of editors. Is it comprehensible? Are the references adequate? -- Beland 04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I must say, the article leaves a really big hole by having a section on Objectivism without linking to the main article and having no mention of Ayn Rand. -Amatulic 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That would probably be true if Ayn Rand was a philosopher. The purpose of the section is to distinguish it from objectivity, as the two are often confused as synonomous (see Ayn Rand). Amerindianarts 09:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Passport[edit]

Previous Peer Review can be found here

The last review was over a year ago and the article is still good but is looking very messy and sprawly. I'd be very grateful for some further ideas about what we should do with this one. --Spartaz 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Purge the gallery and put the images in appropriate places. Wiki-newbie 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China (Taiwan) ever going to be worthy of an article? If not, delink it. Check the other red links as well, the next one I saw was flight risk which seems unlikely to ever be made as well. It's quite long and, as you say, 'sprawly'. Could the information about specific country's policies and any of the other 'list' type information be put in their own articles and summarised in the main article? The gallery could go as Wiki-newbie says, and some of the images located elsewhere on the page. There are very few cites for the length of article, in particular the history has only one. It seems very disjointed as well, I think it should be cut back quite severely and only general information included, with as little country-specific stuff as possible (as there are too many countries to mention them all on the page, and to focus on particular ones is POV). Trebor 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of country specific articles. Perhaps some of the stuff can be hoved off there with links from the sections of the main article. Thanks for the advice so far. very useful. Spartaz 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds quite good. That reminds me of another thing I was going to ask - is that aim to create an article on each nationality's passport? At the moment, British passport and Hungarian passport have their own articles, French passport redirects to French nationality law and German passport doesn't exist at all. Perhaps some country's passports are worthy of their own article while others aren't, I don't know, but it shows a lack of consistency. The whole topic could really do with some standardisation. Trebor 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
That's certainly a project we can look at longer term once we have sorted out the main article. Probelsm is that a lot of the individual articles that exist are pretty poor and unlikely to expanded much further. We can see. --Spartaz 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Red Links can be de-wikified  Doctor Bruno  00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Red Links are history. I have removed the gallery of passport again. Not sure how long this will last. --Spartaz 07:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The articles is already going through a lot of changes. Where should I go next when they are complete? Should we be looking at FA or GA? thanks Spartaz 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Lots of work to do. --Spartaz 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi[edit]

Hello I'm seeing if there is anything wrong with this article before I take it to Featured article candidates.I do think it probably needs more inline references.--Team6and7 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article needs to be rewritten with an out-of-universe perspective MoS. Also I definetely agree with you about the lack of inline references. There are also a lot of trivia looking sections. You can check out this wonderful examples of Star wars character articles; Padmé Amidala, Jabba the Hutt and Palpatine. - Tutmosis 20:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I will look in to doing that ,but I got rid of a trivia section before. I think you must mean the Outside of Star Wars section I moved most of the old trivia section into it if it fit into that section. It was there before I got rid of trivia section. I don't want to get rid of it do you think I should?--Team6and7 23:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well you probably be better off converting it into prose under "In popular culture". My comment also refered to "Expanded Universe" section which too needs to be converted into prose instead of bullets. - Tutmosis 00:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I guess the bullets were causing trouble I will format that better. Any thing else any do you think that the article needs. Team6and7 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Gun violence in the United States[edit]

Lately, I have been working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (mainly peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this topic, and am staying out of the Gun politics in the United States article. With the gun violence article, I have stayed with presenting the current state of research on this topic. I think is close to featured status, though some "gun rights" folks have already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Any suggestions on making in more NPOV. In reality, I feel that the article deals fairly with both POVs, citing strategies advocated by gun-control folks as ineffective, while citing some strategies advocated by the Bush administration as effective. Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Aude (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good article so far, get some external links and sort out that neutrality dispute. Wiki-newbie 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is fairly comprehensive, clearly written, and well-sourced. It covers an array of issues and represents different viewpoints. The following are some technical things (including some nitpicking) that should be considered for improving the article:
  1. Causation is confusing in this section: “Often cited as a cause, is the rise in crack cocaine in cities across the United States. With 17% of deaths in 2002 caused by firearms for those ages 15-19 in the United States, firearms were the second leading cause of death for this age group after motor vehicle accidents.” I get the meaning, but it’s clunky and disjointed here. Should be more clear what exactly crack is causing, and what guns are causing.
  2. Some technical writing problems need to be dealt with, such as the random comma in the crack sentence above. Other examples: “type not specified” needs to be in quotation marks. “In contrast, in 1998, the U.K. banned private ownership of handguns, with handgun ownership also prohibited in Japan” is a problematic sentence. This sentence structure, using “,with ____ .” tagged on to the end of the main clause recurs throughout the article, but is a poor construction. Something like: “In contrast, handgun ownership is prohibited in Japan and was similarly banned in the U.K. in 1998” would read better.
  3. Phillip J. Cook should be unlinked, unless you are planning to create a stub or article on him. Not all names and authors need to be linked and red links are distracting. There shouldn’t be any in a featured article, IMO.
  4. Structure: There are too many sections with only a few sentences. Many of these should be reworked into paragraphs using broader categories. For example, Homicides and suicides could both be under “Death by guns,” or some more suitable heading. The Federal legislation regulation firearms could be a paragraph or two on the “Evolution of federal regulation,” or something similar. It almost reads like a bulleted list as it is, whereas encyclopedia articles should be structured more by the prose itself. Headings are good and necessary, but shouldn’t be used to separate thoughts – paragraphs should do that, with the use of transition sentences for continuity.
  5. Note 38 needs a full citation.
  6. The introduction could probably be expanded more, and is also an opportunity to delineate the scope of the article. I’d avoid using statistics in this section.
  7. As for the most contentious issue, NPOV, I don’t think that tag is at all warranted. The language is not NPOV, and the article presents both gun rights and gun control viewpoints on fairly equal terms. I perused the talk page and I don’t find that anyone there gave a convincing explanation as to why it’s non-neutral, let alone the extreme “this is the worst case I’ve ever seen” assertions some made. One possibility might be to gather the info into clear sections, gun rights and gun control advocates, and devote a paragraph or two, of equal length, and do your best to encapsulate each position. That’s my “assume good faith” suggestion; you might want to consider some sort of mediation by an administrator if it ends up being plain obstructionism based on political differences. Mind you, it is a new article, and if the NPOV crowd does some editing instead of just barking on the talk page, it might just be a matter of time before it gets worked out to everyone’s satisfaction. Bobanny 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Woof, woof. :-) Have attempted to work the NPOV issues instead of just "barking" on the talk page, mostly to do with the choice of words in key places. As it now appears that the NPOV issues have largely been put to bed, have removed the NPOV tagline. It may go back if someone objects and puts it back, but I think the NPOV tone is greatly improved from where it was even a couple of days ago. Yaf 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for all these suggestions and critique. Number 3 and 5 are addressed, so far. I will try and work on the others tomorrow and/or Sunday. Please keep the critique and suggestions coming. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Number 1 and 6 have been dealt with, and copyedits made to make the article read better. (I think) I'm not sure about number 4. Personally, I think more headings help improve readability of text on the web. Most people are not going to read the entire article, word for word, but will scan the page to find specific sections that interest them. Headings help facilitate skimming and scanning. [19] --Aude (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The article could use a little more of a conversational tone. I see this only because I have been critiqued for this very issue myself in the past. The article has plenty of facts and figures and all I can say is try to be more expressive...but what I like about the article is that is is to the point, without a lot of "fluff" and simple jargon. Just a few other points:

  • What is the most popular handgun used in crime. (not delienated, but interviewed violent offenders routinely state that large caliber handguns are preferred)[20] and over 25% of all law enforcement officer murders were from the use of a .38 caliber weapon..."
  • Further evaluation of denied gun purchases due to failure to meet gun ownership rights (California results in a period)[21]

I'll see what else I can dig up.--MONGO 07:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added the top 10 list of guns involved in crime. Strangely enough, semi-auto's are not the preferred firearms. Yaf 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Introduction: Is gun violence a great public concern in non-urban areas? Does the footnote really support that the public is particularly concerned about youth/gang gv, or is there a better citation than can establish this? The examples cited which "help to fuel debate" mostly aren't youth/gang related, except for Columbine. Also, how long has gv been a "great public concern." (Prior to the assassination of MLK? If so, the examples might not be representative or might not be broad enough, consider adding/changing). Kaisershatner 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added an historical perspective to article (assassinations and attempted assassinations of U.S. Presidents, along with a few other notables) that supports the view that gun violence is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. Yaf 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yaf, thanks for the additions, I think they make a major difference. Now, I didn't want to remove 6 footnotes from the intro, but this sentence: "The homicide rate in the United States of America is higher than that of other developed countries, while rates of robbery, assault, and property crime are comparable.[4][5][6][7][8][9]" is NOT about gun violence. It is indirectly relevant, since I assume the author is trying to make the connection between the high rate of US homicides and US gun policy or something, but I'm not sure it belongs in the introduction, and the paragraph works without it - it would otherwise state 68% of homicides are committed with guns, without getting into whether US homicide rates being comparatively high. The article isn't about the homicide rate. Kaisershatner 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably don't need all those references in the intro, but it's important to point out that U.S. crime rates are similar to those of other countries; the major exception is the U.S. homicide rate. The major factor for this difference/exception is the rate of homicides committed with firearms in the U.S., which is higher than other developed countries. --Aude (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi - maybe this should be moved to talk? There's no way to know what the "major factor" is - it might be that if there were strict gun control laws the homicide rate would be the same but knives would be used instead. Or maybe it would be lower. But it's an assertion that gun violence per se is the difference - or am I wrong? I often am. Kaisershatner 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference for what? For why the U.S. homicide rate is higher? In the intro, I think noting the higher homicide rate and the rate of homicides committed with firearms is important. We can save "why" for later in the article, such as the "Homicides" section where it says "When a crime occurs involving a gun, the likelihood that it results in a death is significantly increased, due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation." and "that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons". (if you want to move this to the talk page, that's fine with me) --Aude (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher[edit]

Done a lot of work on this in the last few mounths. There is talk of make this a FAC. I think it's best to give it a PR first. Buc 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Numerous one line/two line paragraphs will need to be worked on and eradicated. -- Zleitzen(talk) 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the following for starters. Hope this helps. Bigmike 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re-align the text to standard (left), rather than 'justified'. I think most FA have their text aligned to the left which looks so much better than justified text.
    • Could the "Early years" section be expanded to more than two paragraphs?
    • The article is quite long, could it be split up, perhaps a separate article could be created for his career with the Ferrari team?

Incineration[edit]

This article has had a number of authors and is reaching a good stage for a wider peer review--Alex 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is looking good. Overall, I think it needs a thorough grammar review. It also has several sentences that appear to have landed in the wrong section or have landed in the article twice. If possible, you may also try to use a few more pictures (some other than the exterior of a facility would also be good). Keep working on it but it is already looking like a good article.

  • The caption on the lead picture needs to be modified. The facility is not demolished. I read in the linked article that the facility is currently partially demolished. A more precise wording in the caption would be "decommissioned."
  • The sentence "An incinerator is a furnace for burning refuse and is vastly inferior to a modern incinerator design with flue gas cleaning" contradicts itself. A modern incinerator is also an incinerator and cannot be inferior to itself. I understand your intent but the sentence needs to be reworded.
  • In the section Rotary-kiln incinerators, you could link the phrase "bag houses" to an article on filtration since it is a specialist word that many people will not understand.
  • I like the idea of listing pros and cons of incineration but I have a request. Make all items in the list grammatically parallel. For example, "There are still concerns by many about the health effects of dioxin and furan emissions into the atmosphere" and "The expense of building and operating an incinerator" are not parallel. This can be a good section with some cleanup.
  • You may consider utilizing a better reference for the presence of furan and dioxin emissions. I appreciate the work that Milton Beychok has contributed to Wikipedia but there are wrong and right times to reference your own work. In this case, I think that emission inventories from a technical journal is unnecessary (unless you wanted to give numbers regarding emissions).

Leeannedy 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your constructive comments--Alex 09:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • After a quick look, I think the article needs more background. What role did incineration play in waste management historically? You touched a little on how the methods of incineration changed, but it was mainly state of the art 25 years ago vs state of art today. This needs to be more in depth. Also I noticed you sometimes used the word "modern". That word is entirely subjective and needs to be rephrased with something more precise.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bigitte, I take your points regarding the history of incineration needing more work. Related to the word "modern" it has been used to distinguish between waste-to-energy which in itself is subjective and is a marketing tool used to pretend incineration isnt incineration!--Alex 09:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I remember it being used as "modern incinerator". A modern incinerator means absolutely nothing except that sometime in the past incinerators were different. I imagine that someone from Albania has a very different idea of a what modern incinerator is than someone from the UK.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are right a modern incinerator is what incinerator sellers and politicians like to call a waste-to-energy plant. This is misleading as there are many ways to produce energy from waste not related to burning. If you have a better/more accurate term I would welcome the suggestion.Alex 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cosmic inflation[edit]

NASA WMAP press release image

I am slowly trying to improve this article to the point where I can nominate it for FA. It is certainly an important article for a general audience, because it is one of the linchpins of the big bang theory. It is hard, because it deals with a somewhat technical topic that, while old, is still very much a topic of current research, particularly with recent developments in string theory. My feeling about the article right now is that it works well as a literature review, but it is still much too technical for the general reader. I also know that the last four subsections in "Theoretical status" could use some work (they are stubs), and the article is probably getting to be on the long side. More illustrations would help, but I'm not sure what to add: there used to be an image from a WMAP press release, but I'm unsure of whether it really teaches the reader anything. Any comments would be much appreciated: I sometimes feel a bit like I'm working in a vacuum. –Joke 03:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's a pretty good article. But unfortunately it reads more like a refresher to the subject than an introduction. In many cases the article pretty much assumes pre-existing knowledge on the part of the reader. I think it needs to slow down a little and explain matters to a lay reader who is not already familiar with the concepts of cosmology. Thus concepts such as "de Sitter universe", "causally-connected", "radiation dominated universe", "exotic heavy particles", "universe is flat", "bubbles nucleated", "near-scale invariance", "Planck unit", "21 centimeter radiation", "quadrupole moment", "Higgs field", "scalar field rolling down a potential energy hill" and "curvature redshifts away more slowly than matter and radiation" need to be clarified without necessarily requiring the reader to drill-down to new topics.
Some more comments:
  • Please link: inhomogeneities, anisotropies, curvature of space, domain walls, and adiabatic (which type: thermodynamic or quantum?)
  • The description for the illustration in the history section is unclear.
  • Most of the paragraph on normal distribution of fourier modes is going to be over the heads of most people who haven't taken advanced college-level math.
  • What are "B-modes"?
  • The "21 centimeter radiation" measurements could be explained in terms of the dark epoch prior to reionization. Likewise dark energy in terms of the accelerating universe.
  • The middle paragraph in "Initial conditions" is much too long and could use some judicious paragraph breaks.
  • Spelling or grammar issues:
    • "thie"
    • "could eliminated the" => eliminate (drop the "d")
    • "conditions are necessary for inflation occurs in tunneling"
    • "bring it back up the potential"
    • "Inflation and string theory" section is missing a closing parenthesis at the end of the section.
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I have incorporated nearly all of them. I didn't link "adiabatic" or "isentropic" because the links are relevant in an obvious way – the better link was thermal equilibrium; I also haven't worked on the string theory section, for lack of time and because it needs a major rewrite. If you have any more comments, they would be greatly appreciated. –Joke 20:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For a general audience, this article confuses the shit outta me. This is basically re-iterating what RJH said, but I'm not going to try to explain it, as my knowledge of the area is zero - and perhaps most pertinently, still is. The article doesn't grab me, as a layman, and I believe that is part of the criteria of being a GA - compelling prose. Simplification, for me, is vital. Seegoon 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but simplification is difficult, because you have to tread the thin line between being too technical and stating things that are actually wrong. I'm looking for ways to improve the prose without compromising technical correctness – do you have any suggestions? –Joke 20:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • On the one hand, don't dumb this down too much; it's a subject that some readers just won't have the background to understand, and targeting them would be a mistake. On the other hand, it's a good article about an interesting subject and it currently sounds more like a review of the topic than an introduction to it. There are a lot of things that could use expansion or clarification without detracting from the main point of the article.
  • Right from the first sentence: "negative pressure vacuum energy density" - "negative pressure" and "vacuum energy density" are both understandable phrases, but one as a modifier of the other isn't clear to me. Are there some hyphens missing here?
  • The last sentence in the lead should specify that the inflaton is hypothetical.
  • I diagram would be nice to illustrate exponential expansion. In particular, I'm not sure how the distance between observers is expanding exponentially but the "rate of expansion" is described as constant - rate with respect to what? Also, the first paragraph of the overview says the Hubble parameter is constant, but the third paragraph says it changes "only very slowly".
    Yes, this is absolutely a problem. The idea is that two observers are moving apart an an accelerating rate because as they move further apart their relative velocity increases. However, at any point in time two points a fixed distance apart will seperate with the same velocity. It's very much like a bank account with a fixed interest rate. If you leave the interest in the account, then interest will compound, so the interest earned at the end of this month will be larger than the interest earned the month before. However, if you withdraw your interest, you will continue to receive the same interest payment month after month. I'm not really sure how best to clarify this in the article. It is a subtle point that can easily trip up the reader. –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. I think incorporating your second sentence here into the article would help clarify things. A diagram or animation would be excellent if you could make one. Opabinia regalis 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There could be more consistency in the description of the inflaton. There's mention of the inflaton's energy density, and also in the last paragraph of the overview, there's a reference to the decay of "inflaton particles", though the lead says "particle or field". Later there's "tiny quantum fluctuations in the inflaton". I think some of the reason this article is so dense is minor terminological variations.
    Yes, these are all technical distinctions that I will have to put some thought into clarifying. –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the question-mark sidebox. It has a weird 'textbook that's trying too hard' implication and the cutesy icon contrasts with the technical detail in the article.
    Neither do I. On the other hand, someone added it as part of a series about unsolved problems in physics, so I don't think I should remove it. I did move it to a more appropriate place. –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the de Sitter space comes up so often in the article, a straightforward explanation (more complete than "metric expansion of space") would be useful. Maybe incorporate the diagram from that article.
    I agree. This, along with the idea of "exponential expansion" and "rate of expansion" need to be clarified. Perhaps I can make an animation that would help? Another thing that would be nice to explain graphically is the idea of "causally connected" region (also called a Hubble patch or Hubble volume). –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Opabinia regalis 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Piles of multiple citations on the same sentence could be bundled into one footnote for improved readability.
    Is this preferred? It would certainly look better. Sometimes multiple citations always come together, but other times I cite the same paper a couple of times in different contexts – is there a simple solution? –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks neater, but I don't know of a good way to do it when some of the references in the pileup are used more than once. You could use a "notes" system for the footnotes and list the specific references separately (I believe the military history articles do this a lot, but it's more useful when there are dozens of notes to different pages/sections in the same text.) I thought photon did a good job with the references, if you're looking for ideas. Opabinia regalis 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't just put Cauchy data in parentheses - even a very brief explanation
  • Occasional odd word choise - "it is inconceivable that they have equilibrated"? Impossible sure, but inconceivable? "This problem is now even more acute" - in any other context this would be a ridiculous question, but what do you mean by "now"? At the present time in the universe, or is the problem more acute due to recent data?
  • Maybe a diagram of what a magnetic monopole would do in a magnetic field? ("Knot" isn't very descriptive.) This section is also a bit redundant, "copiously produced" is used twice, but this section doesn't explicitly state (as I think was said previously) how inflation resolves the monopole issue.
    Again, I'll give some thought to the best way of handling this. –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Future measurements of the cosmic microwave background will tell us more about inflation" - we/us is awkward writing, but the real problem here is the definitive statement about the future. A few sentences later there's an admission that the measurements might be overwhelmed by noise (though presumably more sensitive instruments would eventually be built).
  • I don't think, after reading the section, that I understand the fine-tuning problem. Is it just that the theory requires certain values to fall within rather narrow ranges? If so, it's more of a philosophical than a substantively scientific problem.
    It is, in some sense, philisophical problem, but one that very much concerns physicists. If you have to make a bunch of baroque adjustments to make your model work, it makes your model look implausible, particularly since particle physics has no reason to "want" to choose parameters that would allow inflation to occur (in fact, based on renormalization, it actively wants to choose parameters that make inflation impossible). If your mechanism is quite natural, then it has more explanatory power. So far, inflation is an incredibly simple idea, but there seems to be some key insight missing to see how this simple idea can arise naturally in particle physics. –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, if it's not too lengthy, it might be worth going into more detail on the parameters that don't match and why. Opabinia regalis 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the very last sections on problems with the model are quite short, and could use either expansion or possibly merging.
    Yes, these sure need some work. I am still thinking about what to do with them. –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Two-column format for the references would make the list easier to wade through.
    Done, but it doesn't show up as two columns in Safari for some reason. –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis 04:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. They're very helpful! The ones I haven't responded to specifically I've just gone ahead and fixed. As you can see, some of the others seem to require a bit of thought. –Joke 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Glad they were useful. I'd like to see more technical subjects get such thorough treatment. Opabinia regalis 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Aredvi Sura Anahita[edit]

Please review the above-mentioned article, in particular looking for weaknesses in style, cohesiveness, structure and factual or logic errors. Even if not immediately evident from the article's history, it is the work of many months. Thanks. -- Fullstop 10:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Here are my thoughts.
  1. "- together with other shrine cults –" here you use two different types of dash.
  2. The lead is somewhat confusing and intense. I'm sure for someone schooled on the subject, such as you are, it makes perfect sense, but for the layman, it's boggling. Perhaps it could be "tamed".
  3. At points, you reference the same... reference twice within one sentence. For instance: "Only Arədvī (a word otherwise unknown) is specific to the divinity,[3] but - for etymological reasons - could originally have meant 'moist'.[3]" I don't think that the reference halfway through is necessary; if someone looks to verify what you have said, they can simply read the reference at the end.

As for logical and scholastic content, I'm not even going to try because this goes right over my head. Seegoon 15:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm having a hard time understanding the text. But very well referenced. - Tutmosis 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the tips so far. I'll get to them tomorrow.
Any suggestions how the article could be changed so as to be more meaningful to a general audience? Is the vocabulary too technical? Does the article demand "prior knowledge"? Is it poorly structured?

Portal:Cetaceans[edit]

Hi, this might be a bit different but i was wondering if i could get any feedback on how the cetaceans portal could be improved. Nominating for Featured Portal would be nice, but i am not really sure if this is worthy of that. Any comments would be grateful... chris_huh 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I see that you've nominated it. It's quite worthy, and the only thing that appears to need work is having consistent capitalisation and tense in the cetaceans news. Lots of effort has gone into the portal. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sasha (DJ)[edit]

This has previously undergone an Peer Review here and two failed FACs here and here. It has since received copyediting from User:Coil00 and fmt-d by User:Heaven's Wrath (much thanks, guys!). I was hoping I could get some feedback as to whether or not this would pass FAC now - I'd rather not nominate it and have it fail a third time :(. Any comments feedback would be great! (especially regarding wording and language) Thanks! Wickethewok 22:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well first of, I find it very respectable that you came here first, definetely showing your good faith intentions. If you wish to know my two cents I think the article is fine in its current form and issues of prose and pictures from previous fac's have pretty much been fixed. I think the article has a good chance of making it, ofcourse there might be a few more prose issues which I'm not very well at noticing. Good Luck. - Tutmosis 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a very good article; comprehensive without delving into trivia, and is well sourced, illustrated and cited throughout. However, the are still a few prose issues, IMO. Though minor, they would still need to be resloved before renominating as FAC. The problem is not so much with the phrasing as with the sentence constructs - some tend to be overlong and sometimes try to incorporate two or three unconnected ideas:
"During the months leading up to his April 1994 departure from Renaissance, Sasha first partnered with fellow resident DJ John Digweed, who had been DJ-ing for ten years previous to gaining residency at Renaissance."

The puncuation implies that the three facts are connected, and lead from each other, but this is not really the case. Similar problems occur a number of times in the article, however they're easily fixed by breaking down the sentences. You do need to go through the entire text and weed these out, but once that's done, you there I reckon. Best of luck with it, it'd be great to finally see a DJ make FA. - Coil00 20:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Alrite, I'll try to find them. If anyone could point out more of these, that'd be great, as I'm not too great at finding them. Thanks for all your help, Coil! Wickethewok 04:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've reworked a bunch of sentences. Would you (Coil) or anyone else mind taking a look at my recent diffs and the current article to see if its better now? Much thanks! I also expanded the lead and fixed some other things that the automated script picked up. Wickethewok 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mohsen Sazegara[edit]

I have put a lot of work into this article, and was hoping for some help pointing out any errors I have made or how I may be able to further better this article. Thanks. Pepsi2786 07:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The sections are often only a paragraph long, and the paragraphs are often only 1 or 2 sentences. I don't know how much info there is on this guy and whether any of it could be expanded, but otherwise some sections and paragraphs should be linked. The image does not have any documentation proving it is free use. Trebor 19:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review. I appreciate the input. I have combined two of the smaller sections into a single section, and will look at adding some to the section on his arrest. I do not know about the picture.. it may have to be removed, unless the fellow who uploaded it can defend it. I'll send him a message. Thanks again for the review. -- Pepsi2786 07:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mom and Dad[edit]

Any and all input, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of all redlinks. —Cliff smith 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Redlinks are articles that need to be created. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Touche. —Cliff smith 04:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • First, good article. And I mean that in the formal sense of the word, when this review is over, I will happily mark it as such, if no one beats me to it. If Kroger Babb weren't an FA, this could take a shot at it. Ah, you wanted an actual review itself:
    • "Only after she receives advice from a teacher who was fired for teaching sex education is she able to confront her mother—who is set up to be the antagonist—blamed by the teacher for "neglect[ing] the sacred duty of telling their children the real truth." -- overly long sentence with multiple dependent clauses, needs simplification. Recommend breaking it up into several shorter, simpler sentences.
      • I think I fixed this. I'm going to give it a good overhaul anyway, methinks.
    • "In some showings, another film was shown with Mom and Dad.... The film typically ended with the birth of the girl's child." Not clear which is "The film" referred to here, M&D or the nameless companion.
      • Fixed.
    • If M&D had different versions, do you know which version went into the Registry? All of them?
      • Actually, none of my sources say. That's a great question with no answer as of yet. I've shot an e-mail off to the Library of Congress in any regard.
    • Wilmington, OH should either be gotten rid of (it's not that important to this particular article), or wikilinked and explained, briefly, that this was Kroger's HQ.
    • "IRS figures" link to IRS should be reduced to only go around IRS.
      • Fixed.
    • I thing a link to Social hygiene is probably a good idea somewhere, either in a new word or sentence in the header, or at least around the words "sex hygiene". That describes the movement that this film was ostensibly a part of.
      • Excellent idea. I've been trying to consider a worthwhile target for that for a while.
    • "Starring Hardie Albright" - in what role? Dad, the teacher, the pilot? In fact, I think giving both actor and character names for the important 5 roles (mom, dad, girl, teacher, pilot) would be a good idea. Or maybe Dad isn't an important role - in which case, you may want to write as much somewhere, something like "Despite the title, the character of 'Dad' (played by George Spelvin) doesn't appear much, or have a notable role in the plot.".
      • Adjusted this. Redlinks ahoy!
    • William Beaudine, while not this article, has a strange sentence: "He is also remembered for directing Mom and Dad, a 1945 exploitation film produced by Kroger Babb, which was not released until 1957." That seems to contradict this article, which says this was the highest grossing film of the 1940s. One or both should be corrected. Or is there some meaning of the word "released" that I'm not understanding here?
      • Fixed it over there. I think Beaudine might be my next project...
    • Tenses need agreement. "The film told the story" (past) ... "The film then presents" (present): pick either past or present, and stick with it.
      • I think I caught all of these
    • Passive voice: "It was estimated by David F. Friedman, who worked with Babb on a number of films, that...". Suggestion: "David Friedman, who ..., estimated that..."
      • Fixed.
    • The story of "Modern Film Distributors" is all over the place, and confusing. First we meet it as "the distributor", implying they were that throughout the course of the film. Then we meet it as "marketed the film in later years" implying they only started later (or did they distribute always and only market later)? Finally, we read that it was only formed to distribute this film to keep from booking over each other - which doesn't outright contradict the earlier points, but sounds important, like something that really should be mentioned earlier, otherwise the implication was that it was a distribution company for many films that just happened to distribute M&D as part of its stable.
      • So I've looked at this a few times, and I can't think of a more logical place to put it. I get your point, and clarified the first real mention, but it doesn't seem sensible to discuss the formation without the context of the film's successes. Any ideas at all?
    • MFD is also wikilinked twice in the text body (the separate link in the infobox is OK, I think, that's essentially separate).
      • Fixed.
    • Not sure why you chose to make redlinks where you did: Street Corner is a redlink, but High School Girl isn't. From the article, both seem equally important or unimportant.
      • High School Girl was wikilinked for "Dust to Dust," I believe. I've been having some internal conflict regarding how to deal with the names of these films.
    • 3 January, 1945 needs linking per WP:DATE#Dates containing a month and a day.
      • Done.
AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Governors of Virginia[edit]

I want to see what needs to be done to get this list to featured list status. It looks as if it meets the criteria, but there may still be some fixing to do. T REXspeak 05:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a list, so the following might not be completely applicable, but anyway: Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dundee United F.C.[edit]

This simply needs an assessment of the article importance, as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Assessment#Importance_scale guidelines.

I'm not sure whether this should be fairly high, as it represents the main body of knowledge about the subject, or low, as a football club is of little importance compared to articles on war, etc. Fedgin | Talk 12:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

HSV Senator Signature[edit]

please write your reviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senators (talkcontribs) 07:28, November 5, 2006 (UTC)

  • The article is missing footnotes and an overall lack of sources. - Tutmosis 22:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1997 Constitution of Thailand[edit]

This article was recently broken out of the Constitution of Thailand article due to length. I am primarily concerned with whether the standalone article is comprehensible without the legal/historical context provided by the Constitution of Thailand article.

I am also concerned with the general Good Article criteria, particularly whether the article is well written. Patiwat 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the article is understandble, the only thing I would suggest is it doesn't tell me the basics of this consitution. It just says what's new in this one from the other. I would like more information on basic freedoms the consitution provides, like does it provide the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Basically what I'm saying is summarize the whole constitution, not just the new parts. - Tutmosis 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I've expanded on the human rights section. At this point, it is somewhat difficult to summarize the whole constitution independently of the Constitution of Thailand article, since much of the '97 constitution relies on the legal context and background of previous constitutions. But I have added a new section that gives a very very high level overview of each chapter of the Constitution. Patiwat 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yea I think the new section is an improvement. - Tutmosis 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have also added a section on how succession is treated. Although the 1997 Constitution offered no innovation in this matter to most other post-1974 constitutions, it is an important topic, and one where the 2006 and 1997 Constitutions differ. Patiwat 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sviatoslav I of Kiev[edit]

This article has seen a lot of expansion by a number of dedicated editors in recent weeks and I think it's approaching readiness for FA status. Any comments that could help move it along that path would be appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's good - fairly short but it seems comprehensive. One thing, and I'm probably being dense, but in the second paragraph of the first section, what does 'minority' and 'majority' refer to? Other than that, I don't know what could be improved - I think it could nominated for FA. Trebor 17:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
minority= the period of time during which one is a minor (ie a child or under the age of "majority"- today 18 in most Western countries) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One minor point: I believe the lengthy discussion of the causes for the Khazar campaign (mostly speculations anyway) is out of line with the rest of the text. It looks like we give undue weight to this topic, which is not the most important in Sviatoslav's biography. Perhaps we should move the passage to Khazaria or confine it to footnotes. Other than that, the article is OK. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have condensed the discussion on the roots of the conflict between the Khazars and the Rus. Beit Or 21:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you so much. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to provide his name written as of that time? --Brand спойт 03:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Kievan Rus' of that period was pre-literate- there was no widespread writing protocol in use until the eleventh century when glagolitic and cyrillic became common. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    The earliest East Slavic inscription (found at Gnezdovo) is dated to Svyatoslav's reign, I think, which still does not make the Old East Slavic spelling of the name mandatory in the lead. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, it's probably not a big deal to provide such a spelling, unless there are serious objections. Beit Or 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Unicode has an Early Cyrillic font... in that article the unicode is given in modern Cyrillic. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

West Ham United F.C.[edit]

I think this article is solid, with interesting prose balanced with trivia and lists, yet it is only rated B class. Other than extra pictures, what does it need to push it to GA or even FA status? It is an important article about a club very important to English football, and should be improved in as many ways as possible. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 20:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think it goes into far too much comprehensive detail in the history section, particularly the part about the Harry Redknap era. Also, there's some jargon that a reader may be unfamiliar with, for example the use of the word "pitch" as a location early on in the article. I would also avoid the inclusion of any list that must be maintained, such as the list of current players (they aren't all notable, so there is no need to list them; a list of notable players is sufficient). I am uncertain that naming the management qualifies under WP:NOT either. -Amatulic 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Pitch" is pretty standard usage in British English, but I've linked it to Football pitch. Oldelpaso 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Darn edit conficts. As it stands the article is a solid B. To go beyond that...
    • Citations. Citations are sparse, without more of them the article will be forever B-Class.
    • There is a lot of recentism. The vast majority of the history section covers the last decade, despite West Ham not winning any of their four major trophies in this period. The sections on recent years need a lot of slimming down, and those from earlier need expanding.
    • I don't think the number of lists is balanced - there are too many in my opinion. The Premier League record should be removed, West Ham have been in existence for 111 years, not 13. The Official dream team is OK, but the notable former player list below has no criteria for inclusion, making it a POV section which should be removed. The Management list is excessive trivia, few will care who the current kit man etc are. The league status table would be better presented graphically or as a timeline.
    • After all the lists comes quite a bit of useful information shunted into Additional information and trivia which deserve to be turned into proper sections and made more prominent. Examples of how to do this can be found in several featured football articles.
    • The stadium is not mentioned at all.
    • I have strong doubts as to whether use of fair use images is appropriate. Free use images related to West Ham can be created without much trouble e.g. a picture of Upton Park.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to say Cheers for the heads ups guys. As it is I wrote almost 3/4rs of the current history, but unfortunately my knowledge is patchy beyond 20 years ago (what with me only being 26 myself) so you'll have to excuse the focus somewhat on Redknapp. The lack of original source material on the net, or in books, to cite is a problem I am continually running into so I welcome anyone to add, or assist in finding suitable sourcing or material.
    • Personally I tend to agree with the idea there are too many tables. I did trim many down, and re-arranged the entire structure a few months back but without compltely 'taking over' the article I simply did the minimum to make it a readable document.
    • I agree with the point regarding trivia. Someone unfortunately keeps messing with the page arrangement (and namely the menu arranging system).
    • The fair use argument regarding images of players is somewhat moot. If a free image exists - then it should be used. If a free image does not exist...then a fair use can be claimed for illustrative purposes.
I'll work on it sometime!--Koncorde 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking on Amazon there appears to be a reasonably substantial body of literature about West Ham. I don't know where you live, but if its anywhere near London the library may be worth a try. Oldelpaso 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm a northerner - though a dedicated Hammer all the same! I have a number of small articles with multiple encylcopedia and similar - but as yet no formative way of meshing them together to form an article. I was rather hoping someone with a more keen knowledge and book sense would 'flesh out' the old history, but have been waiting 3 months for it now.--Koncorde 20:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fly to the Sky[edit]

Previous Peer Review:Wikipedia:Peer review/Fly to the Sky/archive1

I already listed the article for peer review, but received no comments. Eventually, however, Fly to the Sky did manage to climb to GA status, but now I want to make it FA. Please point out any flaws!! mirageinred 07:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Overall, this seemed like a well written article. There were two things that concerned me, however. Throughout the article, there are times when the wording just seems odd in English. I realize the primary editors for this article probably are not native English speakers. You might want to find someone who is to run through and edit some of these areas. Also, there are times throughout the article where you reference a song, and give only the Korean name. Consider putting the English title of the song as well. For example "However, it did not hurt the duo as the album collected decent sales and made their single 가슴 아파도 (English title here), the theme song of the show, an unexpected hit." -- Pepsi2786 07:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I put the English titles to the Korean songs referenced in the article. I'll try to fix the wording as much as I can. mirageinred 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overall, it looks great and I think it's about ready for a FAC. If you haven't already, check out the guidelines at WP:MUSTARD.
    • Albums should be italicized, song titles should not
    • Song titles should be in quotes, album titles should not
    • If something is in a foreign language or is given as a translation of a foreign language, it should be italicized (even if it's a song title)
    • Don't use album covers in the discography section
    • Fair use images need more info on their image pages. See this page for more.
    • Use {{Template:Cite web}} for references
  • That's all I see at the moment.

Lee Smith (baseball)[edit]

This article was a COTW back in mid-August, and the editors involved made some serious corrections, cleanup and expansion of the article. I would like to bring this up to FA status eventually, but I wante d to come here first to get an idea as to where the article stands, as it is. Here are some things I am concerned about:

  • Style issues
  • Factual accuracy issues
  • Referencing (I know there is one statement that is not verified)
  • Any other miscellaneous things that I have not mentioned

Thanks. Nishkid64 21:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • What sort of factual accuracy are you concerned about? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, just any basic things someone could have possibly botched up. It's a pretty long article, and it only has <20 references. I'm not worried about something specific, but more in a general perspective. Nishkid64 21:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well basically, most of the stats came from baseball-reference.com or thebaseballcube.com and those are mentioned at the bottom of the article. It almost seems like we need some kind of fact checking indicator for articles like this which are largely derived from statistical references. A way to say that someone has verified the correctness of such details. Or, technically, maybe it's all considered original research since it's taken from a reference like that. I guess that's what a peer review is for! If that were the case, you could pretty much rewrite every sports-related article in the system...  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Betrayal at Krondor[edit]

I have nominated this article as a Featured Article. Someone said I should request a peer review, on account of lack of citation. I argue that citations diminish the value of certain articles, such as this one. Your thoughts? Chris 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Andy. I had a look. I made some changes to the article. Chris 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that footnotes are important in allowing all information to be verifiable, and I am not quite sure how they can be detrimental to articles like this one. AZ t 18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I feel that references/citations are unsightly and without merit. Chris 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No reviews? Nifboy 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is this a question? Chris 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
More of an inquiry. I mean, the article's lead calls it "one of the most widely-played, critically-acclaimed, and commerically-successful RPGs from the early 1990s," so I kind of expect some additional details regarding that statement. Nifboy 00:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How on earth can citations diminish the value? Trebor 19:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
By cluttering up the page with unsightly links and text. It's ghastly, I feel, for an article to have little 1s or 2s or 3s or 1324s peppering the text. Besides, the very fact that an article remains in its present condition shows that it's been tacitly approved of by everyone viewing it. Chris 21:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you find the 1s and 2s unsightly, Verifiability is an official policy - the aim is to get all the articles reliably sourced. Their merit is that they prove that the information is correct, otherwise you could write complete rubbish. Don't you think that's slightly more important than the links being unsightly?? Trebor 22:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Only 1 footnote and no references, gameplay is too detailed and poorly written, development section talks nothing about development but the different release versions, no section on how the article performed in sales and reviews it got. Much work is needed to clean this article and bring it to quality standards. Refer to Doom for inspiration. - Tutmosis 20:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It may be poorly written -- perhaps you could provide some tips on how to improve Betrayal at Krondor. Chris 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by your comment, the quality of the writing of any text has nothing to do with the information itself. It has to do with how you get the information across. Also to add, I never played the game but I'm reluctant to examine the article to help you improve it because you don't seem eager to do so. We are only here to try to give ideas on how the quality of any given article can be improved not to ridicule it, I'm sorry if you feel I came across that way. - Tutmosis 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologize. Please forgive my insolence. Chris
Oh no need at all, we all sometimes run into difficulties with others. - Tutmosis 23:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


OK -- time to close this down.

No cites = no Featured Article, apparently Chris

Comment - Chris has been blocked indefinately for vandalism/disruption --PresN 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

British African-Caribbean community[edit]

This is a self nomination - as I wrote most of the material here with additional help from User:Ackees. This being an under-represented area of wikipedia, the number of editors taking a look and making amendments or improvements is few and far between, so I could do with more pairs of eyes scanning the article to see how it shapes up. --Zleitzen 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 17:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
There is an awful lot of negative stuff particularly about racism. Now I am sure this is a major and important part of the experience of African-Carribean immigrants, but especially in the early part of this article this seems to be the sole focus. E.g. in the recent history section, Steven Lawrence, Gun Crime, Tension with Asians. In the community section, Police harrasment, 'unfriendly pubs', discrimination in politics and schools. Maybe it should present the positive side, cos if it was all that bad why would anyone have immigrated in the first place. Just a suggestion.

List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes[edit]

Note: this is a list peer review

I've improved the list greatly prior submitting it to FLC and while the FLC: adding intro, adding image fair use rationales, expanding episode descriptions (with the help of Peregrinefisher) and many other changes. However, the nomination failed, mostly per non-complete episode descriptions, fair use rationales and need for copyediting. I am currently fixing the major concerns (see my notice) and will submit the list again sometime this month. I'm primarily submitting this on peer review to get minor suggestions on list improvements and copyediting suggestions. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO it is very important to keep the images, each one offers a snapshot that immediately identifies the episode for those who have seen them. Ideally each image needs a fair use rationale justifying the use specifically on the list. The summaries could all be roughly the same length, and need to be well written - this is perhaps the hardest thing. -- Paxomen 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins[edit]

The article is currently undergoing some major changes to bring it up to a higher level of quality. Input would be appreciated about what content is relevant and what content is not, how to best section certain blocks of information, etc. If you can, if a peer reviewer has already made a suggestion you had in mind, make another suggestion to cover a different aspect of the article. We are open to new ideas. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Trim previous Batman projects into the Development section. The Batmobile section should be turned into a 'Design' section too. You need more refs too: raid the external links. Wiki-newbie 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The influences section, in particular, needs cites. There are a couple of one sentence paragraphs that could be linked into nearby ones. In the plot description, however, the paragraphs might be a bit long and could do with being broken up. Could the soundtrack get its own page and the track listing go there? And I agree with the suggestion to merge cancelled projects somewhere else; I'm not sure it belongs in this article. The lead could do with being slightly longer too. But it's shaping up well as an article. Trebor 18:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well the article is coming along quite well, but I have a few quick notes; Any sale figures/reviews for the soundtrack? The video-game section seems unecessary, I think it be better off in a see also section and just mentioned in Response. Since the section is so small it kind of breaks visual layout. Sequals could also be just merged, and mention in Response, example "The film box office sales guaranteed a contract for two sequals from the producers." I encourage such merges because the article should be devoted to the movie itself, not side tracking into related information. Besides thats what the video game article and soon-to-be sequal articles are for. - Tutmosis 23:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's my two cents.
    • "The film notably uses a higher number of practical special effects than most big-budget mainstream films." - I find this a bit clumsy. Perhaps change to "Notably, the film uses..." or "The film is noted for...".
And this definitely needs citing - who has noted this? Trebor 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "and was a reboot to the superhero's film franchise" - shouldn't this be "a reboot of"?
    • "It tells the origin story of the character as he takes on crime for the first time in Gotham." - for me, this is clumsy.
    • All three lead paragraphs begin with "Batman Begins".
    • There should be citation regarding: the special effects, the fact that it is a darker film, and general praise.
    • "The film opens with a young Bruce Wayne falls down a well where he is attacked by bats." - tense is all over the place here, specfically regarding "falls down a well".
    • "Years later Bruce awakens from this nightmare" - you should change this for clarification purposes. Perhaps "in the next scene, Bruce awakens, making it apparent that the well episode was a nightmare of his"
    • "Ra's al Ghul leader of the League of Shadows." - a comma is needed between Ra's al Ghul and leader, to clarify meaning.
    • "younger man" - perhaps this should say "young man" or "young Wayne".
    • I'm going to stop fine-tooth-combing the Plot section here. I advise you carefully read the whole thing and give it a thorough copy-edit. As a side-note, "gotten" is strictly American English, and is not generally considered formal enough for encyclopaedic use.
    • In Cast, it would be useful to wiki-link "canon".
    • Some of Development reads as a little 'listy', with sentences beginning with "in September 2003" etc. - slightly altering these would greatly improve the prosaic flow.
    • In Reception, it might be interesting to include some specific highlights picked out by critics. At the moment it reads a little on the monetary side. It would be nice to have some opinions on characters, themes, ambience and so on.
    • The HD-DVD external link needs to be turned into a reference.
    • I can't help but feel that the order of paragraphs is a little odd. Departure from Canon seems a bit adrift; you could move it closer to Plot, or Design. Likewise, Design and Plot should probably be kept together. I advise keeping all the information about the movie-world in one chunk, so the reader can more easily distinguish between reality and Gotham, so to speak. I'd advise specifically: Plot, Departure from Canon, Design - in that order. But I'm not the expert.

I might've been a little anal about one or two things here, but overall I'd say this is a very good article. I think you need to focus on the prose in Plot, and maybe to expand upon Reception to offer a more in-depth analysis. Anyway, I hope I've been some kind of help. Seegoon 15:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! Hopefully we can clean up the Plot section further using your suggestions and expand the Reception section as well. The original content of the Reception section was full of weasel words, so that was purged. We'll address the other suggested changes you've made as well. Much appreciated! --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Design section can stay where it is: it compliments the Production. Wiki-newbie 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista[edit]

Hello. This is already a Good Article, but with the increasing amount of attention this article's going to get in the coming months, it'd be great to have some input from the peer review group on how we can really make this a shining example of Wikipedia's very best work. -/- Warren 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It starts well but comes very list-heavy and is a bit long overall (74kb). The "new features" already have their own page and I think too many of them are included in the main article as well. Could they be cut to the most important (judged by media response, difference from previous versions of windows, etc.), and preferably incorporated into prose? It seems very unlikely that this article can become an FA for a long while, as one of the criteria for that is "stable" - something this article necessarily can't be. But I agree this article will get attention and needs to be kept as good as possible. Trebor 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly agree that FA isn't in the near future, I figure a year from now is the earliest time. Thanks for the comments! -/- Warren 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A few references are just the web address, the citeweb template thing could be used to tidy those up. Seegoon 14:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Union Army Balloon Corps[edit]

I'm very fond of this article but have not been much involved in development. Page creator Magi Media has put some good thought and a heap of time into this important and intriguing subject. With his support, I've asked for this peer review, so we can get some eyes to help this along to the next phase (A-Class or GA status). For my part, I think the article could use a References section at the end, to collect important reading and better support the inline references recently added. I think the layout could use a tiny bit of tweaking. BusterD 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank BusterD for being so supportive of this article. The Mount Lowe Railway has been my bailiwick for a long time, but getting to tell about Lowe the Civil War balloonist is special. BTW- There is a References section just ahead of the Notes.--Magi Media 07:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Overall it looks pretty good, and it's an interesting read.. I just have a few small suggestions:
  • The entire first paragraph is a single long sentence. I think it could be broken into two or three sentences to make it easier to read.
so done
Check!
  • The "Selecting a Chief Aeronaut" could use a brief introduction regarding the overall selection process.
Good point! The selection process was hardly a process though Lincoln knew about balloons and wanted some.
True, but I think an overview would be helpful to the context.
  • ...the Enterprise on the White House front lawn." needs a comma after Enterprise.
  • "T.S.C. Lowe[6]." should have the citation tag after the period.
  • Section "John LaMountain"; second paragraph: the first two sentences begin with "However".
Thanks for that!
  • "With each descent came the threats of being fired on, and with each descent he needed to release gas." Should the second "descent" actually be "ascent"?
No, the point was descents require the realease of gas and the loss of ability to go back up while in the mean time you are being fired on. I rewrote it for context.
Okay.
  • "gale force" needs a hyphen.
OK
  • I think the balloon names in the bulleted lists should be italicized.
I thought listing would override italics, but...OK
I couldn't find an exception for that in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).
  • "Peninsula Campaign" section: I'm not sure that linking a section title is recommended, but I could be mistaken.
I've seen otherwise.
Okay. I've just seen others complain about it so I thought I'd make mention.
Guess What! You're right! The "automated" says not to do that. Good catch! BUT...I already wrote the cap into the first line and linked it instead.--Magi Media 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help--Magi Media 04:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Glad I could give some useful input. I think that article is already more than sufficient for GA-status. Good luck. — RJH (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Spooks[edit]

I'm just generally curious to get a full list on what needs to be done for this article, esp for it to reach good article status at least. For a programme that manages almost 6m viewers it shouldnt be too hard :) RHB 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking at this the other day, wondering what could be done with it (as I'm a big fan of this series). It's a bit of a mess at the moment. For inspiration, we should look at The West Wing (TV series) or Lost (TV series). The individual episode pages need to all be created and outlined with the basic plot (and any other notable info). That could take a while in itself but shouldn't be too hard. It then needs to be summarised on the main page. A tidy cast list needs to be created. A history of the creation of it needs to be written and cited. A referenced critical response section is required. Plus, other comments - possibly about how some have noticed it's accuracy to real life events. There's a lot to do, but most of it isn't too hard. Trebor 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster[edit]

Old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive1

This article has changed very significantly since the last peer review. It was delisted as a GA, had a major overhaul, and was then promoted again. It has been assessed as an A-class article. I am hoping to get the article to Featured Article status if possible. Any comments would be most welcome. MLilburne 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The technical detail in this article is fabulous, but the popular impact is grossly understated. The news coverage and public reaction around the world was enormously exaggerated relative to the number of lives lost and the amounts of money involved. Public awareness of the Challenger disaster ranks at least as high as the Chernobyl meltdown and much higher than the Bhopal disaster, which caused far more fatalitites and costs. Challenger has become a reference point in debates about engineering safety, and is discussed in detail in many university engineering programmes and safety training in large companies. It has spawned dozens of books, documentaries, and training videos. This impact on the popular consciousness merits discussion.--Yannick 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. This is an excellent point, and one which I will certainly address. (Although it will take a bit of time.) In fact, I'm a bit abashed that I missed this side of things. I'm wondering, though, how to structure the article: should there be a differentiation between the impact on popular culture/popular consciousness/discussion of engineering safety? Perhaps they could all be subsections of one overarching section? MLilburne 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll see what I can do. MLilburne 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I just started reading this, but will do more later. A few little things that the automated review probably already caught (I fixed a few in one section but now have to go):

  1. I believe that there is always a space between the time and its "am/pm".
  2. The article capitalizes "shuttle" in many places, I think incorrectly. Space shuttle isn't a proper noun so should be lower-case.

--Will.i.am 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll make the fixes. Thanks for the comments. More would certainly be welcome. MLilburne 18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave this article a more thorough read today. Here's some quick comments, but feel free to ignore them if they're too annoying. I also added a few examples of tiny grammar changes that may help you in copy-editing:

  1. the pad technicians could not remove a 'closing fixture' from the orbiter's hatch. -- I'm not really sure why closing fixture is in quotes.
Neither am I. Someone else wrote that paragraph. I'll strike them.
  1. the gaseous hydrogen vent arm retracted -- At first I had a hard time understanding what the ven arm was attached to or why it had to be latched back. At the last sentence in that paragraph (the word 'also'), I finally realized that it was on the ground and could actually come back to hit the shuttle. Rewording might make this a little clearer.
Will see if I can clarify
  1. All times are given in seconds after launch and correspond to the telemetry time-codes from the closest instrumented event to each described event. -- This was confusing because it came after a few times listed. I think your indication of T=0 (which I don't think I saw when I read it yesterday) does a less obtrusive job of getting across the same thing.
  2. The following account of the accident is derived from real time telemetry data and photographic analysis, as well as from transcripts of air-to-ground and mission control voice communications. -- This also seems to come too late. Doesn't this relate to the previous sentences as well?
I'll move both of these sentences to the beginning of the section.
  1. At about T+58.788 -- three decimal places on the second is better than about.
  2. The breakup of the vehicle began at about T+73.162 seconds, and at 48,000 feet (15 km) in altitude. -- no ", and" necessary.
Both good points.
  1. Shortly afterwards, the flight dynamics officer relayed the range safety officer's report that the vehicle had exploded. -- exploded should be changed because in the next paragraph you say "there was no explosion".
Ah well, this is a tricky one. What the flight dynamics officer actually said was "RSO reports the vehicle has exploded." In retrospect we know that was not quite true (or perhaps the RSO meant that he'd exploded the range safety ordnance on the shuttle), but that it what was said at the time. I'll need to clarify that.
  1. it added another orbiter, Endeavour, to the space shuttle fleet in order to replace Challenger, and worked with the Department of Defense in order to put more satellites in orbit using expendable launch vehicles rather than the shuttle. - you don't need a comma before "and" unless you have two independent clauses - i.e. sentences that can stand alone. Scrap the comma, or add an it after "and".
Got it.

That was all I found for now, this is a really nice article! Good luck with it!--Will.i.am 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for taking the time to read the article so carefully. It is much appreciated, and the article is certainly the better for it. MLilburne 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Roswell UFO incident[edit]

WP:PARA's first collaboration of the month. Has undergone massive editing, but needs direction on further improvement/current standing before sending it in for a GA nomination. --InShaneee 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, does this bring back paranoid memories, I'm glad its finally being improved on wikipedia. Lets see, there are some WP:MOS problems like full dates should be wiki-linked. Speaking of wikilinking, some section seem completely absent of them which made me feel like I was reading a book. The lead is a little short, another paragraph or two could be added. I counted three external links that need to be converted to footnotes. Lastly, the article needs some light copyediting and rephrasing in parts. I wouldn't be suprised to see this at FAC this month, great job! - Tutmosis 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about what parts need rephrasing/copy-editing? ---J.S (t|c) 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I'll probably do some copyediting myself later on today and also get back to you about some parts. - Tutmosis 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

General Concerns

  • The Naming of the sections is quite bad. The names are long and quite redundant. I gave some renaming ideas below in the review. First and the last two section names are fine.
  • When you say someone alleges/claims something in a sentence, you probably need a footnote for that.
  • I feel "Roswell as an alien recovery and government cover-up" is quite long and can be cut down, and especially "Roswell as a myth: The skeptical response".
  • Pardon me if I'm wrong, going from memory wasn't there some conspiracy that some bus of children on a field-trip discovered the crashed saucer with some alien bodies around and then the military came and picked everything up.
  • Only a brief mention of the materials found as being exotic. Like the wierd lettering on some bar, which the air force says was gift wrapping and wierd non-destructible material. Going off memory again.
  • In general this article could use some reorganization. If I was writing the article I probably would separate information by "Background", "Materials found" comparison from both sides;theorists and military, "Theories", "Recent developments" and "In popular culture".
    • Section names have been changed per your suggestions. --InShaneee 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Modern background

  • Could be renamed just 'Background', what the point of 'Modern'?
  • "The result was summarized in two reports." Going from personal memory, this reports were published as books, Do you think you can mention the names so the reader can follow-up on them if he wishes?

Contemporary accounts of a "flying disc" at Roswell

  • Maybe rename 'Contemporary accounts of evidence found'
  • "according to initial accounts of the time" Who composed and took this accounts? Very important because multiple versions are circulated.
  • The whole date thing in the second paragraph is very confusing, I wish this 2/3 sentence be reworked into something simple.
  • The next day, Brazel heard reports about "flying discs" I don't think 'reports' is right, 'news reports' maybe? were they about flying discs in the area or some other part of the country?
  • You tell me what the Roswell Daily Record newspaper said, but how did they hear about the story?
  • The Roswell Daily Record quote is very long, maybe put it in a template from Category:Quotation templates?
  • "A telex uncovered in the 1990s" How was it uncovered?
  • I think in general this section gives poor information on how the media picked up on the story, that "News reports: "flying disc" becomes "weather balloon" section says how the media story changed to "weather balloon", but the stories about how the media thought it was a flying disc are completely absent and the impact it had on the community/nation.
  • 'The Roswell Army Air Field' press release quote is very long, maybe put it in a template from Category:Quotation templates?
  • "The incident was quickly forgotten." Very awkward section ending, and needs a footnote.
    • Quotation templates added. --InShaneee 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed alien and spacecraft recoveries, cover-ups, witness intimidation"

  • Again can be renamed, maybe "Conspiracy theories" or something simple.
  • "General Arthur E. Exon claimed" to whom? newspapers? ufologists?
  • who is "General Arthur E. Exon"?
  • "Then, they assert," awkward sentence starter.
  • This whole section just all of a sudden goes on telling the alternative story, by whom is this account given? Reading it you quickly forget that this is another account, because it only mentions this in the second paragraph and then just goes off like fact.

Roswell as a myth: The skeptical response

  • Maybe rename "Other Theories"...
  • I think this section should be cut-down so I wont review yet (maybe create a sub-article for all this?).
    • Clarified who Gen. Exon is. --InShaneee 02:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The last two section look fine. Anyway, thanks for reading my personal suggestions which I want to be taken as advice not necessarily what I think must be done. - Tutmosis 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking such alot of time to review in great detail. :) We've enacted quite a few of your recomendations. ---J.S (t|c) 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Chembai[edit]

This is a biographical article on an Indian Classical music singer. I request the following:

1. Comments on the content of the article (is it thorough enough, what other aspects of the life of the subject of this biography could be included, etc.)
2. Comments on ways in which article could be modified to meet Feature Article requirements.
3. A rating for this article.

Thanks. Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 10:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • First issue is the overwhelming ToC (Table of Contents). - Tutmosis 19:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I have compressed that. Anything else? -- Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 20:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. All done. Anything else? -- Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

James Cook[edit]

It would be great to get some feedback on how this article can be taken to the next level. It has previously been reviewed as part of the WikiProject Biography but needs some input to get it to meet FAC. Reviews very welcome Dick G 10:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Surely six citations isn't enough for an article of this length and importance? Seegoon 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Valid point. Will make a start on referencing. Dick G 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

German Eastern Marches Society[edit]

The article's been a target of various nats from all over the world in the past. As the topic is quite controversial, revert wars and POVs from all sides were quite abundant. As I often do I decided to escape forward and expanded the article significantly, adding plenty of sources. This proved a right tactics as it seems that the article's been fairly stable since May.

Now then, during the GA nomination, one of the judges noted that the article ends abruptly, a remark I did not understand. Perhaps there are also other problems that need to be addressed, I'm not really sure what's more to add. Could someone take a look at the article and tell me what's missing? //Halibutt 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very finely done. I have only minor concerns like footnotes should go after punctuation marks. I'm not suprised edit wars stopped, this looks like a neutral article which just retells history without pushing anything. Ofcourse, since I'm not familiar with the subject, I'm not one to say if this article is neutral or not. Another concern, is the sometime awkward sentence starters like "Interestingly" and multiple use of the word "also" which might prompt very minor redundancy cleaning. It also be nice if the red links could be taken care. Anyway, great work. I hope to see it at FAC soon. - Tutmosis 22:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

José Rizal[edit]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:KaElin (talkcontribs) .

Started and fixed nomination. AZ t 14:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are some issues, I'm a little confused by what did with the footnotes, please follow WP:FN guideline. Regarding the prose, watch out for dragging on sentences. There quite a few long sentences with multiple use of commas. Back to footnotes, for such a long article it's undercited with some section containing no footnotes what-so-ever. Especially the quotes need footnotes. Anyway, it was an intresting read. Good luck with the article. - Tutmosis 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

ElecoSlim[edit]

I would like this to be a Wikipedia:Good Article and any advice or feedback on how to expand this stub article would be appreciated. --SunStar Net 12:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 17:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Who designed it? Who bought them? When were they installed? Problems? Advantages? Cost? - Tutmosis 02:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Socialist Studies (1989)[edit]

Since this article is in a more or less complete state now, I am nominating it for peer review.

An earlier version of this article was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of Great Britain (Reconstituted)) on the grounds of non-notability and non-verifiability. The result was "no consensus" (defaulting to keep). I then rewrote the article completely with extensive citations from primary sources (i.e., material published by Socialist Studies itself). Since Socialist Studies basically defines itself in relation to the Socialist Party of Great Britain, I've also cited primary sources from the SPGB, though since the SPGB has (with one exception) never publically commented on Socialist Studies, the references are generally useful only to draw comparisons between the two groups. There are virtually no other secondary sources with any information of value; though there are brief mentions in things like court records and police reports, Socialist Studies usually gets no more than a footnote in scholarly works (well, two footnotes in the case of Perrin's book). I'm therefore still skeptical that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiability requirements, so please comment on notability and verifiability issues.

I especially want comments on possible neutrality/POV issues, because the article documents a political dispute, because the bulk of the information comes from Socialist Studies itself rather than from third-party commentaries, and because the article has only one principal author (me). (I previously solicited commentary on the article's talk page and via a {{POV-check}} tag, but I think I may get a better response here.) —Psychonaut 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the article. User:Green01 6:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

Lead needs expansion per WP:LEAD. Gzkn 12:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. How's the introductory paragraph now? —Psychonaut 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Other then the lead, which needs expanding, I think it's very well written and informative. Well done. :) S.Skinner 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Check Results[edit]

The following are the contentions I have with the article in the feild of WP:NPOV concerns.

Possibly biased wording there, with the quotation marks.

Purports could be a loaded word here. Perhaps "claims" is a little better here?

Should explain this a little more to be a little more balanced.

This one is loaded enough to either require a significant citation or be retracted, IMHO.

Other than that, it looks pretty good. Kudos to the editors here. Hope my comments have been helpful. Cheers! -- ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I respond to your four points as follows. Please let me know if the explanations, changes, and proposed changes are acceptable.
  1. The word "reconstituted" is in quotes because it's a quotation, not because the writer is mocking it or thinks it's dubious. I've added a citation to their "Reconstituted SPGB" pamphlet immediately after this quotation to clarify things. Does this clear up the matter?
  2. OK, I changed "purports" to "claims" as per your suggestion.
  3. I've significantly expanded this section with further explanations and citations.
  4. The two citations given at the end of this two-sentence paragraph are applicable to the entire paragraph, not just the second sentence. I therefore had the choice of repeating the same two citations after each sentence, or simply having one set of citations at the end of the paragraph. Do you believe I should have done the former? At any rate, this section does require expansion because Socialist Studies's claims about the SPGB's position are incorrect, or at least outdated. (The SPGB did at one point hold that the state would be abolished immediately upon the overthrow of class society, but that view was officially rescinded in the 1990s. I haven't yet had time to look up the references.)

Psychonaut 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1: the usage of quotation marks like that tends to taken this way. The Ref helps a great deal there.
2: Thanks
3: Good work. Looks solid
4: just note this in the reference. - ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Lifespring[edit]

I have just rewritten this article, which was a stub, and completely POV. I would like feedback to make sure that it is neutral and clear enough. I should add that the page has had a lot of random edits by anonymous editors, and the page could be the subject of an edit war--hence my desire to have it reviewed for neutrality. Thanks. Jeffpw 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 15:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This was an interesting subject that I knew nothing about. A few things struck me:
  1. Expand LGAT in the lead for its first instance. It's necessary to understand what the article is about.
  2. "Very controversial, it had vocal proponents, as well as prominent detractors." is kinda meaningless. You can say the same thing by putting "controversial" in the first sentence.
  3. "Observers have made comparisons between Lifespring and Werner Erhard's Est training." is probably unnecessary in the lead. The article goes into more detail (see next note) in a few sentences anyway.
  4. How about some detail on how Lifespring and est are similar/different?
  5. The article alludes to similarities to Scientology but never says what (either scrap the sentence, or tell us something about it).
  6. Complaints about the program, or people feeling pressured, probably belongs in the Criticism section rather than Course overview. This is probably going to be a bit hard to work out, but perhaps try to present a very NPOV view of what the program was supposed to do in the overview (I still have no idea), and then have all peoples complaints in the next section.
  7. Is Lifespring a company that offers a training program? Or a training program itself? The lead makes it seem like it's a program, but then a company is paying out for lawsuits. It should be clarified somewhere.
  8. I'd cut classification altogether and put in somewhere in the text (perhaps criticism?).
  9. Later developments is empty? Is it a program that's still around?
Hope this helps, good luck!--Will.i.am 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, Will.i.am, for your excellent criticism of the article. I will start working on the changes today. In answer to some of your questions, Lifespring is both the company offering the trainings, as well as the training itself.

I agree that the paragraph about est and Scientology needs to be expanded. I'll start working on that after work today. The later Developments section was full when I went to bed, with no less than 5 sources. It was vandalized before you looked at it. It is now reverted (though all your lovely copy editing was lost in the process). Thanks again.Jeffpw 05:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries! I re-enacted most of them, and then liberally consolidated your Lawsuits, Psychological Discussions, and Deaths sections. (I believe that they all involved lawsuits, and are all covered by the topic sentence of Lawsuits anyway.) Final note on Later Developments: Can you spread out the notes so they're attached to the specific company they cite? That was a pretty long laundry list of companies and it's not immediately obvious from the note titles which reference is talking about which company. Cheers!--Will.i.am 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

El Greco[edit]

I initiate this last peer-review, just before submitting the article to WP:FAC. The article has already gone through two peer-reviews (here and here), and two more independent reviews by User:Yomangani and User:Eusebeus. Please, check Talk: El Greco. The purpose of this peer-review is to collect any further suggestions or to locate any deficiencies I may have missed despite the repetitive reviews and copy-edits. Thanks!--Yannismarou 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be
Doménicos Theotocópoulos, known as "El Greco" (probably a combination of the Castilian and the Venetian language for "The Greek",[a][b] 1541 – April 7, 1614), was a prominent painter, sculptor and architect of the Spanish Renaissance. He usually signed his paintings in Greek letters with his full name. Kaisershatner 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From SG[edit]

I switched all of your news sources from cite web to cite news, so that all of the information, including publication date, would be listed, alphabetically by last name of author. Because I didn't know how to use a different date format (I hate the cite templates), that meant I had to switch the last access date format on all of your refs. All of your references are now listed alphabetically, taking last name of author on news sources into account.

The division of References into

  • 9.1 Printed sources (books and articles)
  • 9.2 On-line sources
    • 9.2.1 Biographical
    • 9.2.2 Miscellaneous

creates a problem with the citations list. When the reader needs to find full detail on a source given in the citations list, s/he should be able to do that by going down the References list alphabetically. But, because the references are divided three ways, that means the reader has to peruse three different lists in order to locate full information about a given source. I'm not sure how to solve that problem - I'd probably be happier to see one, combined Reference list, to make it easier on the reader. I'm not sure the reader needs to know if a source is online, in print, or whatever. (I haven't had time to read the article, and considering the holiday season, may not find time.) Sandy (Talk) 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! I trimmed the two sub-lists in Online Sources. So, now we have two main categories:
  • 9.1 Printed sources (books and articles)
  • 9.2 On-line sources
I do not think that this division is now problematic. After all, in previous articles I divided References in "primary" and "secondary sources", and again there was no problem. I've also seen this distinction of references in printed and online sources in a series of FA articles. After all, the reader can have immediate access to an online source straight from the "Citations" section.--Yannismarou 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, now it works - now one can find the detail. But I found another issue, which I hesitate to fix myself. On all of your cite journals (see WP:CITE), you added an extra set of quotes ( " ) around the journal names - the template automatically provides the correct format, which is italics on journal names. Fixing all of those will take some time :-) Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Done.--Yannismarou 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Review by DVD R W[edit]

Some brief thoughts and comments:

  • This article looks good, I don't have much to say but I would support it at FAC.
  • The article seems very well researched, but can you cut back on a few citations and notes for the sake of readability?
  • Why so many peer reviews?
  • Because I like to have many eyes in the article! Reviews are always helpful, because reviewers help you locate mistakes you may have missed!--Yannismarou 12:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 10:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Review by Ham[edit]

Using my finest-toothed comb...

  • May I suggest putting all the biographical info in a single section entitled Life (with Early years and family etc. as subsections)? That way the division of the article into sections on biography (Life), stylistic analysis (Art), posthumous reputation (Legacy) and historiography (Debates on attribution) would be clearer from the table of contents.
  • I'll put them under the title "Life".--Yannismarou 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Underscore" is used twice. The second time around it starts to take on the nasty ring of jargon; try to find a synonym.
  • Who's being quoted here: "an illustrious past, a prosperous present and an uncertain future"? It's not clear from the footnote.
  • Tried to clarify that.--Yannismarou 16:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The formatting is generally very good (particularly the idea of slotting a timeline – always awkward – into the Notes section), but I wonder about the extended Meier-Graefe quote being next to an insert with another quote (the Oddysseas Elytis excerpt). Any chance of moving the latter up or down?
  • When introducing David Davies as an English art historian, there's no need to link to English art. You probably don't need one for human anatomy either.
  • Both un-linked.--Yannismarou 18:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In the Legacy section,
    • Might Posthumous artistic reputation be better named Posthumous critical reputation or some such, as it quotes only critics, whereas the section after that is about artistic responses to his work?
    • Possibly move the reference to Der Blaue Reiter, the only artists quoted in the critical section, to Influence on other artists?
    • The subsection on critics comes before that on artists infuenced by El Greco. It's unusual for the former group to have priority; you might want to consider swapping them around.
  • The problem that in this case the critics (and scholars) were the protagonists in El Greco's re-evaluation. The artists came next.--Yannismarou 16:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Except for the above points, this would tick all my boxes at FAC. Best of luck to you! [talk to the] HAM 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot for the review.--Yannismarou 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Minamata disease[edit]

I've been working on this article for the last few months after reading several books on the subject. I've been including information as I see fit, but before I develop the article further I would like to get some critical review of how I'm getting on so far.

In particular, I would like people to comment on the following:

  1. How is the level of detail in the article? Is it too detailed for an encyclopedia article? Should I break more sections out into separate articles as I've done with the 1959 compensation agreements and Niigata Minamata disease?
  2. What do you think about the article's structure and subheadings? (the history section is long and makes up most of the article currently)
  3. What are the images like? Particularly, are the fair-use images taken by W. Eugene Smith used with a sufficient fair-use rationale?
  4. Is the formatting of the footnotes ok? Am I depending too much on only a few references?

Any comments or guidance would me much appreciated! Bobo12345 10:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • At first glance, which unfortunately is all I have time for right now, the article is very impressive. I have two (Smith-irrelevant) illustration criticisms, though. First, the picture of waste coming out of a pipe isn't clearly labeled as from Minamata and immediately (because it's new enough to be in color) looks as if it isn't: a click on the link shows that indeed it's from the other side of the Pacific. Secondly, the book by Kuwabara is presented as if to suggest that it predated Smith's work; although the photo within the cover may indeed predate Smith (I don't know offhand as my copy of the book isn't with me), the book is very recent, as will be pretty obvious to anyone who reads the kanji along the top (let alone clicks the link). So I'd recommend removing both. If I find a "fair-usable" pre-Smith image, I'll be in touch. And I'll return to the article later. -- Hoary 11:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking the article over. With regard to the wastewater discharge photo, the one currently in use is a public domain photo I found on a US government website. I had originally uploaded one of Smith's photos (see right), but an editor complained that the fair-use rationale didn't stand up. I would dearly love to use Smith's photo as it illustrates the article much better than the modern equivalent, as you say. Do you think the fair-use rationale could be supported? The new version of the photo I uploaded is smaller in resolution (only 250px tall) than the one that was deleted.
Secondly, I've removed the Kuwabara book cover image as you suggested. I didn't realise it was a more modern edition! Bobo12345 11:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Quick comment, I would add more to the mercury image caption, i.e. how it relates to the article and I would either find the reference for the missing citation (or move the sentence to the talk page). Lastly, my browser shows eight of these square boxes "窒" (four in one part and three in another) in the first sentence? --Sadi Carnot 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at the article. I've added a little more detail to the mercury image caption and moved the unsourced sentence to the Talk page, as you suggested. I've also made a request over at the Chemicals WikiProject for an image of the causative compound itself (methylmercury) to include or replace the image. As for the square boxes, I imagine that is because your web browser doesn't show Japanese characters properly. Take a look at the help page on the issue. Bobo12345 13:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
A newish browser intended for general use will show Japanese characters automatically if the OS allows this (and most computer OSes now in use do) and if a font for Japanese is installed. Just one of these fonts takes up four megabytes or so; if you can't read Japanese script and don't much want to learn, I suggest that you don't lumber your computer with it. Just put up with the "boxes": understanding their content isn't (or shouldn't be) necessary in order to understand the article. -- Hoary 13:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Confessing that I only gave it one brief glance, I suggest you rework the Reference section. There's no need to fully cite a source every time you refer to it. Consider working along the lines of Boshin War or other history articles. Items in "References" should not be in "Further reading." After another quick glance:
  • Some of the subsubsections in History are rather short. Perhaps you could merge them?
  • With all that detail in History broken in so many subsections, you could perhaps just remove the History heading and promote the subsections to sections. That's a judgment call, though.
  • Some sub/sections go unsourced. That won't do. And the density of inline-citations is uneven.
  • A "See also" section is only needed for terms not wikilinked in the article itself. Perhaps you could mention Ontario Minamata disease in the main text and then remove that "See also" section entirely.
  • In general, it seems the only words in an article that should be in boldface are the first instance of the topic and variants of the topic's name. Things like "Hot House" and "Minamata Fishing Cooperative" probably should not be bold.
  • I'm not sure what the style guide says on this, but there seem to be a lot of red-links. Perhaps some could be removed?--Monocrat 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I'll address them over the next few days. Bobo12345 10:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article, making a fair number of small changes and adding questions and small requests in <!-- --> SGML comments. But those aside, I'm sorry to have to say that this is too long. Yes, everything in it is worth saying, but it's not all worth saying there. One obvious example is the description of the photo by Smith: yes, by all means describe it (briefly, in one clause) and summarize its impact, but relegate everything else about it to its own article. A second starting point for trimming is George's theory that Minamata helped democratize Japan: I find the argument (as it's presented in the article) very vague and unconvincing, peculiarly so in view of the space given to it (and the obvious continuing disregard of the state for those incarcerated for the quasi-crime of having Hansen's disease, for Koreans and others forced into prostitution, etc etc). -- Hoary 15:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My comments:
  • I've made one read-through of the article. Up to the section entitled "The second solution, 1969-1973", I found the article totally fascinating. Then, it was like running into a brick wall. I found myself skipping paragraphs and then entire sections before catching myself and realizing that I was supposed to be reviewing the article and going back (although I grudgingly admit I gave up making it through much of that portion). There is way, way, way too much detail there. I'll throw out an example paragraph taken directly from the article:
  • These direct negotiations in Tokyo were exhausting. On December 8, Kawamoto, a leader in the direct negotiations group, began by asking Shimada, a Chisso executive, to pledge in their blood to come to an agreement and treat each other as human beings. Shimada refused. The negotiations lasted through much of the night, ending with Shimada collapsing and being taken to the hospital. The Minamata patients were told to go home, and when Shimada was able to negotiate again, he would do so in Minamata. However, the patients remained in the Chisso headquarters. By December 25, only two patients remained in Tokyo, Kawamoto and Sato. Chisso Executive Director Kuga, approached them and asked them to take some money and buy tickets back to Minamata. Kawamoto and Sato refused unless Chisso agreed to direct negotiations. They were thrown out to the unsightly tented settlement outside the building.
    It's interesting in its own right, but is it that necessary to go into such detail in an article about Minimata disease? Consider taking large portions of this section and splitting them into sub-articles for readers who want that level of detail. There also seems to be a disturbing lack of references for this portion of the article, simply one reference to a book on the history of Minimata disease.
  • In most of the article, currency is given in japanese yen with conversions to US Dollars. However, some sections of the article only give $USD.
  • Some sections are unreferenced.
Hope that helps. Neil916 (Talk) 09:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for giving the article such a thorough read-through! Actually, the "Second solution, 1969-1973" section was written by another editor, but I decided to get a peer review on my work up to that point before tackling the rest of the article. When I get the time, I'm planning to go over the article again and remove some of the content to sub-articles, as you suggest. Cheers. Bobo12345 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Human bonding[edit]

Hi, I am thinking about nominating either interpersonal chemistry or human bonding (or both) for FA candidacy. On the latter article's talk page, it has been suggested that it be a "featured article". Any comments or article critique (on either article) would be appreciated. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a little diversity in the photos? Those all reflect Western culture; look through some country categories on Commons and see if you can find anything from Africa, East Asia, South America, etc. — BrianSmithson 11:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, I added three new pics to human bonding. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 11:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Miss America and Groucho Marx? — BrianSmithson 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Javelin throwing (Tahiti), Miss America (of African-American descent), and Groucho Marx (to highlight that a sense of humor is an important part in human bonding, many studies support this). Bonding-related images are not as easy to find at the Commons as you might think; but your point well taken. I switched two of these for more generic ones. If you know of other images ideas please suggest them. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the javelin-throwing picture. There's a good mix of ethnic diversity on the page now, but It still seems Western-skewed to me. The picture of the guy and his dog in particular bothers me; it looks like someone walked into the living room and took a photo of her husband to put it in the article (that's not to say you should necessarily replace that image; just registering my opinion ;)). Maybe peruse Commons Category:Mothers or Category:Musicians by nationality? Category:Brides or Category:Geisha might also be worth a look as possible replacements for the German pageant contestant. Sorry to harp on diversity like this, but I'm a strong believer that Wikipedia needs to counter its systemic bias and represent a worldwide view in articles and imagery.
As for the article itself, I think you're off to a good start. The lead should be expanded a bit, per WP:LEAD. I'd beef up the paragraphs you've got there now to be more of an overview of the whole article. The second issue I notice is that you've got a lot of stubby sections. "Other" under "Bond varieties", and the entire "Types" section. Merge short subsections if necessary or beef them up with more information. In general, don't give a separate section to anything shorter than two paragraphs. People on FAC hate lists, so try to convert "Neurochemistry" into prose. Long "See also" sections are also frowned upon at FAC. The thinking goes that if something is related to the article, it will be linked from within the prose. Try to reduce the "See also" list as much as possible. Was the "Further reading" used to write the article? If so, move it in with "References". Finally, take a fine, hard look at that long list of external links; axe anything that's not absolutely necessary. — BrianSmithson 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
All good suggestions; I'll work to filter these through my head over the next month or so. Thanks, for the extra photo categories; looking for good photos, such as at www.shutterstock.com (where I spend a lot of time), is like looking for shinny needles in a maze of hay stacks. --Sadi Carnot 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Good points, I'll have to have some mental filter time for these suggestions. --Sadi Carnot 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Neurochemistry' section is a list, it should be turned into prose as much as possible. History seems incomplete: 'Early views' are ok, but what followed them? I wouldg guess the rest of the article describes later=modern views, but it is only my guess. The article needs more refs - some sections and paras (like 'Capture bond' for example) are unreferenced. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, good suggestions; I'll filter these into my head. The neurochemistry section is a “thick” and very new topic of research; new imaging studies crop up almost yearly and there are 100s of different bio-, neuro-, and hormonal-, etc., chemicals to keep track of. Cleaning that section using prose is going to take some work. Yet, three people now, including yourself, suggest that prose is needed. I'll think this over? Later: --Sadi Carnot 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Walls of Constantinople[edit]

Hello, I have during the past two weeks expanded the article on the Walls of Constantinople, ultimately aiming at advancing it to A-class or FA, and hope to get your input on it. Although there is information I still want to add, I would like to have your opinions, especially on:

  • General comments about the structure and readability of the article. Have I left anything important out? Does the article give a fairly complete treatment on the subject?
  • I don't know whether I should include the Yedikule Fortress with the Golden Gate in the present article, or create a separate page for them. Likewise, the walls of the suburb of Galata could be included, although they can be considered a separate fortification.

Regards, Cplakidas 12:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the article in detail, because I don't have time today. But I'll hopefully come back tomorrow with more content- and prose-related remarks and a more detailed review. This initial and incomplete review is limited in just some technical issues:

  • The lead could be a bit more expanded per WP:LEAD.
  • Needs more citations. For instance, in "The Land Walls" some paragraphs are not at all referenced.
  • Don't wikilink more than once the same link. I think Constantinople is linked more than once.
  • Try to get rid of "See also". Do you regard this section as really necessary? Such sections are not so "trendy" nowadays. You could try to incorporate any links there in the main prose if possible.
  • Definitely get rid of "Trivia". It is stubby and, in general, trivia sections are not esteemed. Again, try to incorporate its content in the main prose.
  • "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article "Constantinople", a publication now in the public domain." Sice the article is expanded I don't think that this "special" note is necessary. Treat Britannica like one of your other sources.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 10:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply! I have already changed a few things, expanded the lead and removed the Trivia section. The "See also" section I regard as a necessary evil, since it incorporates fortifications in the immediate area which otherwise would require a separate section, and I think it would be stretching the article too much. As for the sieges, I originally intended to write a short summary for every one of them as far as the walls were concerned, but since a separate article linking to each of them exists, I let it drop. However, I moved the link from the "See also" to the lead. Regards, Cplakidas 15:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but at last I found some time to review in detail this article. These are my remarks:

  • Be careful with some minor details. For instance, in the lead, within 5 lines you wikilinked twice Constantine the Great! And you also link more than once Constantinople. Minor things, but ...
  • "many parts of the walls survived are still standing today". Is an "and" missing here or I just did not understand it well?
  • "The original walls of the city were built in the 8th century BC, when Byzantium was founded by Greek colonists from Megara, led by the eponymous Byzas". I think you should add a citation in this sentence.
  • I think that you should not wikilink single years (e.g. 408). Only year-date-month (e.g. September 25, 408). I'm almost certain about that.
  • "It was architecturally splendid". POV! Rephrase and cite.
  • For the red links you have, it'd be nice to create some stub articles and not let them red.
  • Three paragraphs towards the end of "The Theodosian Walls" are uncited.
  • Again: How many times do you link the Fall of Constantinople?!
  • "Nonetheless, the restored sections give an imposing image of the walls in their original state." Says who? No citation.
  • The "The Yediküle Fortress" has no citations.
  • "After the final capture of Constantinople, in 1457". 1457 or 1453?! Was that a mistake or you meant something else?
  • Look what is my problem: I start reading the "Land Walls" and then I go to the "Theodosian Walls" and follow the story until today. Then I learn the The Yediküle Fortress and the The Walls of Blachernae. Until then I had the wrong impression that the Theodosian Walls were the only Land Walls. Maybe, you should introduce the reader in the begining of the "Land Walls" section and say that we have these and these walls.
  • Two paragraphs in the "The Walls of Blachernae" are uncited.
  • "Despite all this, the defences of the Blachernae section remained weaker than at the Theodosian Walls, and it was here the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade managed to penetrate them and first enter the city." Citation needed.
  • These two one -sentence paragraphs in "The Sea Walls" are not so nice. I'd suggest that you merge or expand.
  • I suggest you provide at least one citation for each of the sub-sections in "The Sea Walls".

In general, the article is well-written and informative, but it needs more citations. And, although the prose flow looks not bad, I'd strongly recommend a copy-edit by a native English-speaker. I think you could submit such a request in the Military History project or politely ask an editor you know and trust to copy-edit the text.--Yannismarou 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mario[edit]

Archive: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario/archive1

The article seems to be nearing featured status. There should probably be a few more references; my question is, what else is left to cite? Also, is there anything other improvements to be made to this article to reach featured status? —The Great Llama talk 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see more automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, —The Great Llama talk 01:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The characteristics section seems overly long and there are several unfree images that don't seem to be adding to the article. For instance, we don't need to know what a fire flower looks like, especially since the text is describing Mario's powers and abilities. Jay32183 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the characteristics section can be trimmed a bit by removing the discussion on his age. There isn't an official age listed in any source, the entire section is based on speculation. Unsourced speculation is considered a bad thing in Wikipedia articles. Jay32183 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Would it be at all possible to combine the paragraph about Mario being a doctor in "Occupations and hoobies" with the "Doctor Mario" section? It seems to me that the prose would flow better if the those connected ideas were consolidated.Jay32183 03:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Glenn T. Seaborg[edit]

Seaborg is one of the giants of science and his legacy and stature seem to be growing. I would like to improve upon this article, and hopefully prepare this article for featured article status. I have removed a lot of the lists and bullets to create, hopefully, a more encyclopedic style. All constructive comments are welcome. Seaborg was listed in the Guiness Book of World Records as having the longest entry in Who's Who in America. Therein lies the rub. Is it too long, does it do justice to the subject? Is it well written and interesting? Is there enough of a narrative thread? Too much repetition between the main article and the subsections? We need some outside editors to help move this one up the ladder. Seaborg is a monumental figure in the history of Science and we need to make sure WP adequately covers him. Thanks in advance. Glenn4pr 09:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's generally good, but a few sections need work. The lead is messy and essentially just a list of the things he did and won. It could be split into 3-4 paragraphs, and have more of a structure in itself. It goes into too much detail: there doesn't need to be a list of all the elements he discovered, for instance. It needs some trimming so it only includes the most important/notable things. The quote at the bottom seems a bit out of place, can't it be included in the relevant section of the rest of the text? The early life section, particularly the second paragraph, is a bit stilted and just a collection of facts about him. "He kept a daily journal. He was a sports and movie fan. His mother encouraged him to be a bookkeeper." Those need some kind of relevance or context - what happened to the journals, did he ever pursue his interest in sports and music, did his mother's encouragement make any difference to what he did? And the last sentence there about being inspired could really do with a reference (of him saying that). Trebor 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost Experience[edit]

Article is stable now that the Lost Experience is over, needs general feedback. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead needs expansion. 'Background' can be easily be merged with 'Premise'. Article is poor in clarity, what were they playing for? how did people know that this was a game? etc. Write it like you were explaining this to someone who doesnt even know what 'Lost' is. Very few footnotes. - Tutmosis 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid[edit]

I've been working tirelessly to get this to Good Article status. I'm unsure what else is needed to get it there, and I don't know of any prose issues (no one has done a copyedit). Please do not mention the lack of references in the second half of the Plot section - they have been ommited on purpose to make further editing (which is likely) easier --TheEmulatorGuy 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Great work, some concerns:

  • What kind of "newfound levels of realism" did this game feature?
  • By 'weakspots' you mean what part of the body you fire your weapon at? can that be explained a bit more?
  • To my understanding the game is part a Third-person shooter, maybe that should be mentioned? Also, linking to similar stealth-based games such as Tenchu would be useful, as you do mention that it is a Stealth-based game. This would help to further clarify the genre of the game, which may be confusing for those readers who are not familiar with video games.
  • Gameplay is a bit short, mention more about Snake's stealth abilities and were there any vehicles available?
  • "Mei Ling saves the player's progress" How?
  • 'Development' speaks nothing of the game development. Who was it developed by, inspiration, engine used, problems during development, pre-screening of the game at any shows, promotional work, release dates, etc. Nothing of that sort happened?
  • Those last 3 subsection in development probably could be merged under something like "Other media"
  • 'Audio' and 'Reception' feel a bit stubby, but knowing what everyone says, I dont know what can be added. Just an observation compared to other video game FA's.

The article is looking really good but note the copyright problem with the REX robot image. Good luck! - Tutmosis 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if more was made of the game's legacy. A game of this much significance should have plenty of sources regarding its impact on gaming. See something like Halo: Combat Evolved for ideas on how this may be done. JimmyBlackwing 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria[edit]

Note Article is now a FAC, its candidacy page is here

A core topic in biology, medicine, biochemistry and biotechnology. The article is intended to be a wide introduction and comments on both content and formatting for a future FA candidacy are very welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 23:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • A few first thoughts:
    • Maybe two more electron micrographs; I googled for streptococcus to get an idea for what's out there. It should be possible to get an image published under an open license.
    • Also, a size comparison would be good - typical baterium vs. typical diameter of fungus hyphae, and vs. typical virus (I know they vary hugely, maybe use the biggest and smallest known in each category?) - Samsara (talk  contribs) 13:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Added images of Bacillus anthracis and Helicobacter pylori, expanded the information on size is at the start of the morphology section. TimVickers 19:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Good job so far. I was thinking of something more for the kids, along the lines of Image:Trex1.png - Samsara (talk  contribs) 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I made a new cartoon and added it to the Morphology section. TimVickers 19:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • History: "the history of bacteriology is generally described as the history of microbiology" This is not the article on bacteriology but on bacteria. I think the section should be renamed "Bacteriology" I found the sentances on Koch's postulates to stray off-topic. In the lead you said the terminology regarding bacteria scientifically has changed. If this is important enought for the lead I believe the details of this change should be explained.
Koch condensed and two-domain section added. TimVickers 19:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This section holds together better after those changes. I still think the heading should be changed as the text is not the History of Bacteria. The History of Bacteria would be something like "Millions of years ago . . ." I also think the information Only about half of the known bacterial phyla have species that can be cultured in the laboratory and our knowledge of bacteria as a whole is biased towards those organisms that can be isolated in this way. should be moved here as imagine this is true of the whole article not just "Growth and Reproduction". --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Section renamed and uncultured majority info added to introduction. TimVickers 21:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Section on "Origin and early evolution" added. Called "early evolution" as these organisms are still evolving rapidly. TimVickers 02:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Morphology: I don't understand the paragraph on hydrogen transfer. Is it a close association between bacteria? I thought Archaea were not bacteria? Are mitochondria and chloroplasts still bacteria or do they simply have a common ancestor with some/all bacteria? (I hate when people describe something extant being descended from another extant group; I find it to be an inaccurate portrayal of evolution) If they are not technically bacteria anymore what characteristics to they lack?
Hydrogen transfer association between a bacteria and an archaean. Reword ancestry and define mutualism and parasitism with links.
Added space as a better example and rephrased Clostridium example. TimVickers 19:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This section is much easier to understand now. There is one sentance Each bacterial species tends to display a characteristic morphology. which is so weakly worded I am not sure what it means. Does this means some species have a variety of shapes while most do not? Or is setting up the exception of complex groups with fruiting bodies which posibly involve some individual bacteria changing shapes?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Reworded. TimVickers 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Spores: Is a rusty nail a particularly hostile environment? Maybe there is better example of something more obviously hard to survive, or you can explain why the reader should be impressed with rust.
  • Metabolism: This section need a stronger structure. I am left confused. After reading that paragraph I wonder if heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria have varieties that are electron donors and electron acceptors or are autrphic more limited. Is "energy metabolism" the same as electron donating or accepting? If the hetero/autotropic stuff is not "energy metabolism" what kind of metabolism is it? Also what does respitory mean in terms of bacteria?
Structure improved to give more clarity, energy metabolism is the capture of energy from either oxidation/reduction reactions or sunlight, and then the use of this energy for metabolic processes.
This is much clearer but it still loses me in places. Such as: To use chemical compounds as a source of energy, electrons are taken from the reduced substrate and transferred to a terminal electron acceptor.(what is the "reduced substrate? Is a terminal electron acceptor some structure of the bacteria?) and In addition to carbon, some bacteria also fix nitrogen gas (nitrogen fixation) using the enzyme nitrogenase. ("fix" carbon? This does not match earlier terminology so I don't know what you are comparing this to?) --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Reworded for more clarity and same terms used throughout. TimVickers 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Growth and reproduction: Aren't you using these two words to mean reproduction throughout this section. Does bacteria really grow separately from reproducing?
They do, otherwise they would get smaller each time they divide. This section deals with both processes, but never defines them properly. I've added this in the start of this section. TimVickers 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This is clearer with that definition. The section talks a great deals about growing bacteria in labratories but nothing at all about their growth within biofilms. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Much more is known! I generalised the last section, since this applies to all bacterial growth. TimVickers 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Genetic variation: The last paragraph here would fit better with the text in "History" or "Uses in industry" (although the titles of those sections are misnomers IMHO) . --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Added to new Technology and industry section (renamed). TimVickers 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Groups and identification: This repeats a number of points from earlier in the article. Especialty "History" and "Morphology". It should be higher in the article with repeated points only dealt with in one place. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Reworded and condensed. TimVickers 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Pathogenic bacteria: I question the title of this section. Is there something in inherently pathogenic about these organisms or are they just "Baceteria as pathogens"? When I look at viruses; they must destroy another cell to reproduce which seem inherently pathogenic. But bacteria seem more oppurtunistic to me. I really don't know. If they are inherently pathogenic; what are the attributes that seperate them from other bacteria. Otherwise this section needs more structure. Are they bacteria usually pathogenic only to humans? Most animal? Genera of organisms? Maybe talk about the most common (broadly pathogenic bacteria or ones which act very specifically) and then move towards the opposite end of the spectrum. I also wonder if this section warrants some "bigger picture" talk. About what leads to an "outbreak" of disease rather than baseline of infections. Is these "conditons needed to thrive" any different for bacteria as opposed to other organismal pathogens?
Looks like Tim has now clarified this a lot better. I'm happy with the section title, although I'd also be happy for it to be called something simpler, such as "bacteria and disease". It comes down to the question whether we want laypeople to pick up jargon - they may find it useful. - Samsara (talk  contribs) 13:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Pathogenic bacteria/Symbiotic bacteria: I feel like these should be handled differently. Right I get the impression the article really means Bad Bacteria/Good Bacteria. And honestly is just discussing bacteria which hamper or help human efforts. The Symbiotic section should be higher in the article maybe reworked as "Bacterial associations" with part of the current "Morphology and associations" leaving a stand-alone section on "Morphology". Also the discussion of symbosis should focus on the benefit to the bacteria not to humans or ther crops. I would also like to ruminants mentioned here because it is more commonly known and IMHO more complete symbiosis than soybeans (ie. the nitrogen fixation symbiosis). Maybe the range of symbiosis should be discussed. Somethings can help each other (great they thrive) or not (oh well they still survive) others cannont exist without the relationship. Somehow I imagine all bacteria manage to survive without symbiosis while several of their partners cannot.
I've merged these two sections and moved some of the material down from the old "Morphology and associations" section. Also linked to mutualism, parasitism and commensalism at beginning. TimVickers 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to voice my opinion that the distinction between pathogenic and non-pathogenic bacteria is an old and distinguished one and needs to be treated as such. Much of microbiology was developed in order to assist the isolation and identification of human pathogens. (And there are certainly some bacteria that are obligate intracellular parasites that cannot survive either independently or symbiotically.) - Nunh-huh 01:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not take my suggestions as firm opinions. I do not have any particular knowledge about microbiology. I am sure many of my points are incorrect. I would just suggest that where they are incorrect the article should have it's wording stregthened or its terminology more clearly defined so that a reader could not wonder about such things. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to add a bit of this into the Groups and Identificaiton portion of the article later tonight. If it doesn't help with your particular concern about the term "pathogens", let me know! - Nunh-huh 01:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I really like the reworking of this information. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Uses in industry: This is the weakest section. I think it should be renamed "Cultured bacteria" and should recount the history of people intentionally culturing or promoting bacterial growth for their own benefit. Whether they knew what a bacteria was or not. And also methods used to do this.
I still find this part weak and dislike the heading. Cesspools existed before the industrial revolution and the production of fermented food before Homo sapiens. This is about more than industry. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What is missing: Several time you compare bacteria to eukaryote; I would like to see the basic difference between a bacteria and eukaryote mention the first time (i.e. compared to eukaryotes, organisms whose cells have nuculei,). This article need a proper taxonmy box and a discussion of the conflicting opinions over taxonomy. "Eubacteria" should be a bolded synonym. The relationship to what this articles call bacteria needs to detailed to what are called "Prokaryotes". In fact there is not a clear explanation as to what makes one organism a bacteria and another not. Some discussion of evolutionary biology of bacteria would be nice.
Eukaryote/prokaryote now added to start of intro. TimVickers 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I still think redirected synomyms need bolding and the infobox should be more like Archaea (Why use "Subgroups" when there is an actual taxonomy). --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Synonyms bolded. TimVickers 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Overall this is a strong article on subject that is so broad it is difficult. I think a better job could be done identifying daughter articles but maybe they do not exist yet. I think when you are done this will be a great blue-print for other empires/kingdoms/domains and I hope someone tackles the other six articles as they are important core topics. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent review, thank you. TimVickers 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A section for interesting info: I think trivia sections are kind of lame but there are a lot of inteseting feats that bacteria perform that are worth mentioning. For instance the only occurance of D-amino acids in nature (that I know of) is in the peptidoglycan of gram negative bacteria, would there be a place for nick-nacks of trivia like this?
  • Someone have a reference for bacteria storing glycogen in granules (as this article suggests)? I was under the influence that glycogen was an animal storage method?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adenosine (talkcontribs)
Added D-amino acids to cell wall section and referenced glycogen. TimVickers 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, learned something cool. Thanks Tim, this is a preimer article on wikipedia.. (sorry I didn't sign before) Adenosine | Talk 10:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions incorporated, thank you. TimVickers 18:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to double-check that it makes sense to treat the 3-domain system as authoritative. I haven't read anything particularly recent about prokaryotic relationships, but some of the most recent I have seen were skeptical. Gupta (1998)[10] and Cavalier-Smith (2002)[11] for instance argue that archaebacteria more likely developed from Gram-positive bacteria instead of forming a separate domain; Palaeos has a quick discussion of some objections. Obviously this is a minority point of view, but is it one that has since been discredited, or is it something we should acknowledge as a possibility?

All of the articles I read while researching this treated the archaea/bacteria division as a settled fact. I wasn't aware of this alternative viewpoint but at the moment the article reflects the majority view on this. TimVickers 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with reflecting the majority view, but if it's still based on the idea that rRNA trees are authoritative I think we should at least mention the newer alternative. I'd like to change the text in Groups and Identification to something like the following:
The term "bacteria" was traditionally applied to all microscopic, single-celled prokaryotes. However, evolutionary trees based on rRNA showed prokaryotic life to consist of two separate domains, originally called Eubacteria and Archaebacteria, but now called Bacteria and Archaea. Nowadays this is the generally accepted system of classification, though a few biologists have argued that Archaebacteria are more likely specialized Gram-positive bacteria.[10][11]
Does that seem fair, without putting too much weight on the minority position? It'd be nice to add more about prokaryotic origins and relationships, but as I said, I haven't seen any newer material. Josh 06:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Text added. Thank you. TimVickers 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I support the notion that these references this takes a minority view and give it too much weight. The three domain system is the working model that is used by bacterial taxonomists and an encyclopedia article should reflect this. The 3 domains system was developed based on 16S rRNA gene comparison but is also supported by other conserved traits in the domains such as cell wall structure and composition, features of the RNA transcription and translation mechanisms (see three-domain system). The references cited are "works in progress" reflecting minority views that, though they may prove to be correct in the long run, pale into insignificance when compared with the volume of sources that use the three domain classification. If we look hard we can find exceptions for everything in an article as broad as this topic but that does not mean that these exceptions should be detailed. --Azaroonus 10:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

In any case we should make sure none of the examples are Archaea. Right now Thermoproteus is mentioned, and it sounds like it's meant as a representative bacterium. I don't know if any bacteria are comparable, but if one exists it should be used instead, or the sentence should be changed. Josh 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sentence changed to use a bacterial example. TimVickers 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Arctic Monkeys[edit]

previous PR

Weymouth[edit]

This article has had a series of improvements made recently, and in order to imrove it further it would seem appropriate for other editors to comment and add their input to the article. I think that most of the sections could be expanded more, so suggestions as to what else to include in the article would be a huge help. Comments on improving the language/tone/style of the article would also be appreciated. Rossenglish 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 17:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate this article to be copyedited by a couple of Wikipedians, one cannot always spot mistakes and bad wording etc. Rossenglish 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hot Butter[edit]

I have made significant improvements to this page, given a limited amount of available information and a lot of available misinformation, such as claims that it is a one-man band. I don't know any information about the other band members, except that there is a picture in the album of them showing two keyboardists in addition to Free at the Moog, a guitarist, and two percussionists. This is the only picture of the band on the album cover, though it is fragmented several times. The liner notes' only mention of the band is that it consisted of Free in the studio with "a bunch of fellow players" and several references to them as a group. It took a lot of web research to determine that these were the band and not just the arrangers, engineers, and songwriters of three tracks, and that was done quite a while ago, and now the only hits I can get are for things I generated. I trust it has been adequately cleaned up since the request, whcih came before I got to it. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The article is stub without the list. I recommend continuing expansion while citing sources. Also check out MoS. - Tutmosis 20:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not much more to add. The lead needs rewriting in accordance with the MoS. And, besides the lead, there's not much content there. I'm not an expert on articles related to music groups, but perhaps the article could do with some more history, a note on evolution of the band's members, and definitely more sources and references. //Halibutt 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A few things:
    • Instead of merging the album tracklists into this article, create separate pages for each release and format it in a more intelligble format. There are dozens of well-made discography sections on this site; for a variety of them, see Rage Against the Machine, Isis, The Fall of Troy, Cult of Luna, or for a very comprehensive alternative, Radiohead discography. All of these articles handle the discography in a slightly different way, so take a look and decide which one is best for you.
    • Likewise, I don't think it's strictly necessary to put the reference number of the album after each mention. It's convention to place the release year in parenthesis after the first mention of an album, however.
    • For general help, see Portal:music.
    • Something to note: bands get deleted from Wikipedia daily. There must be a degree of notability, or this will fall under the same hammer eventually.

Hope I helped. Seegoon 16:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


  • As I said, there is very little information on this band available, and much misinformation, as reflected in the earlier edits stating that this is a one-man band. The liner notes are more commentary than history, and fairly brief at that, so they are not terribly useful. It even shows a picture of the band but doesn't bother to say who is who. This is the best I could get it with what I could find.--Scottandrewhutchins 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Evansville, Indiana[edit]

looking for some direction on how to improve this article. let me know what you think is missing, needs improvement, or any other ideas you have. thanks! Randella 18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or incoprorate trivia into the article. No footnotes? Stubby section needs expansion. - Tutmosis 01:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • thanks to both for your feedback. haven't had time to review all the automated suggestions, but will review it in detail. also will go ahead and work on integrating the best of the trivia section into the article. although there are 'inline' reference sources, i'll work to make those actual footnotes so the sources are better documented. Randella 02:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, you have the footnotes, but they should be listed in the article itself. You'll need a reference section to list the books, articles and wesbites you used and then a notes section with specific information for each citation. See WP:CITE. If you have any questions feel free to ask. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a fine start to this article. Here's what you should do to improve it:
Should you need any help, please let me know, I'll do what I can. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights in India[edit]

See previous peer review

A well-written, comprehensive article on FA path. Comments/criticism welcome. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Ok you've cut/paste a lot of info from the mother article. While that is quite acceptable, you need a lot of in-depth information on this subject. "Fundamental rights" equates with "civil rights," "human rights," etc. You will need to dig up a lot of data on the different problems faced by people in India and what the government is doing or not doing. You will need to write about what has happened in states with insurgencies or similar law/order problems: Punjab, Kashmir, Nagaland, Tripura, Bengal, Bihar, Gujarat. Police abuse during the emergency, the Bhagalpur jail abuse, extra-judicial killings, rape in Delhi, etc. One important element is how "Fundamental rights" work out in courts. What judicial decisions, precedents and historical trends in judicial philosophy exist? How have governments worked on legislation and individual cases? And of course, the criticism from various sources. Happily, you have the 2 FACs of FR/DP/FD to guide you on the language, structure, grammar, etc. Rama's arrow 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point to illustrate will be FR's continuing issues with DP and FD. The advancement and enforcement of FRs are argued to be one of the main DPs, but the government often uses national security, some DPs and even FDs to argue in favor of legislation that constrains FRs. So where does the debate stand in India? How do India's FRs correlate with international conventions? Rama's arrow 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nokia[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP: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, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • 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.

Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

GNOME[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the 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,
    • are 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).[9]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), center (A) (British: centre), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), aging (A) (British: ageing), ageing (B) (American: aging).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Isis (band)[edit]

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

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Certain statements need a citation. LuciferMorgan 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Which ones? If you mention them here or {{fact}} tag them I'll get to work. Seegoon 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: the Isis template at the bottom of the article, have you considered condensing the "Releases" section so that the box doesn't take up the width of the page? You would just need to add a <br /> between the appropriate releases, maybe after Panopticon? You could also make it three lines - but I'd at least get In the Absence of Truth on the same line (just my opinion).
    • Done, nice touch. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, have you considered adding music samples. I think they add a lot to a band's article. I added them to the discography section of Harvest; but I've seen them used a number of ways.
    • Great idea, that's something for a long weekend. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thirdly, have you thought of adding the track names to the discography? You could possibly link some of the track names to music samples.
    • I'd be reticent about doing this; it'd make the article visually enormous, practically creating an article in itself. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hope these suggestions help. By the way, if you're interested in adding music samples in the .ogg format, try out "Power mp3 Cutter 2006 - I got it for a free trial off of cNet Downloads. It makes cutting out 30 second or less samples a breeze (which is the legal length). Also, I've got the Harvest article up for peer review if you're interested in reviewing it. Jamie L. 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your suggestions, it's all helpful. I'll give Harvest a lookover when I have some free time. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor[edit]

Thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

Hilary Duff (album)[edit]

An article on a Hilary Duff album that I've recently expanded. I've tried to make it as comprehensive as possible (including making separate articles for the radio singles) without delving into unnecessary detail, but I definitely think somebody unfamiliar with the article should take a look; my eyes have glazed over completely and I know I'm not able to notice problems. It would be great if anyone could provide suggestions on how to elevate it to good article or featured article standard. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 03:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems pretty good overall - clearly written and well-cited. I can't see anything particularly that needs improving further, it seems very thorough - very near, if not at, featured article standard in my opinion. Well done. Trebor 19:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, and thanks for commenting! Extraordinary Machine 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Give some examples of what you consider "unnecessary detail" that you left out, so I can judge whether this was appropriate or not. Everyking 09:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe I am, your opinion of me to the contrary, fully capable of doing that myself. Extraordinary Machine 17:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
So what's peer review for, then? Why'd you bring it here? Everyking 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm not going to get an example. I think my point above was a good one: a person wouldn't go to peer review in good faith if he believed he knew everything better than the rest of us already. You know, I think what's in the article already is great, very well-done (definitely no "padding" as claimed below); I just want to know what kind of philosophy was behind the writing of it, because I have concerns based on past experience. Obviously if you left out a bunch of (what I considered to be) important content based on your philosophy, I'd have to object to that no matter how much I liked the stuff that's already there, but if we agreed the omitted stuff is trivial, then there'd be no issue. Everyking 10:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I do have one minor complaint about what's there that I just noticed: one of the cites is to a thread on a fan forum. Obviously that isn't an adequate source. In that case I would say if the best source available is a fan forum post, just leave the information out of the article. Everyking 10:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not being a fan of this artist, I'm just happy to see a pop-music related article that actually has, ya know, verifiable sources and an actual explanation of the writing and producing that went into the recording of the album instead of hearsay, rumor and an over-explanation of chart activity with a daily TRL chart trajectory. It's thorough without being littered with fan-gush and the tone is appropriate as well. Not sure what else could be added, but good job so far. - eo 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion was requested, and the requester ain't gonna like me (grin). This article gives the feel of massive padding heaped onto a relatively uneventful production to make it look featured-worthy. Just my opinion, of course, but the article could be half this size, or less. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL, why do you think I won't like you? :) I appreciate you saying exactly what you think much more than if you were mincing your words. I must mention, though, that any "massive padding" was a consequence of my getting carried away with making sure the article was comprehensive rather than a desire to make it look like FA quality. In fact, including too much information and then cutting it down means that I won't have to worry about not including enough. Extraordinary Machine 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Chop chop! ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sei Whale[edit]

I would like to request some impartial reviews of the Sei Whale article to gather opinions of how the article can be improved and whether it meets featured article standards. The use of English in the article should be British English, so if you can hunt down American spellings of words and change them, that would also be appreciated since as an American myself, I don't notice them. Neil916 (Talk) 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 03:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I caught a couple of American spelled words (British: categorise, criticise, behaviour). Behavior is in the quotes at the end; I'm not sure if they should be changed. AZ t 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sei Whale is not quite ready for FA yet, but I nominated it for good article status because it's well-written. --Gray Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you be more specific, please? Your nomination for good article was a few days prior to some substantial additions and revisions. Neil916 (Talk) 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It is comprehensive and almost every fact is referenced. It's just some minor changes that were automatically suggested that I see need fixing. --Gray Porpoise 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I just made an addition to the PR script checking for American/British spellings, and here's the output (it's a bit messy looking right now, I'll try to clean it up):
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: color (A) (British: colour), colour (B) (American: color), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), metre (B) (American: meter), analyse (B) (American: analyze), aging (A) (British: ageing), gray (A) (British: grey), grey (B) (American: gray), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ) AZ t 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I just passed this article for GA, gave comments on the talk page and then realized that this article is on PR. So, here I copied my suggestions for FA:
    • You don't need to wikilink everythings. Especially for metrics, you don't have to ask readers to point so many times of what is kilograms, lb, metres, etc. Please find some terms/jargons that are in the context of the subject.
      • Heh. One of the suggestions in the automated peer review was to wikilink more, so I did that. For now, I'll err on the side of too many wikilinks since they're pretty unobtrusive to a reader. Neil916 (Talk) 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The section name of "Historic and current abundance" is not good. What is the meaning of historic abundance? Also avoid "current", because the term can be inaccurate in the future.
      • Good point, I changed it to simply "Abundance". Neil916 (Talk) 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Per WP:MOS, only list items that are not yet wikilinked in the main article for the See Also section. Whaling and International Whaling Commission haven been linked so many times, so you don't need to put it again there. Please check also the other items.
      • Checked them and removed the two overlinked articles. Neil916 (Talk) 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • To help better verifiability of the article, please include also URL links of certain articles. In many journals, articles have been identified with DOI and you can use url= parameter in the {{cite ...}} template. For example, in this citation:
      • Yablokov, A.V. (1994). "Validity of whaling data". Nature 367: 108. 
      You can use url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/367108a0 to write:
      • Yablokov, A.V. (1994). "Validity of whaling data". Nature 367: 108. 
        • I've already searched for any online links to articles that I could find using Google and Google Scholar and linked to pages that provide access to the articles, even if by subscription. In your example, the page that gets linked to isn't very helpful as it doesn't provide access to the article, it only shows a list of references used by that article. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Neil916 (Talk) 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I just saw the page you brought up had a link to purchase the article online, so I'll correct that reference and take another look at the unlinked references. Neil916 (Talk) 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Most of the remaining links are to articles in Reports of the International Whaling Commission, which I can't find online anywhere, or to older articles, which I can't find online either. If you are able to find it, please let me know how you did it. Neil916 (Talk) 21:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I will add more comments if I find new ones. Basically, this is a very good article. — Indon (reply) — 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish phonology[edit]

I'm practically the only contributor of information to this article in the last year and a half or so (most other contributors have only corrected typos, dealt with metainformation like categories and templates, and so forth), so I'd really like some outside input on how I can improve it to bring it up to Good article status. —Angr 18:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a good solid article and I'll gladly certify it as a "good article" if you're interested in that. But to give you some feedback here is a wishlist of things I'd like to know.
  • The article goes straight from a general lead into a fairly detailed nuts and bolts discussion. Personally I like getting to the meat straight away but some more chatty sections might give the article wider appeal. The lead is also supposed to summarize the article so I sort of expected some overview section later on about the differences between the dialects.
  • Another idea for a chatty section would be something about the social status of particular dialects or dialectical variations. Assuming, of course, that there's something interesting to say about that.
  • A few words about the history of the discipline might be worthwhile. When did Irish phonology come to be studied seriously? What are the biggest names in the field? Is Tomás de Bhaldraithe the only notable author in the references list? Is the much-quoted 1899 work by Finck considered a classic?
  • You say that there is no 'standard' pronunciation of the language. In my experience there often is an unofficial standard pronunciation if you just can ferret it out. What's typically taught to foreign students? For that matter, how is Irish pronunciation typically taught to non-native speaking Irish children in Irish schools? Is there a typical Irish-as-a-second-language-with-English-as-a-first-language pronunciation?
  • Insofar as the article offers an historical perspective it's mostly Old