New Immissions/Updates:
boundless - educate - edutalab - empatico - es-ebooks - es16 - fr16 - fsfiles - hesperian - solidaria - wikipediaforschools
- wikipediaforschoolses - wikipediaforschoolsfr - wikipediaforschoolspt - worldmap -

See also: Liber Liber - Libro Parlato - Liber Musica  - Manuzio -  Liber Liber ISO Files - Alphabetical Order - Multivolume ZIP Complete Archive - PDF Files - OGG Music Files -

PROJECT GUTENBERG HTML: Volume I - Volume II - Volume III - Volume IV - Volume V - Volume VI - Volume VII - Volume VIII - Volume IX

Ascolta ""Volevo solo fare un audiolibro"" su Spreaker.
CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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

[edit] Theramenes

I'm aiming at FA for this one. Feedback about the way I've handled the sources would be particularly appreciated, as would magically pulling some images of Theramenes out of thin air. All other comments will be helpful too, of course :-). --RobthTalk 06:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As always, you've meticulously researched and footnoted the hell out of it. Nice work. I suspect the lead section is too long, though. And the lack of images is disappointing, but what can you do? Since no one really knows what he looked like, I suppose you could use a random image and claim that it's Theramenes. :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right about the lead; I've had lead section-itis for a few weeks now, and I'm not sure why. I shrank it. The image thing really is a shame, since a face at the top of a biography is always a nice touch; I'm tempted to find some photo of an unidentified statue and caption it "some ancient greeks, possibly including Theramenes, looked something like this." Thanks for the feedback. --RobthTalk 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot (House episode)

I was thinking submitting this article for featured article status after dealing with the Star Wars articles for so long. I'm doing this to do something smaller, but I'm also doing something different that not nobody had done before. I'm here asking for help in any ideas for bettering the article before I submit for FAC. The Filmaker 16:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The synopsis needs some tweaking for better flow and style and should be only slightly trimmed for length. I don't watch House and can only assume Other clinic paitents is a staple of the show. However, I do not think its needed. Synopsis should be qucik and to the point, secondary stories generally shouldn't be mentioned. Also, after a character is mentioned in the summary, in parenthesis include the actor's portraying the character name.
    • Behind the scenes should be before Reception since this is basically the Production section found in other media articles. If the information is avaiable (like in DVD commentary or Companion book) how the episode's concept came about should be mentioned. Since this is the pilot anymore information on how the shows creators tried to portray what the show would be like should be mentioned if the information is available. I also question the inclusion of the minor trivia of explaining Tuskegee and Megele.
    • If you really like Tuskegge and Megele though it would better fit in Medical terms which is mostly Trivia as well. I'm not sure if this section is encyclopedic at all, but if you do keep it the first sentence needs to be referenced. You should also include info on the ratings the episode recieved if possible. On a side note, I do believe a Television episode can be a FA and this is the closest episode article I've seen. Medvedenko 02:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photon

Hi, the editors at Photon would like to bring it to FA status. We've already had a scientific peer review by Astrobayes and two reviews at Talk:Photon by wonderful editors from biochemistry (Opabinia regalis and Peta), but we'd like a general review. Please give any suggestions that might help this article become Featured — thanks muchly! :) Willow 11:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall the page looks pretty darn good. However it is a tad on the technical side, which may put off some readers. Here are a few comments:
  • Could the slash be removed by rewording "granular/particulate", "energy/momentum", "emit/absorb" and "emitting/absorbing"? It looks unpolished.
Fixed lame writing — sorry! ;)
  • I wouldn't think that a comma is needed following text enclosed in parentheses. Example: "...Standard Model)," and "many experiments)," and "a photon),".
Eliminated most of these, but kept a few that seemed grammatically necessary.
Okay thanks. I double-checked the grammar rules on keeping commas with parentheses, and it should apparently only be done if the comma would still needed without the parenthetical text. So I'm sorry, I may have gone overboard on that a bit. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "A photon has two possible helicities (polarization states) and is described by three continuous parameters, the components of its wave vector, which determine its wavelength λ and its direction of propagation." There should be a colon following "parameters". Otherwise there is some ambiguity that may be read as if there were five or more parameters.
Excellent catch, fixed that.
  • Could the "ps" in "10 ps" be linked to the picosecond article?
Linked that, and also the other units in the article. Much better!
  • It is standard practice to place inline citations after punctuation, rather than before.
OK, fixed that.
  • In the "Wave–particle duality" section word emphasis is performed by both bold and italics. It is convention to use italics for word emphasis.
OK, fixed that.
  • At the FAC, you may get criticised for the excessive amount of text inside parentheses.
Is it really excessive? Usually, they're helpful explanatory links.
I think that part of the problem was that some of the reader software for the sight impaired doesn't handle parentheses very well. So I got called once or twice for that. But it may be less of an issue now. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Another excellent catch. Fixed that.
  • Would it be useful to mention that, although a photon is massless, it is affected by a gravitational field per general relativity?
Added paragraph under "Contributions to invariant mass". We had been kind of avoiding that since the effects are not peculiar to photons but pertain to light generally. However, it's bound to come up for readers, so it's good to mention it.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent review! :) Willow 18:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I took a shot at cleaning up the first sentence; the parentheses were really a bad idea there. This sentence from the introduction also really bothers me: Photons have many applications in technology, such as super-powerful quantum computers and unbreakable quantum cryptography. "Super-powerful" is not a neutral term, and "unbreakable" is speculative, so I rather dislike both adjectives. But the biggest issue is that there are a tremendous number of technological applications of photons; why pick two that are still in their infancy? For example, you listed lasers as an area of research, when lasers already have many commercial applications; perhaps you should switch lasers with quantum computers/cryptography? Really, that final sentence should have three or four different areas that give a fair survey of the technological applications of photons.
I haven't got past the intro yet. I'll try to look more later. -- SCZenz 20:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, SCZenz, I added a few applications at the end of the lead — how does it read now? Maybe you can think of better ones. I like your re-wording but I had to change it slightly, since (for both brevity and beauty) the article uses the term "light" to mean all forms of electromagnetic radiation. Looking forward to your other feedback, Willow 22:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arctic Tern

I am trying to make this a featured article. Please give any suggestions for improvement (outside of the short lead; I already know about that) so this can article be made better. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Expand it, for a potential FAC it is much too short. Also, the lovely images seem oddly placed; look into varying their placement, and avoid aligning any pictures with the TOC. -Fsotrain09 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I lengthened the lead section and added a section on appearances on stamps. Please explain which images you think are oddly placed. I could move one image further down although it would have little to do with those sections. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking over the article again, the image placement seems fine now. Sorry if I frustrated you. Perhaps the three redlinks could be dealt with? Either create stubs, or black them. Nice expansion work. -Fsotrain09 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I created a stub for the Antarctic Tern. I also fixed the links to egg and courtship. I'll be busy soon, but I'll be able to create a stub for Kerguelen Tern on Sunday. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I found time today and created a stub for Kerguelen Tern. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good, I put some lines + a ref on phylogenetic relationships in; the Antarctic spp. actually the closest relatives (not the N Hemisphere species). So there they are and not redlinked too! Dysmorodrepanis 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed the request for a review, and I like the article. Some quick thoughts, there are maybe a few to many inline citations in the description, and it needs some expansion. Article length isn't a problem for FAC, but there is some information here that can be expanded on. I am willing to help - I have a subscription to BNA and can access some journals - and I just looove seabirds. I'll do some reading tonight. BTW, leaving a note in the talk page of Wikiproject Birds would have drawn this to the attention of interested people (like myself) to come and help. Good luck! Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed the notes in the "Pysical description" section. Is this better? Please let me know which areas or sections you feel need expansion. And thank you for your offer of assistance. I need it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The physical description section is much better. I'm still working out what needs to be expanded; as I do I'll either let you know or add it in myself. The conservation section is certainly one area for which more information exists, and I can probably get more information on specific prey species (both in the summer and wintering grounds)Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a taxonomy section? I had earlier included one, but it was taken out because it just duplicated the taxobox. Now, there is an inline cite in the lead. FAC voters generally dislike cites in the lead, so if there is anyway out of having a cite in the lead I'd like to do it. I think that including that, and perhaps restoring the rest of the taxonomy section would be best, but there might be alternatives. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not a section per se but change 'physical description' to 'description and taxonomy'. The physical description section already compares the species to its relatives, so simply expand using Dysmorodrepanis' papers and kill two birds with one stone. Then cite there. Maybe.
I have expanded some more, btw, and will try and do more soon. Busy busy busy. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed the "Physical description" section to a "Physical description and taxonomy" section and followed your suggestion. I also fixed a few typos, punctuation errors and changed the inline references to all use cite web/cite book whenever possible. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Navy

Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian Navy/Archive1 Chanakyathegreat 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Second peer review required. Chanakyathegreat 03:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I haven't had a full read yet, but a recommend checking for redundancies. In the lead "With a total of 55,000 men and women, including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and 2,000 Marine Commandos (MARCOS), it is the world's fifth largest Navy in terms of manpower." can be reduced to "With 55,000 men and women, including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and 2,000 Marine Commandos (MARCOS), it is the world's fifth largest navy." without changing its meaning at all. Double checking the entire article for other things like this can definitely improve the overall writing quality. The general term "navy" is not a proper noun, so you should refer to "a navy" rather than "a Navy". Jay32183 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Been working on this since The Phantom Menace got promoted to FA as I finished the prequel trilogy and decided to work on the original trilogy. It's been written and formatted to follow suit with the other FAs in the series, but I'm looking for feedback as it is currently a GA nominee and would like it to be an FA candidate soon enough. :) The Filmaker 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could use a few more references. For instance, in the production section, although Empire of Dreams is a good source for a lot of the information, I think a variety of sources should be cited for the information. The Wookieepedian 23:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for being so blunt, but Why? Empire of Dreams is a perfectly suitable source that is very reliable and possibly more reliable than any other source one would be able to dig up. A variety of sources for the production section would only be aestetically pleasing however we're getting the same amount of information in the end. And nothing has changed except the little number at the bottom of the references section. The Filmaker 23:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


The production and synopsis sections are quite intimidating to look at, and could be broken up with subheadings to keep it looking more like an encylopedia article than a textbook. Seegoon 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The production section maybe. Not the synopsis section as it is shorter than the synopsis section for the Revenge of the Sith article, and is not intimidating at all. The Filmaker 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salt Lake City, Utah

This article has been significantly worked on over the years, and has seen several peer reviews and a few FACs in the past. I think it's closer than it's ever been, now that there's far more references and all of the image problems have been cleared up. I just generally want an overall analysis of the article to see just how close to FA status it is. There's still some sections that need referencing, and I plan to look for references soon. Unfortunately, two major contributors in the past (User:JonMoore and User:Cool Hand Luke) haven't been around for a while as far as I know, so some of the content they contributed will be hard to find references for. Anyway, I just want to see how close to FA status this is, since I feel it's just so close!

Most recent peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/Archive4 bob rulz 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

From the brief look I took:

  • We could improve the flow of the geography section. As it stands, there are a few short and/or irrelevant sentences which need to be expanded, clarified, and/or merged.
    • We should really state how often the lake stink phenomenon occurs, if possible. Cities closer to the lake probably enjoy the smell constantly, but in my experience Salt Lake City (more accurately, the suburb I live in) experiences this problem relatively infrequently, perhaps a few times a year. Currently, as well as before my edits, it sounds as if the city has an unpleasant odor all the time. I found a source.
  • The lake effect has a major impact on the climate,[1] and should be mentioned in the climate section. Right now it is only briefly touched upon in the sports and recreation section. Of course we have discussed this before, but I just wanted to mention that this info would be useful in this article as well as Great Salt Lake, I am not trying to nag by any means. :) Oops, I was using Firefox's Find feature, but I was not searching for the hyphenated lake-effect, so I missed that in the climate section.
  • I'll add a few citation-needed tags as necessary, and try to dig up some sources, but for now I'll just ask that sources be added for the population numbers in the lead. --Lethargy 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Feast Unknown

Okay, well, I wrote this a while ago. I think it is fairly comprehensive, well-referenced, well-written, etc., but would I think it would benefit if more people looked at it and/or commented on it. Thanks.--SB | T 03:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I preferred the crushing silence to the stunningly unhelpful automated suggestions... --SB | T 06:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Some quick comments just to break the silence:
    • "an American novel" - if it was specifically an example of "The American Novel" this might be worth stating, otherwise just "a novel" will do, maybe "a novel by American author, Philip José Farmer".
    • "but there is some dispute"..."the novel is infamous for its" - says who? These statements need citations.
    • The entire "Overview" section needs copyediting (it has a different style to the rest of the article) and references.
    • "limited to 200 copies signed by Farmer" could be rephrased to make clear whether only 200 copies of the run were signed, or whether the run consisted solely of 200 signed copies.
    • Some images would help. A limited number of photos of the cover art would be covered by the fair use provisions. Yomanganitalk 12:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mairéad Farrell

I have requested a peer review for this article as I feel that it has reached a sufficently stable point in its life style, although only a few editors have contributed content and comment (both positive and negative) thus far.GiollaUidir 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

GENERAL

  • The sections are far too short to merit their own section headers. Three of them are only one paragraph long. You don't need a TOC for an article of this length.
  • The paragraphs are not organized well. You have paragraphs consisting of a single sentence, for example. Each paragraph should introduce an assertion in a topic sentence and then expand or back up that assertion. I'd recommend removing your section headers and replacing them with topic sentences. Replace "Imprisonment(1976-1986)" with "During her incarceration between 1976 and 1988, Farrell agitated for prisoners' rights" (or maybe something a little more NPOV).
  • If you do keep the section headers (which I don't recommend), make the format consistent. Some have a space before the parenthetical dates and some don't.
  • Per WP:MOS, footnotes should go after the comma or period, not before.
  • Please create stubs for your red links.
  • In general, you've done a pretty good job of keeping NPOV, but double-check distinctions between "kill" and "murder," and consider whether your presentation at any point could be seen as favoring a pro-Republican or anti-Republican stance. On a topic as contentious as the IRA, it's especially important to avoid even the appearance of bias.
  • The sentences run on too long. The prose needs to be tightened throughout. Both of these, I suspect, result from the conversation style of the prose. A conversational style isn't necessarily bad, but try to keep it in check.
  • Avoid parenthetical expressions when possible. They disrupt flow. If the information is really important, discuss it in a separate sentence or paragraph.
  • Don't assume I know the context. Maybe I'm from another part of the world and barely know where Ireland is on a map, let along the history of conflict. Consider adding a "Historical background" section that briefly and VERY neutrally summarizes the IRA and Operation Flavius.

LEDE

  • The first sentence is far too long. It should say who she was and why she was notable, but I shouldn't run out of breath reading it. The phrase "at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea" in particular doesn't belong in the first sentence. I'd chop this into two, maybe even three sentences.
  • She is, she is, she was... This repeated used of the verb "to be" makes for a passive writing style. Instead of "She is one of the subjects of the Irish rebel song Gibraltar Three," how about "She helped inspire the Irish rebel song 'Gibraltar Three'"? Instead of "she was the leader of the women prisoners in Armagh Women's Prison," how about "she led the inmates in Armagh Women's Prison"? ("Women prisoners" is redundant, since you're about to specify "Armagh Women's Prison.")
  • "During the late 1970s - mid 1980s" reads awkwardly. Can you give exact or approximate dates instead, like "From 1978 through 1986" or "From approximately 1978 through 1986"?

EARLY LIFE

  • "Born in Belfast, Northern Ireland to an unremarkable middle class family": "unremarkable" feels POV. Either remove it or cite it.
  • "(although her grandfather was an IRA member during the Irish War of Independence)": in general, avoid parenthetical expressions (see how disruptive this is?) because they disrupt flow. If it's important, give it its own sentence or even paragraph. If it's not important, leave it out.
  • "she left school at eighteen to work in an Insurance Office." Is this really part of her "early life"? I expect "early life" to be about childhood, not young adulthood.
  • "About this time she met a Provisional IRA Volunteer called Bobby Storey who persuaded her to join the IRA." "About this time" is redundant; since you're telling the story in a linear order, I would have assumed "about this time" unless you told me otherwise. How did she meet him? Was she already politically active, or was he a chance acquaintance at work, for example? It's not clear whether her job is important to the Storey story. You've put them in the same paragraph, so the presumption would be that there is a connection. A few commas would help here. How about something like, "At a local shinty fanciers meeting, She met Bobby Storey, a Provisional IRA volunteer, who persuaded her to join the IRA"?

FIRST TERM

  • "On the 5th April, 1976 she and two others bombed the Conway Hotel, Dunmurry-it is believed it was an attempt to kill members of the Security Forces who frequented the hotel." Please use em-dashes, not hyphens, where appropriate. However, a dash isn't appropriate here. I'd recommend a semicolon, or better yet, breaking this into two separate sentences.

IMPRISONMENT

  • Don't assume I know what "O/C" or "H-block" means.
  • Be careful about NPOV here. This section portrays her as a noble crusader. There's also an argument to be made that conditions might have been appropriate, or that inmates aren't there to be coddled. (I'm not arguing for these positions, just pointing out that you seem to have presented a one-sided account.) Can you cite a third-party reference that evaluates the conditions of the prisons?

SECOND TERM

  • These sentences are packing too much information. Break the sentences up so that each sentence contains an easily digestible amount of information. Don't try to pack everything in at once. You won't run out of paper, and you'll make it a lot easier for the reader to continue reading. If it's vital to point out connections between information that you've conveyed in separate sentences, use a third sentence to do so. The three sentences in this paragraph/section should probably be more like eight.
  • It would help if you explained Operation Flavius rather than tucking it in as a parenthetical afterthought. Assume that I don't know anything about the IRA, let alone Operation Flavius, and tell me what I need to know. Done my best but someone else might want to have a look...

AFTERMATH

  • The first sentence shouldn't stand alone. It should be the topic sentence of a paragraph that summarizes the aftermath. You can provide details in subsequent paragraphs.
  • The prose can be tightened throughout the article, but several examples pop out in this paragraph:
  • "The deaths in Gibraltar resulted in a further spiral of violence." These words tell me the same thing. How about "Violence escalated following the deaths in Gibraltar, claiming at least five more lives"? Again, done my best but someone else might want to have a look...
  • "while preparing to mount an attack on members of the British Army." How about "while preparing to attack British soldiers"?
  • Done my best but someone else might want to have a look..."At a 1995 hearing to review the killings by The European Court of Human Rights it was decided by the court..." How about "The European Court of Human Rights reviewed the incident in 1995. The 10:9 majority found that the Gibraltar Three were unlawfully killed"?
For the avoidance of doubt, that was not their conclusion --Gibnews
  • The last three sentence/paragraphs should be combined into a single paragraph whose topic is jury verdicts.
  • "Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes blundered into the funeral cortege" stood out to me. It almost makes it sound like they were drunk.
  • The parenthetical "see Corporals killings" flows awkwardly. Either use summary style or integrate "Corporals killings" into the text.

These are just one person's suggestions; feel free to adopt or dismiss them as you see fit. I hope this helps! Peirigill 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mario series characters

There is a disagreement whether or not this list, which is one of my favorite lists, should contain all Mario characters and species, or just distinct characters with proper names. (AKA, Goombella from Paper Mario 2, but not a Goomba.) For the longest time it's been the former, but someone insists it be the other way. I thought that was a pretty silly idea, because then that removed about half the list and didn't seem to do anything other than remove anything. As of right now I've just seen this one person who thinks this way, but there is still a disagreement. I wanted to bring this up.

The possible things we could do are

-Keep the full list and call it List of Mario series Characters and Species

-Keep the distinct proper names for this list and start a new list, List of Mario series species

I'd love to have this resolved. Any input? Toastypk 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • While grammatical purity might require that a list of "characters" contain only distinguishable individuals and not collectives, it seems obvious that the list itself is much more useful with species included. I'd be really surprised to see such a list and not find "Goomba", for example. The distinct-characters suggestion also introduces ambiguity in cases like "Bigger Boo" where there are multiple such characters, but the name denotes a single boss. Opabinia regalis 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Bigger Boo is a different entity from Big Boo, King Boo and Atomic Boo.
    • And that's irrelevant. A Goomba is not a character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • As much a character as Goombella, Koopa Troopa, Blooper, Bob-omb, etc. Just because it says "List of Mario Characters" doesn't mean you cant just exclude basic enemies. They're characters too. So far, it still looks like you're the only one who thinks otherwise... Toastypk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Goomba is as much of a character as Koopa Troopa, Blooper and Bob-omb - ie, not at all. Goombella is infinitely more so a character than the Goomba species. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Opabinia regalis completely. A character, eve as insignificant as "henchman", is a character. Especially since some of these 'insignificant' species-characters are standards and even have wiki pages of their own (like the Goomba). Each entity in the Mario world would be a character you'd encounter. I say keep them all. --BakerQ 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
At what point does having an article make you a character? The Goomba page is for the species. They don't refer to the Goomba as a single entity, they refer to a Goomba as any entity, regardless of random Goombas or characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Never said it did. The fact remains, however, that I feel that Goombas are characters in the game, even if there are an infinite supply of them. They may not be as notable of a character as Bowser, but a character nonetheless, and I'd be surprised not to find them in a list of Mario characters. --BakerQ 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
A Goomba is a group of Goombas who may or may not be characters. If the Goomba were the most popular thing ever, it would still not be a character. Do we consider Humans to be a character in Mario games? Do we consider Hylians in the Zelda games to be a character? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If all the humans looked exactly the same and were nearly clones of each other, yes. Just for example's sake, in a similar Zelda II list there would be (if I can recall) about 10 human characters: fat man, thin woman in red, old woman in orange, swordsman, etc, etc. It seems to me that a key difference here is that in the instruction manuals they were referred to as Goombas, not goombas. In my mind, that helps (not necessarily proves, but helps) establish them as characters. --BakerQ 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That is an absurd stretch. A species containing random beings counts as a character because the name is capitalized? Well, I say the Lens of Truth is a character because it's capitalized. Just because it's more extreme than yours does not mean that yours is not an extreme stretch. A species is never considered a character. Additionally, they do not look the same - Para-goombas, mini goombas, mega goombas, King Goomba, Red Goomba, Blue Goomba, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, I didn't say it confirms, I said that it helps, not proves. The fact remains that you are so far the only one who feels the entries should be removed, while others feel strongly that they should remain. If you still feel that they're given too much or too little credit, I'd suggest editing the list to denote Major and Minor characters, or noting the Goombas (et al) as a Species. A parenthetical designation between the name and description, I think, should sufficiently resolve the conflict:
  • Goomba (or Chibibo) — [Species] - the very first enemy that appears in Super Mario Bros. and has appeared in most of Mario's games since.
Would you still have an objection to this? --BakerQ 12:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes! This is not about Mario species, and I have constantly gotten arguments that they are "surprised to not see Goomba", as if because people expect him to be there, that he should be there. A comprehensive list is not necessarily long. Putting species in a character article makes as much sense as putting characters in an item article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And would you argue consensus if it was you against ten people who wanted to say Stephen Colbert was a transvestite? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
People expect to see it there because most people consider it a character. The consensus swings both ways: if you were the only person stating that he was a transvestite and everyone else says otherwise, why should your opinion be taken fact? You are the only person who feels that they should not show up on the list. We (in so far as this debate has shown includes everyone else in the world) believe that a Mario Character includes every creature in the game series.--BakerQ 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that Goomba = character is no more true than Stephen Colbert = transvestite.
You have failed to give me a single legitimate reason why a Goomba is a character, while a human is not. And the dictionary gives me one ultimate reason: "A person portrayed in an artistic piece, such as a drama or novel." A person, not people. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm betraying my geekery here, but in the original Transformers series there were a group of Decepticons called the Insecticons. There were three of them, Bombshell, Kickback and Shapnel. Beyond that, there were other Transformers such as Wreckgar (a Junkion), Scourge, Quintessons, Sharkticons. In the fiction around these characters, there were thousands of them, nearly identical clones of each other, yet they were all called by that same first name. By your logic, they're not characters in the Transformers world?
I'm at an impasse here. You have also failed to show me (or anyone else) a single valid reason why all those list entries should be removed. I say we leave them there, recognize your dissention on the talk page and drop it. --BakerQ 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that these are not clones. They are a species. There is not a species of Wreckgars, there are "nearly identical clones of eachother". Goombas are a collection of characters and non-characters, while Wreckgars are not a species of characters and non-characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I knew moments after posting that that that would be the angle you'd attack from because Wreckgar was the weakest part of my argument. How about Sharkticon? Or Bombshell, Kickback and Shrapnel? Are they not characters?
Look, I'm really done trying to find a happy medium here, you're not accepting any compromises offered here and the only reason you're dragging this out is that you know that if it came down to a vote right now the results would be one to many. It remains that you are the only one who feels this way. --BakerQ 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
A compromise? How is "do all of what we want and nothing of what you want" any sort of a compromise? I wouldn't agree to leave species in an article that isn't about species any more than I would agree to putting the Super Mushroom on that list. It has syes, so why not? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Two compomises have been issued: rename the list to Mario series Characters and Species, or include a note beside each relevant entry denoting it as a species. Those are compromises because you want to make changes to the list and no one else does. You have yet to yield in any way to anything besides outright removal of the entries. In light of the circumstances, request denied. --BakerQ 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Vote KEEP all entries and not modifying the list by consideration of species. --BakerQ 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Or we could just make TWO articles. You know, instead of cluttering up one list for the sake of making it long and for no other reason than to make it long, we could have TWO lists and include a note on the characters page acknowledging it. Strong object to calling a species a character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave this on my watch page, but I've got doubts that the vote's going to change much. So far we're at 3 to 1. --BakerQ 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Totally keep as is. Sorry Link, you're the only one. Toastypk 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, I seem to have forgotten that species should be called a character solely because they're notable and people expect them to be on the list. Does that mean that we should take off all unpopular enemies? Because if you accept Goomba, logically, you have to accept every single variant of the Goomba. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, Wikipedia encourages users to keep lists small if possible. The best thing for Wikipedia is to make two separate lists. Currently, the list is at 99kb, and I have no doubts that it couldn't break 150k. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit offtopic: a short introduction and a link to the (or a) mario article would be nice for those not so familiar with mario. --WS 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of splitting the article from a 124kb article to one 69kb species article and a 53kb characters article.

As being long does not make an article comprehensive, I will not revert it back without a very good reason. Having two articles accomplishes the same as having one extremely long article, but is more convenient for people. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the split given the history of this discussion. If any other user agrees with A Link to the Past about the split, I won't revert them. Yowee 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I said a good reason. People wanting an article to be of poor quality is a pretty poor reason. It is a styling guideline that it should NOT be that much more than 60kb, let alone 124kb. You can revert it to make it long, and if it stays reverted, this article has literally no chance of being featured. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Do as you wish. Rather than let another user revert the changes for you, which demonstrates support of your reason, you are free to revert it yourself. Yowee 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Are lists eligible for featured status? Korcas 05:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
As a featured list, yes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the requests for peer review have been satisified as pertaining to the original conflict. I move that the peer review request be removed and this dialogue be archived as there are now two places to discuss this page. --BakerQ 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went and asked a couple friends their opinion on the matter (Zscout and Andrevan), they seem to agree that it's completely pointless to make the list as long as it is when there is a very simple way to make it shorter and have as much content as it would as one list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
By that statement, are we to assume that you now speak for three? Should I include the people in my household as my votes as well? You're still the only one voting for the removal of the entries and have, despite votes and reverts, continued to alter the page as you and only you see fit. --BakerQ 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, of course. Except - THIS ISN'T A VOTE. This is a PEER REVIEW. The difference between my friends and your pets are that they have an opinion on the matter and they are Wikipedians (admins no less). And will you stop calling them freaking removals? I AM NOT REMOVING THEM. How is moving them REMOVING? Christ, stop making it seem like I'm doing damage to an article by reducing its size! And wait, are you honestly saying that I am doing this as I see fit?! For the love of Christ, did you ever notice how I constantly repeated "style guidelines" and how I adhere to them? They specifically state that an article should not be THIS LONG! While you have yourself (Toasty has stated that he could go with a split) flat out refusing to give a reason why you prefer the article to be of poor quality, I have Wikipedia on my side, and I will continue to revert until you stop continuously ignoring what you don't want to exist. Did you know that when somebody asks you to prove your point, you cannot will it out of existence just so you don't have to strain yourself coming up with a reason why one bad article is better than two decent articles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm just wondering how much more enraged and aggitated you're going to get. Take note: every single ocmment you make that includes an insult has been and will continue to be flatly ignored. Communicate with civility and maturity and you'll find that I'm much more receptive.
That said, your intentions to remove entries are transparent. Yes, remove, as in "no longer here". (It is possible for things to be removed to another location.) I'll continue this debate on the articles talk page where it belongs. --BakerQ 17:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO, splitting the article was the best thing to do. Even if there is nothing that prevents us from writing long lists, it is best to split it down in sub-lists when it becomes too large. Having an article with a size of over 100 kB is not very convenient, so splitting this into characters and species is a good alternative, and I think it should be kept that way. – Elisson • Talk 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still Game

If possible, I would like an opinion on the article from someone who has no or little interest in the topic. Does it inform you of the television's show general plot? Is it set out properly that it is linear to read and understand? I would also appreciate if reviewers could recommend any sections they think need cleaned up or added to make the article clearer to general readers. -- Britishagent 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Overall it gives good coverage of the subject and the layout is good. Some quick points:
    • The lead covers material that I can't see in the rest of the article when it should be a summary and introduction - I wanted to know if the original series were ever shown on the BBC outside of Scotland for example, and the comparison of viewing figures should probably be covered in the "Critical praise and criticism" section
    • "Critical praise and criticism" might be better titled "Critical reception" as it avoids doubling up on critical/criticism.
    • It needs copyediting - there are some mistakes such as "escaping his neighbours from hell to vacate to a flat near Victor" ("relocate to" maybe?), and some redundancy: "its use of Neds and stereotypes" - Neds are stereotypes.
    • It is overlinked - no need to link common phrases like car,lift,television,sex,shop etc. or dates that have no relevance to the article such as the link to "June".
    • The air dates should probably have the channel on which they aired next to them
Hope this helps. Yomanganitalk 15:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
A note to say that the article has been updated following the above suggestions. If possible, can you please look over it and again, give welcome opinions on the article? Thanks again. -- Britishagent 10:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a lot better. The air date information is much clearer and the criticism section improved by the rearrangement There are still some overlinking (decorators,the loss of his wife) and this phrase is strange "awaiting a visit from his son, John who stays in Johannesburg", does that mean he fails to turn up for the visit? The title of the air dates table would probably look better included in the table (but now I'm just being picky). Nice work. Yomanganitalk 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your speedy reply and for your further comments. I've included Still Game into the table and tried to de-link a lot of the words. You're right - they're not needed. I can't help you on the phrase though as I haven't seen the episode in a long time! I'm sure he doesn't turn up but I don't want to add it, just in case. -- Britishagent 11:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GayFest

I would like to nominate this article for featured status soon, but I am worried it may be a bit too short. I'd just like some advice as to how it should be structured, and any extra information to add so that it can be a bit longer. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the article to be well written and very interesting. A few comments. Hope they help:

  • I would write out the names of the organisations ACCEPT and LGBT out in full the first time you mention them.
  • It would be interesting to know a bit more about the festival events themselves - what events were on the program? Were there any prominent people involved? How many people participate?

Jen Powell-Psmith 10:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! ACCEPT is not an acronym, but simply a word ("accept" means the same thing in both English and Romanian, and is spelt the same way). The reason it is capitalised is because the organisation chose for it to be capitalised. As to your second point: the participation in each parade has been given and sourced. I'll try to expand a bit on the events and on the general "character" of each year's festival. Cheers, Ronline ✉ 11:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palpatine

This is the third peer review request for this article. The first two can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Palpatine/Archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Palpatine/Archive2.

I rewrote much of this article to emphasize the character's role outside the Star Wars universe per the guideline Writing About Fiction. This article has changed dramatically since it first appeared at peer review and FAC. It was a good article before, but apparently not what the Wikipedia community at FAC was looking for. Explanations of the changes I made can be found here: Talk:Jabba the Hutt. Any suggestions for improvement of the article to meet FAC standards will be appreciated. Dmoon1 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Haven't had a chance to go over it with a fine toothcomb, though it definitely is worthy as previous Star Wars character FA's by DMoon1. If I find anything amiss, I'll be sure to get in touch with Dmoon1. There's one bit though;

" Ian McDiarmid required little make-up in The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, he remembers, "I'm ... slightly aged [in Attack of the Clones]. In the last film, I had a fairly standard make-up on, but now, they're starting to crinkle my face."[50] "
The following words "he remembers" after the first sentence seem possibly awkward, but this is only my personal opinion. Could "he remembers" be changed to "remembering", "reminiscing" or something in a similar vein? LuciferMorgan 08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed this to "he recalled". Please let me know if you find anything else that sounds awkward or needs to be addressed. Dmoon1 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Very nice work so far. My main concern is whether the casual reader will be a little lost when reading the article, as even though I know the films and the character quite thoroughly, I was a little confused at parts. The "Appearances" section starts off fine, but when it gets to his role in Episodes II and III it starts becoming a little rushed. For example, Count Dooku and his relationship to Palpatine kinda come out of nowhere.

I expanded some instances where the narrative seemed rushed; I want to keep the plot sections as concise as possible. If you point some other examples out I'll see what I can do. Dmoon1

I found this quote in "Literature" to be misplaced: "These novels demonstrate how the Jedi are blind to Palpatine's true identity as a Sith Lord. In Shatterpoint, Mace Windu remarks to Yoda, "A shame [Palpatine] can't touch the Force. He might have been a fine Jedi." Eh?

I'm not sure what you don't understand. Mace Windu and Yoda, the two most powerful Jedi at the time, could not detect that Palpatine was Force-sensitive or that he was in fact a Sith Lord while sitting in his very presence; the last bit about him being a fine Jedi was a reference to his diplomatic and political skills, I think. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics section coming along, although I think a little more could be said about his lightsaber skills (he defeats three Jedi and Yoda in Ep. 3 after all) and his Force abilities (he manages to hide his plot from the entire galaxy). Also, no information about his deceptive relationships with his pupils. Maybe a mention of his racism towards non-human species as well?

His force abilities (including lightsaber skills) probably could be split into a separate paragraph. His racism is mentioned and a quote by Count Dooku concerning Sidious's views is there too. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I elaborated somewhat on his lightsaber skills. Dmoon1 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would get rid of the opening sentences in "Concept and creation" as the information is basically repeated down below. This statement, "Lucas's original conception of Palpatine was of a cunning but weak politician elevated into office and controlled by bureaucrats" needs a reference I think. Also, this sentence about Ian McDiarmid, "He became the artistic director of the Almeida Theatre in North London in 1990", is kinda unnecessary. Otherwise, that section is terrific.

Well, this is supposed to be somewhat repetitive since it is a intro/summary to the "Concept and creation" section. The same thing is done above in "Appearances". The bit about artistic director is there to show what McDiarmid was doing between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace since there is this sixteen-year gap between the two films. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While the whole article is comprehensive and successfuly avoids any cruft, I think it still needs a spelling and grammar run-through, as I saw a few too many typos and errors than normal. The only extra suggestion I can offer is maybe adding an image comparing Palpatine to Satan or such. Great work.--Dark Kubrick 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've run the text through a spell checker and there are no common spelling errors (there may still be a couple remaining); I can't speak for the grammar since I hate to proofread. I will print out a paper copy and go over it over the next day or so. Not sure what to do about an image comparing Palpatine to Satan. I haven't run across anything directly showing Palpatine as the devil, just that some academics have compared him to the figure. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll see if I can address all of these soon. Dmoon1 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Comment I just read through the article and made some minor copy edits here and there. I've also hidden some requests for source citation where it appeared a direct quote was being given. Other than that, here are a few concerns:

The quotes come from directly from the film which is being described. Dmoon1 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A few terms are used that may be unfamiliar to non-fans. Sith, Expanded Universe, and Emperor's Hand. Some of this can be remedied by adding a couple of words of explanation. For example, perhaps in the intro: 'In reality, Palpatine is a powerful lord of the evil Sith sect . . . " or something.
    • Did the best I could with this one. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article asserts that Palpatine is 'a symbol of evil and sinister deception in American popular culture." This is true, but is it only in America? Does the character not have the same associations in other countries and cultures where Star Wars is popular? I'd think that at least Canadian culture would have this association, but maybe not?
    • All the examples I found were American (this statement is almost exactly like the one in Jabba the Hutt). Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Throughout the "Appearances" section, consider changing a few more sentences to describe what authors and directors are doing. For example, instead of "in the 1999 prequel film Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Palpatine is introduced . . . " to "in the 1999 . . . Lucas introduces Palpatine . . . ."
    • Changed a couple of these. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is way overlong, and I think the "Appearances" section is to blame. I think it goes into way too much detail about Palpatine's role in relatively minor and secondary books and cartoons. I honestly think you shouldn't be devoting more than a sentence or two to anything but the actual feature films. Maybe Dark Empire or some of the stuff where Palpatine is indeed a central chracter. But he's almost not even in the Clone Wars microseries, yet that cartoon gets its own section! In short, I would take a long, hard look at the "Appearances" section and think about scaling it back by half or more.
    • I edited down the literature section, but I must disagree about the cartoons and novels. I'm not sure what you mean by secondary (to the films?), but they are important. Palpatine/Darth Sidious is influencing the entire plot of the cartoon (but I only chose a few of the more notable examples). The cartoon is not like some of the obscure video game references that have tried to pop up in some of the articles recently. It is critically acclaimed and has won several major awards. Additionally, almost all of the Star Wars novels have appeared on the New York Times Bestseller list. But you are right concerning the bulk of these sections, and it has been trimmed considerably look more like the literature section of Jabba the Hutt. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think most of the KB length is being generated by the footnotes. It's probably around 35 KB, not 55. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed some asides about other characters that do not have any direct pertinence to Palpatine (Vader's struggle between good and evil, Mara Jade's future nuptial).
    • This was on my to-do list. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the quotes from interviews are given in the present tense ("Lucas says"), while others are in the past tense ("McDiarmid remembered"). I think either is acceptable, but try to make it consistent one way or the other.
    • Taken care of as many of these as I could spot. There may be some I missed. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the line about McDiarmid's life between trilogies (as an artistic director) should be cut. The article's about Palpatine, not McDiarmid.
    • Removed this line. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The quote from John Shelton Lawrence seems to be referring to Star Wars action figures in general, not specifically to the Emperor's. I'd cut it.
    • The quote is explicitly about Palpatine and Luke Skywalker, you can see the actual page here.

That's it. I think that if the "Appearances" section is trimmed with a hacksaw, this will be a good Featured Article Candidate. Here's to hoping you turn your attention to Chewbacca next! — BrianSmithson 09:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks! I definitely appreciate your feedback and will address as many of your concerns as possible. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis

Comprehensive article with lots of references; what could it use to be a Featured Article? I also wanted to know if summarizing the scientific studies and merging the conclusion with it (as done in User:Kchase02/sandbox) would be the right direction to go? - RoyBoy 800 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

All the external links could be converted to footnotes. WP 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I was afraid someone would say that. :"D Will do, thanks. - RoyBoy 800 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on this article. Here are some more detailed comments for you:

NCI workshop
This section needs a bit more exposition (i.e. explaination of who the people are and which study is which). I know the lead does that as well, but there's enough different people and things that it can get confusing.
Added Melbye's name for Denmark study and name of presenter.
Pro-life bias, para 1
"These advocates rebut by stating that their ABC information is for the benefit of women's health and to provide informed consent, but they ignore potentially higher and more immediate health risks associated with pregnancy". Second clause seems to break NPOV without a citation; who says they ignore risks? I may have misinterpreted who "they" were, as it's not entirely clear from the passage.
Pretty sure I've seen it several times, can't find it so its gone. The following paragraph provides the important counter point anyway.
Scientific studies, para 1
"ABC studies have been conducted since 1957, [9] but this covers recent ABC research history". What does the "this" refer to? The article? If so, why doesn't the article cover the entire history of studies?
Yes the article. Provided rationale in article, also the entire history is not provided for length considerations.
Try making that explicit and see if you think it reads better, i.e. "...since 1957, but this article covers...". I find "this" generally needs to be followed by a noun indicating what in refer s to. --jwandersTalk 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already added article, do you think adding section would clarify, as in "this article section" or even changing "article" to "section"? - RoyBoy 800 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Scientific studies, para 2
Para should be made clearer and punctionation improved (e.g. "and a (95%...". Quote results briefly then focus on their meaning; details of confidence intervals can be left in that article.
Tweaked, hopefully enough. Disagree on confidence interval (CI), I've read the lead there and still don't understand what I've just read. A clear understanding is essential for a reader interpret the numerous numbers within the ABC article. Going to the CI article to understand CI is a significant interuption in reading flow of the ABC article.
Yes, that's much better now. I'll have to add the CI article to my to do list! --jwandersTalk 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Confounding factors and hormones
The list in the middle of this section seems out of place.
Turned into a paragraph.
Melbye, para 3
Reference to oral contraceptives as "the pill" is unprofessional. Also the last sentence in this para appears to be editorialising; cite someone who brought up that point in the debate, if you can.
Hadn't considered that, changed. Also just recently added a link that discusses the issue of birth cohort adjustments for Melbye. - RoyBoy 800 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Howe, para 2
Last sentence would read better as, "Eventually the Britain-based International Journal of Epidemiology published it in 1989."
Changed.
Response bias, para 1
"CJD" alluded to without prior description; grammar issue in third sentence;
Removed. Underreporting not overreporting is what is at issue for ABC.
Other comments
  • Very good lead.
Took a little negotiation and head scratching. I would prefer it be three paragraphs for aesthetics. (merge 1st and 2nd paragraphs) What do you think?
I'm torn. I like the directness of the 1st para, but then the 2nd is too short. I've tried merging them; what do you think? --jwandersTalk 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. - RoyBoy 800 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, footnotes-style would be nice; but as it's easier, coverting the lead footnotes to html style would suffice.
I'll do it over the next couple days.
  • Is "pro-lifer" an accepted term? Smacks of being unprofessional to me.
Changed.
  • I find I don't like in-text references (e.g. "The ongoing and incremental legal challenges to abortion by pro-life groups is documented in Frontline's The Last Abortion Clinic." or "See Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill by Chris Kahlenborn, MD (ISBN 0966977734) for an extended argument from the pro-life perspective."). I know of no guideline or policy against them though, so that might just be me ;-)
Changed the whole section to refs, but book mention is unchanged for now.
  • I'm not sure the Daling quote, though powerful, furthers the article.
I'd disagree, precisely because it is powerful. It serves as an authoritative reminder people on both sides of the political divide have played politics with this issue. That is an essential meme I want readers to take from the article.
  • Good job walking the NPOV line, especially considering the subject matter; I kept thinking the article was starting to lean one way or the other, but then something would always bring it back again.
Many thanks. Truly wonderful to hear that. I would humbly request you say exactly that on User:SOPHIA, User:Pro-Lick and User:Alienus talk pages. As they have helped fine tweak the weight of the article. Although as of now, it would appear they have all left Wikipedia, perhaps such a comment would encourage them to constructively rejoin the project.
  • I haven't examined any of the sources, which a FAC review would entail.
Heh, there are a bunch of 'em.
  • There are a lot of short paragraphs (i.e. <4 sentences). These will likely be a issue if you go to FAC.
I'd have to plead guilty on that... my 800x600 screen biases towards shorter paragraphs.

--jwandersTalk 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments have been of great help. Could I have your opinion on suggestions implemented in User:Kchase02/sandbox. - RoyBoy 800 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't do an indepth comparison of the two versions, but at this point I'm not sure it added benefit of the Kchase version warrants the inventing of appendices on WP. I would say that the Scientific studies section there could be worked into the current article in order to provide a gentler introduction to the hardcore scientific debate that follows. --jwandersTalk
That could indeed work. Oh, and no need for indepth comparison, its essentially a pre-peer reviewed version with the scientific section summarized and made into an appendix. The thinking was the article flows nicely then gets interupted by a long hardcore science section. Making it an appendix could improve the flow. I'm not sold on the idea, so trying to get a consensus on the way to go. Now we have a third option! Are you always this good? :"D RoyBoy 800 01:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the article, particularly the "Scientific studies" section, which needs little if no work. My advice is minor:

  • The style of referencing should be standardized. Some references are given in a formal, APA style, while others are cited in the manner of web links.
  • The article would be serviced by thorough Wikification. Many concepts remain unlinked.
  • The article relies too heavily upon the "ABC" acronym. It should be substituted in some places for "abortion-breast cancer" to make the article seem more like an encyclopaedic in tone.

-Severa (!!!) 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Done refs, may need some tweaking as I've changed the reference style from original examples. I'll have a look at Wikification and ABC issue tomorrow. Thanks. - RoyBoy 800 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind the acronym issue. The book I'm currently reading continuously refers to government agencies by this form of shorthand, so, really, I'm leaning toward thinking it's just my own preference. -Severa (!!!) 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While not essential to the article, as it is very informative as it is, images would definitely help toward FA:

  • Comparative charts or graphs to represent data from various studies.
  • A diagram to illustrate the process of cellular differentiation in the breast during early pregnancy. Perhaps with special emphasis on the difference between uninterrupted growth during full-term pregnancy and interruption via abortion.

-Severa (!!!) 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Poetry

After taking several suggestions from other portal experts, I would like to present this to the public-at-large to get their opinions. It is regularly updated, and I would like to know if it is ready to be featured, or at least what changes need to be made to reach this end. Let me know what you think--I'll be watching this section AdamBiswanger1 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I was trying to find something to criticise about it, and was about to admit defeat when I found that the archives are a bit strange: the selected article archive has an archived article from December 2006, and there are a lot of redlinks in the other archives for articles that will be archived in the future. Perhaps the selected poem could have a bit of background too, but apart from that I can't see a thing wrong with it. Yomanganitalk 11:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you--I could easily fill the rest of the red links in the archive section, but I want to give other editors a chance to add their selections, as opposed to filling it with mine. But, I will surely have each ready in time should red links remain. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I suppose I thought of "Archive" as "Previous Articles" which is why it seemed a bit strange, but that was just my prejudice. So, in fact, nothing wrong with it at all. Yomanganitalk 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

Would like comments on grammar and any missing sections anyone thinks should be included or current sections that should be dropped. Already put it through automated peer review. josh (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly better than most football club articles. The historical league position graph is a nice touch, and the history section is not biased towards recent events as so often happens.

  • The list of books should go in a Further reading section at the bottom, or if any given book has been used as a general reference, a references section (remaing the section with footnotes to Notes or Footnotes).
  • The Supporters section could be merged with the Fanzines section. The list of famous fans should be removed, particularly as it is unreferenced. Also, no mention of the rivalry with Sheffield United?
  • The list of managers could perhaps be moved to List of Sheffield Wednesday F.C. managers.
  • What criteria are used for the list of former players? In particular, why is Paulo di Canio included when he only spent 2 years at the club and made only 47 apperances?
  • Nothing glaringly wrong with the grammar from a quick scan. Avoid referring to the club as "SWFC".
  • A couple of things which should have references:
    • Charles Clegg being known as the Napoleon of Football.
    • The football and cricket clubs splitting,
    • At the 2005 playoff final they took over 40,000 fans. The most taken by any club side.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've updated the article. I reduced the list of managers to those with more than 200 matches rather than removing it all together. There isn't any one criteria for inclusion in the players list. They generally have done something exceptional (most goals, most caps etc). Di Canio is the most expensive player that Wednesday have ever bought (he also received the longest ban of any player). josh (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a bad article, though I agree with all of Oldelpaso's points. Some additional thoughts:

  • Reorder the intro - trophies & brief first, then discuss Hillsborough.
  • Club is referred to in both the singular and plural - pick one and stick to it.
  • If you are going to call them the Owls and SWFC during the article then mention it in the into (i.e. "also known as The Owls or SWFC")
  • Bibliography should be formatted according to Template:Cite book. The authors' names in the bibliography should not be wikified unless it is likely they fulfil WP:BIO.
  • Some details of the club crest would be nice - I've always wondered exactly when and why Wednesday picked the modern owl graphic in their crest.
  • Records section should be turned to prose.
  • Forums should not be linked to in external links, as per WP:EL.
  • Though this is not directly linked to the article itself, the articles Sheffield Wednesday F.C. staff and Sheffield Wednesday F.C. squad are of dubious merit (the first details non-notable people, the second is duplicate information) and are possible candidates for deletion. Qwghlm 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. I've edited the article over the past days and it should satisfy your points. I haven't found any information on why the current crest was chossen so I'll do some digging for that. As for the two articles you mentioned. They were created by dan1980 (talk • contribs) so I'll have a word with him about them but I think they could possibly be improved. The staff article would serve better as a historical record of former managers and chairman along with a reduced amount of current staff. Both articles could be improved by adding information such as dates joined and match records for the squad article. josh (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Walker

Since the article was submitted to my desk for the Cleanup Taskforce, I have worked quite a bit on it. I would like to submit it to FAC, but I'm not quite sure it's ready yet. Comments? --Thelb4 15:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job - the article reads really well. If you're going for FAC, though, I have a couple quick comments:
  1. Is it possible to get an image? Maybe from a promo packet or from a fan who will release his/her copyright?
  2. I question whether the Dave Walker fan page is a reliable source. It might be a pain, but I would say that before the page is ready for FAC, someone needs to dig up books, magazines, or newspaper bios to serve as sources.
TheronJ 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is a good start, but it is not ready for FAC. You must arrange a few things first, such as:
  1. Poorly sourced article. Only one reference and one source! For FAC you are now obliged to citate almost every sentence! It has become so fussy! So, you have to work on that!
  2. In terms of style, sub-sections like "Beckett", consisting of one sentence, are not nice. Try to expand or merge it. Section "Early life" is also very poor.
  3. TheronJ already mentioned that for FAC you need at least an image (I would say more) and well-written captions.
  4. In terms of style again, many users donot like too small paragraphs, especially paragraphs consisting of one sentence. You have too many of them!
  5. The prose is good, but have in mind that FAC has become very demanding in this topic. As another user wrote, you should "make articles tell a story, with clear, logical reasons for why each section comes where it does".
  6. Alphabetize the categories at the end of the article.
  7. Expand the lead section (See WP:LEAD). That is one of the most basic things for FAC. The lead should summarize the content of the whole article.
I suggest you first go for GA Candidacy before trying FAC. And I also suggest that, after the implementation of the suggestions of this Peer Review anad before the GA or FAC, you go for a peer review by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. There are some users who are doing very good and detailed work there.--Yannismarou 13:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Children's Machine

This article has been classified as a good article already. It seems comprehensive, and it would be appreciated if you commented on how to work it up to a featured article. --Gray Porpoise 22:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Change the Wikipedia:Embedded Citations, and the references to the proper [[Wikipedia:Citation templates|citation template]. Most of them are missing information about the author and some do not have proper format. There are several quotes of a wiki which have to be moved to a {{cite web}} linking to the revision referred to. The exteral links, notes, and references should all be merged, there is no reason to have to mention an article 3 times. The overseers of the project should mentioned in the first sentence. Jon513 22:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B. R. Ambedkar

Hi - I request the help and advice of all in making this article an FA. Rama's arrow 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From a brief read - just a comment on the referencing and citations
  • Needs more inline citations particularly for the Criticism and legacy and Architect of India's constitution sections.
  • All of the current inline citations are to one online document and it would be better if the texts in Further Reading where referenced to assertions in the text.
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Review by Aksi_great (talk - review me)
  • Just had a glance at the article. My first comment is that the entire list "His Writings and Speeches" is too long. Why are some of them bolded and some not. Wouldn't it be better to move the complete list to a sub-article and just state the really important works here. And why not just add the link to this at the beginning of the section for anyone interested for complete text of the works. The individual links are very distracting. Will review the body of the text later. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The writings and speeches is the most important section. No one can decide which is the most important work. The objective here is not to rank order but to give a reader complete information. I can rank but that would be POV. Note that this is a biographical article and has little meaning if it does not even have a list of writings and speeches properly linked. If its too long, so be it. You can format it into a table of two coloums if you like. It will reduce the length to half. My idea is to later add a synopsis to each of the writings. Yeditor 11:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
As is, the collection in the section "His Writings and Speeches" must go per Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Medtopic 04:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


  • in section "Fight against untouchability"

"In 1926, he became a nominated member of the Bombay Legislative Council, and led a satyagraha — non-violent protest and civil disobedience as pioneered by Mahatma Gandhi — in Madh to fight for the right "

  • Please get confirmed spelling of a Princly states kings surname referred here in this article "gaekwad" (I do not know Gujarathi pronounciation but in Marathi pronounciation may be spelled "Gayakwad" 'गायकवाड')
  • "who is the chief architect of the Indian constitution. "
    • What is grammaticaly correct 'is or was' ?
  • Ambedkar's ancestors had for long been in the employ of the army of the British East India Company,
    • May be here author wants to reffer family's traditional occupation for certain generations.'employ or employment'
  • Name of 'Maharaja of Kolhapur' is not mentioned.
  • Positive aspects of his legacy has room for further coverage.In modern India his legacy has yeilded an acceptance for his social cause from entire political spectrum.
    • Positive successes of his legacy in upliftment of down troden communities has not been adequetly covered.
    • There is no mention or links to political aspects after him specialy so about Republican Party.
    • Primarily article seems ok.I do not have specific experties to confirm all facts and refferences.Sentences are lenghthy could have been devided in shorter ones for readers benefit.
    • 'Vis s Vis Mahatma Gandhi's philosphy of decentralised and stronger local and rural democratic institutions, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar ensured a centralised stronger provincial and union democratic institutions and governments.'This was to ensure more equal treatment from local polity and avoid discreminations.
    • Article does not cover mainstream political thought that indian untouchability was different from the way west percives 'racism'.Many non-Indian scholors may be interested in understanding this aspect.
    • Connotation (meaning) of'Untouchable' may be different to readers of Non Indian background is it adequetly explained inthe article it-self.
    • Links for princly states or princes may be given.

Mahitgar 12:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boise

Being the capital of Idaho, Boise deserves a top-notch article. How can wikipedians make it top-notch? 11kowrom 16:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, to tell you the truth, I think the article is an excellant. I think the article is fairly detailed and covers a nice range of topics. However, I also noticed that due to the large number of differant topics mentioned in this article, some were more detailed than others, perhaps you could balance it out a little more. Also, you should also add a History section to the article and possibly talk a little bit about how the government works if you want.Hope this helps. Socom49 17:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Not enough references and citations, and the ones that exist are not in the proper format (see Cite.php). That will keep it from FA. PDXblazers 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • not one single footnote, full of external jumps that need to be footnotes, some sections are stubby, date linking are not in proper wiki format.Rlevse 12:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No footnotes/references! Sections such as Media need to be expanded (and the main article of the section looks pretty large, so it shouldn't be a problem). Also there's a scary number of redlinks in Culture, and the section titles should only have their first letter capitalised, but I fixed that. CloudNine 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Start by looking at related US-based featured articles such as Ann Arbor. Try and adapt the content from there to Boise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seabird

Wikipedia:Peer review/Seabird/Archive1

This is the second peer review for this article. The first one went quite well but I was never quite happy enough with the article to nominate it for FA. Since then I have continued to work on and off on it, and have most importantly widened the references and cited a lot of facts. It was close to FA, and still is, but needs that extra little bit of effort and some more eyes. The subject is huge, so this is an overview of the important aspects of seabird biology. One of the most fustrating things about seabirds is that for every statement you make you seem to need to qualify with of course, not all seabirds do this! Anyways, please help by pointing out what still seems weak, what statements that need cites still haven't got them, all that stuff. Thanks! Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've only glanced at this yet, but it looks brilliant. I did notice that in some places you have spaces between periods and references that should be removed. I'll try and go through this more thoroughly as soon as I can. darkliight[πalk] 08:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very interesting and well balanced, but could do with some more citations for facts (even though it has a lot of references they aren't necesarily all cited in the appropriate places). There a lot of generalizations, but I guess that is hard to avoid in such a wide subject. I gave it a copyedit to remove some repetition and redundancy. Some more specific comments (more or less in order):
    • The qualification in the opening sentence is a little awkward. They spend much of their lives at sea - I don't think you need the rider.
    • The lead has a few fuzzy statements about species that would read better if sharpened up. At the moment it has a feeling of trying to cover all possible variations by species rather than just providing an introduction to seabirds.
    • Albatross or albatrosses? Swaps between the two throughout the article.
    • "unlike terrestrial birds" - is that the correct name for non-seabirds? Terrestrial birds make me think of flightless birds.
    • "In spite of their reputation as pirates" doesn't really add anything to the sentence (apart from a second use of pirate).
    • "Overall many hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of birds" - make a decision.
    • "even well meaning tourists, can flush a colony" - flush a colony? What does that mean? Drive off the parent birds?
    • "The removal of these introduced species has led to increases in surviving species " - an increase in populations of surviving species or an increase in the number of species surviving (i.e. a decrease in the rate of species going extinct)?
    • The Lord of the Rings reference could do with being trimmed - details of where it is used isn't necessary
    • The species list could do with some punctuation to separate the latin from the common names (just being picky now).
Hope this helps. - Yomanganitalk 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. On the matter of references, that is the majority of the work I am doing now, I hunt them down and add them. I originally wrote this before inline citation was important on WP and while I know that it's accurate tracking down the papers needed is taking time. But I know that a lot more needs to be done. As for generalisations, yep, it's the nature of the beast. Getting this far has taken me 18 months cause its so fustrating to write. You can never write "seabirds do X" cause there are always some that don't!. All your other points are good and I will deal with them. Ta! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have dealt with each of the comments, please unstrike them if you feel it isn't there yet. I have cleaned up the intro (a great deal of which was hand me down from the original article I started with), but I may do more so I haven't striked it. On reconsideration I have decided to leave the LOTR bit as is. Having an explanation of how birds fit into popular culture, rather than simply stating they do with an example, is more rewarding, and it leaves less room for every fanboy to come and list how their fad has a seabird in it. I'd rather have one example, explained well, than a list namechecking every reference. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in reviewing the changes - everything looks good now (I don't think the intro needs any more work), and you are probably right in trying to fend off fanboy additions by keeping the LOTR explanation. Yomanganitalk 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boyle Roche

This article was reviewed, and is now rated "good article". If I had a picture of Boyle Roche, I would submit it for FA. ubiquity 20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song)

This article about The Justified Ancients of Mu-Mu's debut single is already a Good Article. WikiProject The KLF invite and would welcome your comments on how this article can be improved. Please point out anything which would prevent this article from becoming a Featured Article. Thank you in advance. --kingboyk 14:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the intro needs to go on further to talk about the media reaction that the single gathered talking more about its legacy on samplism for its "stunning audio collage". Drstuey 10:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC) This is an edited version of a comment left at Talk:All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song). --kingboyk 14:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Definitely the lead needs expanding. Thanks Stuart, I'll place that on the To-do list and ensure it gets done before the article goes to FAC. --kingboyk 14:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Yankees

This page has undergone a lot of work over the past few weeks. I've nominated it twice for FA-consideration but both times it's been shot down. I shortened the article a little bit to around 65 KB and tried to accomodate some of the suggestions from the FA-review but I guess it still needs some work, and I should come here first before I go for attempt #3. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks. Sportskido8 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions from a lifelong Yankee fan--
  • "operate" twice in lead sentence.
  • "Since the 1969 expansion" I think you mean the 1969 division realignment.
  • "who vacate Section 39 in right field" Is "vacate" the word you want here? It seems like the opposite is true.
  • "Yankees have helped exemplify the phrase "dynasty" "Dynasty" is not a phrase, and "helped exemplify" is really awkward.
  • The first two sentences under "origins" contain the word "league" seven times.
  • "their efforts had been stymied by the political connections that owners of the National League New York Giants had with Tammany Hall." Needs citation.
  • "who rigidly enforced rules about rowdiness on the field of play" Likewise.
  • "the "junior circuit"" not clear to non-baseball fans that this means the AL.
  • "Devery had served as a blatantly corrupt chief of the New York City police" Citation really badly needed.
  • "was spent in the cellar." Avoid any baseball shop-talk that will make our European readers scratch their heads.
  • "For fans of the team formally named the Red Sox in 1908" Only for the fans? Unclear on the meaning of this clause.
  • Who is the Dave Fleming who granted permission to use photos? Is he a photographer? Did you find his collection of photos on the Web?
I will go through the rest of the article later. Andrew Levine 12:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
These suggestions/comments/corrections/cite requests are up to the Ruth-Gehrig Era, I'll add more in a bit...
  • The word “Yankees” is used too many times within certain paragraphs; change to pronouns occasionally.
  • While this is true, it needs a cite of some type, “many of the game's biggest stars have been Yankees”
  • Ambiguous. “…North America over its 100+ year history” Since you’ve committed to the standard American usage of Yankees as a plural noun, you need to be consistent throughout. The sentence as it stands now has “North America” as the antecedent…change it to their.
  • This sentence is still problematic (and could really use a cite), “…the Yankees have helped exemplify the term "dynasty" in professional athletics.” Consider abandoning this sentence and starting from scratch.
  • Re “The Boston Red Sox are the Yankees' rivals, with the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry often the most heated rivalry in all of American professional sports.” – the Res Sox are hardly the Yankees only rivals (if they were, all 162 games would be played against the Sox). Additionally, a cite is needed – one could easily argue for other rivalries.
  • The math here is incorrect, “The Yankees have won 26 World Series in 39 appearances (which, since the first World Series in 1903, currently amounts to an average appearance every 2.6 seasons and a championship every 3.9 seasons);” Additionally, this stat will need to be updated every year.
  • This needs to be phrased more neutrally, “…where the Dodgers have only managed to win three times while losing eight times.” This is a bit of a slap at the Dodgers (not that I personally mind, I don’t like the team, but nonetheless, it’s still not cool ;)
  • This needs a cite, “The Yankees are also the only team that is represented at every position in the Baseball Hall of Fame.”
  • Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but forfeit is likely the wrong word (in that it makes no sense in the context used), “…after which the league declared the team forfeit and took control,…”
  • While much of the article needs cites (I’ve noted a few above) these statements, as they are derogatory, need a substantiating cite, or preferably two, “Farrell and Devery both had deep ties into city politics and gambling. Farrell owned a casino and several pool halls, while Devery had served as a blatantly corrupt chief of the New York City police and had only been forced out of the department at the start of 1902.”
  • Cite needed for alleged association, “The name was also a reference to the noted British military unit The Gordon Highlanders, as the team president from 1903 to 1906 was named Joseph Gordon”
  • The word “tainted” needs to go, and at least one, if not two, cites are needed, “Its somewhat tainted ownership, along with the questionable activities of some players, notably first baseman Hal Chase, raised suspicions of game-fixing, but little of that was ever proven.”
  • Estranged from whom? A cite is needed, “…owners Farrell and Devery had become estranged and both were in need of money”.
  • Something is missing here, the grammar needs some work, “At the start of 1915, they sold the team to Colonel Jacob Ruppert and Captain Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston brewery fortune and had also been tied to the Tammany Hall machine, serving as a U.S. Congressman for eight years.”
More to come... •Jim62sch• 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
More...(through DiMaggio)
  • Biggest in what way? Biggest what? “However, pitcher-turned-outfielder Babe Ruth was the biggest of them all.”
  • Relevance? “Two of the four Boston newspapers agreed with the deal at the time.”
  • Critical is the wrong word, “Other critical newcomers in this period…”
  • What army? “…Huston was serving in Europe with the army.”
  • I’m not clear how this follows, “It was truly "the House that Ruth Built",” (The comma needs to be replaced, too).
  • Cute, but hyperbolic and not encyclopedic, “Stengel would later become a "giant" for the Yankees as a manager.”
  • This is deceptive, “The 1927 team was so potent that it became known as "Murderers' Row" and is sometimes considered to have been the best team in the history of baseball (though similar claims have been made for other Yankee squads, notably those of 1939, 1961 and 1998).” The same claim has been made for teams from other franchises. They either need to be included, or this portion hast to go as a vio of WP:NPOV and WP:V.
  • The adjective needs to go, “All of these gaudy numbers…”
  • Yes, the senator was infamous indeed, but the word has no place in this sentence (See WP:NPOV), “…no relation to the infamous Senator of the same name.”
  • “…impact player…” is too colloquial for an encyclopedia.
  • This reads like something from a Yankees’ History sold through the franchise. The adjectives need to go, “Behind the thundering Yankees bats of DiMaggio, Gehrig and Frank Crosetti, and a superb pitching staff led by Red Ruffing and Lefty Gomez and anchored by catcher Bill Dickey, the Yankees reeled off an unprecedented four consecutive World Series wins during 1936-1939. They did it without Gehrig for most of 1939, as the superstar's retirement due to ALS saddened the baseball world.”
  • First, this needs cites; second, “virtually impossible”? Uh, no, too hyperbolic and not supported by the laws of probability (difficult to accomplish, fine, virtually impossible, hardly). BTW, statistical anomaly has to go, too, as it is not accurate. “Modern baseball historians regard it as unlikely that anyone will ever hit .400 again, barring a change to the way the game is played; and as virtually impossible that anyone will approach DiMaggio's 56-game streak, which is so far beyond second place (44) as to be almost a statistical anomaly.”
  • Excruciatingly? Hyperbole, again, “…managing excruciatingly bad teams…”
  • Nice prose, but not encyclopedic. Also “could be said” why whom? “The 1949 season is another that has been written about poetically, as a Yankees team that was seen as "underdogs" came from behind to catch and surpass the powerful Red Sox on the last two days of the season, in a faceoff that could be said to be the real beginning of the modern intense rivalry between these teams.”
More to come... •Jim62sch• 13:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
More (up to A New Dynasty)...
  • Why “but”? “But on 8 October, 1956, in…”
  • Odd usage, “…obtained revenge…”
  • Not encyclopedic. Change, “The Yankees lost the 1960 World Series in heartbreaking fashion…” to “The Yankees lost the 1960 World Series when Bill…”
  • Hyperbole, and see above for objection re greatest teams, “Because of the excellence of Maris, Mantle, and World Series-MVP Ford, a fine pitching staff, stellar team defense, the team's amazing depth and power, and its overall dominance, the 1961 Yankees are universally considered to be one of the greatest teams in the history of baseball, compared often to their pinstriped-brethren, the 1927 Yankees, the 1939 Yankees, and the 1998 Yankees.”
  • This needs significant back-up via strong cites, otherwise it reads as mere speculation and does not belong in an encyclopedia, “The Yankees' "special relationship" with the Athletics may have been a way to mask this problem. By the mid-1960s, the Yankees had little to offer in the way of trades, and Finley had taken the Athletics' in a new direction. Some have suggested the Yankees paid the price for bringing black players into the organization later than other teams, though this theory is controversial.”
  • Change, “George Steinbrenner purchased the club for $10 million on January 3, 1973 from CBS” to “George Steinbrenner purchased the club from CBS for $10 million on January 3, 1973.”
  • This reads as if Steinbrenner developed and initiated the idea of free-agency, “After the 1974 season, Steinbrenner began the modern era of free agency…”
  • There’s a problem of causation here, “…a game between the two teams (whether in the regular season or post-season championship games) was cause for a rivalry that was often bitter and ruthless…”
  • Not encyclopedic, “…went on a tear…”
  • Adjective use, “…fielded excellent offensive teams…”
  • Not encyclopedic, “Yankee bats were starting to sputter”
  • This should be irony, not oddity (although neither is really encyclopedic), “To add to the oddity…”
MTC •Jim62sch• 13:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The rest...
  • Subjective and non-encyclopedic, “The bad judgment and bad luck of…”
  • Which paper? Cite? “("Clueless Joe" ran the headline on one of the city's tabloid newspapers)”
  • Relevance? “Dwight Gooden, who had pitched a no-hitter for the Yankees in April, did not even start a World Series game.”
  • By whom? Not to flog a dead horse, but statements like this need to be substantiated, “The 1998 Yankees are widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest teams in baseball history…”
  • Syntax, “In the emotional October 2001,…”
  • Adjective use, “…uncharacteristically lost the lead…”
  • Not encyclopedic, “The Yankees had huge holes to fill….”
  • The entire first paragraph of “Fan support” needs to be written more neutrally, and the suppositions regarding the Mets need to go.
  • This section needs at least a cite, as I doubt they are well-known outside New York, “The Bleacher Creatures”
  • This section needs to be re-titled and rewritten, “Opposing fans and hatred”
Overall (despite all of the things I noted) the article is very interesting, full of interesting facts and statistics and reasonably well-written. However, there are some problems with neutrality WP:NPOV, verifiability WP:VER, and WP:MOS. The use of in-line citations would help immensely for items that may be questioned. BTW, I'm neither a Yankees fan nor detractor as I come from an NL city and don't worry too much anout the AL until October. On the other hand, I do have a certain admiration for the team and its players (past and present) as do the authors of this article -- but, remember, to be encyclopedic, that admiration should not be obvious to the reader. •Jim62sch• 14:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made a lot of the above changes. Still need to put a lot of cites in though. --Sportskido8 15:30 EST, 14 August 2006

  • Comment - I'd strongly suggest splitting the entire "History" section into a new article (History of the New York Yankees) and then writing a more condensed version for the main NYY page using summary style. The history section is quite thorough, but it probably contains more detail than the average reader looking for information on the Yankees would want. - Pal 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of people are suggesting this, but I think that the history of this team is too important to split off on its own. 65 KB is not unbearable, is it? --Sportskido8 10:11 EST, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient House, Ipswich

I've added a bit of information to the article recently gleaned from the museum housed there. I'd like to know how and where this article can be improved. Any suggestions are welcome! Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some brief notes:

  • Overall it's pretty brief. Perhaps you could find some more interesting history and give a longer description of the 'ground floor room panelling' and the 'long gallery'? Could you give a more detailed description of the interior of the house? How many square metres is it?
  • There are no references. Please use inline citations to provide sources for the material.
  • The History section should be moved before the architecture, as is the convention.
  • Rather than a dash (-) as a sentence break, please use the mdash character (HTML: &mdash;).
  • 'commisioned' appears to be missing an 's', unless that's how its spelled over there.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources:

  • I've added a reference section and included the images of england website - lot's of juicy information there to include (but don't violate copyright)
  • The article might benefit from information about the buildings context - eg. the buttermarket area - why was this so called - is it contemporary to ancient house - what was the relationship of the building to it's surroundings over time. etc.
  • More pictures - it would be great if you could snap the four panels of the pargeting so we can see the tudor view of the world for ourselves.

--Mcginnly | Natter 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions so far, have been busy IRL lately, so haven't had the time or energy. Will work on the article more soon. Cheers. Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 22:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frances Oldham Kelsey

Requesting peer review as step towards Featured Article Status - I feel the article, while brief, meets the FA standards. --Trödel 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Apart from repeating the automated suggestions I have very little to add, It is well-written, concise, and comprehensively referenced. I think it will struggle in FAC review though, because of the length. Some comments:
  • Thalidomide is capitalized once and lowercase the rest of the time.
  • Does Sulfanilamide need to be capitalized? If it does, it possibly links to the wrong article (doesn't make much sense in this context)
  • It would be good to replace some instances of "Kelsey" and "Geiling" in the second section with "he" or "she" for readability.
  • The "Early career and marriage" section is perhaps a little too short to merit its own section, but it is hard to see how you could rearrange it, as it doesn't fit well in either the preceding or following sections
  • Although thalidomide has its own article, a little background and some relevant detail wouldn't go amiss - for instance the manufacturer (Grünenthal?) isn't even mentioned by name and the purpose of the drug isn't explained.
  • A bit more detail on her role in withholding approval would be helpful. Was it solely her responsibility? Was the additional information ever provided? What form did the pressure from the manufacturer take? Perhaps some more detail on what the English study involved.
  • The last section is very brief. I suspect there is more detail that could be added here (perhaps by combining the awards section as two of these are awarded late in her career).
  • There are a couple of sentences that would benefit from copyediting. For example: "Kelsey returned to her work at the FDA.", "..continued to work" would be better here unless you can point to her leaving the FDA earlier.
Hope this helps.- Yomanganitalk 23:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thx - I will work on these suggestions over the next few days - my biggest concern for FAC - is the length - --Trödel 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the length of the article is just fine. The FAC criteria states only that an article needs to be of "appropriate length", not some specific number of kBytes. Just adding bloat to meet some ill-defined quota doesn't make for a great article, IMO. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thx - I am against bloat - however, as I suspected there is more to the story and to the life of Kelsey - I have been researching offline and found one good source of additional information about Kelsey's motivations and the other details behind the thalidomide application, and am looking for more about the remainder of Kelsey's career at the FDA - as such a prominent person early on - and one of only 6 doctors on staff at the time of the passage of the legistlation - it stands to reason she had an impact - I just need to find good sources to verify that hunch :) --Trödel 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't suggesting padding. A short article can meet the standards for FA but it can raise questions of comprehensiveness that don't come up as often with long articles. Yomanganitalk 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
True - that will be a better goal anyway - to make sure the article is comprehensive --Trödel 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohemian Rhapsody

Review for "featured article" criteria.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 00:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great song. My comments on the article:
  • In the intro: "world's biggest bands" = "world's most popular bands" ?
  • The second paragraph of "Recording" mixes various tenses and is generally poorly worded.
  • "...but declares that he "need[s] no sympathy" because nothing matters." I thought he says he needs no sympathy because he's "easy come, easy go". No?
    • easy come, easy go is something that you say in order to describe someone who thinks that everything is easy to achieve, and who therefore does not worry about anything.
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy
Because I'm easy come, easy go
A little high, little low
Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me
— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 03:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that's different than "because nothing matters": he needs no sympathy because he doesn't care, not because nothing matters. Maybe I'm splitting hairs... -- bcasterline • talk 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some explanation or context for the lyrical allusions in the Opera would be nice.
  • "This was a very small sum compared to the multi-million dollar industry music videos have become" commentary seems out of place to me.
  • The section "Promotional video" would benefit from some more inline citations, especially:
    • "It was created for the sole purpose of allowing the band to be on tour and appear "live" on the BBC's Top of the Pops."
    • "The "Bohemian Rhapsody" video is often cited as "the first ever music promo video.""
  • The section "Live performances" has a lot of awkward wording -- for example, the sentence beginning "During the Jazz and Live Killers tours..."
  • I'm not a huge fan of lists of trivia, and I think most of that information can be added elsewhere. (The first point is especially interesting.)
Otherwise looks pretty good. -- bcasterline • talk 02:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John W. Johnston

Wondering what this needs to get it in line with FAC for possible FA nom... Thanks! plange 21:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a few thing come to mind. First it should say in the introduciton how long he was in the senate. I don't like the {{Quotation}} I think it looks wierd; I am sure that there are better alternatives. The "notes" and "references" sections needs to be combined: rename "notes" to references and expand the first use of the reference to what you have in "references". Last, looking that the references, the article seems to relie a lot on his own autobiography. If possible other source should be found to colaborate what he said, (or better yet contradict what he said and add a section on how his autobiography is inaccurate). Jon513 21:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually the separate notes and references sections is a style that many prefer. It allows listing references that verify the entire article or large portions of it in the references section and footnotes in the notes section. Specific advice, it probable needs a longer lead section, see WP:LEAD. - Taxman Talk 16:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Bauer

This article is not good, and it is about one of my favorite TV characters. What does this article need to get to FA status? Thanks much!! Judgesurreal777 03:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

more wikilinks. The section entitled "Charactistics" has only one! Jon513 07:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire fighting in Finland

I've been editing this page for a while and would really appreciate comments from others. I'd like to know if there's information you would expect to find from the article and isn't included. Pasi 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Some general observations: the lead needs to be expanded. You have two sentences now; turn these into two full paragraphs. There needs to be a History section. This can talk about the start of organized fire fighting in Finland. Some of the sections and subsections have too many lists. You can keep those in there, but beef them up with more prose. The last two sections need to be expanded. For Equipment, you can talk about the types of vehicles (automaker and stuff like that) used and so on.UberCryxic 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I already worked on the lead a bit. I'll write up about the history once I find some sources (might have some books at home, will have to see). Same thing with the lists, I can beef them up but I need to try find some sources. Always fun to write when you know the information is right but you don't have any written source for it. :) Pasi 10:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did a brief copyedit to try and improve word flow...there should be a reduction of the factoid style if possible and an expansion of the major themes. Examples of large fires would be helpful as would any areas of concern such as accident rates, fatality rates number of hectares burned annually...that sort of stuff.--MONGO 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The large fires idea is good, I'll see if I can find information about biggest recent and historic fires in Finland, should be easy enough. Accident rates are available from the ministery of the interior's website, I'll add them when I get back home (I'm out of town atm). Pasi 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Age of Arcade Games

This article is one of two former featured video game articles, and was removed partly on the reason it had never even been peer reviewed. Well here it is! This article needs lots of references, I know, but in terms of content, it is way too small. What needs to be expanded upon to become featured again? Thanks! Judgesurreal777 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have exactly one word for you: Research. Nifboy 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Carroll

I am looking for general feedback and constructive criticism on the Lewis Carroll article. Right now, I think this is a good article and I think that this article becoming featured is definiately within its reach. To this end, I'm looking for whatever tips, hints, suggestions, and comments that will assist us in that goal, from a simple "this sentence is worded weirdly" to "this article needs a major overhaul and here's why". Any comment or suggestion would be appreciated -- no matter how big or small. Thank you for your time, consideration, and assistence. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

change the caption of the picture to "Lewis Carroll talking on his cell phone". Jon513 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
FUNNY! :) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This does look like a very good article, but I think that it is seriously incomplete without a section on Carroll's academic life... his papers on mathematics and career at Oxford should certainly be given quite a bit more attention than they have been. With the addition of this section, I think the article will be well on its way to featured status. MLilburne 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Great idea! There's some allusion to his academic life in the trivia section with the alleged "dedication" of a mathemetical treatise to Queen Victoria. I think a section on his academia would be welcome addition. Thanks :) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to start you thinking, according to his biographer Morton Cohen: "Although early critics failed to grasp the significance of his work in mathematics and logic, recent writers have come to grips with these esoteric studies and have shown that he broke new ground in numerous branches of this speciality and that his work was occasionally ahead of his time... Reevaluations of his labors on social choice, or voting theory, and his proposed rules for fairer methods of eliminating players in lawn tennis have also heightened his reputation among specialists, and current assessments claim that his proposals for improving voting methods are highly innovative and more nearly just than those used today." MLilburne 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there an apropiate infobox that could be used? Jon513 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. Never seen one for an author, but just because I've not seen it doesn't mean one doesn't exist. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coconut

I would like some advice on how to make this a featured article, I've already started editing it and making it look better - advice is appreciated. Any helpful advice is useful! Also, if anyone knows of a relevant WikiProject to discuss this on, let me know! --TheM62Manchester 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

references? Jon513 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jon. I'll try and get that mentioned on the talk page! --TheM62Manchester 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added the auto peer review to the Talk:Coconut page. The article should be longer, currently it is 2475 words, with 112 wikilinks and 9 images.

[edit] Tourism in Indonesia

This is the Indonesian collaboration of the week article, starting on yesterday (August 21). However, I have seen many improvements compared to the one before some guys working actively on the article (but I can't find the history). Oh well, thanks for your review. Take care -- Imoeng 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I haven't got time today to have as thorough a look as I'd like. I've given some of the sections a quick copyedit, but it would benefit from a good run through. Some brief points:
    • It needs a lot more references.
    • Inline citations should come after the punctuation per WP:MOS
    • "The Wallacea biogeographical destination defines the western part of Indonesia (Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan) have the same flora and fauna characteristics with the Asian continent." - couldn't make head nor tail of this sentence. I took a guess at copyediting it, but you should check it.
    • Komodo dragons are found on islands other than just Komodo
    • "Metropolitan tourism including shopping, sightseeing in big cities and enjoying modern amusement parks." - this is orphaned.
    • "which is usually favoured by the upper classes, including foreigners" - are all foreigners included in "the upper classes" or are only upper-class foreigners covered by this statement?
    • " However, an application is compulsory to both VOA and visa-free countries" - can't work out what that means.
Hope this helps Yomanganitalk 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forbidden Zone

I completely revamped this article. Major, major changes have been made. A previous revision of the article has been described as being more like "a glowing review of the movie, not an encyclopedia article about it." I have fixed this. I think the current revision is very well-done, and I'd like to know what you folks think of what I've done with the article. (Ibaranoff24 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

A fairly good article, but the following changes should be implemented:

  • In-line citations go after the punctuation (here they come exclusively before).
  • Expand the lead and the Response subsection. Better yet, make Response into a new section by itself.
  • There are some red links. You might want to create some stubs for these guys (though not all) to make the article look more visually appealing.
  • The Plot section does not have any in-line citations, although I'm debating if this is a problem. The information included there does not seem to be controversial or something that might need to be sourced, with the possible exception of some quotes I found. I'll let you make the call on this one.

Overall though, nice start.UberCryxic 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks better now that you've corrected the above problems, however the pictures need some work:

  • The pic captioned "Frenchy goes into the Forbidden Zone" is appearing (at least in my browser--IE) offset to the right, next to another image.
  • There are too many pictures in the history section. Consider removing 2-3 of them.

Nice work. SoberEmu 20:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automated teller machine

I got annoyed after reading this article once, so of course I had to fix it.  :-) I'm running out of steam and looking for ideas as to where to go from here.

There are pictures in some of the other language Wikipedias that might be good to add in, but they're not in WikiCommons, and I'm unsure how to cleanly transfer all of the information about an image to the commons.

I'll check back in a couple of days... gotta actually do some real work now.  ;-) PrimroseGuy 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

The article is very comprehensive and really has no content problems. However I have some other comments on it:

  • The lead is too verbose. For example, rather than "an electronic computerized telecommunications device" try "an electronic device".
  • Citations are needed for the history section (see here for information on how) but generally it is pretty good.
  • "The latter is preferable as the time required for a modem to establish the initial connection is much less." should be rephrased. Try something like "Leased lines are preferable to modems because they require less time to establish a connection."
  • Talk about the encryption in the Financial Networks and ATMs (it's already mentioned in the Security > Transactional section.
  • Instead of "In addition, ATMs are moving away from custom circuit boards (some based on the Intel 8086 architecture) and into full-fledged PCs with standard operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and Linux." Try something like "Recently, due to heavier computing demands and the falling price of computer-like architectures, ATMs have moved away from custom hardware architectures using microcontrollers and/or application-specific integrated circuits to adopting a hardware architecture that is very similar to a personal computer. So much so that many now use operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and Linux.". Unless you have specific source advising otherwise, consider not talking about custom printed circuit boards as they are cheap to make and probably don't accurately reflect the nature of the shift.
  • Explain better what "phantom withdrawals" are or omit that information.
  • "made to dispenser a customer's money" is incorrect (dispenser is a noun).
  • Explain better what the "emergency PIN system" is or omit that information.

Generally, the article feels like it needs to be trimmed/restructured. It is too long and some sections seem to cover material that is closely related to earlier sections (in which case it might be best to combine the two). The article does have a tendency to wander so don't be afraid to omit some smaller details from the article.

Some ideas for trimmming/restructing the article include:

  • Remove Companies involved with ATMs and move links of the most important companies to the See also or External links section.
  • Remove ATM Usage Fees and place the article in the See also section. Maybe make a brief mention of them elsewhere.
  • Remove Relevant Legislation and Standards from "Talking ATM"
  • Combine the ATM Fraud and Security sections

Cedars 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions from the above two reviews.  Some highlights of how the article has now changed:
  • The lead is too verbose.

The "electronic computerized telecommunications device" is an important part of ATMs (to distinguish them from related devices), but I was able to shorten and simplify thing a bit.

  • Citations are needed for the history section

Done.

  • The latter is preferable...

Good idea. Fixed.

  • Talk about the encryption in Financial Networks and ATMs

It seems to me more appropriate in the section it is in, but I have now mentioned lower layer encryption that can occur.

  • Instead of "In addition, ATMs are moving

Good idea. Fixed.

  • Explain better what "phantom withdrawals" are

Good idea to cut. They're more of an issue of a failure of the Bank's accounting systems... plus the information available doesn't have a worldwide perspective, so pushed to external article and included a link.

  • made to dispenser a customer's money

Fixed.

  • Explain better what the "emergency PIN system"

Good idea. Done.

Generally, the article feels like it needs to be trimmed/restructured. It is too long ..." After this round of tinkering, it seems to be getting bigger. :-)

  • Remove Companies involved with ATMs and move links of the most important companies to the See also or External links section.

Still looking for a good sample article that I can model the removal of the content from. The information in that section deserves to be pushed out into a List of...

  • Remove ATM Usage Fees and place the article in the See also section.

The main reason I've kept that in is that in previous versions of the article it tended to degenerate into a discussion of why people don't like ATM fees. Unless there's something that's reasonably prominent to draw people away from doing that, I think it could fall back into that trap again.

  • Remove Relevant Legislation and Standards from "Talking ATM"

Actually, this section really can be it's own article now and was of limited geographic scope, so it's cut out

  • Combine the ATM Fraud and Security sections

I think the main problem was that the concepts in those sections really weren't explained well enough to make them distinct. I've tried to flesh them out a bit more to help drive out the meaning.

PrimroseGuy 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northside Health Careers High School

  • Hello. If I could get any kind of feedback regarding the overall format of the article, as well as any general input regarding the content of the article. I have tried to assert the notability of the school as well as I can. Any other suggestions? Also, I'd like to have internal citations, but I'm not familiar with the code that I need to put in to have the citations work properly. Any feedback that i can get at all would be appreciated. Thanks. will381796 05:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok right now the article is very short. Depending on how far you want to go with it, it will need more sections (like History and so on). There are different formats on citing, but the most popular one recently goes something like this:

[1]

This statement goes right after a punctuation mark. Then you'll need to create a Notes section, which will look something like this:

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ [Enter bibliographical information]

The text under the "Enter bibliographical information" tag will now appear in the Notes section. Also, sometimes you will use the same page in a book or the same page in a website to cite more than one statement. When that happens, do this:

[1]

Use the first citation name that you gave that book or site (in this case "blabla") and write it like I did above. Hope this helps. Good luck!UberCryxic 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Update Hit the edit button at the top right of this article's entry page here to view the code.UberCryxic 15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks I will try this once I get home. will381796 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Hey, I think I was able to get the citations to work properly. Anything else anyone notices? Thanks. will381796 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco, California

The article on San Francisco was listed as a Good Article, and then nominated for Featured Article Status. It failed the FA nomination, so clearly it is in need of more work. Please take a look at the article and make suggestions for improvement.

Personally, I think there is too much trivia and minutiae. The FA-review mentioned the County Jails section (I'd remove this) and the Education section. And there seem to be too many lists, which makes the flow poor. I (and other editors who have worked on the article) would appreciate specific comments on areas that should be prioritized for more work. Please suggest where citations are needed, which sections might be removed or moved to their own articles, and which areas have weak writing. And certainly, any other areas where you can make suggestions are also welcome.

Here are some of the comments the FA reviewers made:

  • Have at least 3 tags on sections that need to be split
  • large white spaces created by picture location
  • two reference styles
  • one-sentence sections (about jails)
  • trivia and unreferenced notables
  • a large number of external jumps
  • need for inline citations (example, The Port of San Francisco was once the largest and busiest seaport on the west coast, but that title is now held by the joint ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach)
  • In "History", I counted seven running paragraphs constructed of just ten sentences.
  • More stubs further down, especially in "Media". Isn't "southeast" one word? Please polish it. Tony 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't like the "County jails" and "education" sections
  • Prose improvement

And here are a few points I've gathered from looking at other peer review comments:

  • Article too long (80k)
  • Too much non-encyclopedic & topical material.
  • Self indulgent about sexual and political matters

Thank you for any help! --Paul 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To start it off, take out the "county jails" section and perhaps integrate it into the "crime" section or leave it out altogether. No other city article (except perhaps Seattle, and only one sentence) even mentions jails and/or prisons. --physicq210 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Now we're cooking! I've moved the County Jails material to its own article San Francisco, California: County Jails --Paul 03:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Another piece of advice: Combine the coffee houses section with the section mentioning the San Francisco counterculture movement. I don't have time to do this sort-of tedious work; I'm working on the San Francisco International Airport article (which, coincidentially, is also undergoing peer review to prep it for FA status). --physicq210 04:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There must be a better picture of one of the most beautiful cities in the world available for the opening shot.

The Table of Contents is a bit overwhelming, but can be solved by losing the unencyclopedic trivia (since your trivia is completely unreferenced anyway, it needs to go). One way to save that content, but remove it from an article you want to feature, may be to spin it into a daughter article, using Summary Style. Jails can be combined with crime; coffee houses, and nightlife don't warrant their own sections. (Why would you cover coffee houses, and yet leave out Union Street, the fabulous restaurants, etc? The topics you have chosed to cover are sporadic. A picture of the Palace of Fine Arts, but no discussion of the history? Almost nothing about the Presidio?) Find ways to make a better organized article, which will be reflected in a cleaner TOC. Colleges and Universities can also have their own article, using Summary Style, which will help clean up this article, which is too listy and too long. (Why is SF claiming Stanford and Berkeley? You don't need to stretch the facts to make SF seem better than it already is.) Just as you have a separate article for airports, you can have a separate article for schools.

This article is confused: it's supposed to be about SF, but you're including South Bay and East Bay in terms of universities and sports. The Oakland Raiders are not part of San Francisco. Get non-SF out of the article, and use the space to tell us more about San Francisco highlights and sports, the new Giants stadium, PacBell, for example. You're covering way too much stuff outside of SF, but don't cover well the SF highlights and landmarks. Why are you telling me about Oakland airport and NASA in Mountain View in an SF article? The article is not The SF Bay Area. There is much more than can be said about SF, once you get the non-SF content out. Or, move all of that to a separate section about the Greater Bay Area. (There's already an article on San Francisco Bay Area; no need to duplicate content: there's enough you can say about SF city and county.)

The poor arrangement of pictures needs to be dealt with. Some can be moved to the left (rather than right justified). Some can be moved up or down a paragraph. They are all shoved together, creating large white chunks without text. Arrange them so that you don't have those big chunks of white space, which is unsightly and not "our best work". I moved two pictures to give you a sample: look at the page before and after those moves.

You need to do a *lot* of work on referencing. First, you need to do more inline citing. The article is under-referenced (particularly for FA standards). Second, you mix ref styles: convert all refs to m:Cite/Cite.php format. Third, you aren't punctuating the footnotes correctly (see WP:FN). The ref goes after punctuation.

Refer to WP:GTL: your See also is in the wrong place.

Now, once you clear all that "stuff" out, you can focus on the items you've ignored.

Your prose needs polishing: Rail extensions there include BART and Caltrain via BART at nearby Millbrae, California. Where - to the airport? Network to find someone who can help you clean up the prose, after you've rewritten the article.

History needs to be thoroughly referenced. Why is homelessness in history?

Here's a random item: things like this need attention. In the mid 1830s, the first city street plan was laid out by the Mission Alcalde, Francisco de Haro, I know an alcalde is a mayor, but do most people know that? You might need to Wikilink more, or define terms.

The area became Mexican upon Mexico's independence from Spain and fell into isolation. Fell into isolation? From whom/what/where/when?

One paragraph on the earthquake? One sentence on the two great bridges?

The city is also where Bank of America was founded. That's it for A.P. Giannini?

See also: Companies Headquartered in San Francisco, California Can you put that at the top of the section, instead of in the middle?

The media section is full of external jumps, which should be eliminated.

A list of schools is of little use: what are the issues with the schools in SF?

It might help to compare with FA Boston, Massachusetts, although it isn't well enough referenced (standards for inline citations have improved since it passed FA).

No mention of Harvey Milk?

Crime is completely unreferenced.

Private school list is incomplete, so spin them to a daughter article.

Sorry for rambling: that should be enough to work on for a while. Sandy 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

  • Unsourced trivia list removed
  • "See also"s moved per WP:GTL
  • Crime section removed (three paragraps of a sentence each with no references)
  • Sports section edited to remove non-SF sporting activities
  • Convert all in-line and external-jump references & links to correct ref syntax
  • Spun off Educaton lists and rewrote education section
  • Removed excessive pictures to improve formatting
  • Rewrote Climate section; added weatherbox
  • Sister Cities & Famous People Trivia removed
  • Substantial rewriting and cutting has reduced article from 80K to 59K

--Paul 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC) --Paul 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC) --Paul 16:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed external jumps from one sentence in Media, to show you an example of the work that needs to be done there. Sandy 15:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second look

Far better organization and citing.

In the media section, why is this a red link:

See also: List of television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area

This needs inline citations:

The San Francisco Chronicle, a broadsheet for which Herb Caen famously published his daily musings, is northern California's most widely circulated newspaper. The San Francisco Examiner, once the cornerstone of William Randolph Hearst's media empire, has declined over the years and been reduced to a tabloid.

Schools: no mention at all of private schools other than Catholic. Isn't there a very fine all boys' school in SF?

Culture and contemporary life is in need of references, throughout. Way too much emphasis on counterculture and alternate lifestyles, not enough about the thriving business community. Paints SF as unidimensional.

Museums, no link to Palace of Fine Arts or mention of World Fair origins?

Transportation, screaming for inline citations throughout, for example:

San Francisco has the most extensive public transit system on the U.S. West Coast and one of the most diverse in the country. It also has one of the highest riderships; 35% of the city's population use public transit as part of their daily commute.

Airports: still mentioning airports that are not SF airports, rather Bay Area. Why not delete references to non-SF airports, and instead use the space to discuss the HORRIFIC issues of construction at SFO, and how the airport has been utterly destroyed by poor planning?

Although the article is much improved, there are still too many statements throughout that need inline citations, if the article is to pass FAC. For example, The Mission District, site of the Mission Dolores, is the oldest neighborhood in the city.

I stopped there, and will review again after the article is thoroughly referenced. Sandy 20:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third look

  • I found several typos within references (bot checks don't pick those up). You should put the entire article into a spell checker for review.
  • The newspaper refs (at least, maybe others) aren't done correctly: I fixed one as example, to include the author and date of publication. If a link goes dead, a reader needs the information to find the newspaper article in a library.
    • Raine, George. Tourism dollars add up: San Francisco seeing more visitors, more cash -- it's our No. 1 industry. San Francisco Chronicle (May 13, 2006). Accessed August 23, 2006.
  • I found several instances of no spaces between words or after punctuation (those corrections don't show on diffs). It seems like a thorough copy edit is still needed.
  • There are still missing citations: example "San Francisco is the traditional focal point of the San Francisco Bay Area and forms part of the greater San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area (CSA) whose population is over 7 million - the fifth largest CSA in the United States" and "San Francisco is a minority-majority city as non-Hispanic Whites make up 43% of the population. Asian-Americans, principally Chinese, comprise 31% of the population, giving the city the highest such concentration of any city in the continental United States. Hispanics of any race make up 14% of the population. At less than 8% of the population, San Francisco has fewer African-Americans than most other large American cities." The article needs to be *thoroughly* cited.
  • This statement is POV, and says nothing of the San Francisco I know, which is neither of these: San Francisco is at once, bohemian enclave and home to the world's wealthy. It is also uncited.
  • There are numerous instances of prose that needs polishing, example: "Though hilly, San Francisco is a relatively small and compact city with mixed-use character and residents and visitors create a rich street environment walking to shops and meals."

The article still needs a lot of work. I haven't even checked the prose. (I'm going to have limited computer access for the next two weeks, and won't be able to check again.) Sandy 02:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A note: Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs. --physicq210 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Red Link See also: List of television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area - FIXED
  • Inline citations: Chronical & Examiner - FIXED
  • Schools: no mention at all of private schools other than Catholic. - MORE ADDED
  • Culture & Contemporary Life - FIXED
  • Museums, no link to Palace of Fine Arts or mention of World Fair origins? - FIXED
  • Transporation citations needed - FIXED
  • The Mission District, site of the Mission Dolores, is the oldest neighborhood in the city. -FIXED

--Paul 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The embedded refs section was moved to an external editor and checked for correct spelling.
  • All refs with authors and publication dates have been updated per the above example.
  • The article source was exported to an external editor and spell-checked, finding a number of spacing problems including too many & not enough

  • "San Francisco is the traditional focal point of the San Francisco Bay Area and forms part of the greater San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area (CSA) whose population is over 7 million - the fifth largest CSA in the United States" and "San Francisco is a minority-majority city as non-Hispanic Whites make up 43% of the population. Asian-Americans, principally Chinese, comprise 31% of the population, giving the city the highest such concentration of any city in the continental United States. Hispanics of any race make up 14% of the population. At less than 8% of the population, San Francisco has fewer African-Americans than most other large American cities."

    These statements along with many many others have been referenced. There is now over 17K of reference material in the article.

  • This statement is POV, and says nothing of the San Francisco I know, which is neither of these: San Francisco is at once, bohemian enclave and home to the world's wealthy. It is also uncited.

    The statement has been removed & the entire section was rewritten.

  • There are numerous instances of prose that needs polishing, example: "Though hilly, San Francisco is a relatively small and compact city with mixed-use character and residents and visitors create a rich street environment walking to shops and meals."

    This sentence (and many related ones) have been rewritten.--Paul 00:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Look

Comments below were made on August 29, 2006 and transferred to this page on August 30.
Wow, I guess there's been a lot of work! Overall, the quality of the article is vastly better than the last time I read it. Great work! I went through and fixed a few minor spelling and punctuation errors myself but there are a few other points I wanted to mention:

  • A few of the sections towards the bottom (colleges and universities, culture and contemporary life) read like they still use a bit of a copyedit.
    • These sections have been rewritten once again.--Paul 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph in the lead sounds somewhat strange to me.
    • Third paragraph has been rewritten.--Paul 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Nearby are the equally well known Twin Peaks, a pair of hills..." equally well known as what?
    • Reworded "equally well known" removed.--Paul 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the list of sister cities was removed, was this accidental or was there a reason for this?
    • Sister cities was moved to a daughter article and referenced in the ==See Also== section.--Paul 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would add a little more information regarding the 1906 earthquake to the history section. The short paragraph that currently exists seems to start rather suddenly and it seems like there should be a little bit more about one of the defining events in San Francisco's history.
    • Added a lot more information about the 1906 earthquake and fire including a number of really good references.--Paul 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind adding a brief mention of Fort Point somewhere in the history section?
    • Early activities at Fort Point, Alcatraz & the Presidio have been added.--Paul 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely support another featured article nomination if a few of the above things can be addressed. The only other thing that I can think of that might cause some opposition in another nomination would be the length of the article. Personally, I have no problem with this. I would much rather read a long article that is very comprehensive than one that leaves out relevent information but I've gotten the feeling that many other users don't feel the same way when it comes to featured articles.

Anyways, I should have left for work about 10 minutes ago, great job on the article and let me know what you think about those suggestions. --Nebular110 02:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth Look

This may be perhaps my last bit of advice before this article goes for FA (moved here from the article talkpage):

In my opinion, the neighborhood section still needs a bit of chopping. Try moving a bit of information over to the main neighborhoods article, as not every neighborhood needs to be mentioned on the main page. Change this, and I will support FA without any qualms. Good job to everyone who contributed during this marathon overhaul, with most thanks given to Paul.h and DaveOinSF! --physicq210 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have cut 20% out of the neighborhoods section. See if you don't think it reads better now. Thank you for the supportive comments. --Paul 01:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking pretty good, but still needs some work, so I'll try to point out what I see to help make this one sail smoothly through FAC if possible.
  • Needs a bit more info on income distibution and avg income. What information that is there is in the Culture section which seems really out of place. Why not cover it in the economics or demographics section where it fits more logically?
  • Crime needs to be covered to be comprehensive. Comparisons to national averages for the major categories and to cities of similar size are needed. Doesn't need it's own section, but it does need a full paragraph perhaps in the demographics section.
  • The neighborhoods section still has too much detail and instead needs more overview. The detail should be moved to the sub article and replaced with summary, overview information. We don't need a listing of all neighborhoods, but a bit of info on the most important onces and the rest as an overview of the reasons for the differences in different areas.
  • The climate section could use more information on number of sunny vs cloudy days, and number of foggy days. The extremely unusual monthly temperature distribution could use a source noting how unsual that is for basically anywhere else in the US, and for all I know any other temperate climates. I'm not sure but the microclimates are probably important enought to warrant a little more space. My understanding is the Giants moved from Candlestick partly for the better weather a few miles away. You don't need to mention that trivia here, it's just evidence for such pronounced microclimates being unusual.
  • All of the above I mentioned needs citation to reliable sources. - Taxman Talk 18:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Response Thank you to Taxman for these comments, they have been addressed as follows:
  • Data for total and per capita personal income, as well as for % of families below the poverty line have been added to the Demographics section. Crime data was also added along with comparisons to U.S. averages and other large cities.
  • The neighborhood section was cut by close to 50%
  • The climate section was expanded with more data on the climate type, sunny & cloudy days, and microclimates. I found data for fog, but it is gathered at the airport and is not representitive of what happens in the western part of San Francisco proper, so I didn't include it. Climate data wouldn't reflect the fog anyway, as it is mostly a morning phenomenon, burning off by noon or a bit later.
All of the comments from reviewers on this page have been a tremendous help, as anyone can see by comparing different versions of the article! Thank you to all for taking the time to read and make positive suggestions.--Paul 03:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S.C.I.F.I. World

I've spent much time crafting this article together but feel that it can be improved upon even further.. I believe that, for the channel of SciFi, it has been something comparable to monumental in the shape of things and to this day: we still have those very marathons. I'd really appreciate advice and goals to aim for as to how this article can be strengthened for Good article nomination as well as possibly beyond. With work, I do believe this can be attained. DrWho42 10:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Should there be a section or corresponding sections focusing in on the shows featured on each theme? I.e. Creatureland, &c. DrWho42 09:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a list so that looking up what shows aired and in what "theme-day" would be made incredibly easier. List of S.C.I.F.I. World shows, however I'm wondering whether or not referencing would be just or in what way should it be done... Please see either the adjacent Talk page or its entry along the WP Television's Talk page DrWho42 20:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plasma (physics)

The article has already achieved Good Article status, so I figure that Peer review is the next step for improvement, with an aim to eventually reach Featured Article status.

I realize that this is a very broad and complex subject, but it should still be readable and interesting to everyone. --Iantresman 11:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't completely finish the article yet, but here's a few comments:
  • Section "Definition of a plasma", item two says that the 'Debye screening length' is defined above. But what I see above that is only the 'Debye sphere'. Please clarify the text.
  • Could you explain the 'electron neutral collision frequency' in the text?
  • In 'Ranges of plasma parameters', the 'Heliospheric current sheet' illustration appears out of place and could perhaps be moved to a more appropriate location. The table in that same section could do with some links to the unit description pages. (E.g. T) The Density/Cosmic cell in that table is missing units. (To be consistent with the other cells.)
  • The article introduces the relation 'ωce / νcoll > 1' without explaining the parameters. Likewise with E = -V x B. In the "Densities" section, is Φ the same as φpl?
  • I'm a little unclear about what is meant by "The possibility of currents couples the plasma strongly to magnetic fields" in the "Comparison of plasma and gas phases" section table.
  • In the same table, the graph is appearing above the text on the Velocity distribution row.
  • The article as a whole has a number of significant sections without references. For example, "Mathematical descriptions".
  • The "Fields of active research" section is little more than a bulleted list. Could this be expanded into something that is a little more interesting to read?
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I've taken in all the changes, except for the "Fields of active research" which I'm not sure what to do with at this stage, and will await further feedback. --Iantresman 20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article appears to suffer from a lack of technical information, though it is very good in the contextual sense. For example, a typical outline for a course on plasma physics includes:

"The concept of temperature (particularly related to the fact that plasmas are notoriously out of local thermodynamic equilibrium; the conditions of density and temperature necessary for the plasma state; discussion of fusion; motion of single charged particles in static and time varying electric and magnetic fields; plasmas described as (charged) fluids or magnetohydrodynamics; waves in plasmas; plasma heating with radio waves; kinetic theory description of plasmas including diffusion with and without magnetic fields; Debye shielding of a charge; Vlasov equation and collisionless plasmas; Landau dampening of waves; BGK single relaxation time model description of collisions; transport calculations of mass (diffusion); momentum (viscosity) and energy (heat conductivity)." from [5].

Other topics include:

"Klimontovich equation, Fokker Planck equation, Coulomb collisions, PIC Particle simulation, Atomic collisions, Sheaths & probes, Dusty plasmas, and Quasilinear theory" [6]

It would be good for all of these subjects to at least be mentioned (more than a few of them already are!), if not have paragraphs or sections devoted to them. These are considered by professionals in the field to be some of the basic concepts inherent to the subject.

--ScienceApologist 02:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the suggestions, which I shall take a look at, as well I hope, some of the other editors. I think that some of the more technical information has been deliberately removed from the article (a) because the subject is so broad (b) as an encyclopedic, rather than scientific article, an overview is more important (c) the technical stuff can form mini-articles by themselves.
  • For example, the section on Mathematical descriptions now links to a page on Plasma parameters.
--Iantresman 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Plasma parameters right now only deals with scaling in plasmas. There are a wide range of other ideas which are technical/mathematical but can be described for a general audience in the lists above. --ScienceApologist 13:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The intro makes a few brief references to the history of plasma research. That should be expanded and moved to its own section. Good work otherwise! --P199 12:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Solid-state plasma

I came to Wikipedia's "Plasma" article looking for some introduction to solid-state plasmas, studied by Betsy Ancker-Johnson for example, and for which I found a short biblio here. While I majored in physics (long ago) I'm completely unfamiliar with the term, and believe the article would benefit from some clarification of non-gaseous plasmas, such as "electron-hole plasma". If this is an obsolete use of the word, a clarification still seems called for. Thanks. Twang 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Farm

Rarely do I find an article on a book this well written. It is quite comprehensive and references itself where necessary. Furthermore it is neutral and stable. I believe it shows Wikipedia at it's best. b_cubed 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've only glanced through it quickly but my initial impression is that the lead is far too short for such a long article, as per Wikipedia:Lead section. violet/riga (t) 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The content is mostly fine, but I think that the sections that interpret the book need references. A lot of them are fairly common knowledge but there are some that are more obscure. --Cherry blossom tree 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead is too short, please expand. {{spoiler}} and related are a must. While lists in the character section are passable, the one in 'Allusions and references to actual history, geography and current science' needs to be changed into normal text, and the entire heading is too long. 'Cultural references' section should also be delisted. Finally, this needs many more inline citations, especially for significance. Plus those citations should be academic: such an important book has surely generated wealth of academic comments, those should be utilised.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very bullet pointy. Maybe covert some into sections? Dev920 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The allusions/cultural references sections need to be prosified. The Wookieepedian 20:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco International Airport

This article achieved GA status a few weeks ago, and now I want to see what other additions, deletions, or otherwise modifications are needed to help it achieve FA status. Any advice is appreciated and thanks for any time and efforts. --physicq210 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A pretty good article, although it will have to overcome some major obstacles before reaching FA. Mostly these concern structure; I'm not really sure why the sections Aircraft Noise Abatement and Aircraft Incidents exist. The latter should somehow be merged into the History section and the former can be included in some new section, like Technology in the airport or something. Beyond that, the Aircraft Noise Abatement section has lists; these either have to go or be incorporated into the text through summary style. The Airlines and Terminals section could also profit from some more summary style. There are way too many lists in there; if you take it to FAC right now, this will be the #1 issue most people will raise. The Boarding Areas and the Terminals subsections barely have any prose; eliminate the lists and summarize the material. For example, instead of mentioning every boarding area and which operator it covers, create a daughter article for that stuff and in this article only talk about some of the major boarding areas (the ones that receive the most traffic and so on).

Also, you'll want some more footnotes. Right now you have 17, but for an article this size a few more will be needed. This shouldn't be a problem because I notice that in References you have listed some works that you did not cite under Notes (you can't do that btw; if you put something up under References, people will assume you cited something out of it). My final piece of advice: look for another article about airports that is either GA or FA. This could provide some inspiration and guidance. Good luck!UberCryxic 04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. So far, the Aircraft Noise Abatement section has been condensed, and the Aircraft Incidents section has been moved to the end to match other airport articles that have it (LAX, JFK, etc.). I'm working on adding more prose to the terminals sections; however, due to WP:AIRPORTS guidelines, I cannot turn the lists into prose. I'm also working on the adding of more sources, and have eliminated the "further reading" section as it is now pointless. Again, thanks for your comments! --physicq210 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The section on the International Terminal contains limited information about the architecture of the terminal - who the architect was etc. suggest this is expanded and Terminals 1,2 and 3 should also include similar information. When were they built - who was the architect - any notable design features/constraints - structural system - engineers name maybe - why did some of them go out of service - did they fit into a masterplanned design of airport expansion - what masterplans have been produced? etc.etc. PS. Love the SFIA at night picture.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Hm. I'll on that, once I find the required sources. Thanks. --physicq210 01:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suleiman the Magnificent

I believe this article can be made a FA, as it is very interesting. Please tell me if you agree, or if not, and also your reason(s). Thank You. AndonicO 12:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatta....why is this article in PR and FAC at the same time? This is a little weird. I'd defer to the comments of the FAC reviewers for now.UberCryxic 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'd withdraw the article from the FAC and present it here for review and edit first. This is proceduraly correct and will help iron out any problems before it get presented to FAC. eg. lack of referencing - 17 references for such a long article - needs more i'd say. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • More referencing - refer to WP:CITE, particularly - Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed and when you add content.
  • Short stubby paragraphs need expanding or merging - eg. Upon succeeding his father, Suleiman began a series of military conquests, first putting down a revolt led by the Ottoman-appointed governor of Damascus in 1521. By August, 1521, he had completed the capture of the city of Belgrade and had conquered Serbia, penetrating deeper into the heart of Central Europe.--Mcginnly | Natter 14:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Bangladesh

Hi all - I request y'er help in making this a featured portal. Rama's arrow 16:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments There's a couple of key points I would like to highlight. From a formatting standpoint, I think the code needs to be cleaned up a bit — some of the [edit] links seem to be dangling outside their boxes. I can work to fix this pretty quick. Other than that, archives need to be created for all subsections in the portal, including "News", "Selected picture", "Selected article" and "Did You Know". How does the selection process for "Selected article" and "Selected picture" work? How are users able to nominate and / or vote for selected content? These are just some of my initial thoughts...I will continue to provide feedback as more content is incorporated into the portal. Additionally, it might help if we reach out to other Wikipedians like Kirill Lokshin to share their thoughts on areas that need improvement. Hope this helps. AreJay 16:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, some suggestions (partially repeated from above, as well):
    • Archives!
    • The "more" link after the featured article is insufficient; the actual title should be linked as well.
    • The selected picture needs to be centered.
    • The gap between the two columns of boxes is too wide; probably the percentages are off by more than one.
    • The gap after the "International ties of Bangladesh" box is too large. In general, I think it may be worthwhile to pull all the links out of the multiple topic boxes at the bottom and create a single box of your own; otherwise, you're going to be dependent on outside formatting for the layout of the portal, which isn't a good idea.
    • The big problem for a featured portal nomination at this point, however, would be that the portal has no track record of being actively maintained. I would strongly recommend that you set up some form of automatic content rotation, at least for the selected article and picture. Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acute myeloid leukemia

Hello - I'm looking for comments on ways in which this page could be improved, made more useful, re-formatted, etc with the goal of getting it into good article/featured article shape. On another note, any appropriate images would be greatly appreciated. MastCell 21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good overall. A few ideas:
  • In the lead: "Much progress has been made" is a little weaselly, and the statement about fatality needs a citation (even if that is implicit in the category of "acute leukemia", general readers won't know that). Also, "bone marrow and elsewhere" is awkward.
  • The lead mentions research on causes of AML, but there's not much mention of current research in the article text itself. I believe in particular that AML and ALL are often used as test cases in genomics and microarray technologies designed to distinguish stereotypical cancer genotypes and predict prognoses.
  • What is meant by the description of the cells as "immature"?
  • In the History section: "when Velpeau described a 63-year-old florist..." - Velpeau is neither introduced nor wikilinked.
  • Causes section should be prose (it practically already is; such long explanations kind of defeat the purpose of a bulleted list).
  • It's not clear to me whether organic solvents have been implicated in causing AML specifically, or leukemia in general.
  • The lead mentions the incidence-age correlation but the text contains no data on incidence more generally. A section on these subjects (any correlation with gender or ethnic groups? different rates in different countries? etc.) would be useful.
  • It seems useful to give a brief explanation of why displacing normal bone marrow cells is bad. Just a brief expansion in the pathophysiology section to be more clear.
  • Consider moving symptoms (and possibly diagnosis) above the classification scheme. Most people who read the article are probably looking for clinical information, not differences in international classification methodologies.
  • Are there any typical or canonical genetic variations in the cancerous cells? The mention of chromosomal translocation tests suggests maybe, but I don't know.
  • Is the cure rate 20-30% overall, or with treatments not including bone marrow transplantation? The prognosis section implies the former and the end of the treatment section sounds like it could be the latter.

Opabinia regalis 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The sentence in the introduction that states that the disease is curable, but not usually by current therapy seems self-contradictory.
  • The article states that the mutations in pregression from a pre-malignant cell to a malignant cell only seen in transcription factors. From a brief skim of Pubmed I suspect there is also involvement of signalling proteins or apoptotic regulators. Ref1 Ref2

TimVickers 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions; I've done my best to incorporate them, although some are beyond what I can address knowledgably and so would need help from other expert editors. Input is much appreciated. MastCell 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pixies

I feel that the article has come a long way, in terms of the History section, in that it is becoming a more detailed article. What parts should be improved? Is the lead section lacking a little? CloudNine 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the lead is pretty good, the only thing I'm not crazy about (not that it's bad) is the "album to album" chronology. It makes sense from an organisational stand point, but sometimes I think it can invite too much detail on a particular album. For instance, there's more detail in the main article about Come on Pilgrim than on the album page, when it should be vice versa. But that's just my preference. It's good though. maxcap 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree - once I feel the main article has reached a good standard (i.e. FA status), I'll start working on the other album articles. I chose an album chronology because I felt they suited it - the style varied from album to album and they didn't have grand live tours or anything like that. CloudNine 12:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Influences" should not be in list form; rather, they should be cited and worked into the prose of the article. WesleyDodds 05:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

More freely licensed images would be better. Jkelly 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R.E.M. (band)

User:LoomisSimmons wanted a peer review of the article but never started the peer review and only added the notice to the talk page. I am very interested in trying to improve this and get it Good Article status.

This shouldn't be too hard to get to GA. What it mostly needs are in-line citations (right now there are too few). However, you might also think about creating some new main sections besides History. I also encourage you to delete the Trivia section; it is normally frowned upon and viewed as useless. Some ideas for new sections could be....information about members, concerts, success and influence on later musicians, and so on. But again: main thing is in-line citations. Get more in there.UberCryxic 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I'll elaborate a bit on UberCryxic's review:
  • I checked some other FA about bands (Genesis, Pink Floyd, The Beatles) and I saw sections like: 1)Inspiration and influences, 2)Album cover art, 3)Criticism, 4)Discography, 5)Awards (Grammy Awards and nominations, American Music Awards), 6)Band members, 7)Instrumentation. This article lacks all these things. Personally, even for a GA, I deem necessary the following necessary sections: 1)Band members, 2)Inspiration and influences. Thereby, a reorganisation of the whole material might be necesssary.
  • The history section is huuuuuuuuge. If you add the sections above you'll achieve a better balance within the article.
  • I also regard Trivia section as unnecessary. I donot like them in general, but this might well be a personal peculiarity. I just think that such sections look like having scattered information. I think it would be better to incorporate them within the other sections.
  • Inline citations:UberCrycix was clear about that. Without them even the GA status seems obscure.
  • I donot like the sections "Discography" and "Samples". The second one could be incorporated somewhere else. In Genesis a lot of samples are within the subsections of "History" section. Hence, find more samples and incorporate them in other sections.
  • The "Discography" section is too short. Of course, there is a seperate article, but you could make a summary of it. Look again Genesis or Pink Floyd, where there is a nice template with the band's studio albums.
  • More photos are also necessary. Just one photo for such a famous band?--Yannismarou 17:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the article is good enough for a GA status. However, from an FA standpoint there's a lot that needs to be incorporated into the article. First, History needs to comply with Wikipedia's Summary style formatting. I would create another article titled "History of REM", add an elaborate history of the band on that page, link and summarize the contents of that page in the history section of this article. Also, there needs to be more information on the band's influences and how they influenced other singers/bands. The trivia secion is unnecessary and the Discograpy section needs to be more detailed. AreJay 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you're looking for photos, try this link http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=R.E.M&l=5 . These photos are all cc-a-sa tagged photos and can be used freely in Wikipedia. AreJay 18:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basiliscus

Hello.

I recently improved this article. I would like to know if there are weak points, if it is unbalanced, if the citations are numerous enough, if the references used are authoritative.

Furthermore, I looked for information about Basiliscus relationship to Aspar, but found very sketchy hints suggesting an involvment of Basiliscus in Aspar death, buth nothing more.

It looks decent, but could use a little work. Here's some comments:
  • A short introduction can be an issue in the FAC process. I suggest making it at least 2-3 paragraphs.
  • The organization of the contents seems a little odd with a single big section called "Life". I suggest getting rid of that and moving the other sections up one level. So the main sections would then be "Origins", "Early career", ...
  • Pardon me for saying so, but much of the page could use a careful editing. The writing is somewhat awkward in places. An example would be the sentence, "The position of Basiliscus rose in Leo consideration, probably also because of Verina support." Paragraphs such as: "Probably of Balkanic origin, Basiliscus was brother of Aelia Verina, wife of Leo I, had a wife, Zenonis, and a son, Marcus," can be confusing due to ambiguity.
  • The External links section should be at the end of the article, per the MoS.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I expanded the introduction, briefly sketching B.'s life and importance.
I removed the "Life" heading
As regards the "careful editing", it is needed both because some of my sources are "old", and because English is not my first language. I partially reworded the sentences, but I would leave further "cleaning" to someone else.
I also reordered the sections accordinf to the Manual of Style.
--BlaiseMuhaddib 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice job, man. But if you ever go for FA or even GAC you'll have to fix a lot of things. Some basic remarks:
  • The lead is still inadequate. You must add one or two sentences. The lead is supposed to summarize the whole text. See WP:LEAD.
  • Nice photos and captions. But you'll find out that there are some infoboxes for military persons you might like to use. After this peer-review you can also ask from a peer-review by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. There are some excellent reviewers there, doing an excellent job.
  • Don't we have any clue about when Basiliscus was born? I saw that this topic is obscure in the article.
  • When did the "Disastrous expedition against the Vandals" happen? I saw no chronology. Sometimes I feel like losing the chronological order in the article!
  • You have placed the sub-section "Disastrous expedition against the Vandals" under "Early Years". Are you sure about that? Shouldn't be a seperate section? And If we assume not, why you have the first two paragraphs of the section "Early Years" without a title. As it is now, you have a huge sub-section ("Disastrous expedition against the Vandals") and two orphan paragraphs before that. Personally, I do not like this structure.
  • If you ever nominate the article for GA or FA, you'll find that many users donot like one-sentence paragraphs. You have some of them. I think they need fixing.
  • Citations! Citations! Citations! The trend is now in Wikipedia to citate as much as we can. Some example of statements that need reference: "Probably of Balkan origin (who says that?)", "It has been argued that Basiliscus was uncle to the chieftain of the Heruli, Odoacer by whom?)", "The invasion of the kingdom of the Vandals was one of the greatest military undertakings recorded in the an­nals of history, a combined amphibious operation with over ten thousand ships and one hundred thousand soldiers (Who gives these numbers?)", "The number of ships and troops under the command of Basiliscus, as well as the expenses of the expedition, have been differently calculated by historians. Both were enor­mous; the account of Nicephorus Gregoras, who speaks of one hundred thousand ships, can be rejected as either an error of the copyists or a gross exaggeration. According to the more reliable opinion of Cedrenus, the fleet that attacked Carthage consisted of eleven hundred and thirteen ships, having each one hun­dred men on board (the historians you mention say that in which of their works? Be more specific!)", "Byzantine emperors were at the same time heads of the State and of the Church. Therefore, they had the power of issuing edicts regarding the Christian faith. At the same time, religious matters were very important for the Byzantine people, and those suspected of eresy, or simply supporters of the "wrong" interpretation of articles of faith, had not easy lives (Says who?)"
  • You have a full paragraph of Bury. Is this paragraph so important? Can't you just rephrase what he says and incorporate that in your prose? And fix the citation (Bury, p. 392). Put it in the end along with the other references and notes.
  • Be more clear about what is the "Chalcedonian faith". I had to go two links further to go to the COuncil of Chalcedon and then I kept reading your article, and I found that you indeed clarify the whole matter, but in tha next paragraph. I think you should rewrite both paragraphs, so that the reader avoids the needless confuse.
Manuel I Komnenos is a FA about a Byzantine imperor. If you go there, I think you could get some more ideas. Good luck!--Yannismarou 08:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for the useful review. I did change the article to address your points, in the following way:
  • I tried to expande the leading section, summarizing B. life and why he is important;
  • I added an infobox used for military figures, but I am not sure it fits with B., since he is mostly noteworthy as emperor, rather than as commander;
  • I find no reference to his date of birth;
  • The article does not cite frequently years, because only two events are noteworthy in B.'s life, the operation in Africa (468) and his rise-rule-fall (475-476). So the section about Africa is set in 468 and his rise-rule-fall are from january 475 to august 476. Note that also the sources are quite vague, with such a short rule, always reporting statements as "at the beginning of his reign", rather than the month/year;
  • I voluntarly adopted the style "a paragraph and then the subsection(s)" for each section. However it looks like you do not like it, so I removed the stray paragraphs;
  • I did not think it was necessary to add a citation for each paragraph, when I carefully listed my references in the relative section. I added the citations as you requested, but I find they obstacle the flow of the reading. Let me know what you think;
  • I removed the citation by Bury;
  • I wanted to avoid a lengthy discussion about the Monophysite/Chalcedonian positions, as the exact matter of the contemption is not important in the story as the fact that there was a contemption. However, I reworded that part, let me know what you think.
  • Manuel I is quite a larger figure than Basiliscus, I do not think there exists such a quantity of material on the latter. However, I shall take a look to Manuel article.
Thanks again for your comments, and let me know what you think of the "new" version. --BlaiseMuhaddib 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the article looks much much better. First of all, let me tell you that my suggestions are not by default right! They are just based on my short experience with GA and FAC. Thereby, in certain points I may be wrong. When I say that one-phrase sentences are not preferred my some Wikipedia users, this is not necessarily my opinion, but If you attempt to qualify your article as FA or GA, you may face such criticisms. Because I did face! Now, some additional remarks:
  • The structure seems neat to me now. As far as I am concerned it is OK. I'm not against one paragraph before the sub-sections of a section. But two long introductory paragraphs and just one too long sub-section seemed to me a bit peculiar. Again, another user may have a different view!
  • References: To have an idea about what is the trend in Wikipedia about refs, check User:Robth/Citation spot checks. I quote: "I will then check these references to see if the cited source contains text supporting the claim to which the citation applies ... I will be opposing FACs which lack sufficient inline citations, lack sufficient detail in their citations (page numbers are key), or which I find serious problems with while doing the spot check." I quote again: "page numbers are key". In the "new" version you do not have page numbers in the citations!
  • Try to have the citations at the end of the sentences, so as not to obstruct the flow of the reading. You're right about that. But the balance between good flow and adequate citations is always tricky. You may be right that "it was not necessary to add a citation for each paragraph", but as you see, you may be criticised that you "lack sufficient inline citations".
  • The infobox:military person or the Infobox:Biography was just a suggestion. If you donot like it, OK! But if you get criticised for not having one, have a good reasonig to respond these critics.
  • In the captions of the mints, mention that these are byzantine coin depicting him or her. For instance, "Zeno on a coin celebrating his victories." It is very nice that your captions are explanative. Just make sure that you donot repeat what you've already analysed in the prose. I think, in most cases, you do not repeat, but just make sure!
  • The lead: You may have expanded it too much, but this is not a big deal. If you get criticised for the length, you merge or erase one or two sentences and it is OK.
  • Even more sources would be well-comed. I checked the word "Basiliscus" in Google Book Search and I think there is a variety of books about him.

In any case, the article is getting better and better. And if you follow my advice and have it peer-reviewed in the two Wikipedia-projects I mentioned, it will get even better.--Yannismarou 09:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope I addressed your points. I plan to submit this article for a peer reviw in both the projects you suggested. Thanks!--BlaiseMuhaddib 13:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindenburg (airship)

I'm looking to try to get this article up to featured quality, so I'm very interested in trying to identify any specific areas that it is weak on. --Cyde Weys 03:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A few observations from a quick scan:
    • Very short intro section. Probably doesn't meet WP:INTRO
    • "Most of the crew and passengers survived. Of 36 passengers and 61 crew, 13 passengers and 22 crew died." Under death toll - probably not a neutral statement in the first sentence, and is really confusing and fragmented.
    • Lacks references.
Feel free to raise any queries about my comments. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 07:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look. There is not enough data about the final flight. For eg, the starting point and destination is not mentioned (was it Frankfurt to Lakehurst ?), or the height above the ground when it caught fire (from the description it looks like it was flying very low or was about to land), or the time of the day. Tintin (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
First off, there has been a lot of work on this and it is a good start. To reach FA status it still needs a lot of work though. I agree with all of the above comments. Reread the article and make sure each section and subsection is mentioned in the lead section of two or three paragraphs. There are a lot of sub sub heads - can you organize it so there are more headers and fewer subs? You might even want to break out some of the theories into their own article and summarize for brevity.
The units are a mishmash of metric and english - both should be present, probably with metric first (German airship). You might want to give the cost in more than pounds sterling and give some idea of the modern equivalent cost. There must be more references in the article itself, preferably inline citations. Refer to the proponents of theories by name / source wherever possible and cite their work.
As for the disaster, I agree more description of the last flight and the disaster itself are needed (before talking about the famous Oh the Humanity). Perhaps a table of passengers, crew and ground crew and numbers died, injured and survived would be clearer? Since the article is about the airship, not just the disaster that destroyed it, it would be nice to have more on the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin Co., how they decided to build the Hindenburg in the midst of a worldwide great depression, when they started, how long it took to build it, where it was built, etc. Also describe a typical flight across the Atlantic (times etc)? Zeppelins (military and some of Count Z's early ships) had crashed before, just not passenger zeppelins. Keep up the good work. Ruhrfisch 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catiline

I'm looking to eventually make this a Featured Article candidate, so I'm open to any suggestions about how to improve the article. The article is fairly comprehensive and includes most everything factual that history records about Catiline. Though, should I add a section about how his contemporaries viewed him? Perhaps, should I go into more detail about the specific events of the conspiracy? Cmcentee 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The article would benefit if it had background and legacy sections: what were the political conditions of Rome leading up to his career and what effect, if any, did his rebellion have on the Roman republic? I see a fairly comprehensive summary of one life and would like to understand its greater meaning in historical context. The article itself is well written, although I noticed a bit more passive voice than seemed necessary. I suggest eliminating redlinks by creating a couple of stub articles as appropriate. Also, I was surprised to see no reference in support of the assertion that Catiline was not involved in the first Catiline conspiracy. This seems like good work so far (although my limited background on the subject restricts my ability to comment). Keep going: I think you'll have an FA in a few months. Durova 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC News

The last review of this article carried out in November 2005 found a number of improvements could be made and these are listed below. I was hoping that now time has passed and plenty of work at improving this article by many has been undertaken, there could be a fresh critique and new ideas can be put into the mix. As a result, I hope to put the article up as a candidate for the Featured Article section of the Main Page at a later date. Previous messages and recommendations are below. Thank you to all participants. Wikiwoohoo 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous review from November 2005

Having just posted this as a candidate to be a Featured Article, it would be good to know what others feel is needed here. The first objection stated some aspects that were missing, I was hoping even more could be spotted so the article could be made to an even higher standard. Wikiwoohoo 18:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Brief review:
  1. The lead should be increased in size and summarise the entire article.
  2. history could be lengthened
  3. =Output= -- rephrase that and convert to prose.
  4. Reduce subsections
  5. The page has a high % of lists. Featured articles cannot have listy material
  6. Newsreaders not req
  7. What about the finances of BBC?
  8. References needed. Without that it cannot be featured.
  9. Mention how BBC news is viewed around the world. Is it considered credible. Also include ratings etc.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The past 15 years overwhelm the article. You have less then one and half paragraphs on seventy years of history and four subsections on just fifteen years. Opinions on BBC News is even worse in this regard, basically it only goes into the past several years and has entire subsections on single events. There is an entire section on the reporting of the Iraq war and nothing about World War II. Information about recent events might be slightly larger than other time periods because there is more information available, but the history of BBC News, including its politics, need to be treated equally. I noticed you only use online sources, you should go to a library and take out a book for more information. Refereces also need to be properly formatted. Medvedenko 23:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Medvedenko is right. The history is entirely post-1990, ignores radio, and seems to be based on what the other media say. I think the article lacks perspective. It could do with a few more comparisons. And it needs a lot of expansion on early history.

  • "..faces competition from Sky News and ITN, although the ITN News Channel (also known as the ITV News Channel) has now ceased broadcasting in the UK." .. reads strangely. Does ITN broadcast outside the UK?
  • Loads about the use (or lack) of the term "terrorist" in this century. Compare it with previous BBC practice: has it changed? I can't remember what it called the IRA, for example (my memory is that there was a trend to call them criminals, but whether that was the government, the media, individuals, or even official policy, I can't remember).
  • About three sentences about radio, in total, in the entire article? There is tons to expand on there.
  • What is the relationship between BBC News and the World Service? (Which of the two was responsible for dropping the Arabic language service (a gap subsequently filled by Al Jazeera? If it was the news people, this is probably worth including.)
  • What is the relationship between BBC News and BBC Monitoring?
  • Headings and subheadings do not need to be in titlecase. Lowercase anything which isn't actually a proper noun.
  • I believe the formal dress of early TV newsreaders was said to be because they were guests in your house and thus should dress smartly. Is it possible to find a source for that and include it?
  • If BBC News (rather than the children's department) was responsible for John Craven's Newsround, you definitely have to include that: Newsround covered quite amazing topics for its time.
JCNR was commissioned by Childrens but the facilities provided by TV News Zir 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Who runs it? How is it organised?

Telsa (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the history needs expanding - particularly "early years" - no mention of TV News at AP in the 1960s for instance - the birthplace of BBC TV News and where the first colour news programmes came from in 1968 (?) - no reference to this in Alexandra Palace either. Zir 12:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin

As part of the Belfast WikiProject, I have rated this article as A-class. I would like to gain consensus that it is in fact GA class, or perhaps as good as FA class. This is my first nomination here for this purpose, so please bear with me as I leaarn the ropes. My goal is to bring attention to the article in order that editors become interested in improving it ultimately to Featured status. --Mal 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. Here's a few comments that are hopefully of some use:
  • "Kelvin temperature scale" could be linked to Kelvin in the introduction.
  • The "Family" section needs an in-line citation or two.
  • In the "Later expeditions" section it is implied but not actually stated that Fanny was one of Charles R. Blandy's daughters. Did the two ever court? It's unclear.
  • Here's a reference I found useful in the Sun article. http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/LDarden/sciinq/ It could be used, for example, in the last paragraph in the "Geology and theology" section:
  • It's a minor point, but the convention is to place the in-line citation after the punctuation mark, not before. (Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags)
  • There's nothing about his retirement, death or the location of his burial.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was also surprised that the first section had no citation at all. While I'm unfamiliar with the subject, hence limited in what I can comment, It does appear to be complete and comprehensive enough for GA consideration, although rather skimpy on references for an article of its length. Also, the table format for the quotes is somewhat unusual. Is there a particular precedent for that? Most articles indent, sometimes with italics. Overall, good work. I could see this becoming an FAC a few months down the line. Durova 04:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alain Prost

Alain hasn't really got the respect that I think he deserves in his F1 career - perhaps his unexcusible actions in Japan 1989 after he took out Ayrton Senna hasn't really help - Anyway back to the peer review - I've managed to sort out the article becauseit was ina complete mess when I saw it and now I think that I've revamped it. Take a look for yourself, here is the version before I started editing it: [7]. Anyway, can some people please tell me what else I need to do to get this to FA or GA and perhaps give me some sentences that I could source. Much appreciated. --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty good for the most part, a couple of comments:
    • Subheadings seem overused. While FA Damon Hill uses a subheading for every season, the subsections there are generally more substantial. Single paragraph chunks of three or four lines break up the flow.
    • The part about the rivalry with Senna should be converted into continuous prose rather than a bulleted list, and should be renamed to something like Rivalry with Ayrton Senna – the title of an article need not be included in section titles.
    • There are a few instances where the prose is rather passive e.g. The half point was scored when the Monaco Grand Prix was stopped at half distance, meaning the top six drivers would only receive half scores could be The half point was scored when the Monaco Grand Prix was stopped at half distance, meaning the top six drivers only received half scores
    • The section about Senna's death reads like an opinion piece or review, and is probably undue weight in an article about Prost.
    • Large parts of the article are sparsely referenced. Taking the early life section as an example, breaking his nose and winning several karting championships are two things which ought to be referenced.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 00:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarf

"Dwarf" is a very large subject, and I'm sure there's major missing sections. It would be very useful to know what's left out (especially mythology), any innaccuracies, and to make sure that all notable fantasy series with dwarves of interest are included, whilst pruning any non-notable ones.

Please help find out what's left to do, so it can be done, and help get a consensus on what fantasy series and games count as notable enough to go into the main article, and which should be shunted off into sub-articles. Adam Cuerden 16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are the translations we're using freely licensed? Jkelly 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Link provided as a source asks for permission to be sought. Since we have no evidence it was, I shall write them and ask. Adam Cuerden 12:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The chronology skips from Norse mythology to Tolkien: how about intervening folklore and literature? I'm not sure whether Rumpelstiltskin counts - but there's Snow White etc. Somehow I have a hunch that the Internet's many geeks will help you complete the gaming references. What you do need is citations. I also suggest requesting an original translation for the long quote - modern Icelandic is very close to old Norse so perhaps you could direct your request there. At Geoffrey Chaucer and Joan of Arc I did my own translations: wish I could help you with this one. Hope these suggestions help. Durova 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. We are rather fairy-tale light. I'll see what I can do. Adam Cuerden 11:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America's Got Talent

I created this article and want to know what other people think about it. I think that it is fairly comprehensive. This article would benefit if people commented on it here. Thanks. FellowWikipedian 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It would also be helpful to look at America's Got Talent (Season 1) as well. I believe some information will need to be merged from the main AGT page to the Season 1 page. Tinlinkin 09:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda

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

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

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

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

[edit] Yomangani

Fairly faultless. Some very (very) minor points:

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

[edit] Capitalism

It would be nice to get some imput on what may need to be done to get this article to featured status. From what I can see, the current content is fairly stable and well referenced, aside from a few points that may need further clarification. Any helpful suggestions would be welcome.--MONGO 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is pretty bad. It looks pretty and all, with nice pictures and decent grammar, and nice little sections. But it is not informative about what capitalism is. I remember seeing another version that was here before this one and it gave you a good sense of what capitalism was, all broken down into necessary components. The "Perspectives on characteristics of capitalism" section is too abstract to be useful. The "History of capitalism" section isn't any better. I suggest that the whole History section be moved to its own article and use all the extra space to go into more detail about what capitalism is. C-Liberal 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The results indicate that political traditions more committed to redistributive policies (both economic and social) and full-employment policies, such as the social democratic parties, were generally more successful in improving the health of populations, such as reducing infant mortality. From the abstract of Navarro V, Shi LY (2001). "The political context of social inequalities and health". SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE 52. contradicts the statements that health is closely related to globalization.Stone 10:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC) David Coburn (2004). "Beyond the income inequality hypothesis: class,neo-liberalism, and health inequalities". Social Science & Medicine 58: 41–56. R. S. Frey, and C. Field (2000). "THE DETERMINANTS OF INFANT MORTALITY IN THE LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES: A CROSS-NATIONAL TEST OF FIVE THEORIES". Social Indicators Research 52: 215–234. also give no indication for a clear dependency between the two parameters of Capitalism and Infant Mortality.--134.76.234.75 11:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blitzkrieg (computer game)

Dear Wikipedia aficionados,

I would like to hear comments on how to improve this article because it seems to lack something that I could not find with my limited Wikipedia-related experience. Which ways could I use to drastically improve this article ?

Almost all good CVG articles have:
  • A basic description of gameplay (assume the reader knows little about video games, and has no inclination to play it; to that end, avoid lists of items/weapons/units/etc),
  • A summary of the plot (no more than its due, please; see Doom), and
  • Some combination of reviews, sales, and other "reactions" to the game (MUST be cited using good sources).
On top of those, it would be super-extra-great if you can include other out-of-universe details such as the development of the game. Nifboy 01:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The NoZe Brotherhood

Article has come a long way towards citing sources and getting cleaned up. I'd like to see it take that next step, and any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Cjosefy 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I suppose this thing is hard to reference - but has there been some article in the student newspaper about the club's member secrecy policy and "unrush" period? Durova 05:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll look into it. Thanks. Cjosefy 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

This article has continuous editing disputes, which often concentrate on details. The overall perspective is poor. As the note at the top implies, it is largely a history of the Zionist movement, and that is not sufficinet for an article with the general title Zionism. It has a disputable linear perspective, "from King David to David Ben-Gurion" . The article would benefit from more theory, and more history other then Jewish history. It needs more background on Jews in 19th-century Europe, and an explanation of why Zionism grew from a minority to a majority opinion among them. (Remember that Zionists said that millions of people should simply migrate to another continent, a far-reaching proposal). Peer review would open up the editing to a wider group, which this article badly needs.Paul111 11:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This article will never be NPOV if there isn't a balance between sources. Currently, all sources are Israelis or at least western. Arab sources should consist of a great part in this article since this controversial subject is the center of discussion in the Arab world. CG 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Zionism" was created by the Jews and is strongly linked to their history. So, and as long as the article shows undeniable facts, I can't see why Arab sources should be more credible.Free2day 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is to find authoritative sources, regardless of who they are, but they must be authoritative. Similarly, opening up the editing to other editors is a good thing, so long as they have read the authoritative sources and have something they can bring to the table. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what Paul111 means by "more theory" and "more history other than Jewish history," and not at all what he means with "poor... overall perspective." --Leifern 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The Zionisme issue is directly related to arabs. You can't deny this fact. It was the reason for the controversial Arab-Israeli wars. So Arabs have also a very strong opinion about the issue and have even become part of their history. That's why numerous Arab sources are a must. CG 08:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism emerged in response to continued oppression and persecution of Jews in Europe. The Zionist movement's program was/is aimed at promoting the return of Jews to their historical homeland, where Jews would be free from persecution and able to develop their own lives and identity. The Arabs just took the chance and moved in when the Jews were forced to exile. There is no record of a land known as Palestine ruled by an Arab leader before 1964, yet they keep telling us that the Zionists have stolen their land... Also if you have a closer look at the Koran you won't find any reference to a land called "Palestine" or "Palestinian". Free2day 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism may be a Jewish movement, but its historical impact is not limited to Jews, far from it. The article also needs to be more than simply a history of the Zionist movement. I think nationalism theory is the most appropriate perspective for this article, but others (social movement theory) are also relevant.Paul111 11:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and respond to my comments appropriatly. I never mentioned the origins of Zionism nor began a debate about whose fault it is. Wikipedia is not the place for these silly disputes. Like Paul1111 said, the impact of Zionism on Arab people, politics, history is a true fact that should be extensivly explained in the article. Plus, I don't know if you have prejudices, but arab scholars, researches and historians exist and they also have made extensive studies of zionism. Ignoring their ideas is a violation of NPOV policy. CG 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, so you mean that only you and like minded have the right to express your criticism here… but yet you have failed to show where in the article you find biased or less credible information that needs correction from the Arab sources. And why don't you tell us which Arab sources are worth being trusted, could they be the same sources that have inspired Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian President Mahmoud? just wonder...Free2day 15:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't even answer to your response which in no means can help improving the article. Again, I'll let Wikipedia policies (which I advise you to consider) do the talk:
    • Oh I see, so you mean that only you and like minded have the right to express your criticism here…
per Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.
    • per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: I'll imagine that Arabs are the only ones in the world which are hostile enough not to comply to the zionist/israeli/jew/american/western (you choose the word) school of thought. According to the article Arab, there may be 250-300 million of them in the word. Again according to the policy:
the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
Which means that these 250 millions arabs deserve (no they don't even deserve to exist), should have their viewpoint fairly represented in the article. And how could they have been represented if not one of their sources is used?
    • And again, please be civil. Wikipedia is a centre for all opinions, ideas and thoughts in the world. And every user (even terrorists like me) should have their words considered. Your behavior for criticising and attacking everyone which objects to you ideas won't lead to any solution and will make Wikipedia a harder place to live :) Anyway, I see that you are a new user and I recommend you to read the list of policies that every user must respect. If you're too lazy :-) try the five pillars of Wikipedia and thee extremely important Neutral point of view and the civility policies. And if you need anything just tell me. Thank you. CG 05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've shown you my point of view (My opinion) about the issue here without accusing anyone in particular, it's not my fault if you consider yourself accused just because I have a different opinion. And, you still have failed to show us where in the article you find biased or less credible information that needs correction from the Arab sources. So, enlighten us!

    • According to the article Arab, there may be 250-300 million of them in the word.
Oh, do you mean that the Zionism aimed at promoting the return of Jews to their historical homeland (the tiny Israel) has directly affected 250-300 millions of Arabs all over the world?!! Free2day 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Why only Arab sources? Judging by the amount of attention to Zionism, it directly affected the entire planet. Malaysia, for example, is quite outspoken on the subject. Shall we quote Mahathir Mohamad? CG, you are wrong saying that "Wikipedia is a centre for all opinions, ideas and thoughts in the world." WP is an encyclopedia, see also WP:NOT and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Robinson family

Where should I go with this article? -- Zanimum 15:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fulfill (or wait for the fulfillment) of the photo request. There must be screenshots available from the show of these characters, and/or publicity shots of the actors. -Fsotrain09 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There is, but how much is too much with this? Three (technically four) actors have portrayed Miles, three have portrayed Gordon. Susan can be in the same picture as any of those actors, but Olivia and Mr. Robinson generally appeared by themselves. At least, it would be seven fair use images. I've been bashed on FAC for extensive fair use usage. What's the mid-ground? Do I create cropped, split-screen images of the actors? I might be able to get a free image of Roscoe Orman (I have connection to Sandals), but that's it. -- Zanimum 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Forest

Let me say that I have made it my life goal to get one voice actor into the featured article category.--Jack Cox 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Some comments:
  • There are too many red links on the page. The links to the minor theater companies could probably be removed; they might be deemed non-notable and removed anyway.
  • Here's the link for the ST episode: Who Mourns for Adonais? (TOS episode)
  • It doesn't list the award name for the "Outstanding Male Actor in a Drama" nomination.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flow-based_programming

I am looking for feedback on improving the quality of this article. Thanks in advance. Jpaulm 01:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a very well crafted and thoughtful vanity edit for the sake of selling Jpaulm's book. Nice try, but a quick search around makes it obvious that this is not notable enough for a page in Wikipedia, and it reads like an advertisement. Perhaps if this concept catches on enough amongst the programming community and is developed into an actual practice, then it might be worth having an article for. Until then, I think the article should be deleted as spam. —Memotype 13:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, but a) the book is now out of print - every copy has been sold, and only 2nd hand copies are available, so I am only quoting the book for reference purposes, and b) it has caught on, as I tried to show via the External Links section. I googled "Flow-Based Programming" (in quotes), and got 706 hits (not all of them my articles :-) ). Also I believe the fact that 3 companies that I know of are using the term in their web sites is significant. Could you please suggest how I can correct the impression you received, and that presumably others might also pick up. TIA. Jpaulm 16:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was a bit hasty with my review, but my impression was guided these observations:
  1. The vast majority of edits to the article have been made by Jpaulm — making me think the article itself isn't notable enough to warrant much community involvement in the article.
  2. Most of the papers referenced by the article which weren't writen by J. Paul Morrison seem to refer to "flow" in very abstract senses, not necessarily the way the caoncept is portrayed in the article. To be fair, I didn't read all of them, and the ones I did glance at I mostly skimmed.
  3. The article at the time left me hanging about what exactly it is. However, the article has improved a bit since. I will re-read, and re-review later. —Memotype 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel that it is notable. --Ideogram 19:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a notable Wikipedian template which should hopefully alleviate concerns over the conflict of interest. Cedars 11:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ideogram for the kind word! And Cedars for the new tag - I didn't know that could be done! I don't quite understand why this is called "notable Wikipedian" though - shouldn't there also be a page for the author? Also, should I add a sentence explaining my motivation for listing the articles in the External Links section? Thanks in advance. Jpaulm 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comair Flight 191

This could use a critical eye from a handful of experienced editors, ideally people who have at least a passing knowledge of aviation (more so than the average Joe). I think that Wikipedia as a whole has done an excellent job with this article in the first 24 hours after the disaster, but I'm sure it could be improved.--chris.lawson 05:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Regarding the title for this article, it looks like a mixture of two flight numbers. It is Comair flight 191 or Delta flight 5191, but is Comair flight 5191 valid? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's something we're in the process of working out at the moment. I've mentioned on the talk page that if no one objects, I'm going to change the title to Comair Flight 191.--chris.lawson 06:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Title has been changed. Updated above section header to reflect.--chris.lawson 19:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hank Williams

I am requesting a peer review as a first step toward making this a Featured Article. This article is the first collaboration project of the Country Music Wikiproject. A lot of work has been done so far but we would like fresh sets of eyes to go over the article and suggest ways to improve it to Featured Article quality. Of course, any help in copyediting and referencing is whole-heartedly welcomed!--WilliamThweatt 03:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You can also check out the WP:MUSTARD guidelines, at least some of which apply here.
    • Most music genres and styles are not proper nouns, and should not be capitalized (e.g. "rock'n'roll" and "honky tonk")
    • Wikipedia I believe uses rock and roll, so unless there's a good reason to use a different format, please stick with that.
    • A single section for "Biography" with subsections would be better than separate top-level sections for childhood, career and death. All sections should have a paragraph or two of text, even if there are subsections. (e.g. the "childhood" section (if kept) should have 2 paragraphs or so summarizing the most important info in the subsections)
    • Some statements needs cites (e.g. "He was born with a mild undiagnosed case of spina bifida occulta, a disease of the spinal column, which gave him life-long pain—a factor in his later abuse of alcohol and drugs" and "two singles for Sterling Records, "Never Again" (1946) and "Honky Tonkin'" (1947), both of which were successful." - anything related to the relative success of a recording should be cited). There should not be any sections (nor paragraphs, really) without citations at all.
    • The note under "Later career" needs to be acted upon.
    • Some overwikifying, I think.
    • The "legacy and influences" section is really poor, and doesn't really cover his legacy or influences.
    • The "Selected list of cover versions of Hank Williams songs" needs to be removed unless there's a coherent, neutral and non-WP:OR way to present it - who selected this list, and why? Same thing with "Tributes".
    • More sound samples would be nice, ideally with a description of how each sample is specifically relevant to his life
    • "Quotes" should be moved to Wikiquote, linked from here and deleted.
    • For such an incredibly important figure, more references are needed, especially scholarly and critical evaluations.
    • Not sure all the external links meet WP:EL.
  • Tuf-Kat 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I requested peer review two weeks ago and you're the first to make a serious effort to help improve the article. It is much appreciated. We're hoping to produce an article worthy of FA status, but we realize that, although it has been improved, it's still far from our goal. Your suggestions are all excellent and I will work on implementing them over the next few days.--WilliamThweatt 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Empires III

On the Talk Page, Clyde Miller rated us as a Class B article. I would like to know what we can do to improve to a Good Article. The only suggestion that Clyde Miller made was the incorporation of footnotes, so I would like to know where these would be appropriate, but other than that, the field is more or less open. An area that has caused us a few problems is the use of tables and lists (see talk page archives [8] [9]), and there is no consensus on how these should be used throughout the article (eg. we do have a list of buildings, albeit on a different page, but there is no longer a section for units). Of course, any comments on grammar, layout or content (and, indeed, where we need to go with the article) would be appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to help. Ck lostsword|queta! 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the short list:
  • No basic description of gameplay.
  • Links directly to an off-site .exe (the demo): Bad idea. - replaced with link to microsoft details page for file. Ck lostsword|queta! 11:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No reviews, no reaction, no development info, no nothing. These are the sort of thing that you want cites for.
You'll want to strip some of the ingame info (like that big table in the middle) out to make room for stuff like the above. Nifboy 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The biggest thing that struck me was the amount of technical information included. According to WP:CVG, game-related articles should typically not include a lot of how-to informaiton. One of the things mentioned is mere statistics. I think a lot of the information (esp. the age and civ info) falls in that category. By the same token, there isn't really any "gameplay" in the gameplay section. One vital general-purpose question that I never see answered (at least not that I can find) is "What is the main objective?" The article goes on every side of it, but never flat-out answers that question.
This feels too much like a dependent article. The first few sections rely too much on knowledge of the previous games in the series. While I personally have played everything up through AoE III, the average Wikipedian has not. The article for this game should be able to stand on its own with minimal, and preferably no knowledge of the other games.
The article needs a general copy-edit job. I'm seeing a lot of filler words. For example, in the section on the expansion, it is said, "It will contain 3 new native civilizations that can be completely controlled and they are:". There is also some redundant information, such as the Windows version being discussed in both the system requirements section and the demo/retail section.
In my opinion, there are too many screenshots. The Russian Home City shot really doesn't help me understand the concept of a home city, The "in-game physics" shot really doesn't visually illustrate anything of use (where are the physics?), I would remove the ES promo shot and I would find a way to combine the other two so that they can serve the same purpose. Also, if someone would take and do a rendering at both high and low graphics settings of the same image so that there could be a visual comparison (make the left half be at high settings and the right at low settings, etc.), it may increase the benefit of the screenshot. --Carl (talk|contribs) 00:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The main problem with having lots of technical data is that while it's mostly unnecessary (I agree with you here), we just can't seem to get rid of it! We had reams of information about military units, which we moved to a separate article (which has now been prod'd). Another list of AOE3's buildings is now on another page as well. Whenever I try to move or trim unnecessary information, I get replies contesting my work, or asking why I need to remove their work. I'll keep your suggestions in hand, thanks! Kareeser|Talk! 03:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - this is all really useful. Is there an article that we can use as an example or template? (Found featured Final Fantasy X) Ck lostsword|queta! 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FFX is not the most exact fit for your purposes; all of the Square FAs have massive plot summaries, that are probably not ideal for your purposes. Compare those to FAs like Katamari Damacy, StarCraft, and 3D Monster Maze to get a sense of how the available information drives the content and layout of each article. Nifboy 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiv Chopra

I just want an honest opinion on the writing and all on this article because I would like to bring it to the Good Article Status sometime. (Samir contributed more than me on this article although. --Deenoe 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

The article is well-written and well-citated. The problem is that it does not constitute a thorough biography, but focuses on two particular incidents: the whistleblowing and the racial discrimination. But I'll treat this article like all the other biographies:

  • Photos are needed. I donot think it would be difficult to find photos related to this article.
  • When was Chopra born? Very few words about her origins and family are needed.
  • What are her whereabouts now? This is a biography for a living person; we want to know what she is now doing.
  • If you expand the article with this information, the lead will also need a slight expansion (WP:LEAD).
  • The link of East Indian sends me to a disambiguation page. This is wrong. Send me straight wherever you want, because in the disambiguation page I have more than ten links and I do not know which one you want me to choose.

In any case, I believe that the article is not far away from the GA status.--Yannismarou 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. For the picture, I am currently in discussino with Shiv Chopra to have a picture that is free of use completly. When I'll talk to him, I'll ask him about his origins and his whereabouts now, even if I think that currently Shiv Chopra is still in a battle with the public service. I'll also correct the fact that the link gets on a disambiguation page.
Thanks again.--Deenoe 10:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme kinetics

Hi there. This article has been comprehensively re-worked over the last few weeks. I'm hoping to bring it up to FA status and suggestions to help this would be much appreciated. Previous peer-review TimVickers 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has now been nominated for FA, any futher suggestions should be added to its candidacy page here. Thank you. TimVickers 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting article, although it rapidly gets quite technical in places. Here are a few (hopefully useful) comments:
  • The word catalysis should be linked in the first paragraph, as this is a key concept.
Good point, done.
  • I know the second paragraph of the introduction is trying to explain how enzymes operate, I think it could be improved by some reordering. For example, "Enzymes are molecular machines that manipulate specific molecules: their substrates. These target molecules bind to an enzyme's active site and then are transformed into a product. In order to gain a complete picture of how enzymes work, we need to know both their structures and their mechanisms. An enzyme's structure is akin to a complete blueprint of one of these machines. The operating mechanism is provided by chemical kinetics; similar to a movie of this machine in action." Although I'm sure that can be improved.
Good, added.
  • In the "Enzyme assays" section, what are products and reactants? Are the reactants the enzymes and their substrates?
Tried to clarify.
  • Could you clarify the statement, "polypeptide chain that report movements during catalysis"? It is not explained prior to that point.
Removed the word "polypeptide" and generalised this a bit.
  • The section "General principles" states that "shows if an enzyme can catalyse a reaction under the conditions in the cell". But doesn't the enzyme always catalyze a reaction? Perhaps this could be clarified.
Reworded.
  • In the first illustration of the single-substrate reactions section, should the (S) be [S]?
Confusing, reworded.
So my issue here remains, albeit a very minor point. The caption on the illustration uses "(S)" and defines it as the "concentration of substrate". The surrounding text uses [S], and defines it as "substrate concentrations". These appear to be identical, so I would be expecting the caption to be using [S] also. Thanks! :-) — RJH (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to introduce the abbreviation S as standing for substrate and had put it in parenthases. I've removed it entirely and I think this solves the confusion. TimVickers 14:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like it if the first two equations were separated out from the text. Could each of the equations be indented? Also what is k3? it is not mentioned in the second illustration.
Good catch, k2 is correct. Indented equations.
  • I think there should be a period after "the expression reduces to Km = [S]".
OK, these were missing in a couple of places.
  • Could you clarify this sentence: "In these enzymes both substrates bind to at the same time to produce an EAB ternary complex"?
Urgh. What an ugly sentence. It's better now.
  • "...E* by for example transferring..." needs commas around "for example".
Added.
  • Intermediates should be linked where it first appears in the text.
Linked and defined.
  • Can interconversion be explained?
Replaced with "Consumption"
  • In the "Enzyme inhibition" section, a brief explanation of the term would be useful, as would the meaning of "reversible" in this context. (Rather than leaving it to the Enzyme inhibitor article.)
Defined terms.
  • Likewise the listed types of inhibition should probably also be explained, since they are used in a table.
They are defined in kinetic terms in the table and diagram, and I've now listed them in the text as well.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

the article lacks any mention of ordered sequential mechanisms for two substrate enzymes, a common (maybe just to me?) two substrate mechanism. I'll get to work writing one up, can you provide diagrams? that way they will be consistent with the others on the page. NB: ordered sequential is E + A → EA → EAB → EPQ → EP → E, where the binding order of A and B, and the release order of P and Q must happen in order. typically happens in tunnel-like active sites, where binding of the second substrate blocks access to the first. Xcomradex 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

oh wait i see it mentioned briefly in the ternary section. probably needs expansion anyway. Xcomradex 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim, you've done an awesome job on these enzyme articles. A few nitpicks for this one:

Added to introduction.
  • The phrase "are transformed into a product" sounds a little oversimplified, though I'm not coming up with an improvement.
Should be plural, it is wrong in singular.
  • There are a couple of minor tone problems: "we need to know...", "lets you measure...", etc.
Fixed later one, intro is deliberately non-formal so general reader isn't scared off immediately!
  • It seems a little odd that "general principles" comes after the assay section. Also, this sentence - "Knowing these properties shows if an enzyme can use this substrate under the conditions in the cell, and if it does, how important this activity is compared to any other enzymes that may perform the same reaction" - is a little awkward; it doesn't seem like the most common situation - bad substrates are often unnatural, and an enzyme's level of activity relative to similar enzymes doesn't necessarily correlate to importance (maybe it's a lousy whateverase, but it's the only one in mitochondria). Maybe something more general like "Knowing these properties about an enzyme helps in determining its cellular function"?
Sections re-ordered. Section reworded.
  • Image:Enzyme saturation.png only has 4 out of 5 enzymes bound to substrate - sure, at high concentrations there will be times when that's the case, but as an illustration of "saturation" it might be more effective to see them all filled.
My bad. Altered diagram.
  • Does the Michaelis-Menten kinetics section need a main article tag? Then you could avoid the "to see a full derivation" reference. Also, "Practical significance of kinetics" is kind of stubby.
Tag added, practical significance is new today, so still work in progress.
  • Image:Mechanism_plus_rates.svg and the related discussion assumes that the slow step is the catalysis rather than the binding - it would be good to specify that. I'd have to dig but I'm sure there are examples where it's the other way around.
There are such examples, but I don't think they follow simple MM kinetics. I'll do some reading on this and see if there is a way of including them.
I think you're right, the only example I can think of is unclamped DNA polymerase, and that's not MM. Opabinia regalis 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph about Briggs-Haldane kinetics now added. TimVickers 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The ternary complex section doesn't make a distinction between EAB->EPB->EPQ and EAB->EAQ->EPQ. I'm not sure if that's within the resolution of experimental methods, but it seems like there must be a couple of examples where one reaction is fast and one is much slower.
Almost always in these reactions either A turns to P producing E* and then B is changed to Q (ping-pong) or A and B react with each other in the active site (ternary complex).
  • I see a weird artifact where the ping-pong section's edit link appears on top of the text "This link is" in the last sentence - maybe the ping-pong image needs to move down a bit.
Moved image, did this change anything?
Looks better now. Opabinia regalis 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If I were going to add something to this article, I'd add more discussion of the structural bases for cooperativity. It would be great to see a structure where ligand binding at one site opens or blocks access to the other, if you can think of any likely examples.
  • "Often, the detection of an intermediate is essential in proving what mechanism an enzyme follows." - I had it hammered into me by a particularly hard-headed empiricist that you can't prove a mechanism, you can only discount alternatives. Maybe a nitpicky point but I can't help it.
OK, rephrased.

Thanks for all these suggestions, will keep me busy for days!

Opabinia regalis 00:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Tim, thanks for your call to this PR. Feel free to rally me again once the document has been spell-checked. Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I found the spelling mistake you refer to and have fixed it. TimVickers 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have much time just now, but this poked my eye:
To experiment with the Michaelis-Menten equation, there is an interactive Michaelis-Menten Kinetics tutorial.
This should probably be rephrased so that it still makes sense when seen offline or in print. The link should not be the motivation for the sentence, it should be supplementary. Otherwise it can go in "external links". - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I hadn't considered this. Moved reworded link to end of sentence. TimVickers 15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting. In a GA nomination I was told it was better to integrate external links into the surrounding prose for readability, and I took the suggestion; I hadn't thought about offline or print readers then having useless sentences lying around. Anyone know of any data on how ofter people use Wikipedia that way? Opabinia regalis 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you remember who made that suggestion? I'm intrigued... No idea on print distribution, sorry! I could speculate that some teachers may print articles for their pupils. I can also see how integrating the links may benefit a short article more than a longer one, but your GA may well have been long... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The reviewer was NCurse, and the article was multiple sequence alignment, which isn't especially short. In that case I put the links on the names of the software tools I was linking to, so it didn't produce too many odd-sounding sentences, but I wonder how consistent this suggestion is. Opabinia regalis 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. My interpretation is that that's routinely done for things that don't yet have an article, but should. Others use the notation BLOCKS [10], which may be less aesthetically pleasing than your solution. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headblade

Barryfein has asked me about removing the {{advert}} tag (I see he's done this), so I've requested peer review for an outside opinion. See User talk:Tivedshambo#Headblade -- Tivedshambo (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The sections are inappropriate for simple one sentence paragraphs. The MoMA ref is double listed. I'd frankly rate this is as a stub, at best. Have you given some thought about simply including it as a section of the Razor article? Mmoyer 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Sinclair

Myself and other editors have been steadily working on and improving this article for the past couple of years. I believe that it is now close to 'good article' status, although may need some more expansion and improvement. One thing that needs doing is for it to be split into several sub-sections. I welcome any comments. Stevefarrell 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Having look at a few others in Category:Computer and video game magazines, this article seems better than most, but there is still a way to go before this becomes a good article. If you have not done so already, you may wish to review the good article criteria.
  • As you recognise, some sub-sections would be useful, though don't overdo it. The most important is to create a distinct lead.
  • The article does not cite its sources (which should preferably be done in the form of inline citations).
  • I am unsure of the encyclopedic value of the Where are they now section. If any of the individuals listed are notable enough to have their own articles, such information should go in their articles. Parts of the list could perhaps be included as prose in a section similar to that at the end of Byte (magazine).
  • In places the tone is a little informal e.g. "No such lawsuit ever came about of course; YS and Delta 4 had a good relationship". There are a couple of examples of weasel words, e.g. "It could be argued that YS had a language all of its own" Argued by whom?
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Most useful. Thank you. To take your points one by one:
  • I agree. I was thinking of following the example of the Amiga Power article which has several subsections dedicated to different (popular) sections of that magazine.
  • Most of the citations come from three of the websites linked in the 'external links' section - YS2/100 (written by a former editor), YS: A Celebration, and The Your Sinclair Rock 'n' Roll Years, and printed material such as Issue 94. I'll get on to finding out just where in each of these sites the information is.
  • Your Sinclair magazine, in the UK and Europe, had something akin to a cult following which stretched beyond its subject matter. As a result, people who used to read the magazine are often curious what the staff writers went on to do after leaving (much the same as fans of a TV series might be interested in what the actors did next). I feel that the section is somewhat useful, but it could be shortened, particularly after subsections have been added.
  • Yes, the weasel words and informality will have to go. It's much more formal than it was when it started. I'll work on that tonight and tomorrow. There was a unique writing style to the magazine, at least for its time, so there needs to be something about that.
One good thing about YS is that the majority of articles and material have been released into the public domain. --Stevefarrell 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism

I thought that "the other" section needs a review, and also the article could use some sourced information on US government attitutes towards communism? Frogsprog 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead really does not cover what many feel are uses of the term in order to frame legitimate criticism of U.S. policies or action as just simple bigotry. IT is a favorite of some fairly outspoke American right-wing bloggers to accuse other americans they disagree with of being anti-American. Also, anti-American attitudes have causes -- it can be scapegoating and it can also be related to real events, such as the sharp rise in anti-American attitudes, particularly in the Arab/Muslim Middle East, in the wake of the Iraq invasion.
It would be cool to mention in the lead that there are waves of anti-Americanism that correlate with real events. Such as it was particularly low right after 9/11 when much of the world stood with the US. --Ben Houston 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, I would relate it to this wikipedia article Framing_(communication_theory) -- there are numerous high quality references that connect these two concepts (anti-Americanism and framing) if you do a quick search. This isn't to say that it doesn't exist or that all uses are non-legitimate, but that it is a term that can be and is abused. --Ben Houston 21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, although I don't see any mention of plain envy as a major cause.[11][12] There are a number of sections without footnotes, so I think that needs to be addressed to make it a solid GA. Speaking of which, the standard format is for in-line citations to follow punctuation rather than to preceed it, and to leave no space characters between the prior text and the footnote. Finally I'm not sure the scanned image of a book cover is valid on this page under the "fair use" law. I believe the law only applies to articles about the book, such as reviews, &c. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster in My Pocket

This was one of the first articles I have contributed to, and I would like to know how I can make it better, short of information about aspects of the line that are not known to me nor any other serious fan I have met online. I would like to bring it to feature article calibre. --Scottandrewhutchins 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but at a glance there's an enormous list with no extra content; I'd add little descriptions for each toy. Otherwise, it's discouraged in a list consisting mainly of prose, and I think they would even like a little more detail for Wikipedia:Featured lists. Also, both WP:GA and WP:FA would expect footnotes; there's also a non-existant category, and when it mentions Wikipedia articles (just before the list), that's a WP:SELF. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've got some footnotes and references, and done some heavy revision. The nature of the line was that it featured characters from myth and legend, so it makes most sense to link them to the entries for the figures of myth and legend, since the comic was too short-lived to deleop most of the characters. Aside from the fact that Winged Panther, Jabalius, and Catarenha appear to be made up (unless they've been renamed like Maahes-->Karnak). Should I simply delete the reference to Wikipedia? I'm actually pretty surprised that Toys of the 1990s would be a non-existant category. I changed it rather than deleting that when an editor later revealed to be a sock puppet insisted it belonged in "Toys of the 1980" despite the fact that it was introduced in the Fall of 1990. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be better to get rid of the lists entirely. Adding a description for each of the 183 or more of them would create a monstrous article indeed! NatusRoma | Talk 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, the list is now a seperate article. --Scottandrewhutchins 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just on a glance, the article should be broken up into sub-sections. Then summarize the whole thing in the lead. See WP:LEAD for what I'm talking about. — BrianSmithson 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Do I need to take out Dwayne McDuffie's opinion of the David Bay column? The only source I can find for this is a brief e-mail from him to me a number of years ago where he said "I downloaded it to show my friends how 'influential' I am." --Scottandrewhutchins 16:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fulla (doll)

Creating page for unregistered contributor to edit. Feel free to delete this if August 1 2007 was a long time ago. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm striving for good article quality. Is there anything that can be done to improve this article? --71.118.77.30 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to know all the problems in this article so I could try to fix it! So what can be done to improve this article? --71.118.77.30 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is done quite well. There is some repetition in the various sections of its reflectance of muslims values -- I know this is central to the doll, but I still found it repetitive. I would be nice to have an idea of sales figures -- so far only qualitative words along the lines of "very popular" are used. The criticism of women rights advocates and other critics should probably be given its own section -- and it would be useful to show how similar or different criticism of Fulla is to the standard critiques of Barbie. I'm not sure if this is a good idea but one could possibly make a chart/table that compares major statistics of Barbie with Fulla side by side -- such as height, eye color, skin color, bust size (?), clothing types, boyfriend/accessories, date of introduction, sales figures -- although maybe my technical inclination isn't really that useful when applied to an article about a girl's doll. (I just put up another article for peer review so I figured I owed some of the articles here a peer review. I am in no way an expert on girl's dolls.) --Ben Houston 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to fix those problems, but I don't think I'll put in a chart. And I appreciate your review of the article for me. --71.105.5.205 05:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have added another section called "criticism" and added sales figures. But I don't exactly know how to remove the repetition of Muslim values of the doll. Is there anyway to remove this problem or is it not that bad? --71.104.176.33 05:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I (quite unexpectedly) really enjoyed reading the article. In my view, it is well written, interesting, and balanced. I agree that it is a little bit repetetive on the subject of Muslim values (although it still maintains interest). Most of the content in the 'Roles' section is repeated elsewhere so perhaps you could remove that section. I think the section itself is fine, but doesn't add anything you haven't covered elsewhere. I would interested in knowing if Fulla and Barbie have been designated IQs by their creators.

I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article, and I'm happy for your review. And I think I'll remove the "Roles" section, since that is where the most repetition is located. And I'm sorry to say that there is no designated IQs from their creators. -71.160.17.156 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I now removed the "Roles" section, and I also added that Barbie and Fulla have about the same worldwide sales in the "Differences with Barbie" section. So is there anything else in the article that can be improved upon? Or is the repetetiveness of of Muslim values still a strong problem? Does anyone think this article would be ready to be a good article? --71.105.13.64 18:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proton pump inhibitor

I'd like to get this to good or featured article status. Any suggestions would be most welcome. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's rather short for a featured article. Good start, but it could use some expansion.
  • The lead is short, and the juxtaposition "...H2 receptor antagonists. These drugs..." is awkward (I assume "these drugs" refers to PPIs, not H2 receptor antagonists). Statements like "outstanding safety and efficacy" also need inline citations despite being supported by later referenced text.
  • Definitely show the chemical structure of a representative molecule. It would be great if the receptor-inhibitor complex structure has been solved, but that sounds like a difficult crystallographic project. If there's any solved structure of the protein, that should get an image too.
Checked for this. No structure and I coudn't even find a published model. I added a drug structure though. TimVickers 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a list of treatable conditions isn't enough for "clinical use". It would be nice to have contraindications, what type of treatment PPIs are (last resorts or the first thing the doctor gives you when he hears the word "heartburn"?), any well-known or common side effects, etc. Definitely convert from list to prose. (Speaking of heartburn, I thought that was a common use of these drugs, and it's mentioned later but isn't on the list?)
  • The mechanism section is very vague at the moment - might be the effect of targeting the writing to a too-low level. What residue(s) do PPIs modify and what is the result - physically blocking the channel, preventing a conformational change? Should also explain briefly how H2 receptor antagonists work, why PPIs work better, and whether there are any cases where the older drugs are more appropriate.
  • There's mention that the inhibition is irreversible due to covalent modification. More on that would be useful if the research exists. What happens to the inactive proteins (targeted to the proteasome?) and does the body replenish its supply of receptors?
  • The drug is given in an "inactive form", apparently from later discussion a deprotonated form. Chemical structures would be very useful here, and if known, an illustration of the reaction mechanism.
  • The pharmacokinetics section is much more technical than the mechanism section, which isn't a bad thing, but it suddenly mentions individual PPI molecules without having introduced or described them.
  • What's the practical effect of the drug's half-life in the body? How often do patients have to take the drugs?
  • Depending on the amount of information, adverse effects might be best merged with the clinical uses section. As it stands it's a bit awkward to start with clinical information, jump to biochemistry, and then jump back to the clinic.
  • There's no mention of history at all. How were these molecules originally discovered? Synthesized? Which one was the first to market? Over-the-counter, prescription-only, or does it depend on the specific type? AFAIK the ones you listed are all available in the US; are they approved and commonly used in other countries?
  • Might also be worth mentioning their presence in the social sphere - marketing schemes especially. This is a very competitive market, right?
That's a lot of suggested directions and you probably can't go in all of them at once, but it's some things to think about. Opabinia regalis 02:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Please add something about the differences between the different PPI's (see also PMID 15580146) --WS 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No mention of helicobacter. Do these drugs increase the risk of infection with this pathogen? TimVickers 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Usually use PPI's as part of eradication therapy for Helicobacter. -- Samir धर्म 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Good start. More information of clinical relevance would be good (i.e. PPI's for treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer disease vs. non-ulcer dyspepsia vs. Helicobacter eradication). A little more on physiology (how high does the pH get with in the stomach with PPI's, and more) I can help with that. More adverse effects (Laheij also had a paper looking at upper respiratory tract infections, there's a Canadian Medical Association Journal paper on Clostridium difficile infections, and a little more about bacterial overgrowth). Prose is always preferred over lists (I'm personally a big fan of lists where appropriate though). Opabinia is right about social relevance and competitiveness of drug companies in this market. Little things (ZES and gastrinoma could be in the same line, add a little about IV preparations and how they've changed management of hemorrhage). More about how esomeprazole was developed would be good. Differences in the PPIs (time of onset, how lansoprazole is available in capsule form, esomeprazole dissolves in water, etc.) Consider putting it up on WP:GI and WP:CLINMED for a broader range of opinions. I'll work on it myself also. -- Samir धर्म 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goldmoon

This was my first attempt to expand a fantasy character article into something better, referenced and interesting to read. I must thank Tony1 and especially BrianSmithson for their examples and suggestions. I am hoping to get a peer review for every character in the Dragonlance saga, starting from this one, to achieve Good Article status in every of them, and leave them polished enough to match a Featured Article (even if it never becomes one). -- ReyBrujo 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. My main concern is that some of the sentences are rather long, and could use some judicious editing to break them into two or more shorter sentences. An example is the 2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph of the character background section. Also the statement that "first childhood love in the barbarian Hollow-sky is discovered" at first left me wondering if Hollow-sky was a person or some type of primitive ritual. Perhaps "love of"? Nowhere in that sentence does it actually say "he", so I'm unclear if Hollow-sky is a man, woman, or something else. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the feedback. In my attempt to keep a good flow, I merged too many sentences into just one. I decided to remove the statement about her childhood love (yes, Hollow-sky is a man), as it was not necessary (leftover from a previous version). I will do a full review of the article looking for other long sentences. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo 02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Amiens

I've been editing this article for quite a bit. I made a bit of a push a little while ago, but editing has somewhat stagnated. I'd be interested in whatever suggestions you all could make. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks decent, if somewhat brief. Here's a few comments that I hope are helpful:
  • Overall I think the article could use a little careful editing for punctuation and syntax. Some of the sentences seem a little awkward.
    • "The attack was so unexpected that German forces only began to return fire on Allied positions after five minutes, and even then [they struck] at the positions [Allied] forces had assembled at for the start of the battle and had long since abandoned".
    • The comma isn't working for me in the last sentence of the intrioduction. You might try a semi-colon or split it into two sentences.
    • First paragraph of "Plan" section needs a comma between "divisions" and "along".
    • In the following sentence, "reserves" should be singular. (Are the 150 tanks in addition to the 580, or part of that count?)
    • I think the last sentence in that paragraph should have a colon or use a period following secrecy.
    • "In the first phase seven divisions attacked," should use a colon instead.
    • Alternating use of "center" and "centre"; "armored" and "armoured".
    • "...carrying Mark V* tanks however the infantry..." needs a comma before the however.
    • "...advancing Allies but because..." needs a comma before but.
    • First paragraph, long second sentence of "Aftermath" needs some clarification. ("The Germans ... trench positions.") I know what it's trying to say, but it has some ambiguities and could use a re-write.
    • &c.
  • Could you give a description of the terrain?
  • Where did the "British Fourth Army" come from in the Battle section? It wasn't mentioned earlier. Perhaps the higher-level organization should be described somewhere on this page, in addition to the list of forces page. (I usually see that type of page called an "order of battle".)
  • Suggest linking lines of communication.
  • In the "Later fighting" section, what happened to the 500 tanks?
  • In the same section, where did the "British Third army" come in? It's not even shown in the list of forces.
  • Why did the battle come to an end?
  • Are there any other images that could be included?
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London

Since the previous peer reviews (1 & 2), further improvements have been made in this article including better images, reduced length (with concise sections linking to more detailed sub-articles) and better sources. In theory, it should meet the featured article criteria, but any suggestions by fresh pairs of eyes before it is submitted would be very welcome. --Dave A 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Lead seems a bit short for an article of this length. More footnote references might be required. — Wackymacs 10:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow clown goby

Bring it! I want to achieve FA status with this article and welcome all input. Mmoyer 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lethargy's review

You may want to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes that this is up for peer review, so some of them can drop in and review this.

Now, here is my brief peer review (keep in mind I may be wrong about some of this):

  • In the opening sentence, shouldn't Okinawa goby and Yellow coral goby be in bold rather than italics (or perhaps both)?
  • The Conservation status section is only two sentences long, and all it says is that it isn't under protection and is highly resilient. I don't think this section is really necessary, and it could be merged somewhere else in the article.
  • "Gobiodon sp. start life as females, and are bi-directional protogynous hermaphrodites, meaning that when paired up, if necessary, one changes sex to form a breeding pair." I feel this is interesting enough that it belongs in the lead section. See: Wikipedia:Lead section for more guidelines on that. --Lethargy 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefans review

This article is a long way form FA, I have just gone through a long FA process for oceanic whitetip shark, it is now FA, but it was a very lengthy process. See [13] for the comments during the process, and this was the article that was submitted (compare with this article) and this is the diff since nomination and today(very simmilar to nomination). There are actually a few sentences that was not updated and that article complied to many more of the FA norms than this. I'm not saying this is be mean, only to prepare you for the shock if you try to nominate this for FA, peer review is not very active, very few people actually give comments, FA on the other hand is cruel :-).

Ok so on to my basic comments:

  • Not comprehencive enough, i.e. very short.
  • No references (i.e. inline notes)
  • Not well written

minor comments:

  • use fishbase template for link
  • fill in all info in taxobox
  • use a more standard looking distribution map and put it in the taxo box (see WP:Wikiproject Fishes for instructions)
  • also look at all the style guides and follow them closely. (like non breaking space between numbers and unit and so on)
  • Unclear to me if this is about the species Gobiodon okinawae or the genus which the taxobox seams to imply?? (is there only one species? if so it should be made clear.

Good luck! Stefan 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mmoyers response

Thank you both for the very useful comments and encouragement. I really do want to achieve FA with this article, so the more prepared I am before submission, the better! Mmoyer 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aspasia

I just finshed the rewriting of the article (so, I'm sorry for any typos or other deficiencies). I think the article has the potential to become GA or FA. I would like to have the assistance and the suggestions of other Wikipedians, especially in terms of prose, style and content.--Yannismarou 20:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Tremendous article. Definitely has potential for FA, and in many ways it's already there. Just a few things to push it along, however: the Historicity section should either be expanded or merged with one of the other sections. Right now it's too short. The Lysicles red link in the lead should probably get an article. This can be a stub so it shouldn't take long. It's just normally not good to have red links in the lead. I'm sure other editors can think of something else, but I really thought this was a phenomenal article. Very very interesting and enlightening; I'd never heard of this woman before, but I'm glad I have now! Good job.UberCryxic 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Expanded the last section. Created Lysicles' article.--Yannismarou 08:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If this were an FA vote I would support it. My only concern is that the first quote box cites Aristophanes. Readers who don't understand his work will probably miss the farcical tone. Durova 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Clarified that Acharnians is a comedy. I hope it is better now. I'm open to any further comments (prose, style, content).--Yannismarou 15:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gastric-brooding frog

Want to get this artilce to FA. I've been addding things on and off for the past 3 or so weeks. It still needs a Taxonomy section and a copyedit, spellcheck, etc. If you can think of anything else that should be in this artilce please leave comments. Thanks -- Froggydarb croak 04:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty solid for a GA I'm thinking. Only thing I can think without reading the content throughly is some red links in the middle and references inside Gastric-brooding frog#Taxonomy for some reason. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 03:38 (UTC)

[edit] Ian McDiarmid

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)

[edit] List of best-selling music artists

I'm just wondering where people think this page could 'go next'? It seems to be doing a fairly good job, the state that it was in 12 months ago, but else do people think it could show or, simply, how could it be improved? Would images help improve the article and - most importantly - how far is it from featured list status? --Robdurbar 09:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Great list that could easily pass FL. However I have some remarks. I'm strongly against using fan sites as reliable sources, they could easily inflates the numbers. Once it's nominated, I'll check for every source. As for the images, I strongly disagree with using them, it will mess the page, and not even flags for country since artists do not represent their countries. CG 08:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ditto on not liking fan sites - however, I think this is a case where only such info is avaliable. It is for this reason that the categories are 'claimed to have sold' and that the list notes that these are (reasonable) claims made by or on behalf of artists, and that they should be taken with a pinch of salt. --Robdurbar 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes made by the artists, record companies or news agencies, not by their fans. CG 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there are very limited cases where a fan site might be considered a reliable source - in the case of The KLF, which is a Featured Article, we reference the KLF Discography (albeit with a disclaimer/note about it's origins). It's been on the internet as long as I can remember (early 90s) and has had peer review and scrutiny by KLF mailing list members for the same period of time. Without any doubt it's the most authoratitive discography there is. On the other hand, relying on fans for statistics like this - with or without a disclaimer - is a total and utter no-no as far as I'm concerned. If no reliable source is available the information shouldn't be used. Remember, we don't necessarily even report fact here, we report what is verifiable from reliable sources. --kingboyk 08:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - but the article states in its intro that these are 'claims not facts'. I do see where this argument is coming from, and wouldn't be against introducing such a policy to the page, but I don't think it is necessary so long as we retain an 'approximations' format. Robdurbar 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The references should be converted to {{cite web}} in order to see the access dates. I also think that the list could be divided better. I propose that it gets divided by 50, 75, 100, 200, and 300 million. --Maitch 09:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinner for One

I think this is a fascinating article, and although I have lived in England all my life I did not know about this tradition. I think the article looks reasonably complete - the key facts are all there. Do we need more detail? NLB 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It could do with some images - a couple under the fair use rationale would be acceptable I think. It wouldn't hurt to expand on the characters of the dead friends, since the different personalities are an essential part of the sketch. Yomanganitalk 00:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trumpkin

I have pretty much written this article and want to know how I did. Bornagain4 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You did a good job trying to keep it in an out of universe perspective. The article is so short the subsections are unneccesary. The Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and The Silver Chair should be merged into one large section. It will make the article much easier to read. The article needs to be copyedited. The first sentence in the main body "The heavy majority of Trumpkin's story is told in Prince Caspian." needs to be rewritten. It should read something like "Trumpkin is introduced in C.S. Lewis' 1951 novel, Prince Caspian." The intro should recap what is found within the article. For example you do not describe what Trumpkin is within the article's body. The second sentence should read something like "Trumpkin is a dwarf and the leader "True Narnian" underground, a group hiding from the Prince Caspian's main villian, King Miraz." (Having never read the story, I'm assuming King Miraz is the main villian) The whole article needs copyediting similar to this. As I mentioned the article is short. I know these novels are metaphorical, so does this character represent something or someone? If he does, (or if people believe he does) add that information within the article, but don't forget to reference these statements. Medvedenko 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanx alot, thats helpful. Bornagain4 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Strand

I think most of the glaring problems with the article have been resolved, but it isn't awesome or anything. An editor has decided that viewing everything in his life in the context of Communism is a good idea, but I don't really agree. The current compromise is a section on his politics and I'd be curious to hear people's opinions on all that. Would also like to hear other people's thoughts on what areas of his life need more content. Recury 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Its definitely too short, more needs to be said about his work and personal life. I'm not sure about how to go about incorporating communist beliefs. If its really controversial how his political beliefs affected his life and work, you may want to keep it seperate. If it isn't contoversial, then I would put within the context of Strand's history. The main issue is that the article needs to be expanded, you will also need to include inline citations where appropriate. Medvedenko 03:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Space Exploration Milestones, 1957-1969

We need an expert opinion on whether or not Vostok 3 and 4 actually performed a rendevous. Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really. We need someone to help us figure out whether to use the US or Soviet definition of rendevous, or whether to mention that they used different definitions, and both claimed the first rendevous. Gravitor 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue is whether or not to use the definition of space rendezvous. Bubba73 (talk), 01:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs a lead. Also, the request for peer review notice belongs on the talk page, not the article page. VegaDark 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How about for Vostok 3 and 4 you say "the first rendevous according to Russia", and for Gemini 6A "the first according to NASA". Add a footnote to each that links to a quick explanation about the differences in definition of rendevous. However, this is hardly the only problem with the article. The article needs an introduction paragraph. You need more references which need to be properly formatted. How is this different than Space firsts? Wikify the milestones. The name of the article is incorrect. Space Exploration Milestones should be lower case. Medvedenko 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The USSR claimed it as a rendezvous, but ir was not a space rendezvous. Bubba73 (talk), 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I've renamed the article (lower case and moved). I added an introductory paragraph explaining what it is, which indicates how it is different from the similar list. I didn't wikify the milestones because the mission that accomplished it is already wikilinked. Bubba73 (talk), 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It needs a bit more information. Most milestones are just one short sentence. Also, it needs to be more specific, instead of "First probe to go near the Moon", try "First probe to be launched to the moon, and first man-made object to enter heliocentric orbit."
A possibility is to move the page to List of space exploration milestones (You'd need to go through WP:RM), and this way, later milestones can be added, because in it's current form, it is too short. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My intention was to list ones from Sputnik 1 through the moon landing only - the "space race" era. More details can be found in the links to the missions, but I'll try to expand it. Bubba73 (talk), 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lion King

Previously reviewed. Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is {{A-Class}} for the Films WikiProject. There has been few changes done to the article recently, so I assume that all of the previous items have been done. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see it become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This was previously a FAC and narrowly failed. The plot could do with a trim, but overall I support it. Wiki-newbie 12:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it should definately be shortened. Cbrown1023 15:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Text:

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.[2]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per 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.[3]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[4]
  • 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. [5]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dyson Sphere

In the interests of raising what I think a good article which has been fairly stable to "Featured Article" caliber, I'd like people's input as to what improvements might be made to increase readability and the article's completeness. Thank you - Vedexent 10:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. Here's a few minor comments:
  • It could use a graphic for the dyson swarm concept.
  • Note that Stapledon in turn may have borrowed the idea from J. D. Bernal, in his work "The World, the Flesh, and the Devil".[14][15]
  • It could use some sort of basic explanation about why we expect the radiation to be black body peaking in the infrared.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - An illustration would be nice, and J. D. Bernal needs to be credited as well. Two points need to be covered in the last case - why we expect it to be blackbody radiation, and why we are looking for an infrared peak (which wouldn't always be the case - just the case with Dyson spheres that have terrestrial type temperatures at the surface). - Vedexent 22:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Illustrations added - Vedexent 00:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
In the astronomy and physics article the dyson sphere was not mentioned often. It was used more as an idea for the scifi writers.Stone 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the aim of this comment is. While the concept is largely used in science fiction, the roots of the concept are based in scientific speculation - and the plausibility of the physics of various types is explored in the article. Are you objecting to the classification of the article? - Vedexent 22:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has undergone a bit of a "shake up" based on suggestions made here and in other places. Further comments are welcome :) - Vedexent 01:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Aquinas

This article has recently achieved GA status, and I'm interested to see how close it is to FA status. What improvements need to be made in order for this article to be a featured article? - David aukerman talk 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The prose is a bit disjointed. Also, I'm a bit concerned that the two main sources are Schiff and Britannica, from 1914 and 1911 respectively. I'm no expert on Aquinas, but surely a lot of research must have been done since then, so that these are largely outdated? Eixo 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you give a couple of examples of where you find disjointed prose? (i.e. is it throughout the article, or in one or two particular sections?) Yes, the use of Schaff and Britannica in the Biography section (the other sections are much newer) is problematic. (There was some concern (see talk page) about incorrect information in the Biography section.) So, newer biographical information would be helpful? - David aukerman talk 16:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Many of the paragraphs are just 1-3 lines long. If you look at the FAs, they're normally not like that; they try to get a narrative consistency through longer sequences. Here is a kind of 'Power Point'-presentation style that a lot of articles suffer from. Most glaringly, the last paragraph reads simply: "Many biographies of Aquinas have been written over the centuries, one of the most notable by G.K. Chesterton." This is not only out of context, but it begs the question: why isn't Chesterton in the reference section if he's so good? (Though there is a hyperlink to the book further down.) Another example is the paragraph "Aquinas also greatly influenced Roman Catholic understandings of mortal and venial sins." How?
It would certainly help the article if some new scholarship was incorporated, though that might be a tough demand in terms of extra reading and rewriting. It should be said that these are just my opinions though, and should not be taken as authoritative. Eixo 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've checked out a couple of newer biographies of Aquinas from the library - it'll take a little bit of time for me to go through them (and through the article) to fix things up. But you've provided some direction for the article, and I appreciate that! - David aukerman talk 01:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Good luck with that. I've read the page more in debth now, and it seems like a good article, but I've made a few suggestions on the talk page. Eixo 15:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 102.2 Jazz FM

I did quite a lot of work to this article to bring it from the stub that it was to the more substanisal article it is today. I would like someone neutral to check the article over to see if anything is missing or whether it needs improving (ie. grammar, spelling, flow etc.). Any pointers, advice and suggestions would be most welcome. Thank you. --tgheretford (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CM Punk

Wikipedia:Peer review/CM Punk/Archive1

Previously put this up for peer review for a GA nomination, which it achieved, now going for first Featured Article on wrestling in wikipedia. Since the first PR there has been a large increase in sources provided largely by myself and Calaschysm (talk • contribs), upto 63 at the time of this writing. Due to the nature of professional wrestling and sources nearly every match or feud has been sourced, and there are other elements that need sources but I have them in my head though haven't gotten around to adding them yet. If any other suggestions to increase the quality of this article could be provided it would be much appreciated. –– Lid(Talk) 05:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a terrific article. Nearly every single sentence has a reliable source attached to it, making all of the information believable. I've also learned a lot of things about my idol that I never knew before through this Wiki. Although, would it be possible to shrink the References section somehow? It's getting to be quite lengthy in size. PunkCabana 01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately no, I already attempted to shorten it by splitting it into two seperate columns and at the lowest font size but it kept building and building. –– Lid(Talk) 02:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I changed it to three columns and it seemed to slightly reduce the size, but any reduction is good. –– Lid(Talk) 09:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland

In the introduction of this article, the phrase "constituent country" has been repeatedly replaced by the weasel words "constituent entity".

This is not consistent with the other three constituent country articles (England, Scotland and Wales) nor with the constituent country article itself, nor indeed with the article that the phrase "constituent entity" has been linked to.

I had reverted the article to be consistent with the aforementioned articles and, after it was suggested to me that citations were needed, I included these also. Apparently this still wasn't good enough. --Mal 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This probably isn't the best forum for resolving edit disputes. Perhaps you could try the Mediation Cabal? — RJH (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Gyllenhaal

Article has been worked over over several months and has been put forward for GA status. It would be good to know what else could be done to make it any better than we have already done, possibly for an FA nom in the future. Dev920 22:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Following comments on Peer Review BIO:

  • I have sourced a Fair Use photo from Jake's website and have emailed the largest Jake fansite to ask if they will release one of theirs into the public domain.
  • I have expanded the lead section to include his career and sex symbolism; I will also add a section on his political activism and add that to the lead section as well.

-Dev920 17:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The image has consequently been changed to a better one that iheartjake.com kindly released into the public domain.

After additional feedback, again at Peer Review BIO:

  • I have moved all citations to after the nearest full stop.
  • I have created a section entitled "Politics and Society" and moved all details of his activism there.
  • I have merged or expanded every one-sentence paragraph I could find, with the exception of the one in the lead section which I feel it perfectly succinct.
  • I have added references to support the new information.

Anything else to push towards GA, or if it's got there now, towards FA would be great, thanks.

-Dev920 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WOW! I started this article on March 6, 2004 as a very sad little stub, and look at it now! It's very good. Well done on getting the free use image! I've just put your free use image back - I think you're gonna have a problem with that. "Fans" are always going to want to replace it with something overly flattering regardless of any copyright concerns. As long as there are photos of Jake with his shirt half-off, people are gonna want to swap your image for their own. Anyway onto the article.
  1. Please change all of the occasions where he is referred to as "Jake". That gives it a fanzine tone and as per Wikipedia:Manual of style we should always use the surname, the only difference might be if discussing other Gyllenhaals such as Maggie in which case, obviously, you have to make it clear who you're talking about.
  2. Be careful with slang or "common use" words or words that convey an opinion without attributing the opinion to anyone. Some examples (from the lead section) - "edgy" (this is mildly POV - who says they are edgy?), "indie" (independent), "stumping" (I have no idea what stumping is), and later in the article - "coveted" (as in Golden Lion award, well any award is coveted - except perhaps a Razzie - why not also says his BAFTA award was coveted too. It's an unnecessary word) There are possibly other examples.
  3. Decide whether movie titles should be followed by their year, and then be consistent throughout the article. Personally, I prefer the year to be included as it gives a better sense of chronology. There are several film titles with their year of release and several without.
  4. Movie titles should always be in italics
  5. Provide sources for anything resembling a quote, an opinion or anything other than common knowledge. Example : an entire paragraph about Gyllenhaal's opinion of Ang Lee. Where did that come from? The article is well sourced on the whole, BTW.
  6. Try to avoid fancruft. The bit about him sharing custody of some dogs with Kirsten Dunst? OK, it's true and it's sourced but it's also extreeeeeeeeemely irrelevant. This tells us nothing more than Gyllenhaal, like millions of people the world over, like dogs. He also probably likes wearing jeans, and that's just as unworthy of mention.
  7. What has Maggie Gyllenhaal's being engaged to Peter Sarsgaard got to do with Jake Gyllenhaal?
  8. Bio info box - the image caption "Award winning actor" is kind of stating the obvious. Should be more along the lines of "Gyllenhaal photographed in 2004" (or whatever) If he's not doing anything especially worth mentioning at least having a date would be good. Perhaps people will be looking at this in 5 years, for example. Notable films should be in chronological order with a line break between each one. Dates of release would be great too.
  9. Biggest "problem" is the lead. It really tells very little about him. Merely listing movie titles is no good - suppose I've never seen or heard of them? I now know the titles of 4 Jake Gyllenhaal films - I'm none the wiser. Plus it's very POV to pick 4 from the list of however many he's done, unless those 4 are particularly iconic, without giving some supporting information about those films to demonstrate their significance. Diane Keaton is an example where this has been done well. You could easily do something similar here, build a nice little paragraph that contrasts his "edgy" Donnie Darko, his blockbuster Day After Tomorrow, his action Jarhead and his controversial Brokeback Mountain. That would be far more illuminating. Also... Gyllenhaal is primarily an actor, and his acting is the only thing that has made him famous, therefore I think it's inappropriate for his political endorsements to be part of the lead paragraph in the way that they are. It looks like Wikipedia is helping him publicise a preferred candidate or cause - I'm not comfortable with it in the lead, but further down in the article it's fine. A general summary of his work or causes would also be fine in the lead paragraph as part of a summary, but actually naming John Kerry is wrong.

Best of luck with this. Rossrs 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As per my userpage, I'm on a break at the moment. I will return and get on with your recommendations in about four or five days time. Dev920 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok:

1.Already done by someone else. 2. I personally can't do anything about this, because as far as I was aware, everything I wrote WAS NPOV. However, taking your examples, I have changed "stumping" to "campaigning", coveted has already gone, and I can't do anything about edgy because the synonyms I found are "artsy" which sounds worse, and "cutting edge" which sounds clinical, and isn't really accurate anyway. If anyone could find a better word, please, put it it, but I simply can't find a better, alternative word. Maybe I can think of a phrase or something...

I think it's mostly fine. You know, rather than worry too much about finding an alternative for "edgy", would you consider that you don't really need any adjective there? You could just say "known for often choosing indie films over blockbusters" because it's the contrast between indie and blockbuster that you're discussing rather than the edgy aspect of the roles. Rossrs 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

3. I've removed all the dates. 4. Already been done. 5. I have referenced the bit you mean. 6. Well, Jake's dogs are seen around with him, and he has given television interviews about both of them. I felt it emphasises not just his canine preference (although he bought Dunst a cat which he presumably had to live with that isn't mentioned in the article), but his social consciousness in getting a dog from a home. But if you mention one dog you ahve to mention the other. And most people have their animals mentioned in their articles. Would you prefer some quotes from Jake on his dogs?

On second thoughts, I think it's ok. It comes under the heading of personal life. I don't think it's particularly relevant, but that's only my opinion. The way it reads is fine. Rossrs 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

7. A quick bit of info on his family seems to be derigeur on Wikipedia. He has links with Peter as well, and additionally, Jake will almost certainly be the child's godfather.

Yes, you are right. I was wrong about that. Rossrs 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

8. Already been done.

9. I've rearranged it a bit, what do you think?

I still think it doesn't work. I'm finding it the most difficult part of the article to review. I've been sitting here thinking about it and have discovered that while I've been doing so Stevenscollege has been working on it, (and has been making some very good improvements to the article lately). So maybe, we should wait and see..... I keep going back to Diane Keaton and thinking how well that one works. I think it's partly because Keaton flows really nicely. It's got a short but pertinent quote that kind of ties the first paragraph together. Then the second paragraph comments on Keaton's intention that validates her choices. I think with Jake it doesn't flow, and rather than a flow of related ideas it reads like several different ideas that are not connected. There's not really a clear idea of what Jake is "about". How to fix it, I don't know, but I'll give it more thought . Rossrs 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll do the stuff below when I get back from work. Dev920 11:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments I've done some minor copy editing. Here are a few content points:

  • The statement above about too many colloquialisms is dead-on; unnecessary adjectives are subtle POV and can undermine the encyclopedic nature.
  • Why is it important the Jake wasn't in Mighty Dcks? So what?
  • Some of the paragraphs could use topic sentences that explain the content. Case-in-point: the paragraph about Jake working with family members Would be better if it started with something like "The members of the Gyllenhaal family have worked together on many Hollywood projects." Without a sentence to tie it together, it's just a list of roles that have involved relatives.
  • The references could use more specific information than just "Yahoo!" or "GLAAD"--add relevant authors and dates. Don't forget to put publication names, such as NY Daily News in italics.

I'll have more comments in the near future... -- Scientizzle 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I confess, I simply do not know when I am subtly undermining Jake's encyclopaedic nature. Nothing I personally can do about that, though I think the other editors keep a good eye on each other there. The reason it is important that Jake was not in Mighty Ducks is because his parents wouldn't let him; were it not for his parent's concern about his education, Jake would have been a child star, and would probably have become much better known before October Sky and Donnie Darko. It is noteworthy that for most of his school years, Jake's only roles were in films directed by his father. Where the references don't have authors, that's because ones aren't given; stevenscollege went through them all and added them. I have italicised publication names. Anything else? Jake's looking really good now... Dev920 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pushing on to FA

Jake has now been awarded GA, and we've now added everything he's done in his career and all other relevant bits. As we are now pushing towards FA, can anyone give any more "higher" criticism, if you will, so we don't get shot down immediately? Dev920 07:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City of Manchester Stadium

Article about a football stadium in Manchester, England. I've expanded it quite a bit recently, but I'm not sure where to go from here. What sort of things need to be done to get the article to featured standard? Oldelpaso 10:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but it is generally hard to get a stadium article featured - most don't have enough information. Out of interest, how many stadiums are featured? Kingfisherswift 10:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

None, though Dr Pepper Ballpark is a good article that is on FAC at the time of writing. Oldelpaso 10:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Remarkably even the Colosseum article isn't up to an FA status. But it might make an interesting CotW. — RJH (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in my memory that they originally wanted to call it the "Bell End"? Or was that just Liniker being his usual filthy self? If that is true, it would surely be a sin not to mention it. Seegoon 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That was of course a joke propagated by Manchester United supporters rather than a real proposal. Oldelpaso 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estonia

I would like to see this make at least the good article rating within the next few weeks. In the somewhat distant future, I'm hoping it can be a featured article. All comments are more than welcome. The members of my WikiProject and myself will try our best to improve the article based on the suggestions we receive here. Thank you in advance!!! Srose (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting as far as it goes. The structure is good and it mostly flows well. It seems like some sections have just been given up on because there are "main" articles covering these sections. I think this article should still provide summaries of those topic areas (as has been done with the history section) to give it some balance and round it out (Culture, Tourism, Transport, Crime, Foreign Relations would all benefit from expansion). It is dramatically under-referenced: 2 minor references in what should be a major article is not good. There is poor linking - some terms are repeatedly linked (Russia,Finland,EU) and some are not linked on their first use but are linked later. Images are mostly good but there is some strange placement (such as view of the coast in the economy section). Some more specific comments:
    • Lead is somewhat short.
    • "According to radiocarbon dating..." - of what?
    • "most significant was the transition to farming..." - from what?
    • This sentence is awkward: "During the Iron Age, approximately the 1st–5th century AD, resident farming was widely established, the population grew and settlement expanded."
    • "...sacked and burned the Scandinavian capital of Sigtuna in 1187." - "Scandinavian capital" is not a good choice, maybe "town of Sigtuna in medieval Sweden". Also I'm not sure we know for certain that there raid on Sigtuna was by Estonian pirates.
    • "...and developments took the direction of establishing a state" - not quite sure what this means, ugly phrasing at best.
    • No explanation of the use of Reval after Tallinn - maybe you should use something like "Reval (modern Tallinn)".
    • "In 1343 the people of northern Estonia and Saaremaa rebelled against the rule of the Germans..." - as far as has been explained in the article, at this point northern Estonia is under the control of the Danes, why would they rebel against the Germans?
    • "In 1625, mainland Estonia came entirely under Swedish rule." - why?
    • The Great Northern War could do with some dates.
    • "...and the availability of education to the natives" - explain why this was available.
    • Politics - this section doesn't flow well, it is quite abrupt in the later part. Who are the lawmakers? Was internet voting a success? When was it used?
    • Climate - this is very poor, if you aren't going to provide any information then don't include the section.
    • The section on the 2002 poll results doesn't fit in well with the rest of the religion section - it has a different style and is overly comprehensive when compared to the rest of the article
    • "..and continued its EU accession talks". This doesn't sit well at the end of this sentence, perhaps move it to the beginning.
    • The international rankings, culture, and miscellaneous topics sections look as if you lost interest - they are just a list of links with no explanation.
Hope this helps, Yomanganitalk 00:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you; it is a tremendous help. I admittedly have worked exclusively on the history, introduction, and infobox (other than to repair red links and vandalism, of course). I'll let the others know and get to work myself! :) Srose (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for an article that taught me a lot about Estonia. Here are a few points that can help the article rise to featured status (and Good Article status en route). Some echo what Yomangani said, and others are on different subjects.

  • Lead: This section could say more. Wikipedia:Lead section suggests two or three paragraphs for an article of this length (18 K characters, copied from the screen, not the edit window). It also suggests, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. " You could place the country in the context of the Baltic states, and summarize each of the major sections with a sentence or so.
  • Geography: Under Climate, A summary of temperatures by season, precipitation, and any special features of Estonia's climate would be interesting. Are there zones, such as coastal, inland?
  • Economy: "Estonia joined the WTO... as the second Baltic state to join... ." Can you rephrase this without repeating "join"? Material you could add: Who are the trading partners, and what does Estonia import and export? A word on industrial, service, and agriculture sectors would be enlightening too.
  • "The Estonian government is intending to adopt the Euro as the country's currency on ... due to continued high inflation ... " Does this sentence mean that the purpose of adopting the Euro is to end high inflation, or another meaning? The sentence continues, "and finalised the design ... ." The mix in tenses suggests splitting this sentence. Personally, I'd also change "is intending" to "intends" or "plans" or something like that.
  • Demographics: Where do the people live: urban, suburban or rural settlements?
  • Religion: The 2002 poll on religion is interesting, but occupies a place out of proportion with the remainder of the section. The question of how many people believe in religion was previously discussed, and is visited again in the "Eurobarometer" poll. Three times is too many. In my view, once is enough. Consider starting a main article on religion in Estonia, and providing additional detail there instead of in the top-level article on the country.
  • International rankings: This is brief, which is a virtue. If you wish to expand it, you can track the ratings over the years, or at key points in Estonian history. Of course, not all ratings are available at key points, so this only works for ones that are available.
  • Culture: There's no prose in this section. I'd suggest adding a paragraph on things that are traditional and unique to Estonia, and on one or two significant modern contributions. This section lists a couple of universities; a comment on the university system would interest many readers: are they publically or privately funded? Do leaders of government or industry or scholars go to any particular one? What preparation do students receive prior to entering them?
  • Language: There's information about the Estonian language, but it's quite sketchy (a single sentence in Demographics). I would welcome a paragraph or two on the Estonian language here in the article on the country.
  • Overall: Evaluate the links. Notice, for example, that in Economy, the first paragraph has a link to Baltic States but not to Scandinavia. The fourth paragraph has two links to Euro.

I hope this helps you improve the article. It would be a pleasure one day soon to find this on the main page. Fg2 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Whoo, this is going to be quite a project. I guess I should have looked over the article more carefully, but I got a suggestion in an email from a project member to put this up for peer review and scanned it minimally. I'll hop right to those excellent suggestions! Srose (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration to Canada

Looking for general feedback on the overall outline. Are there major sections that should be included? Any content feedback is also sought. Deet 15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good start. Is there some sort of debate in Canada about illegal immigration like there is in the United States? Apologize if that seems like a naive question, but if there is it should be covered. Some charts showing the growth of immigration would also help. Many statements could use citations, such as the following:

most numerous among these are Chinese (3.5% of the population), South Asian (3.1%), Black (2.2%), and Filipino (1.0%).

On a compounded basis, that immigration rate represents 8.7% population growth over 10 years, or 23.1% over 25 years (or 6.9 million people).

And so on....the section "Immigration categories" could use summary style. Right now it is just basically a list. If more information can be found, expand the Illegal Immigration section. Finally, the article is missing the most essential component: a History section! This is a must to give people background.UberCryxic 04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take all the comments into consideration for a re-write. No, illegal immigration is not the hot button topic it is in the U.S. because, like the article says, it's hard to get to, but I'll try to dig up more info. Deet 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is not complete without a section on the history of immigration to Canada (or a summary and reference to another article on this topic). -- P199 12:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I'm getting together some info (I need a bit more time on really early immigration history). Deet 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's missing material about the following topics:

  • quotas on various immigration categories, and historical changes to them
  • credential recognition process - this is a big difficulty and hot topic in Canada
  • more description on economic immigrant category and sub-categories: investment, skilled worker, etc.
  • interview, scoring, judicial review etc. process for admitting immigrants
  • mention of Chinese head tax, a recent headline issue in Canada
  • an external link to http://www.cic.gc.ca/
  • the "cultural mosaic" an important and much talked about topic, counterpart to the American "melting pot".
  • Toronto was named by the UN as the prime example of a city where multiple ethnicities could coexist. It was particularly notable that they named Toronto above New York.
  • If you're going to talk about crime rates and tax costs, you'd better balance that with a discussion of the higher rates of entrepreneurship, involvement in politics, and broadened culture.

--Yannick 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Great feedback! OK, now that's a to-do list to keep me busy. Does anyone have a reference to confirm the higher rate of entrepreneurship of immigrants (i.e., a study with evidence, not just a theory)? I would like to note crime rates, but I also don't know of any studies that actually track immigrant crime rates in Canada.
CIC is in the "see also" category link. The article used to have an "external links" section but it seemed to attract too many immigration consulting services b.s. links. Deet 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Boone

I've just completed a major revision of this article, drawing upon the 20th century biographies. Major points of disagreement between historians have been noted in the text or footnotes, especially regarding the issue of history versus folklore, a central concern in Boone historiography. All comments are welcome. • Kevin (complaints?) 06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks very good. Comprehensive, intuitively organized, and clearly written. I thought the stories of dubious factuality were well-handled. If I may be nitpicky (in a Strunk and White sort of way): the last sentence of the lead ends with an "although", so the emphasis is somehow not right. Also, the middle of "American Revolution, 1775–1783" (the paragraphs chronicling his capture, escape, and trial) is narrated differently from the rest of the article -- more imperfect than perfect tense, or something. Minor points, though; I think this article is very well constructed. -- bcasterline • talk 20:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and compliments, and for fixing some wording problems yourself. I'll figure out a way to reword that last lead paragraph to improve it. Like you, I'm an advocate of Strunk & White's advice to keep each paragraph focused on a single topic.
Contrary to Strunk & White, however, the narration does shift from active voice to passive voice during Boone's captivity. The reason I did this is because Boone is acted upon rather than the actor during his captivity. So it's "Boone was captured by Blackfish", "Boone was watched", "Boone was adopted", etc. I could change these to "Blackfish captured Boone", "Shawnees watched Boone," etc., although this feels wrong to me, since Boone should be the subject in his own article, and the passive voice emphasizes his loss of freedom. But maybe I'm wrong. If anyone thinks the active voice should be maintained, speak up. • Kevin (complaints?) 03:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend switching to the active voice, but it may be merely a matter of personal preference. -- bcasterline • talk 17:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Based upon your comments, I've reshaped the last paragraph of the lead and made some verb tense changes elsewhere. The article is better because of your input. Thank you. —Kevin 15:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNA Resequencer (Stargate)

A lot have been improved since the last review. Is there anything still to be done? Thanks! --Tango 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the lead is a tad big. Maybe cut down a paragraph? American Patriot 1776 02:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good sugestion. It is a bit big. When I have more time i'll see what I can do. Tobyk777 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

what is "div class="metadata topicon"><a href="/wiki/Image:Testicles_marked.jpg" class="image" title="Image:Testicles_marked.jpg"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Testicles_marked.jpg" alt="Image:Testicles_marked.jpg" width="874" height="938" longdesc="/wiki/Image:Testicles_marked.jpg" /></a>

" this image popped up when I tried to view the japan page...the scroll ball and mouse messed up and this image came up...i found no link to it near the notes section and could not find a way to edit it out... We are trying to improve this article and eventually wish to secure FA status for it. Your valuable comments shall go a long way in improving this article and making it among the best Wikipedia has to offer. WoodElf 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I found it comprehensive and informative, with no obvious gaps. I enjoyed the later sections more as they provided a summary with just enough detail - the history and economy sections were somewhat dense, with the history section in particular employing a great number of Japanese terms that could perhaps be rendered with English equivalents (leaving the Japanese terms for the main article). Links need examining - there are some useless links (such as to Diet) and some overlinking of the same term (world power,Diet again, country names). Citations are lacking. There are sweeping statements made with nothing to back them up. I've highlighted a few and some were already tagged, but I'd advise a good run through checking for contentious statements. Harmonisation between this article and the break out articles needs to take place or the tags need removing if this has been done.The accuracy disputes obviously need resolving - I haven't looked into that in detail, but if you are having trouble resolving it and want an impartial and mostly uninformed view just ask and I'll give you my opinion. Overall though, a good read. Some more specific comments:
    • Decide whether to use "U.S." or "US"
    • "Its culture today is a mixture of outside and internal influences" -awkward phrasing after the well-written lead
    • "...characterized by a mesolithic to neolithic..." - "mesolithic to neolithic" not necessary here, you've already said it was around 10,000 BC
    • "Historians, however, believe the first emperor who actually existed was Emperor Ōjin, though the date of his reign is uncertain." - needs citation
    • Shogun would benefit from a brief explanation aside from the wikilink, as it is used extensively
    • "This has often considered to be the height of Japan's medieval culture." - citation needed
    • "The war cost millions of lives in Japan and other countries, especially in East Asia..." - does "other countries, especially in East Asia" have any relevance here? It also cost lives in Europe and Africa, so unless there is a reason for the reference to other countries it should be dropped.
    • "In academic studies, Japan is generally considered a constitutional monarchy, based largely upon..." - somewhat weaselly
    • "Although his official status is disputed, on diplomatic occasions the emperor effectively acts as the head of state." - citation needed
    • The section on Law would perhaps be better directly following the section on the Prime Minister - there is a bit of repetiton from earlier sections here which could be cut out by moving it up
    • The image of the prefectures of Japan would benefit from a key for the numbers
    • "In addition, about 3,000 smaller islands may be counted in the full extent of the archipelago." - may be, or are? If "may be" explain why (are these some of the disputed territories?)
    • "Recently, Japanese companies have begun to abandon some of these norms in an attempt to increase profitability." - citation needed
    • " There are very few countries in the world, if any, that can match Japan..." - make a decision or rephrase it
    • There is repetition between the Industrial sector and Science and technology sections
    • The Infrastructure section is somewhat cursory and with undue weight given to the the differing power transmissions
    • There are some subsections under Demographics that I don't think belong there - Health and Language - both discuss more general areas of these subjects than just the demographics
    • Is judo a traditional budo martial art? Maybe aikido or ju-jitsu would be better here, or some mention of judo as a sport.
    • "Shogi and go are popular board games." - out of place in the budo paragraph
Hope this helps. Yomanganitalk 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Yomangani for your detailed analysis. Obviously, editing the article following these suggestions will take time. Rest assured, i will definitely look into the matter. A grateful WoodElf 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel lobby in the United States

A new article on a complex subject. It would be great to get perspectives on the current state of the article from anyone but of particular value would be views from people new to the subject or who are removed from the many Israel-Palestine edit wars that go on here on Wikipedia. --Ben Houston 17:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article "Israel lobby in the United States" reads more like a muted political polemic than a detached, analytical definition of the term. It appears that the author took a list of objections to use of the term, and then disputed each of them by drawing on a body of information that appears exclusively drawn from the political hard left. The article contains far too many politicized buzzwords - they are used but not defined, refined or contextualized. The effort is unscholarly and amateurish.

The above is an unsigned comment by User:Cbakes on 15:56, September 5, 2006. Apparently, a single use account of someone else on Wikipedia? But good suggestions for improvement none the less. --Ben Houston 03:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gliding

Comments please. I would like to get this up to Featured Article standard so some fresh thinking would be appreciated especially from both experts on the subject and others. JMcC 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC) PS I am also puzzled by its indentation in the list above.

  • The article is fairly comprehensive but needs more references - large sections are completely uncited. Coupled with the widespread use of weasel words (there are lots of uses of commonly, sometimes, very, mainly etc.), this detracts from what could be an interesting article. It also appears somewhat US-centric in places (notable glider pilots in particular). There is some jargon that either needs explaining or replacing with common terms ("closed-circuit tasks" "out of station" etc.). More specific comments:
    • "Gliding is a widespread, but little publicised, activity in most developed countries despite several famous participants. " - this sentence implies that the activity is widespread despite several famous participants, so needs rephrasing. The lack of publicity is never mentioned again, so should either be dropped or expanded upon later in the article.
    • The section on bird flight in the lead is not required - the disambiguation link at the top of the article already covers this.
    • Having the recreation vs sport section before the history seems a little strange, and since half of this section covers social aspects (which presumably apply to both) the section title may need changing.
    • "There are also glider aerobatics competitions." - this could do with expansion.
    • The history section would benefit from expansion - it skips from the 1930s to the present day.
    • What happened to gliding at the Olympics?
    • "...thermals, depending on the climate and terrain, can exceed 3,000 m..." - needs to make clear whether this is the height gliders can reach in thermals or whether it is the height thermals reach.
    • The term "thermalling" is dropped in without explanation
    • "...crests of atmospheric waves..." - are these the same as mountain waves?
    • Morning Glory would benefit from at least a brief explanation here.
    • ",notably to the albatrosses..." - creeping toward explaining bird gliding
    • "However, to prevent damage to the glider while landing, the pilot should dump the water before landing." - says who?
    • "The FAI also issues diplomas for 1000 km" - is that in a single flight?
    • "Sometimes a pilot on a cross-country flight finds that the weather is not as good as expected" - this needs rephrasing.
Hope this helps Yomanganitalk 00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've had another quick look over it:
    • Refs should follow punctuation per the manual of style (you have some before and some after).
    • It could still do with some more citations (the types of lift subsections in the "Soaring" section and the "Learning to glide" section in particular).
    • History still moves rather abruptly from the 50s to the present day, but you've filled in the war and post war section nicely.
    • If you are having trouble finding non-US notables, you might consider trimming some of the US entries - the ex-news anchorman and the (although it pains me to say it about people who have performed repairs on delicate equipement in space) minor astronauts. Alternatively you could make a category, link to it and just refer to a couple of the most famous here. (I remember there was quite an extended sequence featuring Steve McQueen in a glider in the original Thomas Crown Affair - you may be able to work in some "trivia" if you take this approach). If you keep it as list, this section might sit better after the Related sports section.
Good luck. Yomanganitalk 09:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
All the above comments have been reviewed and the suggested chnages have been made, JMcC 14:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad as a diplomat

very new article. i would like to increase its exposure by putting it up for peer review, so that i can get other editors' views, criticism and comments about whatever aspect. ideally i would like to nominate the article for WP:GA once general consensus is achieved. any constructive comments would be greatly appreciated. thank you! ITAQALLAH 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I have had a look through some of the article, some comments (quick disclaimer, I can only tell you the feeling that I get from this article, because my historical knowledge of Islam is very limited):
    • You mention "Watt" a couple of times without saying who he is, and there is no relavent Wikipedia article on him.
      • Watt is linked to his WP article the first time he is mentioned (under "journey to taif" section) ITAQALLAH 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also you may need to mention any opposing views and controversies that exist. It seems to me that apart from Watt, all you other major sources are Muslim scholars. While I understand that most of the historical information would come from Islamic sources I would think there would be more "western" oppinions other than Watt.
      • the only muslim source that i have used to any significance is al-mubarakpuri - a number of other times muslim sources are used when i am providing a cite for historical documentation (such as citing the places where purported letters are documented) rather than historical analysis. the rest is largely from Watt, Martin Forward (whose credentials i note on the talk page as no WP article on him exists), the Encyclopaedia of Islam (where i primarily use Buhl's "Muhammad" article for the general events and then using more specific articles when more information is required) whom are all orientalists. that some of the articles of relevance such as aws/khazraj/hudaybiyya on EoI are written by Watt is something i can do very little about, as these are the only articles having the relevant and specific information related to the topic. the main opposing view related to the article is about the historicity of letters sent by Muhammad, where views are divergent. to my knowledge, the recollection of many other events in the article are not are source of divergence- for if they were, then EoI as a tertiary source would have mentioned where any scholarly divergence of opinions occured if any. ITAQALLAH 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:Taif 1970 Saudi Arabia.jpg is an unsourced image.
      • okay, i will check that out ITAQALLAH 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • And a great job in creating an article of this standard in such a short time!
      • thank you! and your comments on this topic are very much appreciated. ITAQALLAH 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

--Konstable 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Beruna Ford

I just nominated this article for GA status and it was failed for the lead not being written in the fictional present tense. I fixed this, and spoke to the reviewer, who suggested it was still not ready due to being too in-universe. Is this too in-universe, and if so, suggestions on how to fix it? Thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Internet

This article has been incrementaly improved since it was re-written last december. It currently has Good Article status, but has so far not yet passed featured article review. --Barberio 19:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Some comments:
    • You have quite a lot of terms which are acronyms, but a lot of the time you don't clarify what the acronyms are so the reader has to click on the wikilink to find out. Have a look at WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations for what the general style for this is. A lot of the time you do this, but some still left over, for example: DARPA, ICANN, CTSS, SDC, a whole bunch more.
    • The quote by Robert W. Taylor should probably be in the {{quote}} template. see below
    • Perhaps DNS deserves more mention in the article. Right now there is a singular mention of DNS and it's not even wikilinked.
    • (Correct me here if I got my terms crossed) I am slightly confused about the Recent trends section. It seems its more about WWW than the Internet itself. And as long as you're mentioning things like Peer-to-peer, Flickr and Wikipedia, you should really be also mentioning - online shopping, security, child pornography, censorship, etc.--Konstable 11:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Side issue: Please note that the {{quote}} template, until a few minutes ago (when I did an AWB-assisted mass update), has been used to link to Wikiquote, not, as Konstable seems to think, to format quoted text. Since this is a common misunderstanding, and since this template's original purpose has been supplanted by {{wikiquote}}, I have cleared the way for this other use by fixing all the old articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah indeed, that's not what I meant then. Well there are some templates used for quoting, and I think this quote could use one, as it is it seems to blend in with the text and just look a bit weird. Ah here they are Category:Quotation templates. --Konstable 11:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is still alphabet soup to my eyes and not yet ready for an elevation in status. I started reading it and as soon as I reached an unexplained acronym (ARPA), and this was even in a section heading, I began to switch off. Even allowing for this, many other terms are stated without any concession to non-technical readers eg packet switching. Why did it need packet switching to work? What is a logical network? Each section needs a simple introductory sentence such as: "The first networks that were accessible to the public were created in 1978 using technology known as X.25". JMcC 09:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair trade

I have worked quite extensively on this article. I would like feedback and also suggestions on what could be done to make this a featured article. Thank you for your help! Quebecois1983 21:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good article. I had some minor quibbles though. The 'Key fairtrade principles' section needs to be written in summary style (like the rest of the article). The FINE definition should probably go in the body of the text and it should just be described shortly in the lead. Right now it makes the lead very cumbersome and may scare off potential readers. Other than that, seems good.UberCryxic 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate (device)

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

[edit] Hayward Fault Zone

Need review by soils engineers and earth scientists. - Leonard G. 02:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just took a brief look at the article and it definitely needs a source to maintain verifiability. Please read this: WP:V. — Indon (reply) — 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm neither, but I will make some suggestions regarding organization:
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should probably be expanded by briefly summarizing the article's content.
  • The table of contents is extremely long. I would suggest consolidating many of the smaller sections (such as "A dangerous situation", "Fuel pipelines", "Lake Temescal", to name a few) into larger ones. Numerous small sections give the article a scattered feel, anyway.
  • "Freeways and Overcrossings" probably does not need a subsection for each paragraph.
  • Many of the section titles (such as "A related fault", "BART's exceptional conditions") are more fitting for a magazine or newspaper than an encyclopedia.
  • "Virtual tour" should be an external link, not a section of the article.
And, as Indon noted above, references are essential. -- bcasterline • talk 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Italy

old PR here. Pretty much entirely written by Jeffmatt and I. I think it's pretty good, but could maybe using some polishing. It is very large, but this is a really major topic. I am too close to the text right now to do the kind of editing it needs (and Jeffmatt probably is too), so please point to areas you think are bloated. Tuf-Kat 00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's listed as an article with "invalid ISBNs" in the references, I guess. The "Instrumentation" subsection of Folk music has quite a few redlinks, something should be done about those. -Fsotrain09 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It is possible to blue-stub all of those red links, I suppose, but I am wondering whether it is not a better idea to simply unlink them, since they are just dialect words for the instruments mentioned in the same sentences. I saw the invalid ISBN note. A slip of the finger produces bad numbers, I know. I guess I can check them one at a time. Jeffmatt 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If they are dialect for the instruments, they could become redirects. That's a nice middle ground, IMO. -Fsotrain09 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thanks again. I have just linked about six or seven of those items to new music stubs--short but sufficient for the moment. I fudged on two or three others by rephrasing the sentences along the lines of "...bagpipe, called by different dialect names such as...etc...etc...". Anyway, the red links are gone. ISBN numbers....Is there such as thing as an ISBN reverse look-up? You type the number and the name of the book pops up? I bet the Feds have something like that! Call Jack Bauer. Jeffmatt 14:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on a jazz article to clear out that last red link in the infobox. Jeffmatt 06:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That's done--at least a stub at Italian jazz. Jeffmatt 12:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

This article has all the key areas videogame articles are expected to have, and references them extensively. Save for a copyedit and other minor issues, this article is, in my opinion, ready for an FAC. I'm requesting a peer review because it can't hurt to get a few outside opinions before running the gauntlet. -- Steel 14:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Lemme first just say this is fan-fucking-tasticly cited. Kudos. But you wanted critiques, so here ya go. I think that MGS3:S needs to be put back as its own article with a summary of the branch from the trunk article MGS3. I saw discussion of it on the talk page, but i think it's just too long. Secondly, like MGS2, there were many honorifics to other games/movies/etc to other areas in MGS3. Not really in a 'Trivia' section like way (look up in Locker X to see a almost nude poster, lol!!!1!), but maybe some big ones (eg James Bond) to show the depth of the game. Perhaps like MGS2's article, but not as long, an annotated 'Cast' section w/credits to voiceactors in english/japanese. A spoiler tag for the Characters/Story section (story section is too long by the way). A link directly to its game trailer somewhere, prominently placed. Also, given its very warm reception as a game, im guessing there are more Awards out there for it. This section should perhaps be a little more list like as well; one usually skims plaudits. If you have any other questions/comments use muh talk page. JoeSmack Talk 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Just covered up some swear words in the above review. Aquaspoon 07:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just uncovered them again, Wikipedia is not censored for minors. We can fuck and shit as much as we like. -- Steel 10:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks much for the suggestions. I do, however, disagree with some of your points, but I'm happy to discuss them. The Subsistence section is, IMO, not that long. It's only a few paragraphs and is quite suited to the end of Snake Eater's article. Mentioning homages to other games is borderline original research, but the James Bond stuff may be worth mentioning in the development section, and I seem to remember reading something on that which can be used as a source. I'm not too big on that Cast section idea, but as a compromise we could have the voice actor in brackets the first time their character is mentioned in the article? Spoiler tags are only a style guideline (and a disputed one at that, there's a RfC on them somewhere) and it's obvious there are going to be spoilers in the story section. Compared with FFX or FFVII, the story isn't too long, though if there's anything you think is trivial and doesn't need a mention, then I'm all ears. A game trailer could well go in the external links section. Awards could probably be expanded, but should stay as prose, not a list.
And thanks for the compliment about references, I single handedly referenced the entire article (I think there's only one ref that wasn't added by me). There's still some cite needed tags left to deal with though. -- Steel 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey rumor has it that others disagree with some of my points too. Don't sweat it. :) I'm pretty sure they shine on about homages to other games somewheres; i don't read dev diaries or anything regularly for MGS3, but somehow it got into my head. Your suggestion for adding voiceactors in brackets sounds lovely. I suppose spoiler tags aren't required...but do they look that ugly? Anyways, your discression. As per the story section length, i just think that John Q. Public (er, me so to speak) isn't really after the novel but the article. if you shaved two paragraphs it'd be perfect. In this way i think the MGS3:S should have its own article - it's actually 5 pargraphs with a subsection and two images. My thoughts were: if it's big enough to have its own article it should have its own article. I don't see that hurting the prose of MGS3, and i think 'Awards' makes a fitting conclusion. oh, and twas me who doubled the ref's into columns. it was a real lifesaver over at AIDS when we were working on making the article seem less lengthy; it would turn two pages of refs into one for you. JoeSmack Talk 06:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I still think Subsistence is better off in this article, and there was pretty much unanimous support for it on the talk page a while ago. As for the story, I actually think the current length is perfect, especially considering what it used to be like. We are writing an encyclopedia, after all, not a back cover blurb or brief synopsis. As I said, I seem to rememeber reading something about 1960s James Bond movies, so I'll hunt for that. I personally hate two column refs, they look ugly and only shorten the article when the refs are less than half the length of the page, which they're not (think about it). -- Steel 11:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is very well researched and thoroughly sourced. However, it does have some issues. To begin with, I want to emphasize that the article is going to need some very thorough copyediting before you try FAC. Now, some issues I noted:
  • The article makes no mention of the game's reliance on cut scenes. Whether in relation to the rest of the series, or in general, this is something that needs to be made note of. The lead would be perfect for this.
  • Noted, and will be dealt with. Not sure how this was overlooked. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Plot section is unevenly detailed—it is heavily detailed up until "After numerous encounters with the elite Ocelot Unit...", at which point it summarizes most of the game's events in a sentence or so. After this, it goes back into extremely high detail. Also, my memory might be failing me, but I believe Snake finds out about the Philosophers well before he returns to the facility, necessitating the moving of some information. Again, I can't be sure, but you should double check that with a reliable source.
  • Is this really an issue?. The detailed beginning and ends is because there's a lot of story that needs to be told in those sections. This is in contrast to the middle of the game where not an awful lot of story is told, despite Snake going through caves, forests and mountains during this period. I'll double check this philosophers business, you may be right. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A special limited edition CD was given away to those who preordered the Japanese version of Snake Eater. Several songs from the game's soundtrack were included on the CD, as well as additional camouflage for the main game and computer screensavers. - this might be covered in reference #32, but either way, it should be cited.
  • The next sentence continues listing what's in the pre-order package, and cites everything there. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • He stated that the jungle setting is what both his development team, and the Metal Gear fans, wanted. However, he acknowledged that the elements of the jungle environment, such as the weather, landscape and wildlife, were features that would present problems and would have to be tackled during the game's development. - I am unsure whether or not this is cited through reference #34, but either way, both of these sentences could use citations.
  • See here and my comment below. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • He did, however, acknowledge that the current trend for videogames is to use the 3D camera. - could use a citation.
  • See here and my comment below. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This battle of attrition can last for hours, and contrasts with other boss fights in which the enemy is right in front of the player and in view the whole time. - this contains some original research that necessitates the minor rewrite and citation of the sentence.
  • I think there's a source for this somewhere - will have to check. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The player has the ability to avoid this boss battle altogether by killing The End earlier in the game. - needs a source.
  • See here and my comment below. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • ...a distinctly Bondish vocal track... - original research. Needs rewriting to incorporate a reliable source.
  • Fair enough, I think there's a source somewhere. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • He liked the song "Way To Fall" and chose it as an ending theme. - needs a source.
  • I think the majority of the second paragraph in Audio may have to go, unless there's an official translation of Kojima's blog around, which there probably isn't and may be hard to find if there is. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: I found his blog[16], but there looks to be quite a lot of entries. I'm quite happy to go through them all though if necessary. -- Steel 14:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of reception seems a bit POV to me—take, for example, "...with less of the "philosophical babble" present in Sons of Liberty." The use of quotation marks here look like scare quotes more than the direct quote of someone else, which suggests that the article is asserting this as fact. Also, "Although this is considerably lower than Metal Gear Solid 2, which has sold almost 5.6 million copies to date, fans were pleased to be playing as Naked Snake, who strongly resembles the series protagonist Solid Snake, after being disappointed by Raiden in most of MGS2," is written in a POV style. Clearly not every fan was disappointed, and not every fan liked the return to a Snake-style character, though it is written to suggest these things. Could be rewritten to something like "While this was considerably lower than Metal Gear Solid 2, which has sold nearly 5.6 million copies to date, many fans who were disappointed by playing as Raiden for the majority of MGS2 were pleased to be playing as Naked Snake, who strongly resembles the series protagonist Solid Snake." I didn't put a whole lot of thought into that one, so you should probably not just copy and paste it.
  • Fair enough. Will be dealt with. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We've got two sources - one saying "after the poor reaction Raiden received in MGS2", the other saying that (paraphrased because I forget what it says exactly) "One of MGS2's major flaws was that Snake disappears an hour into the game". I'll rewrite it so it's closer to what the refs say. -- Steel 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As noted above, Awards could probably be expanded a bit.
  • Fair enough. Will be dealt with. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
*The external jump present in "(This website is now publicly available.)" needs to be converted into a citation.
  • Fair enough. Will be dealt with. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all I can think of. Great work so far. JimmyBlackwing 13:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick reply for now, everything in the Development section is sourced. I just had a feeling someone would moan if I used the same source to reference three/four consecutive sentences with the same source. And yes, there are a few cite needed tags which need sorting out. I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make with the "philosophical babble" issue (because it is a direct quote of the review cited at the end of that sentence), so it would be great if you could expand on that. -- Steel 13:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I didn't word it very well to begin with, so here's a better explanation of what I meant:
  • "Fans, as well as some critics, who also found MGS2's lengthy dialogues and multitude of plot twists detrimental to the game experience[46] found MGS3's storyline a pleasing throwback to the original Metal Gear Solid, with less of the "philosophical babble" present in Sons of Liberty.[12]" The wording of this sentence makes it look like the quotation marks around "philosophical babble" are scare quotes, instead of indicating a direct quote from the source. An example of how this could be resolved would be something like "[source] found MGS2's lengthy dialogues and multitude of plot twists detrimental to the game experience. [source 2] called MGS3's storyline a 'pleasing throwback to the original Metal Gear Solid,' with 'less of the philosophical babble present in Sons of Liberty.'" Again, it's definitely not copy-and-paste material, but I hope that conveys the general idea of what I meant. JimmyBlackwing 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What if ref 12 was moved forward slightly so it's right after the quotation? -- Steel 14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that I consider it, that would probably work, too. Go ahead and do that—it makes my proposed rewrite seem clumsy and unnecessary. JimmyBlackwing 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm aware of the article is in desperate need of a copyedit. I've asked a few people to run through it when they have time. -- Steel 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minstrel show

I expanded this article about a year ago with a lot of help from other users (particularly Jmabel and Deeceevoice). It was listed as a Good Article later, and I have finally turned my attentions back to it to polish it up for a WP:FAC run. Someone on the talk page is complaining about the terminology used (is the appropriate term blacks or African Americans or negroes), but I don't think this is a real problem. At any rate, any comments are welcome, particularly regarding what should be done to put the finishing touches on it for FAC. Thanks. — BrianSmithson 11:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Just a note. The terms blacks and African Americans are both acceptable and are used in historiography; just pick one and be consistent. American has nothing to do with citizenship or civil rights, but place of birth. Negro is no longer used or considered acceptable, unless you are quoting directly from a source. Dmoon1 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's what I thought. Per comments on the talk page, though, I've made it so that African American is only used for free blacks (before or after the Civil War). Thanks for your comments. — BrianSmithson 09:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Is there mention of the Golliwogg in the article? I know it was influenced by the minstrel show, but am unsure if it could fit anywhere or is notable for inclusion. The "Legacy" section seems like a fitting place to mention the Golliwog if one wished to do so. LuciferMorgan 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Golliwogg is mentioned in blackface, which deals more with the racist iconography from the minstrel show. The minstrel show article is more concerned with the theatrical side of things. — BrianSmithson 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok thanks, all round a good article. LuciferMorgan 13:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-metal

I'm most curious as to just how informative and interesting the article is to those uninitiated in metal or avant-garde music. Seeing as I wrote three quarters of it I think it's genius. But if there are any issues, I'd be grateful to hear them! Seegoon 16:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this genre of music, but here are my thoughts:
  • Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should be more of a summary -- probably shorter, and without facts not presented below it. I would keep the first paragraph, and, with the next two, make a separate section discussing exemplary post-metal bands or artists.
  • The prose needs some work. "It could be argued...", for example, is fairly weasely. Two examples of other expressions to avoid: "It is Isis who are..." and "what this indicates is..." (in favor of simply "Isis are" and "this indicates").
  • More on origins and influences?
  • The criticism section is unclear.
In general: more references. Your description of the genre's characterisitcs might be genius, but, being completely ignorant myself, I'd like to see some sources verify it. :) -- bcasterline • talk 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've made a significant edit in reaction to what you've suggested. I've tried to "de-weasel" some weak phrasing, added several references and quotes and altered the structure slightly. Does this improve upon the article or have I butchered it? Thanks for your contribution. Seegoon 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Good work. In my opinion, much improved. -- bcasterline • talk 17:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star

A prior peer review is available at archive1.

This article is a twice-failed FAC. However I believe that the concerns that were raised during the FACs have been addressed. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a close look at this article and see if you can spot anything else that might hinder a third FAC attempt. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some notes — I wrote this while reading random parts of the article, so they're not in order:

  • The disambiguation link problem I mentioned in the FAC was not a reference to the OtherUses-style templates, which is fine; I was talking about wikilinks in the article text that lead to disambiguation pages. Check the links in the article and change any reroute link to disambiguation pages to the correct article.
    • I just went through nearly every wiki-link in the article and addressed the disambiguation links. So I think that's done. — RJH (talk)
  • The "Dimensions" section may be misnamed. As a layperson, I would assume that the dimensions of a star would be the radius, circumference, volume, etc. Is luminosity typically referred to as a dimension of a star or would "characteristic" be a better term?
    • I changed it to "Units of measurements". Sorry, I'm used to thinking of dimensions in terms other than length. — RJH (talk)
      • I've also used dimensions in that sense, just looking out for the casual reader. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Dimensions" section is rather short - I would expect such a section to include information about typical or mean star sizes, but star size seems to be covered in a later section. Related information like this should be gathered in one place.
    • This section was deliberately intended to clarify the units of measurement before any discussion of star masses, radii, and so forth. I wanted to get that out of the way before hitting the heart of the article, so there would be no confusion. I'd really prefer that this not be all-encompassing section on star sizes. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Now that the section is called "Units of measurement", I don't think this is a problem. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Solar radius is denoted with a capital R, but the solar radius article uses a lowercase r; which is correct?
  • I notice both "kilometer" and "kilometre" being used in the article.
    • They're all kilometre now. — RJH (talk)
  • Star formation occurs in molecular clouds, ... and then three sentences later: Star formation begins with gravitational instability inside a molecular cloud, ...
    • I tweaked the text slightly. Otherwise I'm unclear about the concern. The first was an introductory paragraph to the section. The second paragraph is the actual mechanics. What is preferable? — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It's better now. It's a little jarring to the reader to encounter such a similar phrase that close together, as the reader may not realize that the introductory paragraph overlaps with the next section. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The measurement "Gyr" is used - clicking on this link takes me to the article on year. I can deduce that Gyr stands for gigayear, but the year article does not mention gigayear. This is more of a problem with the year article, but it still confuses the average reader who most likely has not encountered gigayears often.
    • The Gyr was removed yesterday. I have a problem with the use of the word billion, which has an ambiguity. But apparently that's not an issue for others. So the article just uses billion consistently now. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The duration that a star spends on the main sequence depends primarily on the amount of fuel it has to burn and the rate at which it burns that fuel. In other words, its mass and luminosity. - This sentence tells me thatm for stars, mass=amount of fuel. However, iron contributes to the mass of a star and is not fuel.
    • When the star is first formed, the iron content is negligible. Iron is created as the very last product of the life cycle, and only after the star has left the main sequence. So yes, the statement is true. I'm not clear why it is an issue. — RJH (talk)
      • Now that you've clarified "initial mass", this makes more sense. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Well really it's roughly the same amount of mass anyway, only converted into different elements. There is some mass loss due to the stellar wind, particularly in massive stars, and a tiny fraction of the overall mass is converted into energy. But I'm glad the rewording works for you. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The process of stars creating heavier metals seems to be covered twice.
    • Yes. I think it is appropriate that the "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways" section also covers the specific nuclear reactions. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not too crazy about covering it twice, but it may be the best way given the different treatments. This will probably be ok with the addition of a link, I'll look into that in a second. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mass can also be measured directly for stars in binary systems or through microlensing. - This sentence is a little confused.
    • I attempted to clarify the text. — RJH (talk)
  • Eruptive variables that experience sudden increases in luminosity because of flares or mass ejection events. - Where is the verb in this sentence?
    • I tweaked the text slightly.
Pagrashtak 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough review! — RJH (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cerro Maravilla Incident

I'm nominating this article to find independent review and evaluation. I've reworked it twice, providing more and more references each time. However, this article is subject to various debates due to the sensitivity of the issues. Please help by offering suggestions... Thanks!! - Mtmelendez 21:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks very good. Some points:
  • The lead should be expanded somewhat per WP:LEAD -- briefly summarize the investigations, the aftermath, and the legacy.
  • Toward the end of "The second investigations": "New evidence would turn up against the police officers responsible for the killings,..." Like what?
  • "Undercover agent acquitted, murdered" reads like a newspaper headline, but maybe that's fine.
After expanding the lead, I would consider WP:GAC. -- bcasterline • talk 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secretaría de Inteligencia

This article is already marked as a Wikipedia:Good Article. We need to improve it in checking that all the sources are there, that the layout of the page is simple and efficient, the images relevant, and the wording precise and elegant. Such a great article should become an A-Class or an Featured Article --San Marcos 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a marvelous article, but it still needs a good deal of improvement before it can become a FA.
  • There are a number of sections containing lists. (i.e. Objectives, Subjects of Interest, Structure) These sections should be in prose, additionally, you may consider explaining some of the items.
  • The article is littered with short and one-sentence paragraphs, these should be merged or added to.
  • The "See Also" section should be merged into the article unless the items are already linked.
*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitney Joins The JAMs

This article about a Justified Ancients of Mu-Mu (KLF) song is already a Good Article. WikiProject The KLF invite and would welcome your comments on how this article can be improved. Please point out anything which would prevent this article from becoming a Featured Article. Thank you in advance. --kingboyk 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bionicle: Mask of Light

  • This article attained GA status last month, and I am eager to improve it to A status, perhaps get it near or even to FA status. What separates this article from Wikipedias best? Thanks! Judgesurreal777 04:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it has the makings of a good article, as it has a good use of inline citations and a decent structure, but I found it unbalanced and not comprehensive. It also needs copyediting for style ("he's too much of a wimp" for example, doesn't have a very encylopedic tone).
    • The plot section is far too long - it should be a summary, not a blow-by-blow account of every scene.
    • It needs a section on the characters. This is currently interwoven with the plot section and makes it difficult to read as well as increasing its length still further
    • The production section covers immediate pre-production only. It needs information on earlier pre-production, production and post-production.
    • I assume the film is CG animation, but the only clue is in the accompanying images.
    • Some of the information is disconnected, assuming a familiarity with the subject:For the design, Shakespeare noted that "The first film had primary colors that were coded to the areas and a younger feel.". Coded to the areas? What does that mean?
Hope this helps. Yomanganitalk 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witchfinder General (film)

I've been working on this article for some time, and I think it is now ready for the peer review process. Please feel free to make any suggestions that could possibly help make this a Featured Article.Hal Raglan 02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a very thorough well-structured article. Good work, as usual. The one thing you might want to do is work on either removing the redlinks or creating articles for them. --Myles Long 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! As you suggested, I've removed the offending redlinks.Hal Raglan 03:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a movie I've been meaning to see. I found the article very informative, and congratulations on the FA status! Шизомби 03:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compact Cassette

Just looking for suggestions for improvement before sending this to FA. I think it's well-sourced, the pictures are relevant, and it's reasonably comprehensive. Any input is appreciated. Thanks - Kafziel 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good article. The final three sections look unfinished: undercited with short choppy paragraphs. The material seems to be there - it just needs a polish. For what it's worth, in German the loanword die Cassette is unusual in being feminine (most loanwords are neuter). Durova 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done some copyediting, added some pictures and citations. Could still use polishing, but I think it's much improved. Thanks for the suggestions. Kafziel 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The picture with the write protect tabs (with four cassettes shown) should explain that removing the tab will prohibit writing, whereas the normal position (with the tabs in place) will allow writing. The text in the "Write-protection" section explains it properly, but the picture is misleading. Also, the sentence "Pioneer's angled cassette bay and the exposed bays of some Sansui models, they were eventually standardized as a front-loading door into which a cassette would be loaded." is confusing. The first clause appears to be a sentence fragment that doesn't make sense to me. Also, the Walkman is mentioned in three or four different places; maybe those references could be unified. Other than that, the article is interesting, informative, and thorough, so you're well on your way. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Done, done, and done. The walkman is now only mentioned once in the "history" section and once in the "players" section. Thanks for the input, and for the typo fixes you made yourself. Always helps to have another set of eyes. Kafziel 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussion from 29/07/2006

[edit] The Picture of Dorian Gray

I have substantially edited this article, and tried to make it adhere to the guidlines set out in the Wikinovels project. I am looking for constructive responses, specifically those that deal with how this article can become an FA. Thanks very much -Adasta- 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've just passed the article for GA, and have left a list of suggestions as to how the article can be improved on the article's talk page. Moreschi 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are several places where I dislike the style, especially the plot summary. This should be a rundown of the progression of the plot without including the styling of the actual text. I would rather see shorter summaries of other stories, like the Japanese one. But my main problem is one of ommission. Nowhere is the significance of Wilde's revisions to the second edition mentioned. There changes were used in his criminal trial to show his intentions of corrupting young men. Also I believe there were some remarks in the preface to the second edition that were also used in this manner. I will have to look up a source later but this aspect of the topic is of high encyclopedic value. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Telecaster players

I would like this list to be reviewed prior to nomination as a featured list. Please comment on how well the list fulfills the criteria for featured list status and make suggestions for improvement. Thankyou. Rohirok 01:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions:
  1. Include some more pictures. I would include pictures of the one or two most notable artists in each alphabetical group.
  2. Since they're alphabetized by last name, put the last names first. Makes for easier navigation.
  3. Reword some of the more colorful phraseology -- for example, "Steve Cropper (b. 1941) could only create his spare, crisp rhythm work..."
I wonder if a list like this (which requires subjective judgement) can ever be NPOV. Aside from that, though, seems to be a good list. -- bcasterline • talk 03:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish Civil War

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)

[edit] Norfolk Island

I'm probably a bit biased, since I came to this article when it was either a stub or just above it and I've watched it grow ever since, so I'd be very interested in any or all suggestions which the wider public can give for improvement. I obviously can't guarantee they'll all be acted upon, but I'll certainly do what I can based on what everyone says, and hopefully it'll give some more direction to an article on a really lovely part of the world. Hallmark moments over, the floor is open. BigHaz Schreit mich an 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good article overall. Some general observations would be to expand the lead (two paragraphs are fine, but just beef them up) and divide the material under the 'References' section into two sections, one 'References' (listing what sources were used) and the other 'Notes' (with the in-line citations from those sources). For an article this size, there should probably be more in-line citations. Also, get rid of some of those redlinks (or create articles for them if you deem them to be notable). And the prose needs some help. I'd suggest doing a copyedit yourself and then asking someone else to check it again. But again, good job in the final analysis.UberCryxic 01:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
So "references" is just "a list of everything used in creating the article" and "notes" is "the specific pages, etc"? Thanks for that. I'd honestly never known quite where the dividing line was here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
My notes:
  • The introduction should be somewhat expanded per WP:LEAD -- briefly summaraize the article.
  • "First penal settlement" might be overly detailed, especially as regards quotations. I would replace, e.g.,

Manning Clark observed that "at first the convicts behaved well, but as more arrived from Sydney Cove, they renewed their wicked practices". These included an attempted overthrow of King in January 1789 by convicts described by Margaret Hazzard as "incorrigible rogues who took his 'goodwill' for weakness".

with something more to point, such as

As Manning Clark observed, the convicts' behavior soon became problematic. In January 1789, they attempted to overthrow King.

  • Same for "Second penal settlement". I would get rid of most of the quotations, especially considering they are unreferenced. Some of the paragraphs cover overlapping issues and could be consolidated.
  • "Politics" reads like a list and overlaps with the preceding section ("20th century").
  • "Crime" and "Culture" are very short.
The quality degrades toward the end of the article -- many of the last sections are just collections of assorted facts. Comprehensive, though. -- bcasterline • talk 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"Crime"'s short for the simple reason that there really is that little to write about. Still, the Patton case has been committed to trial, so there'll probably be at least a few more words to add as that develops. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 04:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A section on the island's ecology wouldn't be amiss, from the Pine to the several species that have gone extinct from the island. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "History" post-1856 should be of equal weight/length.
  • "Flora & Fauna" would make an interesting section.
  • With regards to "references", when dealing with a small island community, you have to be vary wary. Encyclopedia Brittanica refused to update information regarding the non-existance of bats on the island, because of an obscure reference in a book written in the 60's. Inspite of the fact that 1) No islander has seen a bat for more than 30 years. 2) Australian Parks and Wildlife Services officials confirm that no bats had been seen on the island during this space of time.

The sentences of the article should be presented in proper paragraphs, containing and defining related information, as opposed to this detestable internet-news habit of having one sentence per paragraph. (See BBC News and SMH.com.au for how to drive a sane reader potty.)

[edit] Brethren of Purity

I split this article out from the main article, Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, and I'd like comments. Does the article contradict itself? (It's been evolving over a long period of time, with sources coming and going). Is it comprehensible to someone other than me the author? Does it read well? Are there things it glosses over or omits which are readily apparent? etc. --maru (talk) contribs 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Several points:
  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. It provides context, but does not summarize. Information on the meetings probably belongs elsewhere.
  • The date given: do you mean 900s (the decade) or 10th century?
  • Extended remarks in parathenses make for more difficult reading.
  • What does "but it was evidence at second-hand until..." (under the quotation in "Identities") mean?
Otherwise: seems comprehensive and impressively well-referenced. -- bcasterline • talk 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Have I addressed your concerns? --maru (talk) contribs 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes; looks good. I'd also prefer changing the quotations from italics to normal font, and maybe using one of the quotation templates, but that might just be my personal preference. To answer some of your original questions: It's not light reading, but I think that's mostly because it's an esoteric subject -- not really a criticism. -- bcasterline • talk 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
A wish easily granted. (And don't I know it's esoteric!) --maru (talk) contribs 01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohemian Rhapsody

Review for "featured article" criteria.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 00:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great song. My comments on the article:
  • In the intro: "world's biggest bands" = "world's most popular bands" ?
  • The second paragraph of "Recording" mixes various tenses and is generally poorly worded.
  • "...but declares that he "need[s] no sympathy" because nothing matters." I thought he says he needs no sympathy because he's "easy come, easy go". No?
    • easy come, easy go is something that you say in order to describe someone who thinks that everything is easy to achieve, and who therefore does not worry about anything.
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy
Because I'm easy come, easy go
A little high, little low
Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me
— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 03:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that's different than "because nothing matters": he needs no sympathy because he doesn't care, not because nothing matters. Maybe I'm splitting hairs... -- bcasterline • talk 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some explanation or context for the lyrical allusions in the Opera would be nice.
  • "This was a very small sum compared to the multi-million dollar industry music videos have become" commentary seems out of place to me.
  • The section "Promotional video" would benefit from some more inline citations, especially:
    • "It was created for the sole purpose of allowing the band to be on tour and appear "live" on the BBC's Top of the Pops."
    • "The "Bohemian Rhapsody" video is often cited as "the first ever music promo video.""
  • The section "Live performances" has a lot of awkward wording -- for example, the sentence beginning "During the Jazz and Live Killers tours..."
  • I'm not a huge fan of lists of trivia, and I think most of that information can be added elsewhere. (The first point is especially interesting.)
Otherwise looks pretty good. -- bcasterline • talk 02:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roni Stoneman

I have added an info box to the entry but would like to know how I can make this article more interesting and more informational. I am mainly interested in the opinions of those who are either involved or have an interest in either bluegrass or country music and also those who may have an involvement or an interest in the television show "Hee Haw".Terrillwhite 11:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is nicely written, but is quite short and a good portion of it is about Roni's dad. I'd like to see the information on Roni be better developed. For example:
  • Were her musical skills taught by her father, or did she receive formal training?
  • How did she come to join the Hee-Haw cast? Did she have prior experience, or was this her first part?
  • Is she married? Does she have a family?
  • Could you capture the role of Ida Lee Nagger in a little more depth for those who have not seen the show (but who may be curious)?
  • Does she have a unique musical style, such as a particular banjo technique? What is her singing range?
The article is in serious need of references, and there are a few more terms that could be linked. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Chicago

We are considering nominating this article as a FA. What issues must be addressed prior to a nomination? Inconsistencies in the article's intended neutral point of view may exist, so please list any that are found. -- mcshadypl TC 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

An archived peer review is available at: Archive 1

Could the infoboxes at the bottom of the page be reduced, to make it appear less cluttered? I don't mean deletion, I mean giving them a "hide" or "show" option in their respective top corners. Seegoon 14:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The four infoboxes do take up more than an entire page. I will try to find out how to apply a hide/show option onto them. Otherwise, I think it will be best to eliminate the "Chicago" infobox and possibly modify the "University of Chicago" one in order to make it appear smaller. Thanks for your input. -- mcshadypl TC 16:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove the Image Gallery. It doesn't add anything to the article. Also, it would be good to find a better-quality replacement for Image:Harper Midway.JPG. NatusRoma | Talk 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you need a more substantial history. The history section now just seems to highlight a few notable events in university history, and then towards the end it begins to break them down by year. You go from the founding of the school in 1892 to 1947. Did nothing happen in between these years that was important? Look at Duke University's history and Cornell. Maybe a seperate history of U of C article all together.
  • Change overview to campus, as that is what it seems to cover.
  • You might want to move the alumni section down towards the bottom to follow the patterns set by previous universities that made FA status.
  • Make Divisions and Schools into Academics. This will again follow the style of other FA's. But it also sums up what you are talking about. Or make D and S a subsection of Academics.
  • Change sports and traditions to Athletics. Move the traditions and other related info to a new Student Life section.

These are basically all changes to cleanup a little and duplicate the format of articles that have made it throught the FA process. I would suggest studying other universities that are FA and seeing how they are setup. KnightLago 03:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the input on this article. These are great suggestions for the article and will considerably improve it. Any other recommendations for improving its quality are always welcome. -- mcshadypl TC 00:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Man-Thing

I have worked very hard revising this article, and would like to know what to do to bring it up to feature calibre. --Scottandrewhutchins 02:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not bad, but the "Origins" and "Man-thing in comics" assume a familiarity with the material. That can be corrected to some extent by lessening the use of pronouns - spell out what is being referred to. References are few and far between - this isn't bad when you are discussing appearences in the comics, but for claims such as "sometimes erroneously said to be a reprint" or "The Man-Thing has often been described as Marvel's attempt to imitate the similar and more famous DC Comics character Swamp Thing, but this is unlikely" you do need them. A few more images would help and I think a section on critical reaction would add interest. We also don't know the current state of the character.

    Personally I would bring the comparison between Man-Thing and Swamp-Thing up to the top. There are references to it almost immediately which break the flow of the article and could be removed if the topic had been covered. Dealing with this in the Origins section would not be out of place. I think you also have to decide whther you are dealing with the Man-Thing comic or the Man-Thing character in comics. The majority of the article concentrates on the character but there are sections that deal with the comic when the charcter is not involved.

    Some more specific comments:

    • it moved been past and present tenses in the comics section - I've tried to move it all to past tense, but it will be worth a check over.
    • "and featured in various Marvel Comics titles, the most prominent of which was written by Steve Gerber." - and the title of the most prominent is? Man-Thing I assume?
    • "...written by Len Wein before his creation of the continuing Swamp Thing, Alec Holland. (The Swamp Thing that appeared a month after Savage Tales #1 was Alex Olsen, whose origin was not very similar to Man-Thing's.)" - difficult to understand and assumes a familiarity with Swamp Thing. I'd stay away from over connection with Swamp Thing in this section as I mentioned above
    • "Issues #15-20..." the rest of this section has little to do with Man-Thing
    • "(led by Jennifer Kale's father, Joshua; Gerber would feature more of Zhered-Na in his "Tales of Atlantis" stories in Sub-Mariner)" - this is awkward, but the whole phrase will need recasting to solve it.
    • Did the Fear series end at #19 or just Man-Things appearances in it? This isn't clear.
    • Everything after "Black Widow" in this paragraph appears irrelevant. We don't need to know about other unconnected characters or Steve Gerber's life after Man-Thing. If it has some connection to Man-Thing it needs explaining
    • "In Man-Thing #7, reality set in"...make it clear whether this is an in-universe reality or "real" reality. Did it reflect current events in the real world or is it a plot device?
    • "whose father sought to kill the current occupant of his shack" - is that Man-Thing? We don't know where he lives.
    • "...rampage as a Mad Viking..." - is a Mad Viking something we should recognize?
    • "Dani Nicolle, his sister, has her sensations on overload and must project them into objects called Nightmare Boxes." - either expand this or drop it - it currently has no connection to the rest of the paragraph
    • "Gerber decided he had to move on to other things" - make it clear whether this is the in-universe Gerber (we know the real Gerber does, but does his counterpart?)
    • "A series of plot holes lead to the end of the project" - this doesn't make much sense as it mixes real events with the storyline of the comic
    • I found the first paragraph of the Chris Claremont section very difficult to follow. It isn't clear in which series or issue the supernatural creatures appear, and nor is it clear whether "Tom Peyer's revival of the character" refers to Man-Thing or D'Spayre. Is Man-Thing destroyed when he combusts?
    • Combining the comic spin-offs and film sections into a "Spin-offs" section might be better than leaving the two line film reference in a section of its own.
Hope this helps, Yomanganitalk 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird Mystery Tales

I need some help with the table page. I've been to the table page and it's not helping. IEach issue has four eatures that need to be kept stright in terms of the credits. I tried bulleting and colons and all the jazz that normally works on Wikipedia, and couldn't fugure out why it wasn't working from Wikipedia:Table. I still can't fugure out why one bullet is displaying while the rest are appearing as ordinary asterisks. --Scottandrewhutchins 02:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't really be here (although I'm not sure where it should be), but in any case, I've fixed it up for you. Hope you like it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Please make sure I haven't screwed up any of the details, when I was reformatting. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the ones you did. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxer Rebellion

I think the article as it is right now, reads extremely well and it should be on its way to FA! It may need a NPOV brush and a better elaboration of both the chinese and foreign points of view, but overall i think this turkey's roasted! Project2501a 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On its way to FA yes, in a sense, but it still needs a lot of work before it gets there. Some of the followings things need to be improved:
  • Expand the lead. Right now it's just one paragraph and it would help if it was at least two for FA status. My suggestion would be to go a little more in depth as to why the rebellion started. You could also talk about some of the leaders.
  • In-line citations in large numbers are a must in order for an article to reach FA. Right now this article has two, which is insufficient. For an article of this length, about 30-40 would be appropriate. Try to get some reliable and prestigious sources too (printed material is generally better than internet sites).
  • There are some major prose issues. I identified several run-on sentences and a variety of grammatical errors. Ask someone to give this a thorough copyedit.UberCryxic 04:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fray (band)

I've worked on this article quite a bit since I came across it [17]. I'm hoping the bring this page up at least to GA status, but I've never been an expert at prose. Keep in mind that information on the band is pretty limited, since their first album only came out less than a year ago. I appreciate the help! Teemu08 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting so long. I read over the article and made some minor copyedits, but I think it's good enough to nominate for a GA. The only sentence that bothers me is: "For the next twelve weeks, the song was ranked higher than the week before, and two weeks later it reached its peak position at #8 on the Hot 100 chart." It makes sense, sort of, but it's horrible grammar, and I wasn't sure how to correct it. Anyway, good luck with the GA nomination! Eilicea 14:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and the copy-edit. I re-wrote that sentence so that it didn't sound so awkward. Teemu08 21:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Espionage in ancient India

Please let me know the points to improve the article Legaleagle86 15:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)legaleagle86

This article appears to have been copied verbatim from [18]. I have tagged it as a copyright violation. You may feel free to restart the article afresh at the article's temp page, and I hope that you do, because this looks like a really interesting topic. NatusRoma | Talk 19:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Dan Tucker

I just expanded this article from a stub and would like feedback, particularly from those who know about music and musicology. Does the article flow correctly? What needs to be done before it is ready for WP:FAC? Thanks, — BrianSmithson 08:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auto peer review

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

  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per 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]
  • 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.”
    • Fixed. — BrianSmithson 06:04, 18 September 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]
  • 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. [5]
    • Copy edited the best I can. — BrianSmithson 06:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, BrianSmithson 05:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verity Lambert

I've done quite a bit of work on this recently, expanding and adding citations and references and so forth. It's probably too short and lacking illustration for a shot at featured article status at this time, but I'd like to get it to that level at some point so any advice and comments people have would be most welcome, particularly on areas you think could be expanded upon. Angmering 17:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auto peer review

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.
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • 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 14 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.”
  • 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. [5]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, BrianSmithson 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for these notes. I have added the Persondata tagging; removed linked dates (aside from those in the references and the one for her date of birth); I have also gone through and tried to pick out unnecessary redundancies, where I can spot them. Angmering 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Recently I was impressed with the Featured Article for The Simpsons, and in the past few days have made a few rearrangements to the article Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the hope that it might be on its way to becoming a Featured Article. What do people think this article needs doing to it for it to stand a good chance of achieving this? Any problems with formatting? Enough footnotes? Any particular sections need improving? ..and so on. Would appreciate advice about the article. -- Paxomen 16:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd follow the example of Seinfeld in the introduction, and its Overview section in particular. There could be a more narrative order to the various sections, which admittedly will be a heavy undertaking. Don't forget some of the character pages, especially those of the main characters, are pretty damned good, too. Xiner 18:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I had a stab at rewriting the intro;
Original intro - Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an American television series based upon the 1992 film of the same name. The original concept, screenplay, and TV series were created by writer-director Joss Whedon under his personal production tag, Mutant Enemy Productions. The show's title is often abbreviated simply to Buffy or BtVS.
The series follows the life of the Slayer, Buffy Anne Summers, latest in a line of young women chosen to battle against vampires, demons, and other supernatural foes. Buffy is often aided by her Watcher and her loyal circle of friends, dubbed the "Scooby Gang".
The first five seasons of the series aired on The WB. After a network change, the final two seasons aired on UPN. The series now airs daily in worldwide syndication. The series finale aired in May 2003.
Rewritten intro - Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an American television series, that originally ran from March 10, 1997 until May 20, 2003. The original concept and TV series were created by writer-director Joss Whedon under his personal production tag, Mutant Enemy Productions. Sarah Michelle Gellar starred as the title character, whilst the ensemble cast around her grew during the course of the show.
The series follows the life of the Slayer, Buffy Anne Summers, latest in a line of young women chosen to battle against vampires, demons, and the forces of darkness. Like past slayers, Buffy is aided by her Watcher, however unlike her predecessors she surrounds herself by a circle of friends who join her cause (dubbed the "Scooby Gang").
Despite maintaining relatively low ratings (typically lower than 90th place per week), the series was critically acclaimed and attracted considerable media attention. Along with Dawson's Creek, Buffy is often associated with the early success of the Warner Brothers Network.
When you mention that sections need a more narrative order. Do you mean that some of the section are too much like lists? -- Paxomen 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There definitely should be an intro before the TOC -- probably something that shows the importance of the show. And yes, I find that the sections are currently too much like lists. They should instead flow from one to the next with the help of prose. - Xiner 01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Rearranged the start so that the intro is above the contents. Yeah many of the sections are quite list-like, but shall be attempting to make this less so whilst this review continues. - Paxomen 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: This article has been nominated to be a featured article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer -- Paxomen 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Revisited

I just wrote this, and am interested in any improvements that could be made. I feel that the article is as comprehensive as is possible for this subject. Punctured Bicycle 12:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is probably as comprehensive and well referenced as could be - my only gripe, looking at it, is that the references section would look better if it were a smaller font. Seegoon 17:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Punctured Bicycle 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A bit UK-centric - that may be the nature of the beast, but some mention of chart placing, reviews, availability etc. in the rest of the world may help. It ends abruptly - did EMI does as they promised? Is it still available? When did the band break up? Apart from that, seems good (There is a double reference in the order [10][5], you could reorder that, but that's really picky) Yomanganitalk 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've edited it to make the ending less abrupt. As for international chart placings, I don't know of any reliable/comprehensive/consistent sources that contain such data (though such a resource would be quite useful). I also cannot find any non-UK reviews of the album. Punctured Bicycle 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Devils

I just did a lot of cleanup work on this page and I think it looks pretty good, but before I nominate it for FA I would like to hear what people have to say about it. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. --Sportskido8 14:23 EST, 24 August 2006

Note - Sportskido opened this PR page prior to submitting it for FA status; however, it was never posted on the main PR page and thus went uncommented. The page failed FA nomination the first time; this is in an attempt to follow the correct procedures before re-submission for FA status. Please comment on the page in its current status. Anthony Hit me up... 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It was originally posted on the main page, but nobody responded to it. --Sportskido8 17:02 CST, 31 August 2006
Just like nobody is responding to it now. --Sportskido8 11:30 CST, 6 September 2006


Well, it looks pretty good; there is a lot of references (though some still need to be filled in, get that fixed before your next FA attempt), good impartiality, and good use of visual aids. To improve, you need some minor but thorough copyedit done; I'll try to get to that myself if I have time next week. Also, some of your sections are not divided correctly. Finally, I think that top of the articles formatting needs to be imporved - there is a big gap between your start paragraph and your first section. I'll see if I can come up with anything else after I copyedit. Didius 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the section error. I noticed that at least one of your citations isn't working -- 8 or 9 I think -- the one supporting Gretzky's comments. I think you should delete the sentence clause stating the Gretzky stood by his comments in private; none of the refs I checked support that statement and it is a borderline POV issue.
I think you could expand Style of Play. Has that always been their style? How effective was it? How controversial? I am not a hockey expert, but if I were I am sure I could come up with more questions to be answered by this section. Since I am not, it would be more readable to me if you would more clearly [[WP:mos:Explain Jargon|explain jargon], at least briefly.
I agree with comments from the FA reveiw stating that row after row of tables at the bottom grate, but I don't have any real good solution. Maybe if you made smaller tables under each sub heading of the Franchise History section Didius 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swabian War

Now that this article has finally gotten a map (thanks, Sidonius!), I think it is ready for a peer review. The article was written as a summary of the listed main references; individual facts taken from other references are directly sourced. The German version (Schwabenkrieg) has been greatly expanded using material from this article, and since then, some of the extra bits added in the German version have again been cross-transferred into this English article. How can we improve this article further? Lupo 16:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great map -- WP:FPC, even? Comments on the article:
  • The parentheses in the first sentence are uneven.
  • Common grammatical errors, some of which I may have missed:
    • "Interest to" (instead of "interest in")
    • "Succeeded to" (instead of "succeeded in")
    • Run-on sentences
  • There are many red links, especially of the battles. If they're significant (which they seem to be), you might want to consider creating stubs for them. Otherwise I would include some of the battles' details.
  • Seems to be well-referenced. But, if you're thinking about WP:FAC, you'll need more than four inline citations.
Overall, I think this is a good article: comprehensive, well-structured, and fairly well-written. Also consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review. -- bcasterline • talk 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for these useful comments; I'll go over the grammar (run-on sentences and the like) again, but it'd certainly help if a native English speaker checked it thoroughly, too. As to inline refs: I know that FAC has this obsession. Personally, I employ a different approach in cases where I use a few main sources that give an overview. I consider any sentence implicitly referenced to the main sources; only specific facts taken from elsewhere or especially contentious statements need direct inline sources. For instance, the "Background" section is essentially a summary of the Schwabe & Co reference. If I wanted to use inline sources for every sentence (or every second sentence), I'd just get a slew of references all going to the same source. It seems to me that just giving this source once and stating that it gives the broad overview is cleaner: no info is lost, but the flow of reading isn't hampered by having little blue numbers at every period. (I can and do use the "source every other sentence" method, too. I employ it in cases where I need to use many different sources, or in cases that have a high controversy potential. See e.g. Shrimp farm for an example.) Lupo 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems like the nature of Wikipedia (being a wiki) requires verifiability to a very small scale -- so I can understand the FAC obsession. An article like this is less likely to attract cranks, though, so maybe inline citations aren't as necessary. And if you're not concerned about getting through FAC, it doesn't matter either way. :) -- bcasterline • talk 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leopard syndrome

I have expanded this stub article with an eye towards nominating this as a good article, I believe the rarity of the illness itself precludes FA status-I may be wrong. There is one area of lack that I am strongly aware of and attempting to remedy and that is a lack of images, non-copyright images of the condition are difficult to come by, but since I and my 2 year old daughter happen to be diagnosed with the condition I can remedy that lack. Thoughts on images appropriate to this article would be appreciated, also whether the article is NPOV. Also, in regards to areas of article that need better citation. Please keep in mind the literature on this article is limited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UnseemlyWeasel (talk • contribs) 08:21, 7 September 2006.

Definitely an esoteric subject. Some suggestions:
  1. The jargon can be hard to follow. Lists of terms such as "...a syndrome with multiple lentigines, hypertelorism, pectus carinatum and prognathism..." should be briefly explained where practical. Even more common terms like "locus" are not going to mean much to the lay reader, but maybe that's unavoidable. Some explanations will also help flesh out the article.
  2. As you said, pictures would help. I would go with symptoms that are most characteristic and least subtle -- but that's just general advice; I don't know anything about this particular disease.
  3. The section "Prevention and Management" would benefit from references. The tone could also be improved: an encyclopedia article should explain what is done, now what should be.
I think an article like this is unlikely to pass WP:FAC. Do consider WP:GA though. -- bcasterline • talk 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and I do agree with the points brought up, I would also like to thank Arcadian for originating the article, and DragonflySixtyseven for rescuing it.

  1. Agree on the jargon, and perhaps the main highlights of Leopard (while I have to maintain the mnemonic) I can "laymanize" better, one difficulty as you can see from the links is that sometimes the explanations require explanation :-)
  2. The most characteristic external symptom of course are the lentigines, and the facial similarities of patients (caused by the wideset eyes, broad nasal root, etc.) and I will have those up this weekend, if I can get my scanner working right. The internal issues (cardiac abnormalities, skeletal and developement issues) I'll work on locating public domain images (I'm not going to cut open my chest :-D)
  3. I can correct the tone in the Prevention and management section, don't worry about knowing anything about the illness, I wasn't even diagnosed with it until I was 18 and in the military, my father was retro-diagnosed from me, and I have spent most of my time since both educating healthcare professionals and staying on top of recent developments.UnseemlyWeasel 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Very cool article. I agree with bcasterline that some of the medical jargon needs explanation, or alternatively, put the mnemonic with its expansion on the terms before the history section, which uses term like "lentigines" before they are defined. A few other thoughts:

  1. The history paragraph is well researched, but since most of the people working on this aren't publicly famous doctors or scientists in their own right, it would improve readability to just state the fact and leave the names to the footnotes. (On a related note, this is a nitpick, but it's nice to have the references include the article titles and especially the full author lists.)
  2. Is there a known or hypothesized reason why this is so much rarer than Noonan syndrome if both arise from different mutations of the same gene?
  3. I don't know how well this has been studied either, but as a biochemist I'd like to know more about how the mutant protein actually causes the various physical symptoms. Similarly, is there any difference in symptoms or presentation among the possible mutations you've listed?
  4. The images are useful (every article with the words "facial abnormalities" needs a picture) but it looks like a couple of them are up for deletion on commons - might want to check the licenses. Also it may be worth considering whether to keep the image of your daughter in the article. (Honestly I think it needs to be a crisper picture to be effective anyway; looks like a normal kid to me.) Opabinia regalis 05:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the very cool comment. I have actually thought about moving the section with the mnemonic ahead of the history section, the difficulty to me is that it would somewhat disrupt the timeline of the research but I will consider this a bit more.

  1. Actually, I was trying to mirror more the way that medical papers are laid out, the only ones that I will keep are for those that are mentioned in the literature to date that do not mention papers for reference(i.e. the 1936 reference) I can make that change with no problem. (in re: your nitpick. I can certainly try on that. I know that sometimes those et al's can be frustrating, especially to the et al's :-D)
  2. Not to my knowledge expressed in the written literature, though I do have an "original research" hypothesis of my own and that is the much higher number of allelic variants for Noonan's (13) vs. Leopard (5) identified.
  3. Again, not to my knowledge in the written literature, though I will admit that I have not specifically looked for mechanism theory, as my interest is of a more practical nature, I will check again.
  4. I have responded to the deletion request(in short it seems to be an interpretation of license issue, not true copyvio) I agree that the child image (My own daughter) I was very conflicted about including, however after discussion with my spouse and her bringing up the fact that she was possibly one of the first children tested, outside the original study, that received a confirmed diagosis from the test and to show the facial similarities in the three generations. I will think on this some more.UnseemlyWeasel 07:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Update to 3 above, there is very recent work (this year!) describing that the mutations causing Leopard causes a loss of catalytic activity in SHP2, which influences growth and various pass-through reactions (i.e. such and such protein tells SHP2 to tell another protein to do their job)UnseemlyWeasel 09:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Felix (1995)

The article is one of the Good Article Collaborations. Some suggestions on how the article could be improved would be apprciated. Tarret 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts:
  • "The large size of the hurricane, potential for re-strengthening, and slow forward motion, the worst case scenario of 7 to 9 feet would cause wide-spread flooding throughout southeastern Virginia." This is not a sentence.
  • That the hurricane was not as severe as originally feared could be made more explicit.
  • Some stubby subsections under "Impact".
  • Some of the wording under "Aftermath" is unclear. And does "Lack of Retirement" really need its own section?
Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freddie Mercury

Review for "good article" criteria.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's great that the article has so many references. That will be a positive going into GA. That aside, however, there are big problems with the general structure and particular sections. First off, the lead is too short. It needs to be expanded and written in paragraphs (preferrably two or three), not isolated sentences. The Legacy section needs to be written in summary style, meaning get rid of the poll lists and write them out in paragraph style. Also I don't see why this section needs four subsections. Those subsections seem to be too particularized to have any significance anyway ('The world's first Indian and Persian rock star' can be mentioned, but it doesn't need a stubby subsection).
I think you also need more information about how he started in the business. Basically, talk about some of the early years. After the Early life section, the next section begins with the sentence, "Widely considered as one of the greatest vocalists in popular music, Freddie Mercury possessed a very distinctive voice." Yeah agreed, but you shouldn't write this so soon in the article. Information like that belongs in the Legacy section. As a general note, there's a lot about his impact and why he was special, but not enough on what he did. There needs to be a little more chronological history there. The Quotes section should be deleted. It is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. Overall though, a fairly good job. I'm sure this will reach GA once these concerns are addressed.UberCryxic 16:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Servile War

After much blood, sweat, and tears in researching, editing, writing, and map-creation, I think I've finally got the article on the Third Servile War beat into "acceptable" shape. However, any one writer/editor has blind spots, so I would very much like to hear input, thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions as to how the article might be improved - especially comments/suggestions on how to improve the prose and style.

Thank you in advance for any (constructive) comments made :) - Vedexent 10:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the military history peer review was pretty thorough, so I may be repeating some comments. I'll be particular.
  • Infobox: Sentences are hard to read when words are three to a line. I don't know what the standard is, but I would cut down on the worded explanations and instead make sure the information is in the article.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph is somewhat awkward.
  • I assume you decided on large image sizes so they're readable without clicking on the thumbnail. The result, though, is some formatting errors and scrunched text. If that's the tradeoff, I'm not sure which is better; but you might consider playing around with this.
  • "It is mentioned that..." Better to use the active voice and say who mentioned it.
  • I would combine the small paragraphs under "Defeat of the consular armies (72 BC)" into larger ones.
  • "Following this victory, Spartacus and his followers (some 120,000), pushed northwards as fast as they could, "having burned all his useless material, killed all his prisoners, and butchered his pack-animals in order to expedite his movement"." Does the quotation refer to Spartacus? Since the subject of the sentence begins with the subject "Spartacus and his followers", one expects "their", not "his".
  • If possible, I would make the timing of events in relation to one another more explicit. Also, under "The war under Crassus (71 BC)": "Despite the contradictions in the ancient sources regarding the events of 71 BC..." Wasn't it 72 BC?
  • Under "Aftermath (71-70 BC)": "As an object lesson..." Not sure what that means.
More generally:
  • Ideally there would be fewer parenthetical expressions using dashes and parentheses.
  • Use the possessive 's even after names which end in s.
  • I think citations should follow after punctuation.
Great article: comprehensive, well-organized, well-referenced. In my opinion, structure and weight of the lead are also perfect. And the diverging accounts of history are well-handled. -- bcasterline • talk 16:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on referencing and footnote usage:

  • Why do so many footnotes refer more than one source? It doesn't seem motivated considering that so many of them refer to single sentences. At times there's even more than one per sentence. This amounts to reference overkill in many places.
  • Try to minimize the use of consecutive footnotes that refer to the exact same source. Using as much as 6 footnotes in one section or paragraph pointing the critical reader to the exact same source (supplemented by additional sources occasionally) serves no purpose. Notes 20-25 is the best example, but there are more.
  • Why have primary sources written by Roman writers been so heavily preferred over the works by modern historians? I would consider the article better referenced if it reflected consensus among modern historians rather than making its own interpretations of classical works. We are, after all, not professional historians and should make no claim of being the best interpreters of ancient source material.

Peter Isotalo 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes reference more than one source when there are more than one supporting source. "Assertion X is stated by A, B, and C", or where different source support different parts of the sentence.
Sequential references to the same source reference different sections of the text. Given that most of these texts are entire histories, or biographies, different sections vary widely in content. Plutarch 10:1 is likely to make very different claims that 10:5. Not always, but often (I haven't checked that exact example - only an illustration).
Multiple references in one paragraph are assigned on One assertion = one reference. "A occurred, and at the same time B occurred followed by C" requires that there be some supporting evidence for A, B, and C. Especially if the sources used to support any one of the points is different. In the case of notes 20-25, I agree that notes 22 and 23 can be collapsed. However, compressing the others is misleading. Florus does support the assertion that the captured roman soldiers were made to fight to the death. He does not mention the killing of the pack animals, other prisoners, etc." Condensing footnotes 21 and 22 together would be misleading. Condensing multiple refernces to be added at the end of every few sentences would result in a mish-mash of different sources, different parts of the text being included in the referneces, and require the interested reader to "dig around" to find out who claimed what and where in the source material. As it stands, the reader can quickly locate who supported what assertion, and precisely where in the text they do so.
Primary sources are not used to create interpretation. Interpretation of events is left to secondary sources when not avoidable, but mostly left out entirely and the divergent claims in the primary sources given instead. This means there is no "spoon fed coles notes" narrative in the article, because this would require some interpretation by the editors of the article which as you point out, we're not qualified to do, or require the perspective of the article to favor a particular interpretation by using particular secondary soruces. Instead, statements in the article are constructed along the lines of "A is said to have happened, and B, but some historian Q writing at the time claims C happened instead of B". No interpretation of the "truth" is given, except when bridging points are required from secondary sources. In short, I agree we are not professional historians, nor are we qualified to judge which historian's interpretation is most likely "correct", so the divergent viewpoints are laid out and left to the reader to make up their own mind. Since the viewpoints and claims given are from/in the primary sources, they tend to be drawn upon most.
Vedexent 14:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If you can't reference a single sentence with less than two or three sources then you to find better references or rewrite the sentence. Seriously. This is supposed to be a general, encyclopedic article and this kind off treatment makes it seem more like an academic paper. We might not be professionals in our field, but we should be doing at least a minimum of the research work for the readers. This seems to be aimed at satisfying a ridiculously small minority of skeptics (often editors) that most likely won't ever read a single one of those references.
An encyclopedic article on history should reflect the current consensus among historians. Primary sources, unless they are uncontroversial and undisputed among historians, should not be used because they don't reflect this academic consensus. Presenting primary sources this old to readers that are not historians is not doing them a favor since it suggests that we're ranking the ancient writers on the same credibility scale as modern historians, which is in itself a very skewed presentation of history writing.
Peter Isotalo 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhaka

I request the help of all in making this article featured. Rama's arrow 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "Main article: ____' links to blank articles. Unless there is enough information in the main article to warrant a separate article, it's no use having links to blank articles. Harryboyles 08:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Apart from placing more copious references, I think this article needs to be "Bangladeshized," - i.e., a more native perspective, local knowledge flavor. Rama's arrow 22:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To readers and participants - can someone please get a hold of a modern city map? The one that is displayed is incomlpete and from 1985. We need to show Dhaka's location within Bangladesh. Rama's arrow 22:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC World

I was hoping that following the amount of time and effort put in since the last peer review of the BBC World article, that new ideas and suggestions could be put forward. THank you to all participants. Wikiwoohoo 19:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous review from December 2005

This article seems to be coming along nicely, but it would be great for other users to help out and point out what is missing and/or needs improving. Thanks.Wikiwoohoo 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments:

  1. Where is the History section? Expand the History section into good long paragraphs.
  2. Sectioning is confusing and illogical - no need for 'Censorships' subsection - It should follow a convention such as History -> Programmes -> Criticism -> Influence -> See also -> References -> External links , or something along those lines. - This still needs work.
  3. Needs a references section, what sources were used to write the info in the article?The references are disappointing.
  4. How is it different to the BBC News, BBC One, BBC Two and BBC Three channels? - This still needs to be mentioned.
  5. Missing pictures of a broadcast (the studio, a presenter, etc)
  6. Is it worth mentioning any notable presenters, news readers, etc who have been on BBC World?
  7. Does BBC World work both in Television and in Radio and the Internet? Accessibility should be mentioned, with methods of viewing it
  8. Explaining how it is available would be useful with lots of detail
  9. The language in the 'Newsworthiness, bias and propaganda' section is terrible.
  10. I suggest you rename the section 'Newsworthiness, bias and propaganda' to 'Criticism' or 'Concerns'
  11. An infobox like the one at BBC Radio Five Live could be a nice addition
  12. 'Programming' section could be expanded, its currently lacking info
  13. The lead needs improving to two concise and summarized paragraphs rather than choppy short sentences - Still needs to be done.
  14. I found quite a bit of info on [19] that isn't in the wikipedia article
  15. You need to turn the inline html references into footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnote.
  16. The images are all fair use, so they need fair use rationales to along with them.

Has lots of potential. — Wackymacs 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Has it got any digital television options accessible with the famous red button? - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Reputation and Criticisms" section is a little rocky. The second sentence wanders, and in the third sentence, it would make things clearer to mention that the hoaxer was from The Yes Men and pretending to be from Dow Chemical. Finally, the end of the "censorships" section is unsatisfying. How are the details unclear? Why are they unclear? If you can't find any more information than what's stated, it might be preferable to end the sentence after the word Pakistan. Katsam

[edit] Protein

One of the most important subjects in molecular biology deserves a better article. In the last couple of weeks many references have been added and the focus of the article has been improved, especially by devolving information on dietary protein to its own article. Now it needs some prose tightening and some outside opinions. Thoughts on the "Cellular functions", "Regulatory mechanisms" and "Methods of study" sections, which are the least polished, would be especially appreciated. Opabinia regalis 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Made some changes to the function section in the hopes of making it clearer and more accessible to those not familiar with the subject. Opabinia regalis 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • More figures are needed, especially towards the middle of the article, to break the text up a bit. I also had a go at simplifying the intro and hope I haven't lost any points you wanted to include. TimVickers 02:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I think that was a good idea; the details of translation weren't needed in the lead. I added one image and noticed you've added some nice ones too. The only one I'm a little skeptical about is the "one gene-one enzyme" graphic, because it doesn't seem to illustrate much and isn't strictly true due to alternative splicing. Opabinia regalis 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I know, it was the only one I could find that was a simple diagram without too much detail. Maybe we'll find something better, but I suppose I could draw one. TimVickers 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a good overview article. Now perhaps a few more key references (I know how difficult that is, because every statement is potentially a whole article). Some references could be provided for the historical section as well - these are generally not that hard to find. JFW | T@lk 06:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, O, um, I think the article would read a lot better if it were more terse and organized more ruthlessly; I would work for more sinewy, vivid prose and a stronger flow between sections and even within most paragraphs. Also, the article seems only ~1/2-2/3 complete on most topics; the History section is particularly bad, poorly organized and maybe 10% complete. A few sections seem to have strange ideas or emphases, as if they were written by people with no first-hand experience with proteins in the lab. I'll try to make some contributions to help out and clarify what I mean in more detail. Hey to k, Willow 08:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions and revisions. I totally agree that it's currently in an awkward state of both wordy and incomplete. My original intention was to get rid of the big ugly {{unreferenced}} tag, but of course adding refs means changing the text to match, so... here we are. In subdividing the functions section I was trying to avoid a laundry-list-sounding blob of text; I'm tempted to just follow the Lodish book in using the categories: enzymes, structural proteins, transport proteins, regulatory proteins, and motor proteins, but that seems a little too finely divided for such a broad text. I'm concerned that "record-setting" protein dissociation constants/rate accelerations won't mean much to the casual reader who lacks a sense of scale on the subject.
The history section was originally written by Peta, who will hopefully be able to add in the references when he gets a chance. Obviously an entire article could be written on the history of proteins in biochemistry (I'm assuming there isn't one written but evading my search), but I'm not sure how much more is appropriate here since history isn't likely to be the primary interest of most readers. What do you think? Opabinia regalis 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This article really needs to better handle the "common" information on protien. When the term protein is most often used by a wider population it is regards to diet and nutrition. The Nutrition section is buried at the bottom of the artle and still reads like chemistry (denatured?). I think the process of digestion can be left to the daughter article, but do talk about the role of protein in diet. Most diets are planned around the protein component. This aspect should be covered. When humans plan a meal they first make sure the protein is suffcient then worry about "sides". When developing and a feed for livestock first the protein is accounted for (always the most expensive component) then the other dietary requirements are balenced around this. Feeds never contain more protein than the animal requires because it is waste of money and will be just excreted through the kidneys. This is a very important aspect of the topic that is not being dealt with curently. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree that nutrition should be given a more prominent position, but I think the section as it stands could be made a bit more reader friendly. A couple of other suggestions, there is no mention of proteomics in the methods section; there is no discussion of failures in aa metabolism in humans (a while ago I made this List of fatty acid metabolism disorders - a amino acid one might be a good addition to tie in with this article) or other organisms (they were very important in wokring out basic genetics) which would probably be worth a mention in the nutrition or history sections; emerging fields is a bit of a misleading section heading - most of these methods have been in practice for over 10 years - mabye it would be better divided into methods of structural and functional analysis?; prions are probably worth a mention, as are inteins, as "special" proteins. --Peta 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm coming in late, but I was quite impressed. I think the article has a good balance between providing information and detail on a broad subject, while also pointing people to other Wikipedia articles that are relevant. Dr Aaron 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Hathaway (actress)

What should be done to make this article better? Crimson-Radar 16:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead paragraph is a bit biased... but the article overall is very well referenced and has good prosaic flow. For someone of her status and reputation, the article is completely sufficient, flattering even. Not much can be done in my opinion, minus the opener. Seegoon 17:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything else that could be added to these sections? Crimson-Radar 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it - a "trivia" section, maybe, of miscellaneous information? Seegoon 13:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the lead section. It's still not particularly interesting since there's a lack of references. I'd like this article to be of better quality, so if you have any suggestions, please offer them. Never Mystic 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: Crimson-Radar was the nominator and I'd like to help out. Sorry for the confusion, if there was any. Never Mystic 00:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What is there is good, but here are a few suggestions to hopefully make it better. In the lead, try "...the sequel The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement" (instead of The Princess Diaries sequel). Say what she studied / majored in in college (is this where she became a "top-ranking soprano"?). Clarify the chronology of her college and acting company careers - which came first? Did they overlap? The article says she prefers stage acting, but lists no stage roles. If at all possible give her major stage roles and quote some critical reviews of her stage work. Some of the preceding material may be hard to find, but there are lots of movie reviews out there - quote from them and look at what critics think of her film acting, how she does in comedy vs. drama, how she has changed / grown as an actor over time, etc. Ruhrfisch 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestions! Never Mystic (tc) 22:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature

Prior PR: archive1

This article has undergone an extensive group collaboration effort and has received significant changes. Unfortunately it failed the GA attempt, but the mentioned issues appear to have been addressed. (Note that the philosophical aspects of this topic are covered on the Nature (philosophy) page.) I'd like to take it back for another GA attempt, so your comments on this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you; I've implemented a number of the suggestions. Would anybody else care to comment? I know it's a fairly long article to review. — RJH (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relational database

I personally think that this article is pretty good, but I think that there are things that I obviously can't see. This article has been a hotbed of edits in the past, but it's been stagnant since the 16th of August, so I think it's time for a fresh set of eyes. McKay 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions:
  1. Try to shrink or even completely remove the "See also" section. There's a history part in it, why not add a history section to the article in which you could explain why these names are important? It's almost always better to put links inside the article rather than put a large "See also" section at the bottom. If you can't get rid of it, consider putting everything in a box on the right side of the page, so it takes up less space. Piet | Talk 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Most of the "Competition" section seems more like "Types of relational databases", wouldn't it be better to restructure this? I don't even think you need a Competition section since you want to distinguish RDBMS from RDB. Competition would belong in the RDBMS article, right?
  3. There's only one, very general, category. I don't immediately see an other one, but I'd say there should be more.
Good luck, Piet | Talk 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Done, done, and done. I'm not opposed to removing the external links section, by going through them and attaching references to the article, but I'm not going to do that today. McKay 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No need for that, I'd say external links are okay in a separate section. Just look for a logical place for them: if it's an external link about relational databases in general, put them in the separate section, if it's about one specific thing they may be better in the text. Piet | Talk 07:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Air Force

Request for peer review to nominate it for the Featured article title. It seems to be an excellent article for me. Chanakyathegreat 15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The Lead section is not an introduction to the article. It should summarise the article.
  • No inline references at all? That is no longer acceptable for FAs. — Ravikiran 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek

An archived Peer Review of this article can be seen here.

This article has undergone huge changes of late, and after staring at it for several days, I believe it needs a new set of eyes to determine what else is needed to promote this article to Featured status. Thank you for any imput, Newnam(talk) 21:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. I have a few, mostly nit-picking comments that I hope are of some use:
  • Overall what the page is missing is a section on the Star Trek universe that briefly covers the major races, the location and volume of the Federation space, and the major technologies. I don't think it would need to be long; just enough to get the reader's feet wet (and give a link to a main article).
  • Where the starfleet is mentioned in the introduction, it should also explain the purpose of this organization for those who may not be familiar with the Star Trek universe.
  • The sentence "Issues depicted in the various series, such as imperialism, class warfare, racism, human rights, and the role of technology" appears incomplete.
  • The sentence "Altogether, the six series comprise a total of 726 episodes or thirty seasons or 735 professional hours or 550.75 literal hours[3] of programming" is a little awkward and could use a re-write. For example, "Altogether, the six series spanned thirty seasons over a total of thirty seasons. The combined programming covers 550.75 hours, and required 735 professional hours to produce." (Did I correctly interpret "professional hours" there?)
Probably not - one is about 75% of the other, which looks to me like the ratio between program content time and the time taken to show the episodes with advertising breaks. A "professional hour" would therefore be the one-hour time period in which a 42-minute episode is screened (and yes, that is not 75%, but advertising content standards have changed). Darcyj 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • When is the sentence that begins "The original series currently airs on G4..." current? Likewise for the sentence: "The series currently airs on Sky One and BBC Two..."
  • In the DSN section, the sentence that beings "The show chronicles the events..." runs on a tad. Could that be split into two smaller sentences right about the location of the "which"?
  • The Voyager section mentions the "Delta quadrant". This Star Trek-specific concept should be explained somewhere at or before its introduction.
  • The "Use of the name 'Star Trek'" section needs a reference or two.
  • Reference [34] should be moved after the period.
  • The "Wagon Train to the stars" reference could use a brief explanation in the text, in addition to the link.
  • A couple of the footnotes consist of bare URLs. Please enhance these to explain where the reader is heading. (A {{cite web}} template is suggested.)
  • The folks in FAC like to see a reference or two in the introduction.
Um, what sort of reference exactly? There are numerous cross-links in the introduction. Do you mean footnote-type external references? Darcyj 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ebionites

Ebionites has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. This second peer review should focus only on the changes needed to bring it up to FA standards if it isn't already. --Loremaster 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elmira College

I was hoping for a review of the article as a whole. I have added a lot of information to this article, though I know that it is not well-written. The "History of Elmira College" section contains many facts, but some of them might not be necessary for an entry about the college in general. Also, the "Buildings of the College" section is a simple list; many may not be necessary to include. Please suggest improvements for these sections in particular, and the article as a whole. Paul 17:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mazda MX-5

This article has been through an extensive cleanup, making it narrative instead of list- and random fact-based; sections are longer, without need for sub-sections; transition from section to section is fluid; pictures and interlinks have been added throughout; superfluous technical data has been expurged; lists of colors and special editions have been spun-off to a separate article; source referencing and the external links section have been cleaned up. The section about the current-generation model could do with more content though. I've also conferred the article in other languages (except Japanese, which I don't read) and I could just find some images I would have liked to incorporate into the article but which would have to be re-uploaded (they're not in Commons but rather in their language's Special Upload sections). Please leave your comments for further improvement. --maf 17:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Peer Review

I was reading over this article, and noticed that it has the proper structure to be a featured article, and it could become featured with some tweaking. I would like come ideas on how to improve it. Karrmann 00:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Expand lead, see WP:LEAD.
  2. Too many sub-sections, all too short really.
  3. Production figures list should be converted to prose, placed elsewhere.
  4. In Popular Culture also needs converting to prose.
  5. No footnotes, see WP:FOOTNOTE.
  6. See De Lorean DMC-12 for a car FA that you can use a sample to improve the Mazda MX-5 article.

— Wackymacs 06:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In Popular Culture should be excised entirely, in my opinion. Converting to prose would help keep it from just being an unmaintainable list, at least. — AKADriver ☎ 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copenhagen Fire of 1728

I have put an effort into referencing this article properly lately, but I could use some advice on how to improve it from here. Does any of the sections need expanding more than the others? Is the prose good enough? I will appreciate your comments. Hemmingsen 16:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • To me the article looks quite good. I noticed a few minor issues with punctuation, but overall I didn't see any significant problems. My one suggestion would be to have a color-coded map of the city showing the chronological progress of the fire at specific points in time. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The color-coded map is a great idea. It really would make it easier to keep track of everything, and while I am unsure how to actually make it, I am sure it will be worth the effort. I'll try and see if I can do something about the punctuation as well. Thanks. Hemmingsen 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
An attempt at a color-coded map showing the progress now added to the article. Hemmingsen 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That looks good to me, thanks. The area of bright yellow is a little difficult to locate at first but it can be found by clicking on the image. It works for me. — RJH (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The claim that "with exception of the Great Fire of London it was the largest yet to affect a European city" leaves me a bit uneasy. How did this compare with the destruction of the 20th century (e.g., the Bombing of Dresden in World War II), or to the chronic urban fires of Constantinople during the 17th & 18th centuries? I'm not looking to start a dispute over the title of "worst fire to affect a European city", & my quesiton may even be irrelevant, but I sense this is a topic that needs coverage in Wikipedia -- or at least some kind of qualification. (But more to the point, I was unable to tell from the material in the 2 articles which was worse: Copenhagen in 1728 or Dresden in 1945.) -- llywrch 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It does not compare with the bombing of Dresden at all. What I meant to say was that in 1728, Copenhagen was the largest. I have tried to clarify this, but with regard to Constantinople, I am a bit less certain. I will try and research this and give a longer answer later. Thanks. Hemmingsen 05:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Your question was quite relevant, and I have removed the claim from the article and learnt a lesson about not trusting everything I read :-) . It seems that the Great Fire of Rome (ca. 4,000 buildings destroyed), the Fire of Moscow (1547) (ca. 25,000 buildings destroyed) and the Istanbul fire of 1715 (ca. 15,000 buildings destroyed) all were worse than Copenhagen in 1728 (ca. 1,600 buildings destroyed), so my "until 1728"-argument is no good. Thanks again. Hemmingsen 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad your profitted from my comment (although my primary concern -- an objective way to evaluate how a fire in one city is better/worse than another -- probably is irrelevant to a review of your article). However, looking at the article again, I notice that you quote your sources in full in every footnote. For example, the work in note 3 is repeated in full in note 5. And while I admit that Wikipedia is not paper, seeing these sources repeated word for word at each reference annoys & mars an otherwise excellent article that is worthy of being a FA. If this is dictated by the Manual of Style, then varying from this odd dictate by offering an abbreviated citation (e.g., note 5 should read "Lauring, Byen brænder, pp. 10, 15, 30") ought not to keep it from becoming a FA -- & the Manual of Style should be revised. (And even though the guidelines of the Modern Language Association frowns on it, I feel use of Latin tags like ibid. or op. cit. are better than repeating word-for-word each citation of the same book. And I apologize for adding this tangential rant to the review of your article.) -- llywrch 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I have removed some of this redundant data, and I do admit that it's an improvement. No apology necessary. Hemmingsen 17:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinkham Notch

This article underwent a review six months ago, and afterward narrowly missed FA status. Any suggestions on how to improve it? Multiple changes were made, including those suggested in the previous review. Thanks. -- Sturgeonman 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. Here's a few comments:
  • I'd prefer that "el." be expanded in the first sentence.
  • Should the first use of "Ranges" be lower-case? Should the first occurance of Presidential, Wildcat, and Carter-Moriah be wikilinked, rather than being linked further down in the text?
  • It's a nit, but "...and sudden increases in elevation..." almost sounds like the range is dynamically changing its altitude.
  • "increasingly northern occurrence" is not quite clear. Does it mean an increasingly northerly latitude?
  • "...vegetation near the summit usually found..." is missing some punctuation.
  • Jeremy Belknap and Biomes should be wikilinked.
  • "This forest type is primarily deciduous and consists primarily..." has too many "primarily"'s in one sentence.
  • ...moose.[13]There is also..." is missing a space after the citation, and the "is" should be "are". Likewise "...up.[16]Warblers..." is also missing a space.
  • This sentence has some confusing punctuation: "Due to colder temperatures, increased moisture, and acidic, less fertile soils, conifers, or "softwoods" become the dominant species." You might want to use semi-colons, or else re-write it slightly.
  • "The notch was first visited in 1784, when an expedition led by Jeremy Belknap..." First visited by westerners perhaps? Or the first recorded visit? Perhaps indigenous humans had visited it long before?
  • In the references section, the first citation is missing text. There might be a format problem.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed all the problems except the range wiki-linking issue. I think it helps the reader to visualize the geography of the region while they read the section. If someone doesn't recognize where something described is, they can just click the link. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Sturgeonman 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please archive the peer review and switch the talk page template to oldpeerreview; per WP:PR instructions, articles should not be listed at both FAC and PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toraja

I found this article as a stub, did some research and expanded this article. As one editor is not enough, I need somebody else's review of this article. Any comments, suggestions, critics, even direct editing to the article, are very welcomed and I really appreciate it. Thanks a lot in advance. — Indon (reply) — 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
  • "...as the Dutch understood that the future acceptance of Christianity by Torajans depended heavily on its policy toward the smoke-descending (death) ritual..." Why?
  • Religion and social class are mentioned across many different sections, which lends itself to redundancy.
There's a lot of good information, but the prose is often fragmented and unclear, and there are some grammatical mistakes, especially as regards tense. It's sometimes unclear to me which social costums are modern, and which are traditional and no longer practiced. Having read just the first section, for example, one would think they still hold slaves. I tried to fix what I could. -- bcasterline • talk 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Answers:
  • First of all, thanks a lot for your deep review. I need that, as English is my 2nd language. Thus you're right about the prose. I still have difficulties in tenses. I'll take a detail look again to that article and check the time, which one is traditional, obsolete and modern practices.
  • About Torajan Christianity, that sentence was taken from one of the reference. I'll try to read again and fix the unclear.
  • Yep, you're right again. It's sometimes difficult when their religion is used in many aspects, but I'm going to reduce the redundancy.
Again, thanks a lot bcasterline. I noticed your edit in the article and I really appreciate it. — Indon (reply) — 07:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


nice pictures. consider moving the map (currently located by the history section) to the top of the page (in the infobox). Jon513 13:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I think the map picture is better in the History section, as the article explains about an ethnic group. So the infobox should represents the ethnic group identity and if the map is moved to the infobox, the History section will have no image. The map is suitable to describe the location of Torajan among Bugis and Makassarese, explained in the History section. — Indon (reply) — 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I what you say makes sence. But when I started reading the article my first thought were "where the hell are these people". Jon513 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I moved the History section above. Hope that helps. — Indon (reply) — 14:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1994 San Marino Grand Prix

Any comments greatly appreciated on improvements that could be made to the above 'good article'. Alexj2002 11:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

quick observation - the intro discussion of concequences (changes in saftey) don't match the main article text (state funeral, court case, with a little on saftey). The two should be closer. This sentence To add to the confusion, Érik Comas left the pits whilst the circuit was closed under red flag. Marshalls frantically waved him down as he approached the scene of the accident travelling at "pretty much full speed". Eurosport commentator John Watson described this as "the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen at any time in my life". needs explaining for people unfamilia r with the sport. Apart from that there are some areas that seem light to me but I need more time to look at the article (I have to go to work now). I think this would eventually be a great FA, talk about an important race. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Great. I think that some more information on how the race actually went would be good. It is true that the racing between Schumacher and Larini pales compared to other events, but for completeness it would be worth having (there is some here). Also much as I hate fair use an image, if one can be found, would be good. I can only find pics of Senna's car after the crash which are of dubious taste, perhaps someone has a F1 magazine from the time. Not essential, and certainly doesn't need lots. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Bilis (2006)

This article recently passed GAC, and is now a GA. Aside from expanding the storm history section, I'd like to know if there's anything else I can do to improve this article, in case I decide to take it on a FAC run later. --Coredesat talk! 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • "a very damaging tropical storm that caused significant damage". Ouch. I'll have a proper look later. Yomanganitalk 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see much wrong with it. There is a phrase "increased in organization" in the Storm History section, which is either a technical term that needs explaining or linking, or poor phrasing. I added the initialisations of the weather centers after their first mentions in the body, but you may want to move them up to the lead. I'm not sure you need to give the wind speed in m/s and km/h. Apart from that the only advantages I see that the featured Tropical Storm Allison has over this, are a bit more detail and some pictures of the damage and clean up. Yomanganitalk 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. The problem I've had with finding impact photos is that they're not free, and I'm not sure if fair use applies to photos taken by Xinhua (the PRC's national press agency - I know their images are not PD), plus all the pictures are labeled with fairly large watermarks. --Coredesat talk! 23:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Just use some from Tropical Storm Allison - a wrecked house is a wreaked house. (just kidding) Yomanganitalk 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanskrit

I think this article is good enough to go for FA. But still, I request any suggestions/comments to bring this article up to FA status. Mostly, I think the references need to be worked on. What do you think? Babub→Talk 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, there are some problems here before this can go to FA. First off, an article this size needs many more citations than it currently has. I mean A TON more. On that same point, there are some fact tags in the article. Those have to go, or else no one will consider this for FA. Similarly, get rid of the stub sections, either by transforming the sections themselves or eliminating the tags if you don't think they apply. There may be other problems, but those stood out to me the most. Try and ask an editor who is more familiar with language articles than the average Wikipedian for a review. There are a lot of lists in this article as well, but I don't know if that's standard with these types of articles.UberCryxic 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a detailed article, and is best reviewed by someone with some expertise in linguistics. But I'll make some specific suggestions anyway, which may or may not be useful:
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should provide something more than context only. I would mention that Sanskrit is not associated with any single script more prominantly -- maybe somewhere in the lead.
  • If the scholarship is available, go deeper into the history, if only with one paragraph. The Proto-Indo-European language is thought to have originated in Central Asia or Anatolia, so why is it spoken in India?
  • Under "History": "This influence of Sanskrit on these languages is recognized by the notions of Tat Sama (equivalent) and Tat Bhava (rooted in)." I don't understand this. The following sentence could also use details or an explanation.
  • Under "Vedic Sanskrit": after the first paragraph, the difference between the Vedic texts and the Sanskrit language becomes unclear. I understand there's a close relationship, but I think the distinction could be made less ambiguous with some rewording.
  • The subsection "European scholarship" could be condensed into the rest of the "History" section -- to avoid the stubby subsection, but also to make it more prominant.
  • Explain the jargon, including terms like "allophones" and "phonemes", where practical.
  • Under "Pitch": "That is, Sanskrit, like Latin, is a syllable-timed language. It is the syllable which forms the basis of Sanskrit prosody." If this were Latin, I would briefly describe some of the common poetic meters. I think a statement like that deserves some detail.
  • "Grammar" needs work. Many stubby sections, some marked as such.
Overall, there are too many lists. The lists of unconnected points under "Vowels" and "Phonology" seem sloppy; and the list of differences between Vedic and Classic Sanskrit should also, ideally, be rewritten as prose. The article is extremely long, so, as a result, it's kind of a mess. Definitely needs more inline citations for FAC. There's potential though. -- bcasterline • talk 19:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with most of the above comments. This article doesn't need a lot of inline references. Its scope is to reproduce more or less the content of any Sanskrit primer. A few of them are listed in the References section, and all of these will agree entirely on all details of grammar. There is simply no need to attribute the statements on grammar to one source in particular because there is no controversy on the topic what-so-ever. I do not think that details on Proto-Indo-European, Graeco-Aryan, Indo-Aryan languages in general, the History of India etc. should burden this article! My issues with the article at present are as follows:

  • the "Grammatical tradition" section belongs under "history", not "grammar", and since the main article Sanskrit grammarians includes European scholarship, I suppose it should be made the "history of Sanskrit grammar" article, and as such the {{main}} article of the "history" section.
  • the "grammatical tradition" section also needs to get rid of its stub tag and {{fact}}.
  • the "Vedic Sanskrit" section should be cut down to the bare essentials! it has its {{main}} article, after all.
  • the over-long phonology section should be exported to a Sanskrit phonology and shortened.
  • "nominal inflection" is not a 'stub' as claimed, but it needs a discussion of consonant stems.
  • the two h3 sections on "Verbs" should be combined, and possibly also exported and summarized. a full discussion of the 10 present classes is missing, and should probably be delegated to a sub-article.
  • the Syntax section is a one-liner. There can be no talk of FAC before this is addressed.

dab (ᛏ) 08:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The goal of the article is not to teach Sanskrit: that's what wikibooks is for. If you look at some of the current FAs (e.g. Aramaic, Swedish), grammar does not dominate the article. And without a good number of inline citations, the article will never pass FAC. -- bcasterline • talk 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockerball

I'm just trying to get some help updating this page so it dosn't look like i'm the only person editing it.

RockerballAustralia 08:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The way you are citing sources is a little messed up. In the body of the article you shouldn't be saying "Source:" and then have an inline citation, you should just have the citation after the content you are sourcing. VegaDark 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanillin

I saw someone add a section on natural sources to this article the other day, so I decided to add a corresponding section on synthesis, and then someone added uses and a bunch of references... so it's quickly becoming FA material. What is missing? Also, what images would be appropriate? We already have the structural formula. A photo of the substance itself would be uninformative: it's just a white powder. —Keenan Pepper 02:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This looks a bit short for an FA. Try expanding into the history and economics of artificial synthesis: when was it first extracted and by whom, and what economic impact did the emergence of synthetic vanilla have? Was there resistance in the marketplace to the synthetic version? How rapidly did synthetic vanilla achieve its present position? An image of a vanillin laboratory or factory would be wonderful. The material so far seems high quality although I'm no chemist. Cover other aspects of the topic equally well and I think you'll have an FA (or a solid GA at the very least). Durova 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to find the answers to those questions. I also found this cool journal article about the biochemistry of how the vanilla plant makes it (DOI:10.1016/S0031-9422(03)00149-3), so I've got my work cut out for me. —Keenan Pepper 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been some attempts to produce vanillin with genetically modified bacteria. A section about this would be an interesting addition. --Peta 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boy's surface

I think that this is a fine article, and wish to nominate it for featured-article status. (I did not work on it at all, just stumbled across it, incidentally.) But WP:FAC recommend first putting it up for peer review, so here it is. If anyone sees anything that needs bettering, please advise.—msh210℠ 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Its just too long. Way to many pictures. The formula could be cut down a lot. More time should be given into distinguishing this from the Roman surface, and more discussion of the real-projective plane to establish context. The other parameterisations as listed on Mathworld should be give, some of these have historical significance. The really important point about this surface is its an immersion of the projective plane and There is also an implicit form
64 (1-z)^3 z^3- 48 (1-z)^2 z^2 (3 x^2+3 y^2+2 z^2)+12 (1-z) z (27 (x^2+y^2)^2-24 z^2 (x^2+y^2)+36 sqrt(2) y z (y^2-3 x^2)+4 z^4)+(9 x^2+9 y^2-2 z^2) (-81 (x^2+y^2)^2-72 z^2 (x^2+y^2)+108 sqrt(2) x z (x^2-3 y^2)+4 z^4)=0;
an example of this can be found at SingSurf.org under classic surfaces. (disclaimer this is a page I've made). --Salix alba (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved the proofs off to a proofs page, where they belong. There are not enough references, and those that there are are mis-formatted (should be "author, title, date," etc.). The mathematical definition should preceed the figures, not follow them. Historical discussion is missing. Pretty, but it would have a very very very long haul to get to FA status.linas 05:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Salt Lake

This passed to GA status a few weeks ago, with a few minor tweaks made so it could pass. As very few people currently work on this article, I feel it is absolutely necessary to get as much outside assessment as possible. I have created a to-do list of things I feel we need to add to the article (see Talk:Great Salt Lake), but as far as actual improvements go, I really need others to help me see where and how to improve. All feedback is welcome. --Lethargy 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read through the whole thing, but I have a few recommendations. You should mention which rivers flow into it in the intro. The bolding of "America's Dead Sea" is a bit jarring. The addition of maps would be beneficial, showing for instance the feeder rivers and where the mountains/suburbs/other landmarks are. Remove the "Miscellanea" section and move its information into other sections. My two cents, Fang Aili talk 16:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to the request. I agree with removing the miscellanea section, but I am not sure where its information belongs, any ideas? I'm not sure if we can use this map or not, because I don't know if it is copyright or not. As for unbolding America's Dead Sea and adding the tributaries to the lead, I think I'd have to agree with you. Again, thank you. --Lethargy 20:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
That map is from the USGS, so it should be safe to use. bob rulz 22:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If I can remember how to upload files, I'll take a stab at it later, unless someone else wants to take care of it. But where in the article is the best place for it? --Lethargy 20:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Try the hydrology section, mainly because there's nothing else there at the moment. bob rulz 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Lethargy 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provincial Judges Reference

Good Article material? Landmark Canadian case on judicial independence. My main concerns are that it's understandable to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter, and NPOV. I don't have particularly strong opinions about the outcome of the decision itself, but academic commentary has been virtually unanimously hostile. Thanks in advance for consideration, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Overall, the article seems extremely well researched and referenced. I found myself wondering if the number of notes could be reduced, since many of them are repetitious and just vary in paragraph number, but couldn't see an obvious way.
  • 'Institutional sieve' is mentioned in the lead paragraph, and perhaps you could add some words to show that the judge meant that to be a term of approval not disapproval.
  • The word Reference is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. Is there a rule for this?
  • This article seems quite long compared to the other articles on the decisions of the Lamer court. [20]. It would be perverse of me to suggest that too good a job has been done, but I found myself wanting more drama. For instance the writeup on R. v. Feeney, the search and seizure case, seems vivid and highly readable. But this Provincial Judges case seems to be a complex story where the court might have overreached, and the salaries are an economic issue. In a long (and thorough) article you might want to know more about financial consequences down to the present day. Did all judges salaries shoot up? Since the article cites some academic papers, maybe one of them might have done a study. Possibly a graph of judicial salaries might be included.
  • When researching this article were you personally convinced that pressure had been put on judges via their salaries? You talk as though the court was moving in a fog of irritation at government salary decisions, and perhaps tried too hard to correct matters. Were they oversensitive? Is there any data to show this?
  • The narrative of what various judges said is possibly of value to law students but the general reader might tire of the details. (Unless this is an objectively more important case than R. v. Feeney, for example). One thirsts for the bottom line.
  • Did any elected officials comment on this decision or complain about it? In the US where I live it is popular in many quarters to beat up on the Supreme Court.
  • You say that the case damaged the reputation of the judicial system. Sounds POV unless you can put those words in the mouth of a citable commentator.
  • Since you argue this is a landmark case on judicial independence, perhaps you could refer to one or two other major cases on judicial independence in Canada.
  • Does WP have any articles on parallel court decisions in other countries that you could link to? -- EdJohnston 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes Minister

This article is, hopefully, close to GA status. We'd appreciate any advice and comments that could improve the article, especially those likely to be commented upon in a GA nom. The JPStalk to me 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The main objections likely to come up at GA review involve some of the stubby and list-heavy sections. There are way too many of these. It'd be wise if you either removed them or converted them into summary style. Creating some daughter articles wouldn't be a bad idea either.UberCryxic 04:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I hope we have rectified the issues you mention. The only remaining list is in the Merchandise section: we feel that this is the most effective way of communicating this. The JPStalk to me 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement, but I would also expand the Radio and Episodes sections, which are far too short right now (the latter is basically a sentence).UberCryxic 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mostly I liked it. A few of the references could be sharpened up. For example, the current [11] (beginning "Nigel Hawthorne and Jonathan Lynn ...") and a couple of other refs amount to no more than "I saw it on the TV"; how is anyone to verify that (or an editor's alterations)? The third para of section "Background" is effectively unreferenced, despite referring to several living people. Mr Stephen 11:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I disagree with your dismissive "no more than "I saw it on the TV"" -- the interviews are properly referenced, and if anyone was in desperate need of verifying this it wouldn't take too much digging on relevant forums to see if someone had a copy. Or if they were really bothered, they could contact the BBC, or the producer or director. The JPStalk to me 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be dismissive, but I do see that's how it reads. I assure you that I was trying to be constructive and to suggest improvements. If viewings of TV programmes count as reliable sources, then fair enough. Mr Stephen 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's OK -- thanks for your comments, anyway. They have made me locate the exact date of original transmission anyway. The JPStalk to me 21:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Episode section has now been greatly extended. I've now inserted the exact dates for teh readio series, but I'm really at a loss of how to expand that more...? UberCryxic: did you have any ideas about what was missing from that section? The JPStalk to me 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wel, we seem to have exhausted you lot ;) Does the lack of any further comments mean that it's now time for a GA nom? The JPStalk to me 23:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's ready for a GA nominiation personally. The One00 12:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I've now nominated it. The JPStalk to me 19:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgrade

After a period of rapid growth and improvement, the article has been stagnating for the past few months. I'm interested in what people think remains to be done to bring it up to FA status. --estavisti 12:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Needs more inline citations - all citation needed tags especially need to go.
  • Lists need conversion to prose
  • Gallery and trivia sections should probably also go.
  • Try moving some of the pictures to the left side of the article
  • Maybe try to remove some of the external links and only keep the most relevant.

--Peter Andersen 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Nintendo Entertainment System

This will be the first peer review for the SNES as far as I can tell. I'm not looking for any specific criticisms, just a request for a general review of this article and how it stacks up compared to a featured article of a video game system such as Nintendo Entertainment System. Lumaga 17:26, 10 September 2006

  • See also section redundant, most of the wikilinks there are found in the navigation template.
  • Convert embedded external links into references.
  • Image:SNES Star Fox.png, Image:Sneslogo.gif and Image:Bs zelda.gif have no fair use rationale. Image:Snes2 sys.jpg has an obsolete license, consider changing it and using a fair use rationale as well. Image:Super famicom system.jpg might be redundant having Image:SNES 800.jpg.
  • Two references for the whole article, too few.
  • Too many list items, consider changing the lists into prose. That may bring some discussion (like the edit war at Xbox 360), but I don't think 77 or so bullets in the article are really "good prose".
  • Remove weasel words (One of the most interesting and successful first-party peripherals, Rivalry between Nintendo and Sega produced what is possibly the most notorious console war in gaming history.), speculation (It is argued that these issues, Most people used it to play copied ROM images that could be, From then on, these two emulators have continued to offer the most complete emulation of the system, In addition many US gamers had come to expect backwards compatibility from console developers), etc. Just search for most or many. In these cases, since there is no references, it is speculations, peacock terms or weasel words.
  • $xx USD should be moved to US$ xx per currency guidelines.
  • Year wikification should be reviewed. In example, in the History section, there is a September 2003 where September is not wikilinked and 2003 yes.
  • Bolding should only be used in the leading section.

I am a bit busy here, may check another review later. -- ReyBrujo 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I hope you don't mind if I strike through what has been fixed. Lumaga 00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. I am only comments in "simple" issues as of now, but hopefully will be able to review the article again later. -- ReyBrujo 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Techincal Specifications and Enhancement Chips could stand to be spun out of the main article. I'd lose the Nintendo Systems bullets, since they're in the Navbox, but keep the points relevant specifically to the SNES, such as Player's Choice games. Other than that, I'd maybe prune a bit from the Regional Lockout section, it tends to ramble a bit. --Roninbk 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The pic up top should explain what each of the two consoles is.
  • The phrase (the earliest sources indicate August 13, 1991[1][2][3]; exact determination of the date is not possible due to the uncoordinated nature of North American retail video game releases during that era) is really excessive to nail down an exact day and date of the launch. I would get rid of everything after the semicolon.
  • I remember being disappointed the SNES was not backward compatible with NES carts, but I think it's a stretch to say that the market "had come to expect" backward compatibility, especially when the example cited is the Atari 7800, a system purchased by practically nobody. Tempshill 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernova

This is a fairly nicely developed article on a very important astronomical topic. Apart from a certain paucity of inline citations (which I'll try to address) what other changes would you suggest to bring this up to GA/FA quality? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

With some more citations, it'd be good enough for a GA. If you want to go further, I suggest expanding the 'Role of supernovae in stellar evolution' section (or merging it with another section). The Spectral classification should be either removed or rewritten in summary style. Also expand the 'Supernovae as a source of heavy elements' section and the 'Naming of supernovae.' And as always, get more and more citations in there.UberCryxic 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. — RJH (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:West Bengal

There no seperate peer review process for portals, so Portal:West Bengal is being nominated for a peer review here. The Portal: West Bengal is a relatively new portal, and is well-maintained. Please provide suggestions/comments for improving this portal and elevating to featured status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note: For archived old peer review of the article West Bengal, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/West Bengal/Archive1

  • After visiting Portal:Current Events everyday, I was a bit suprised that this portal did not link back or cite which news source it used. Just an observation, everything else looks very well. Also whats the point of that red link category in the categories section? Is it going to be created or was it recently deleted? - Tutmosis 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply: The category in red is going to be created soon. Yes, no link/citation of news source in "In the news" section is a major drawback. This will be taken care of. Thanks a lot for the observation. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
All newitems are now being put up with the source mentioned. -- P.K.Niyogi 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice work on the overall! Some comments:
  1. A fair use pic is currently in use in the DYK section. Please replace/change.
  2. I couldnt figure out how the selected biography is selected and rotated.
  3. The edit link on the "selected article" box goes to a page containing a template. Would it be possible to avoid this, as this would probably lead to confusion to less familiar users.
  4. A link to Portal:Current events and to wikinews would be nice in the news section.
  5. Just something that struck me: When archiving, isnt it a better practice to put the latest on top, rather than the bottom as done presently at Portal:West Bengal/West Bengal news/Archive?
Done and it will be followed -- P.K.Niyogi 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Other things look fine.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There are a few areas that need improvement.
    • Archives need to be created for selected article, picture and biography.
    • There's a Fair-use image in the DYK section. Remove it ASAP.
    • The news section needs summarisation.
    • Tasks lists should also preferably have a "create" sub-heading.
    • Inconsistent dash usage in Tasks list.
    • Why are pipes used in all WB Topics except "people". Standardise. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangkok

I realize there are many things here to be improved or added before attaining good article status. Please post here to discuss the peer review request and to add things you feel need improvement. Thank you. Felixboy 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall the article seems a little on the brief side for a major city, particularly in the history and economics sections. You might take a look at the FA-rated city articles such as Bangalore, Boston, Massachusetts and Johannesburg for ideas on how it could be expanded. The introduction should be longer and there should be many more sources cited. It could use information on communications/media, geography, crime (although that is mentioned somewhat in the "Current Issues" section) and culture. The Hotels section could be expanded to cover tourism, since this is featured in the introduction.
I hope this was helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme kinetics

Hi there. This article has been comprehensively re-worked over the last few weeks. I'm hoping to bring it up to FA status and suggestions to help this would be much appreciated. Previous peer-review TimVickers 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has now been nominated for FA, any futher suggestions should be added to its candidacy page here. Thank you. TimVickers 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting article, although it rapidly gets quite technical in places. Here are a few (hopefully useful) comments:
  • The word catalysis should be linked in the first paragraph, as this is a key concept.
Good point, done.
  • I know the second paragraph of the introduction is trying to explain how enzymes operate, I think it could be improved by some reordering. For example, "Enzymes are molecular machines that manipulate specific molecules: their substrates. These target molecules bind to an enzyme's active site and then are transformed into a product. In order to gain a complete picture of how enzymes work, we need to know both their structures and their mechanisms. An enzyme's structure is akin to a complete blueprint of one of these machines. The operating mechanism is provided by chemical kinetics; similar to a movie of this machine in action." Although I'm sure that can be improved.
Good, added.
  • In the "Enzyme assays" section, what are products and reactants? Are the reactants the enzymes and their substrates?
Tried to clarify.
  • Could you clarify the statement, "polypeptide chain that report movements during catalysis"? It is not explained prior to that point.
Removed the word "polypeptide" and generalised this a bit.
  • The section "General principles" states that "shows if an enzyme can catalyse a reaction under the conditions in the cell". But doesn't the enzyme always catalyze a reaction? Perhaps this could be clarified.
Reworded.
  • In the first illustration of the single-substrate reactions section, should the (S) be [S]?
Confusing, reworded.
So my issue here remains, albeit a very minor point. The caption on the illustration uses "(S)" and defines it as the "concentration of substrate". The surrounding text uses [S], and defines it as "substrate concentrations". These appear to be identical, so I would be expecting the caption to be using [S] also. Thanks! :-) — RJH (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to introduce the abbreviation S as standing for substrate and had put it in parenthases. I've removed it entirely and I think this solves the confusion. TimVickers 14:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like it if the first two equations were separated out from the text. Could each of the equations be indented? Also what is k3? it is not mentioned in the second illustration.
Good catch, k2 is correct. Indented equations.
  • I think there should be a period after "the expression reduces to Km = [S]".
OK, these were missing in a couple of places.
  • Could you clarify this sentence: "In these enzymes both substrates bind to at the same time to produce an EAB ternary complex"?
Urgh. What an ugly sentence. It's better now.
  • "...E* by for example transferring..." needs commas around "for example".
Added.
  • Intermediates should be linked where it first appears in the text.
Linked and defined.
  • Can interconversion be explained?
Replaced with "Consumption"
  • In the "Enzyme inhibition" section, a brief explanation of the term would be useful, as would the meaning of "reversible" in this context. (Rather than leaving it to the Enzyme inhibitor article.)
Defined terms.
  • Likewise the listed types of inhibition should probably also be explained, since they are used in a table.
They are defined in kinetic terms in the table and diagram, and I've now listed them in the text as well.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

the article lacks any mention of ordered sequential mechanisms for two substrate enzymes, a common (maybe just to me?) two substrate mechanism. I'll get to work writing one up, can you provide diagrams? that way they will be consistent with the others on the page. NB: ordered sequential is E + A → EA → EAB → EPQ → EP → E, where the binding order of A and B, and the release order of P and Q must happen in order. typically happens in tunnel-like active sites, where binding of the second substrate blocks access to the first. Xcomradex 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

oh wait i see it mentioned briefly in the ternary section. probably needs expansion anyway. Xcomradex 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim, you've done an awesome job on these enzyme articles. A few nitpicks for this one:

Added to introduction.
  • The phrase "are transformed into a product" sounds a little oversimplified, though I'm not coming up with an improvement.
Should be plural, it is wrong in singular.
  • There are a couple of minor tone problems: "we need to know...", "lets you measure...", etc.
Fixed later one, intro is deliberately non-formal so general reader isn't scared off immediately!
  • It seems a little odd that "general principles" comes after the assay section. Also, this sentence - "Knowing these properties shows if an enzyme can use this substrate under the conditions in the cell, and if it does, how important this activity is compared to any other enzymes that may perform the same reaction" - is a little awkward; it doesn't seem like the most common situation - bad substrates are often unnatural, and an enzyme's level of activity relative to similar enzymes doesn't necessarily correlate to importance (maybe it's a lousy whateverase, but it's the only one in mitochondria). Maybe something more general like "Knowing these properties about an enzyme helps in determining its cellular function"?
Sections re-ordered. Section reworded.
  • Image:Enzyme saturation.png only has 4 out of 5 enzymes bound to substrate - sure, at high concentrations there will be times when that's the case, but as an illustration of "saturation" it might be more effective to see them all filled.
My bad. Altered diagram.
  • Does the Michaelis-Menten kinetics section need a main article tag? Then you could avoid the "to see a full derivation" reference. Also, "Practical significance of kinetics" is kind of stubby.
Tag added, practical significance is new today, so still work in progress.
  • Image:Mechanism_plus_rates.svg and the related discussion assumes that the slow step is the catalysis rather than the binding - it would be good to specify that. I'd have to dig but I'm sure there are examples where it's the other way around.
There are such examples, but I don't think they follow simple MM kinetics. I'll do some reading on this and see if there is a way of including them.
I think you're right, the only example I can think of is unclamped DNA polymerase, and that's not MM. Opabinia regalis 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph about Briggs-Haldane kinetics now added. TimVickers 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The ternary complex section doesn't make a distinction between EAB->EPB->EPQ and EAB->EAQ->EPQ. I'm not sure if that's within the resolution of experimental methods, but it seems like there must be a couple of examples where one reaction is fast and one is much slower.
Almost always in these reactions either A turns to P producing E* and then B is changed to Q (ping-pong) or A and B react with each other in the active site (ternary complex).
  • I see a weird artifact where the ping-pong section's edit link appears on top of the text "This link is" in the last sentence - maybe the ping-pong image needs to move down a bit.
Moved image, did this change anything?
Looks better now. Opabinia regalis 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If I were going to add something to this article, I'd add more discussion of the structural bases for cooperativity. It would be great to see a structure where ligand binding at one site opens or blocks access to the other, if you can think of any likely examples.
  • "Often, the detection of an intermediate is essential in proving what mechanism an enzyme follows." - I had it hammered into me by a particularly hard-headed empiricist that you can't prove a mechanism, you can only discount alternatives. Maybe a nitpicky point but I can't help it.
OK, rephrased.

Thanks for all these suggestions, will keep me busy for days!

Opabinia regalis 00:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Tim, thanks for your call to this PR. Feel free to rally me again once the document has been spell-checked. Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I found the spelling mistake you refer to and have fixed it. TimVickers 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have much time just now, but this poked my eye:
To experiment with the Michaelis-Menten equation, there is an interactive Michaelis-Menten Kinetics tutorial.
This should probably be rephrased so that it still makes sense when seen offline or in print. The link should not be the motivation for the sentence, it should be supplementary. Otherwise it can go in "external links". - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I hadn't considered this. Moved reworded link to end of sentence. TimVickers 15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting. In a GA nomination I was told it was better to integrate external links into the surrounding prose for readability, and I took the suggestion; I hadn't thought about offline or print readers then having useless sentences lying around. Anyone know of any data on how ofter people use Wikipedia that way? Opabinia regalis 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you remember who made that suggestion? I'm intrigued... No idea on print distribution, sorry! I could speculate that some teachers may print articles for their pupils. I can also see how integrating the links may benefit a short article more than a longer one, but your GA may well have been long... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The reviewer was NCurse, and the article was multiple sequence alignment, which isn't especially short. In that case I put the links on the names of the software tools I was linking to, so it didn't produce too many odd-sounding sentences, but I wonder how consistent this suggestion is. Opabinia regalis 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. My interpretation is that that's routinely done for things that don't yet have an article, but should. Others use the notation BLOCKS [21], which may be less aesthetically pleasing than your solution. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcibiades

I've completed another copy-edit of the article. I know some more tweaks are still necessary before going for FA (the article is already GA), but I thought it was high time I had some suggestions and thoughts from peer-reviewers.--Yannismarou 13:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of small things. The lead might be a little too long, and could you make the pictures a bit larger. --Peter Andersen 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I know about the lead. But it is so brillantly written by Robth that I dare to touch it! I prefer to leave the pictures in their natural size. So, if somebody wants to enlarge them, he can just click on them. But you may be right. I'll think on that. Thanks!--Yannismarou 18:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Lead trimmed now a bit.--Yannismarou 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polar coordinate system

This article just made GA, and I'd like a general idea about what needs to be done in order to get this to FA. --Carl (talk|contribs) 21:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Several things could be done to improve this. Although the statements here are mostly analytic/axiomatic, more in-line citations are an absolute must; an article of this size should have plenty of in-line citations. The History section should be first per just about every other article in Wikipedia. The lead needs to be expanded to two paragraphs (or three if there's enough material to work with); you could talk a little about the history there, for example. Other editors that have experience with math articles could probably help you out much more.UberCryxic 02:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, the article is good, but it could definitely use more organization and expansion to reach FA status. Presently, the article reads like an unordered list of properties that are not tightly related to each other. Just as one possibility, you might consider organizing the article into three top-level sections: "Math", "History" and "Applications".
  • Under the "Math" section, I would add something about the singularity at r=0 and the relationship with other two-dimensional and three-dimensional coordinate systems. For example, most of the three-dimensional sets of orthogonal coordinates are derived from either projecting or rotating a two-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system; hence, the rotated ones all include a form of polar coordinates as a subset. By contrast, the various curves such as the Polar Rose, although beautiful, seem too many and randomly chosen; in principle, every two-dimensional curve has a polar representation. Instead of showing each of the dozens of well-studied 2D curves in polar coordinates, perhaps just show one exemplary and/or historically important case and then merely list some of the other more famous curves or link to them?
  • Under the "Applications" section, I would place the Keplerian case in the context of the study of mechanics under all central forces and (historically) the study of planetary motion. You also mention other applications in the lead, which might deserve coverage in the main article.
  • Under the "History" section, you might want to include a discussion of the history of exploiting angular measurements (e.g., the careful astronomical and architectural measurements of the ancient Egyptians) and the development of trigonometry, which seems pertinent.
Hope this helps, and keep up the good work! :) Willow 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Echoing one of Willow's ideas, there are three equations for circles in polar form. Are all three necessary? I'd question the middle one. The first is nice as an illustration of how some things are easy in polar form, and the last is general, but I wonder who benefits from the second equation.

The Vector Calculus section would be enhanced by a figure illustrating the unit vectors. It might also be worth stating and illustrating that they vary from point to point, unlike the unit vectors in the x and y directions.

The entire Applications section needs clarification. The opening sentence says "Polar coordinates are a natural setting for expressing Kepler's laws of planetary motion." and the closing sentence says "If e < 1 this equation defines an ellipse, if e = 1 it gives a parabola and if e > 1 it gives a hyperbola." The closing seems unrelated to the opening, but if you intend to draw a connection (e.g. open orbits), it should be made clear. Alternatively, this paragraph about conics could be separated from Kepler's Laws by a new third-level header.

The equation r = l/(1+ecosθ) appears twice. The section could be rewritten so that it is only necessary once.

The diagram illustrating this equation does not have a label to show the variable l, although it would be easy to add; e, the eccentricity, could be defined in terms of the parameters in the figure.

Kepler's second law, dA/dt = constant, is not stated in polar form; dA/dt is neither polar nor rectangular nor in any coordinate system. The previous section did discuss dA but the connection is not clear in this section. The variables A and t are missing in the illustration. Anyone who knows Kepler's Second Law knows what this means, but anyone who does not know the law is lost. If you want to redraw the figure with times marked around the edge, that would meet the need of the article, but I'd say it's simpler just to remove Kepler's laws from the article. They have their own article, and add only confusion to the article on polar coordinates.

Other applications could be mentioned, for example, lathes, especially those formerly used to cut masters for pressing vinyl records.

Fg2 06:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Navy

Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian Navy/Archive1 Chanakyathegreat 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Second peer review required. Chanakyathegreat 03:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I haven't had a full read yet, but a recommend checking for redundancies. In the lead "With a total of 55,000 men and women, including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and 2,000 Marine Commandos (MARCOS), it is the world's fifth largest Navy in terms of manpower." can be reduced to "With 55,000 men and women, including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and 2,000 Marine Commandos (MARCOS), it is the world's fifth largest navy." without changing its meaning at all. Double checking the entire article for other things like this can definitely improve the overall writing quality. The general term "navy" is not a proper noun, so you should refer to "a navy" rather than "a Navy". Jay32183 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canasta

There's quite a lot of material, but the way of organising it might not be the best possible. Any ideas how the article could be improved?Punainen Nörtti 10:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/e/Wikipedia%7EPeer_review_September_2006_8729.html"

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu