Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.	Shortcut: WP:PR The path to a featured article Start a new article Develop the article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback ← Apply for featured article status Featured articles
Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts. While not required it is strongly encouraged that users submitting new peer review requests choose an article from those already listed to peer review. Preference should be given to those articles which have been listed the longest with little or no response (not including automated peer reviews). To add a nomination: Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page. Place ===[[ARTICLE NAME]]=== at the top, with the name of your article in the link brackets, and then note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Sign with four tildes (~~~~) and save the new page. Edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees. Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles and/or send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field. You may wish to request peer review on the appropriate Wikiproject; the request will automatically be listed here as well. How to respond to a request Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., article length, the lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title. Feel free to correct the article yourself. Please consider noting your edits here to keep others informed about the article's progress. How to remove a request In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may remove to the current archive any inactive listings or listings older than one month, inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments) articles that have become featured article candidates After removing the listing, contributors should replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview}}. How to resubmit a request If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time: Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] Edit [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and insert [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion. Place {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below. Current archive: March 2007 Purge server cache

Related pages:

Topic-specific peer reviews (full list):

Other peer reviews:

Contents 1 Requests 1.1 Mary Astor 1.2 Norwich City F.C. 1.3 Interferometric synthetic aperture radar 1.4 London Wasps 1.5 Alizée 1.6 FBI 1.7 RuneScape 1.8 Atheism 1.9 Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) 1.10 Shining Path 1.11 Constitution of Belarus 1.12 Lethbridge Collegiate Institute 1.13 Steyr AUG 1.14 Emmett Watson 1.15 Michael Schumacher 1.16 Metroid Prime 1.16.1 JimmyBlackwing 1.17 Jerusalem 1.18 Eugenio Espejo 1.19 Persepolis FC 1.19.1 JHMM13 1.19.2 The Rambling Man 1.20 Taiwanese aborigines 1.20.1 JHMM13 1.21 Bikini Bottom 1.22 Zaireeka 1.22.1 JHMM13 1.23 Mary Astor 1.23.1 Kaisershatner 1.23.2 Yannismarou 1.24 Passage planning 1.24.1 JHMM13 1.24.2 38.100.34.2 1.25 Amir Abbas Fakhravar 1.25.1 Yannismarou 1.26 Andrew Furuseth 1.26.1 JHMM13 1.27 The Beano 1.28 Homer's Enemy 1.29 Knitting 1.30 Robert Spano 1.30.1 Rayis 1.30.2 Mahanga 1.30.3 Review by Awadewit 1.31 National Register of Historic Places 1.31.1 JHMM13 1.32 Gabriel Ferrari 1.33 Gateways club 1.34 Guinea pig 1.35 John Lester 1.36 Feeder (band) 1.36.1 JHMM13 1.36.2 Yannismarou 1.37 List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people 1.38 The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 1.38.1 Krator 1.39 Once Upon a Forest 1.40 Ice-minus bacteria 1.40.1 User:IvoShandor 1.41 Making Waves 1.42 RegisterFly 1.43 Buena Vista Social Club 1.44 Ayaan Hirsi Ali 1.45 Richard Dawkins 1.46 Robert College 1.46.1 Free Smyrnan 1.47 Estádio do Maracanã 1.47.1 Michaelas10 1.48 List of software patents 1.49 Crash (song) 1.50 Kaziranga National Park 1.51 S.H.E 1.52 GoldenEye 1.53 Miriam Rivera 1.53.1 Yannismarou 1.54 Paris 1.55 Jesus College, Oxford 1.55.1 Comments from WindsorFan 1.56 Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) 1.57 Fritz the Cat (film) 1.58 Luis Federico Leloir 1.59 Mother Teresa 1.60 Frank Fetter 1.60.1 Majoreditor 1.61 Kya: Dark Lineage 1.61.1 JHMM13 1.62 Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit) 1.63 Climate of India 1.64 Dark romanticism 1.64.1 Review by Awadewit 1.65 Cerebral hypoxia 1.66 John Chrysostom 1.66.1 Majoreditor 1.66.2 CTSWyneken 1.67 Zodiac (film) 1.68 YouTube 1.68.1 bcasterline 1.69 Search engine optimization 1.70 What You Waiting For? 1.71 Ronald Reagan 1.71.1 Neutralize the POV 1.71.2 Majoreditor 1.71.3 biography or hagiography? 1.71.4 POV problems 1.71.5 Review by Awadewit 1.72 The Office 1.73 Wii Remote 1.73.1 Krator 1.74 Daylight saving time 1.74.1 bcasterline 1.75 Barnegat Light, New Jersey 1.75.1 Comments by JHMM13 1.76 Barnegat Lighthouse 1.76.1 Comments by JHMM13 1.77 Sinbad (actor) 1.77.1 The ikiroid 1.77.2 Yannismarou 1.78 El Goonish Shive 1.78.1 Nifboy's review 1.78.2 PresN's review 1.78.3 Malkinann's review 1.79 Rugby union at the Summer Olympics 1.79.1 Shudda's review 1.80 Loïc Le Meur 1.81 Outkast 1.82 Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1.82.1 Review by Awadewit 1.83 Natural selection 1.83.1 bcasterline 1.83.2 Review by Awadewit 1.84 United States Navy 1.85 300 (film) 1.86 Dungeons & Dragons 1.87 Siddha Yoga 1.87.1 Bcasterline 1.87.2 Mailer Diablo 1.88 Hanne Blank 1.88.1 Yannismarou 1.89 ZeD 1.90 Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 1.90.1 Comments from Gosgood 1.91 Administrative divisions of Adygea/update 1.92 Classes in World of Warcraft 1.93 Appalachian School of Law 1.94 Beijing 1.95 CBWT 1.96 Kanon 1.97 List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes 1.98 Perplex City 1.99 Benjamin "Pap" Singleton 1.99.1 MarkBuckles 1.99.2 Yannismarou 1.100 Keven Mealamu 1.100.1 Shudda's review 1.100.2 Cvene's review 1.101 Relative density 1.102 Vitamin C 1.102.1 Feedback 1.103 Harry Potter fandom 1.103.1 Review by Awadewit 1.103.2 Dev920's review 1.104 The Godfather 1.105 W. H. R. Rivers 1.105.1 *Exeunt* Ganymead 1.105.2 Yannismarou 1.106 The Sorrows of Young Werther 1.106.1 Review by Awadewit 1.106.2 Review by BirgitteSB 1.107 Rock Springs Massacre 1.107.1 POV discussion 1.108 Darius (Highlander) 1.109 George V of the United Kingdom 1.109.1 Review by Awadewit 1.110 Venezuela‎ 1.110.1 From SandyGeorgia - unbalanced whitewash 1.110.2 Enano275 1.111 Dolphin 1.112 Essjay controversy 1.112.1 New review needed 1.113 Music of Saint Lucia 1.114 Trams in Adelaide 1.115 Eugenio Espejo 1.116 History of Raëlism 1.116.1 User:IvoShandor 1.117 Sailor Moon 1.118 Madrid 1.118.1 Comments by Veesicle 1.118.2 Comments by Dev920 1.118.3 Comments from Neil 1.118.4 Earlier comments from WikiProject Cities Assessment 1.118.5 Comment from MJCdetroit 1.118.6 No more comments requested 1.119 Philadelphian cricket team 1.120 Cameroon 1.120.1 bcasterline 1.120.2 Nichalp 1.120.3 Aldux 1.121 Isaac 1.121.1 Review by Awadewit 1.121.2 User:IvoShandor 1.122 Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate 1.122.1 User:A mcmurray 1.123 Feeder (band) 1.123.1 JHMM13 1.123.2 Yannismarou 1.124 Mission blue butterfly 1.125 Kota Kinabalu 1.126 Youngstown Ohio Works 1.127 Alanis Morissette 1.127.1 BuddingJournalist's Review 1.127.2 LuciferMorgan 1.127.3 Metamagician3000 1.128 Disneyland Resort Paris 1.128.1 JHMM13 1.129 Anna Wintour 1.129.1 Yannismarou 1.130 My Chemical Romance 1.130.1 JHMM13 1.131 Politics 1.131.1 AnonEMouse 1.131.2 Review by Awadewit 2 Archives

[edit] Requests

[edit] Mary Astor

After seeing a few more of her movies recently and looking at her page on wikipedia, I noticed there weren't many citations, not too many pictures, and no discussion about Mary Astor's article. I was hoping with this peer review some of the experts on this site could help improve the article Mary Astor and hopefully it could become a featured article some day, maybe even going on the Main Page, bringing some well-deserved attention to this great actress. Ilampsurvivor5 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwich City F.C.

Another lower league club which both myself and Dweller are trying to raise from the depths of original research and points-of-view toward featured article status. Please contribute as much as possible and provide comments which will help this article get to FA if nominated in the near future. For reference, the article structure is based on both Arsenal F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C., both current FA's. Thanks in advance for all your help. The Rambling Man 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interferometric synthetic aperture radar

Article has just come out of a major upgrade. A few people have nitpicked on formatting etc (though I'm sure there is more to be done), but not much comment on the content, structure and style yet. Cheers. Eve 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Wasps

I've added a peer review request in order to get feedback on what the article needs to push up it's class.... Murkee 11:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alizée

This article had a peer review earlier which has been archived.

The article has also had a self-review by the main contributors. Its a bit old but still is relevant to the current state of the article, in some parts. It can be accessed at Talk:Alizée/Review.

The article has changed a lot since its last peer review and is currently a Good Article. It has become quite comprehensive and is also in a pretty stable state. We would like if it becomes a featured article. To that end, any criticism (both positive and negative) and suggestions is more than welcome. --soum (0_o) 10:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I m game Ekna 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FBI

Archive #1 View

Archive #2 View

Well... I recently joined WP:FBI, made some edits, and created a page, but the main priority is to get FBI to FA status. I would like to know what we could improve/add to get the article to FA status. BlackBear 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape

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

The lead section could do with some polishing. The second paragraph, about Gielinor, looks fancrufty. Consider jettisoning the paragraph, moving useful information to the third paragraph (which then becomes the second paragraph). It wouldn't hurt to add another paragraph which summarises the history of the game, reviews it has received and/or its impact on the world/Internet/MMORPG industry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have those things you mentioned in your last suggestion. There's a paragraph on it's history and development and one on its reception. The reception paragraph covers the impact on the world, internet, and MMORPG industry, although more info could be added on that. I'll see what I can find. Also, I'll make the changes to the lead section right now.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote paragraphs, I meant paragraphs in the lead section. Sorry for not explaining clearly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine. I'll get to it ASAP.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

I'd like to help bring this article to featured status. Let us know where improvements can be made and what content is lacking. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-29 20:00Z

Apart from some recent disputes over the lead, which have now been practically resolved, the article is fine. It reads well, is thorough, contains very good images and is exceptionally well referenced. It only needs to be included in a few more categories, and it's ready.--Orthologist 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've added more categories, including the ones that contain Category:Atheism, and the ones that are used on the featured German Wikipedia article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-30 03:19Z

[edit] Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)

Requesting comments and suggestions on the overall article. Thank you for your time and comments.Sparkzilla 10:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shining Path

This is a good article that could probably make it to an A class with a little work. The article is heavy on citations but suffers from some problems that I don't know how to fix without some advice. For example, a large part of the introduction is taken up by a discussion of the name of the group. The article is not heavily edited anymore, was never edited by much more than a handful of Peruvianist, and could greatly benefit from peer review. --Descendall 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of Belarus

Ok, this kind of article, while related to a Belarusian topic, writing about a document that sources itself is pretty new to me. I understand that articles on constitutions have made it before to FA, such as this and on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But, what kind of sourcing can I do if everything that needs to be cited is in the document already? Other than that, I think a spellcheck and grammar check is in order. If there is anything content wise that I am missing, please let me know. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed an obvious punctuation error in the first paragraph. The section on history seems boring and dry, IMHO, but other than that, it looks like the article is very worthwhile, and the importance should not be underestimated. 69.140.155.148 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about the history being boring, but that is all I could find so far. I am not sure how to liven it up, but thanks for the changes you have made. You should try and get an account, but that is another issue ;) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My only recommendation for this article is the the lead paragraph needs to be a bit longer in size as per WP:LEAD. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, added about two sentences to it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lethbridge Collegiate Institute

Close to nominating this at FAC. Promoted to GA this month, upgraded to A-class within schools only hours ago. I'm looking for a few feutral people to help me determine how close it is. PhoenixTwo 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steyr AUG

Seeking review of references, images, content, and this article's compliance with the Firearms WikiProject. Wasted Sapience 23:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emmett Watson

I am hoping to get meaningful feedback on this article. It's the first biographical article I've written for wikipedia.

[edit] Michael Schumacher

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

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

[edit] Metroid Prime

I've done most of the work in this article, and some time ago it got the GA status. Now I need to know what's needed in order to reach the FA. igordebraga ≠ 18:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JimmyBlackwing

Some general suggestions:

• Footnotes come after punctuation
• The article could use a copyedit. Particularly, the use of parentheses needs to be cut back.
• Having a spoiler warning for the entire article is usually not a good idea. A spoilers tag is basically a "stop reading now" sign.
• Full dates are generally internally linked. For example, March 27, 2007 becomes "March 27, 2007". Also, it's better to use the most specific dates possible.
• The article needs more references. 32 for a subject like Metroid Prime is too few, if your goal is featured status.
• Try to avoid repeating information. For example, the article gives me a detailed description the game's beginning in two separate sections: Plot and Locations.
• Avoid cruft at all costs. Large amounts of unnecessary information weigh down even the best written articles.

Specific suggestions:

• In the header, it tells me that Metroid Prime has sold over 250,000 copies. However, in Reception, it tells me that the game is "one of the best-selling games on the GameCube, with about 1.49 million copies sold in the United States alone". Selling 1.49 in one country is better material for the header than "over 250,000 copies have been sold". Remember, the header is meant to be a summary of the article's most important elements. Also, if possible, it would be a good idea to add the number of copies sold worldwide.
• The plot section needs to be rewritten into a more out-of-universe style.
• You should probably convert the "Sequels" section into prose. Bulleted lists are usually a bad idea.
• I hate to break it to you, but this article has a fair amount of original research. For example: "Most of the items from previous Metroid games make appearances here; however, the functions of many of them have been altered to suit the 3D environment". I recommend carefully scanning the article and getting rid of sentences like these. If possible, rewrite and cite them.
• Many statements in the article require citations, but do not have them. For example: "Although the previous Metroid games' soundtracks were composed by "Hip" Tanaka, Kenji Yamamoto assisted by Kouichi Kyuma composed the music for Metroid Prime." Please locate citations for sentences like this. If you need to get your hands on some magazine references, WikiProject Video games/Magazines could be of help.

Good luck! JimmyBlackwing 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem

I have been working on this article for the past three months and I'm hoping to put this up for featured article status sometime in the near future. Essentially, I'm looking for a critique of the article and suggestions for things that might need to be rectified prior to submitting it for a featured article candidacy.

• I was a bit worried about the length of the article, but I personally feel it is okay since much of the kilobyte-age comes from the large number of sources rather than from over-the-top text. However, if you disagree, please do offer up suggestions for shortening the article.
• Because I know the Jerusalem article is (somewhat) controversial, I want to make sure any issues with neutrality (especially in regards to the capital issue) are squared away before making a final submittal. I believe I did a good job, but perhaps something is subtly biased that I did not notice.
• A good look at the prose would be great. I just finished writing the last section, so I haven't gotten the chance to do a thorough proofread; I'll proceed to do that this week while this peer review takes place, but by all means chip in.
• I want to ensure the facts are correct. I have never been to Jerusalem, so my writing comes exclusively from extensive research. If something looks factually incorrect, please fix it or make a note of it (although please use caution if the change will conflict with a source). If a source was misinterpreted, please please fix it or make a note of it.
• I want to ensure foreign-language words are used and/or translated properly, since I'm not knowledgeable in Hebrew or Arabic.
• I'm not sure what to say about local, city, or municipal government in Jerusalem. I may have to keep it short, but if anyone can think of any ideas, that would be great.

You are, of course, welcome to assist in other areas as well. Thanks in advance for any help you may provide. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of more citations from the Holy Scriptures? WikiNew 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you believe additional citations from religious texts would be useful? -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks great overall; I have a few POV issues, but I'm sure these are just oversights, and I certainly do not make any accusations as to your opinions or anything like that; we must work together to make these sorts of things as objective as possible, and it's a tough business. I just have a few minor stylistic questions. Rather than go in and mess with your wording myself, I thought I should let you work on your own project.
  1. "and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre among different sects of Christians." -- different from what? would this be better as "some sects" or "various sects"?
  2. "while majority Palestinian areas dominate the north, east and south of the Old City" I think I get what you mean - "areas where there is a Palestinian majority" rather than "the majority of areas which are Palestinian/ majority of Palestinian areas" - but this is a bit ambiguous as it reads now.
  3. The section on The Temple Periods ends by saying that for over 18 centuries Jerusalem was not the capital of any independent state; I like this. It's accurate, it's dramatic, and it's an interesting historical fact. But I think that as this could be taken as a political (i.e. POV biased) statement, it should perhaps be balanced by a brief description of the fact that no independent state called Palestine has ever existed and/or of the Greco-Roman origins of the word.
  4. The last few sentences of the State of Israel section in the history also seems to be a bit tilted. Perhaps a slight expansion would be pertinent on the problems with the city being split, and the causes of the Six-Day War. As it stands right now, I feel it reads as though Israel's capture of East Jerusalem was entirely selfish and vicious, and that its rule/sovereignty over the united city is somehow unfair or unjust.
  5. A more explicit mention of the Three Hills (Mount of Olives, Mount Zion, and Temple Mount) and Three Valleys might be good in the geography section.
  6. In the Capital section, "only two members of the United Nations — Costa Rica and El Salvador — have their embassies located within the city limits of Jerusalem...and several consulates within the city itself." Are these consulates of Costa Rica and Ecuador, or consulates of other nations? Seems unclear from the wording.

Thanks for your hard work. I truly do apologize for introducing POV issues into this, but I think a few minor changes here and there would be good to ensure the objectivity of the article's message. LordAmeth 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll get back to you on a couple of these points, but it may be best for you to address a few yourself because I don't see the ambiguity with some of them, particularly with your second point. I added the number of consulates in regards to your second point, but I didn't specifically mention that those consulates did not include Costa Rica and El Salvador (since it wouldn't make sense for a country to have an embassy and a consulate in the same city). I fixed the first point, but take issue with doing something about the third point (because mentioning Palestine rather superfluously might sound like a subtle desire for a nation-state by the name of Palestine). -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've eliminated the ambiguity I had perceived in the "majority areas" phrase. As for the thing about Jerusalem not being the capital for 18 centuries, all I'm saying is that inclusion of this fact could be interpreted as an argument against the legitimacy of Jewish/Israeli claims on it as their capital. By explaining that there has never been an independent state called Palestine, you discount their claims on it as well, balancing the POV. That's my thought. LordAmeth 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would shorten the religious significance section. The sub pages should be sufficient for most of what is there. That would help with the length issue. I might also link to category: neighborhoods of Jerusalem somewhere. --יהושועEric 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree on the point regarding shortening the Religious Significance section. In comparison to the five articles on the religious significance of Jerusalem, the section is quite short, only touching upon the most basic facts about the significance of the city in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I'm thinking that perhaps the History section could be cut down, but Jerusalem does indeed have a very long history; the summary in the Jerusalem article is much shorter than the full piece at History of Jerusalem. However, I encourage you to make whatever changes you feel are necessary to cut down on the length. At some later date, I'll calculate how much readable prose is in the article (so we can compare the article with WP:LENGTH), but I'm rather confident there won't be a tremendous issues since there are a heck of a lot of sources that do not count toward the readable prose total. For comparison, this is 63kB of prose. As long as this article is less than 50-55kB of prose (WP:LENGTH actually says less than 60kB), any objection based on length alone would not be warranted. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenio Espejo

Hi. I hope this article can become a Good Article. I am aware that there are some grammar mistakes in it, but I want to know if it is well done overall. Thank you.Dalobuca 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dalobuca. The lead should be expanded to 2-3 paragraphs, and contain a summary of all the main points in the article. That would be a good area to begin focusing on.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your advice. I will try to do that. Dalobuca 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persepolis FC

Please give any suggestions you have which can help raise the importance level and quality scale, even if you don't understand Persian or like the team.Nokhodi 07:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

Here are a few places to start:

• Wikipedia is perhaps not a repository for links, but it is indeed a large repository for featured soccer-related articles. Check out Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C., Everton F.C., IFK Göteborg, Manchester City F.C., and Sheffield Wednesday F.C. which are all featured articles. Here you should get a bunch of good ideas for layout and other such things. An article you can use that currently has an open FAC is Ipswich Town F.C.. Since it is about to pass, there you can see what it takes to pass the latest FA criteria.
• You need to find mostly English sources for the English Wikipedia. People here need to be able to verify the information supplied. You can have some Persian links to info you can't find in English, but it needs to be mostly in English if you can.
• The article needs many more references.
• Check to see if it's a naming convention to call a football club an F.C. instead of FC.
• Lots and lots of red links. While you're finding information for this article, I'm sure you can find some useful info for the people to whom you link.
• You neem to come up with a better name for the section titled "1979-89."
• The article needs a (read: several) heavy copyedit (read: copyedits) because there are parts that seem to be written by a non-native English speaker.

That's all I can come up with now. Try to flesh things out and summarize them at the same time. The best way you can raise the quality of this article is by taking it under your wing and trying to get everything right without any POV-pushing (a difficult thing to do for a sports team, admittedly). JHMM13 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rambling Man

Hi there. Knowing nothing about this club is probably a good place for me to start peer reviewing this article! As JHMM13 said above, Ipswich Town F.C. did indeed make it to featured status so is a useful guide to what ought to achieve community consensus to promote to FA. Anyway, my specific comments:

• The article has no references at all. When adding these, pay heed to WP:FOOT.
• Is it FC or F.C.? This peer review heading redirects to F.C. but it's FC in the infobox.
• Four short paragraphs in the lead, could do with merging or expanding, per WP:LEAD.
• History is probably broken up under too many sub-headings.
• Several elements of familiarity in the prose ("...the boss was a big fan...", "1990s were a dream decade...") which need to be toned down or cited as quotations.
• With football seasons, n-dash is used i.e. not 1995-96, use 1995–96, as per WP:DASH.
• As above, some terms I'm not familiar with, e.g. until I clicked on it, I did know Pas was another club - I think they could be introduced.
• What's happened to the rest of the club season-by-season, since the honours go back to 1973? Probably not worth the season-by-season stuff, if need be, create a sub-article to contain all the records of the club.
• Squad changes - not required, if anything truly significant has happened then it should either be in the history section, or a sub-page which is more detailed.
• Famous players - famous to whom? I'm afraid to say that I'm familiar with only one or two. Yet again, a sub-page could be used. What criteria are you applying to them being famous? Some don't have an article.

Feel free to take all my comments with a pinch of salt, hopefully some of them will be of use to you. Don't hesitate to let me know if I can help clarify anything. All the best The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwanese aborigines

• This page is for Wikipedia:Peer review, not for Ethnic groups peer review. For Ethnic groups, see the Ethnic groups peer review page specific to this article.
• The article is pretty long. It's the product of a large amount of hard work, esp. by Maowang and myself, but also by countless others. It is currently a GA nominee and we hope to send it to FAC after that...--Ling.Nut 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

This is a great article, and I commend you for it. My suggestions:

• I must admit that I cannot sit through all of it and that is going to be a problem at FAC, I'm sure of it. There are some sections with 7 full paragraphs that make this drag on for a long time. You might want to try to take sections that are important enough and bring that over to another article that covers the topic fully while the section in this article can be brought to more of a summarization.
• I'm not sure if it's required at FAC yet, but you'll be saving yourself and everyone else a lot of trouble by switching over to footnote referencing. This will also make the main section of your shorter, flow better, and be less cluttered. I can't think of an article recently that has been promoted to FA status using Harvard referencing. (p.s. it's not hard to switch over!)
• Having a lot of red links in your article is not too fashionable over at FAC, but it's not required. Just a suggestion to create those articles instead of unlinking them.

That's the best I can tell you. I'm not saying that it should be shorter because the subject is not worthy of a long article, but in the interest of user attention spans, we should try to keep things to a relative minimum that goes into a reasonable amount of detail without overdoing it. Review your article here and ask yourself if someone is absolutely necessary to note in the article or if the user can find said semantics in the book that is referenced. JHMM13 08:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! (note left on reviewer's talk page...) --Ling.Nut 11:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bikini Bottom

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bikini Bottom/Archive 1

This article has improved a lot since the last peer review and its well on its way to being a featured article. The lists have been removed, it relates to the real world, there is now a picture of the city, it broadly covers the subject, etc. There may be a few problems left with this article, such as the fact that most of the images do not have fair use rationales and that the table of contents is too long. Any suggestions on how to improve the article further would be appreciated. Squirepants101 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's far too in universe - it's not enough to just say 'such and such is a fictional...' and then go on in the rest of the article treating it as if it's real. All of your citations are to the show itself - did the creators of the show ever discuss Bikini Bottom in interviews etc.? -Malkinann 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that it was AMK152 who did most of these things, not me. Squirepants101 12:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant the plural 'your', sorry for the confusion. -Malkinann 10:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zaireeka

Wikipedia:Peer review/Zaireeka/Archive1

Zaireeka is now a GA. What can be done to push it to FA status? What can be done to improve the article in general? - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

I think the best advice I can give you without having read the article is to find an album article that became an FA recently and figure out what they did to get it in. At first glance, I'm not a gigantic fan of the section layouts. I don't know what other album articles do, but I think they might put the track listings somewhere else. Check up and do write what you find out here so I can see it and comment further. Thanks, JHMM13 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the other album FAs have the tracklisting near or at the end of the article. I could try and place it there, and have the actual article section start off with "About the Songs." - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I restructured the article. What do you think? - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Astor

After seeing a few more of her movies recently and looking at her page on wikipedia, I noticed there weren't many citations, not too many pictures, and not much discussion about Mary Astor's article. I was hoping with this peer review some of the experts on this site could help improve the article Mary Astor and hopefully it could become a featured article some day, maybe even going on the Main Page, bringing some well-deserved attention to this great actress. Ilampsurvivor5 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaisershatner

Put the objective before the subjective, ie move the director's opinion of her downward in the intro, and the reasons for her fame up. She is objectively famous for Maltese Falcon; readers may or may not agree with some guy's view of her acting ability (with all due respect). Kaisershatner 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• You have no inline citations, and, maybe even more importantly, no references! Read carefully WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES.
• "She was born Lucile Vasconcellos Langhanke" I think this info should go to the lead.
• The only citation you have needs formatting. Make use of Template:cite web or Template:cite news.
• Per WP:MoS you shouldn't wikilink single years (1920); only full dates (date-month-year).
• "She was named one of the WAMPAS Baby Stars in 1926, along with Mary Brian, Dolores Costello, Joan Crawford, Dolores Del Rio, Janet Gaynor, and Fay Wray." You have many stubby sentences like this one. You should avoid them, because they make the prose listy. Merge or expand.
• "Astor had four husbands, director Kenneth Hawks (married February 26, 1928-his death 1930); physician and surgeon Franklyn Thorpe (married June 29, 1931-divorced 1936); insurance salesman Manuel del Campo (married February 1936-divorced 1941); and stockbroker Thomas Wheelock (married December 25, 1945-divorced 1955)." I don't know if this information is placed in the right plave. You are in mid 30s and you speak about 1955. Put the info in the right section or another alternative is to create a seperate "Personal life" section.
• "Her daughter was born in June in Honolulu, her name being a combination of the names of her parents. Her middle name, Hauoli, means "To sing with joy." IMO the repetitive prose here is not nice. In general, the prose could be better improved and get more encyclopedis. Many choppy phrasings; many "she did this" "she did that". You could combine sentences together, making the syntax nicer and the flow of the prose better.
• "He said that if she would let him take their daughter, Marylyn, she could have her back after six months to keep for six months. She believed that later on she could get custody of Marylyn and avoid bad publicity." Again the prose could be better here and elsewhere. After what he said, we go to what she believed, without telling us is she finally gave the child?! We imagine she did but ... Wouldn't be nicer if the last sentence was like that: "Astor agreed with his proposal, because she believed that ..."
• "Fortunately, the scandal caused no harm". "Fortunately" is POV.
• External links go after References.--Yannismarou 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passage planning

This is a kind of small, out-of-the way article that I think is start-class and could make it to B-class pretty easily. It seems like a good choice to 1) get comfortable with the project's peer review tools, 2) do a useful, easy collaboration. Cheers. Haus42 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

Good choice, Haus! It looks like it could be an interesting read that does need some work, though. There are some basic things that you could do to really get this article going that might be reall interesting for you as well:

1. Head down to your local library and find a good bunch of books on the subject or if you're not feeling up for a drive, check out Amazon.com or BN.com for passage planning books or books on naval navigation. From there it's all obtaining knowledge and citing exactly where you got that knowledge.
2. Keep separate Notes and References sections like you might find at the bottom of this page: Domenico Selvo.
3. Put the images in places where they do not interfere with the text and provide maximum utility. Check out Wikipedia:Images, particularly the section of image choice and placement.
4. Really cover the topic thoroughly, but keep it in accordance with the fact that this is an encyclopedia. It is not a secondary source that details precisely what one must do to plan passages, but it should give a moderate amount of detail that is summarized and cited for verifiability.
5. Think about renaming the sections after you've gathered more information on the topic. Right now they're a bit vague and require a bit of explanation. Check out Wikipedia:Guide to layout.

When you're all finished and think it's ready for GA or something else, please submit it back here or at some other review area and we'll take another look at it! JHMM13 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your feedback! I wasn't aware that enabling the project's peer-review system actually submitted the article for Wikipedia-wide peer review. That said, your comments are very helpful. This (very new) project has over 100 articles and nothing particularly close to a GA. Hopefully, with feedback like this, we will be able to start moving articles from "start" to "b" more effectively. Haus42 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't wait to read them :-). Cheers, JHMM13 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 38.100.34.2

seems to me like a B-class article already. If you follow the suggestions above you may qualify as a good article! 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! Haus42 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Abbas Fakhravar

I have worked on this article and I hope I have improved it from a pretty bad version when I first found it to right now where it is more informative. I am not sure whether it has the potential to ever become a featured article, but I just want to know in which areas it can be improved. Thanks in advance --Rayis 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Still needs work. Right now it is not higher than start class ( though a good start article). Some remarks:

• Citation 1 is not properly formatted (use Template:cite web or Template:cite news). And maybe the citation should be at the end of the sentence.
• "He has been described as "one of Iran’s student leaders".[2][3][4] He is currently based in Washington, DC." Personally, I try to avoid that short sentences in the lead; they make the prose choppy. Try to find a way to better combine sentences, so as the prose to flow better.
• "Before his arrival in U.S in 2005, he had been imprisoned in Iran 19 times, with his first experience at the age of 17.[2]" Per MoS you should avoid one-sentence paragraphs like this one. They are not good for the flow of the prose.
• Anything about his family background? You go straight away to the improsonement, but the reader of an encyclopedic article wants to have a complete biography. Tis is not just a news report.
• ""About military efforts: No one wants war, neither we nor you. Our greatest efforts have been focusing on own people and forces within our boundaries, without war, to uproot the zealot Mullahs governing our country and replace them with a secular, democratic government which respects human rights and freedom". Why you bold here? This is not recommended.
• "he was one of the first of the democratic opposition in Iran to call for a constitutional referendum." You repeat the exact wording from the lead.
• In "See also" section you repeat articles already linked within the text.
• It is not clear in the article how he makes his living in US right now. His whereabouts? He works as a journalist? If yes, where?

After improving and expanding the article, I think tha a new review would be helpful.--Yannismarou 07:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Furuseth

I'm nominating this article as a test of the system, and also because he was a really cool guy. Haus42 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

As I stated in your other article up for peer review, a good article starts at the library. You need to start writing a lot more verifiable information regarding this person before we can really slice and dice the article. Please refer to the many featured articles on Wikipedia that are biographies. JHMM13 08:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time JHMM13. It wasn't clear to me that the project's peer review functionality put the page up for Wikipedia-wide peer review. Given this information, and with apologies, I withdraw this article from consideration. Haus42 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. It's not your fault. I hope to see this article on the "real" peer review soon on its way to GA or FA. That's a challenge ;-D JHMM13 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Beano

I have never seen such a badly written article. I would like help on this to be completely re-wrtten on the point of it's failures and get it to Good article status. Retiono Virginian 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homer's Enemy

I am currently aiming to get this article to FA status and have modelled it after current FAs Pilot (House), Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia. Any suggestions for improvments, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are needed. I have left the image "Grime2" for the time being, because it illustrates a key plot point of the episode: Frank Grimes's last momenst. Any suggestions anyone has will be most welcome. -- Scorpion 17:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Synopsis section could be more detailed. The subplot about Bart has only 4 lines. Buc 07:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a major plot. I think 4 lines is more than enough. -- Scorpion 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knitting

I'd like to get some feedback to see what more can be done with this article. Specifically, I would like to know if the article needs more citations (and if so, what pieces of information need to be cited), whether or not some of the information is crufty (if only knitters would really care about some of the information), and whether the images are helpful in conveying the information in the article. All other critiques are appreciated, too. Thanks! – Dok^{(talk|contribs)} 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Spano

I've completed a radical expansion of this article from a stub. It was rated "Start" by an admin; since then I've added the infobox w/ photo, plus subsection headings & a bit of miscellaneous formatting & cleanup, but I'm stuck on how to further improve it. I left out some addtional material -- such as a section of musico-philosophical quotes from Spano -- as possibly unencyclopedic overkill. It's pretty exhaustively sourced, I think -- maybe overly so? the multiple footnotes do kind of break up the text, but I wanted to be careful. GA or FA status would certainly be cool. Any comments or suggestions would be hugely appreciated. Thx --Turangalila (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rayis

I fixed a few spelling mistakes, also I am not sure about the "--"s, is that standard? overall an informative article and good job. The lead could probably be worded a little bit better --Rayis 12:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- I'm not sure what bit you mean when you mention: "--"s. Are you referring to orphaned letters "s", as in "[[Wagner]]'s Ring Cycle"? Or do you mean the double-hyphens themselves? On the latter I'm not sure if there's a standard; I'm in the habit of using them as a sub for the long dash, but maybe I should replace them w/ Unicode dashes? --Turangalila (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahanga

[copied over from article talk page ---Turangalila ]

One thing I noticed off the bat is the four quotes in the lead section. The quotes should be moved to a new section, possibly in a recognition section. See also Lead section. Your concern about over-referencing is understandable. I noticed a sentence with five references and many that are double referenced, which does seem a bit excessive. That only happens for controversial statements, but now that the citations are in, I see no reason to remove them. The Recording and Affiliation sections are lists that take up almost as much space as the other content. I'm not quite sure what to do there...

Lastly, I think it would be great if you could put up 30 sec samples of his work like in Bradley Joseph. I think this could easily be a Good Article and maybe a Featured Article in the future.

You may want to check out some of the musicians that are Good_articles and Featured articles to get an idea of what GAs and FAs look like. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

This is a concise, informative article. Nice work. Here are my suggestions.

• The quotations in the lead should be included in the article and the reader should be told in the text of the article who is saying them. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. WP:LEAD
• He is regarded as an advocate of new music - you link to "contemporary classical music" so why not say that Spano is an advocate of emerging classical composers or contemporary classical music? I found "new music" vague.
• lead any of the most prominent (and richest) orchestras - I would delete "richest" - it seems oddly placed and prominence requires wealth in the classical music world.
• The younger Spano began making music early - The tone here is rather cheesy.
• After high school he went to Ohio to study at the Oberlin Conservatory - how about emphasizing the conservatory? "After high school, he went to study at the Oberlin Conservatory in [town], Ohio"
• After high school he went to Ohio to study at the Oberlin Conservatory, where he would earn a degree in piano performance, while also pursuing the violin and composition and studying conducting with Robert Baustian. - run-on sentence
• From 1993 until 1996 he travelled the world nonstop - tone is colloquial
• while also exploring the use of visual elements to augment (or fundamentally alter) the standard orchestra-concert experience - could you provide an example?
• In 2002, Spano announced his intention to step down from the Music Director position in Brooklyn at the end of the 2003-04 season, remaining as an advisor, and then principal guest conductor, until 2007. - a bit awkwardly worded
• By then, Spano was ensconced in his new position, as Music Director of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. - I love the word "ensconced," but I am not entirely sure it is the best choice here.
• After some troubled years for the orchestra in the 1990's,[18][8] and despite his would-be gala debut as Music Director being marred by the tragedies of 9/11 just four days earlier,[18] Spano's tenure has been judged by most to be a lift to the orchestra's spirits, as well as its artistic standards, which are generally seen as having improved. - awkwardly worded
• I wonder if you could separate the "Awards" from the "Recordings" or if you could somehow make the "Recordings" section easier to read. Right now, the awards are buried amongst the publication information.
• I noticed that most of your sources are from major newspaper like the New York Times; that is good, but what about the publications that are for the classical music world? Certainly they have talked about Spano? What about Gramophone, for example?
• You say in your comments above that you have left out Spano's philosophy of music, but I would definitely include that. Wikipedia is more expansive than most encyclopedias and since Spano is a conductor, his philosophy of music is certainly relevant to his "notability."
• You might also think about including more pictures. Are there free or fair use images of him conducting, for example?
• If you want to go for FA, you should probably fix the red links either by de-linking or creating stub pages for them.
• This article needs a very brief copyedit. There are tiny problems with commas and other minor writing problems. Awadewit 16:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Register of Historic Places

This article is the current subject of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject collaboration. I expanded it from a stub to where it is now and am looking forward to broad based input here. Trying for GA and then FA, eventually. What is the article missing? Feel free to assess for NPOV and if you feel like it, the article surely needs a copy edit or two by those new to it. Thanks in advance and I will respond to reviews here, as well. IvoShandor 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

Here are my suggestions:

• Figure out what's going on in that lead. You should keep the TOC where it automatically is so that the average user isn't confused. As it is, it conflicts for space with that image and makes the page look cluttered from the start. Done IvoShandor 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• The images in your history section are creating a giant white space between two paragraphs. Done moved IvoShandor 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Fix up that citation needed spot. On that note, read through the article and try to find every place you think you made a claim that needs to be backed up. If you are very conservative in your judgment, I think you'll get it right. As it stands, the referencing seems pretty good.
• Double check to see if you need to be so specific in some sections (particularly incentives and nominations.

That's all I can come up with right now. Hope this helps, JHMM13 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Commment: Probably will stay specific until I figure out a good way to break up that section per WP:SUMMARY, any suggestions? IvoShandor 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Will take a look. I don't see the white space or how the lead is confusing but I will consult with others, as this is a current project collaboration.

As for the refs I think that "anything likely to be challenged" has been suffciently referenced, so I am not sure where we could add more, I don't want to overdo it as I don't think every single fact requires inline citation. Thanks again and we will get to work on your suggestions asap. : ) IvoShandor 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! The article is very well-referenced, but that was just sort of a catch-all line I send out there to get people to self-check themselves before FAC shreds it :-/. New suggestions:

• I think you might find some hawks at FAC who wish to see the lead trimmed down maybe a touch (I'm talking maybe two sentences shorter). I would be among that group as right now the lead isn't a great "introduction" to the world of NRHP. It seems just a bit too detailed for me. Try to get some of the greater issues regarding NRHP in there and reserve the details for later in the article. This is, of course, at your discretion since I don't know exactly what is detailed and what is not, but right now it's hard for me (maybe not everyone) to be truly captured by the lead.
• Will do a complete rewrite, I will let ya know when it's done. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Another suggestion for you is to try to get some images in your article! An article with the three images you've chosen will have a tough time being approved for FA status. You've got such a plethora of possible images to choose from (so many historic places!). Think of a few that were significant and fit the article's content to help illustrate it a bit better.
• This has torn me. We have tons of NRHP places images, but I just wish there was a better way to illustrate this article. That just seems, so, cliche. I don't know. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• For quotes you may want to use the template you can find here. It might create an interesting look to the article and single out any important primary sources that you want singled out (like 49 USC 303).
• Wasn't aware of this, thank you. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is there an emblem or seal for the National Register of Historic Places? That would be a much better lead picture than the one you currently have which, at first glance, could be slightly confusing to the casual reader who does not understand the subject.
• There is no seal that I am aware of, will delve deeper. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• "As of 2007, the list includes more than 80,000 entries, including many icons of American culture, history, engineering, and architecture." The wording of this sentence could be improved by not having two "include"s.
• OK I found a part that is confusing me in the lead. "As of 1998, there were over one million buildings, sites and structures listed on the Register - including historic districts and individually listed buildings - and each year an additional 30,000 are added." Why talk about as of 1998? How were there over one million entries in 1998 when there are 80,000 now?
• Yeah, I know. I am working on this problem, as it seems no one really knows anything about specific numbers. However, the 1,000,000 number includes those buildings listed as contributing properties in historic districts where as the 80,000 would just include the one listing for the whole district.IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• "Nominating a property to the Register, which can be done by anyone, is a process which involves property owners, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), local historical organizations and others related to the field of historic preservation." Here's an example from the lead that illustrates what I'm talking about. It seems to me that you're going into far too much detail and this whole section could have the fat trimmed off it. Talk with your fellow collaborators and decide just how you want to do this. Also note the proper conjugation of "to involve."
• Word. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Figure out what you want to do with the red links in the history section. If they're worthy of their own articles, create them. If not, unlink them.
• They are, I would say. They will be written as part of the collaboration, I wouldn't take it to FAC with red links, no worries. : ) IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thoroughly copyedit this article for grammar, typos, and, most importantly, for flow. Here's an example of some of these problem areas:

  "In February 1983, the two assistant directorates, created in 1973, were merged to promote efficiency and recognize that the cultural resource programs are both directorates were interdependent." This sentence reads a bit bureaucratically, apart from the fact that there is a verb issue and you need that comma after 1983. To help you un-bureaucrat it, I'll give you some suggestions. Try to avoid set-asides like "created in 1973." It confuses the reader after you've just given another date which is more important. If you're going to use the term cultural resource programs (which sounds kind of heavy-handed as is), try to really explain it above where you first mention it instead of just giving examples of what they are. Try at all times to make it very readable to the common dolt such as myself. If these are industry terms that must be used, try your best to define them briefly but thoroughly before you use them consistently. In other words, see the article from the point of view of someone who hasn't a bloody clue what the hell you're talking about. ;-D

• Roger that, avoid jargon.IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• What's the short name for the Register? Is it the Register or the National Register? Pick one and stick to it.
• Okay. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Try to layout the sections a little better. Perhaps you want to separate the incentives section from the listed properties section or something. Right now, I don't know at first glance what you mean by incentives, which is an important consideration considering it's in the TOC. Another solution could be using more descriptive words like "Incentives for joining," but please consult with your fellow collaborators first. I am not an expert on the subject and you should take my suggestions as a pointing in something that might be generally considered the right direction...it's certainly not a detailed road map.
• I think you should dedicate a whole section to the nominations process with separate subsections detailing it to some degree. You could also find some other solution that might include a table or picture or something of that sort that would illustrate the criteria for nomination. As it stands, I think the nominations section is too long and doesn't seem a proper subsection of "listed properties." Also think about renaming it to "nomination process."
• Think about renaming the protections section as well to something that is less vague.
• Rename the section "academic criticism" to "criticism" and rework the thing to make it flow more smoothly. I'm specifically talking about the first sentence and how it fits into the rest of the section.
• You might do yourself a favor by keeping separate notes and references sections like you can find here.

That's all I have for now. JHMM13 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all good points. I will comment more in depth later. : )IvoShandor 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of the image, it is a difficult one to address. At the same time, though, it still remains difficult for an article with few images in it to get nominated, especially if it's on a subject that is not obscure. Do some digging and see if you can perhaps find "the first NRHP place or some other milestone place. Something that is representative of the whole...like maybe the White House if it is one or Mt. Rushmore. Something really iconic to illustrate one end of the spectrum and then maybe like...I dunno...the rock upon which the Secretary of the Treasury to Grover Cleveland once ate lunch. Something more obscure. These are just ideas. Yours will probably be better. JHMM13 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha. The rock that Grover Cleveland ate lunch on...hahaha. Yeah, I like those ideas though. I appreciate this, as this collaboration has been somewhat of a solo effort thus far. IvoShandor 10:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel Ferrari

I'm just looking for opinions on how this article can be improved, and a rating of its current content. Che84 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this article needs a fair cleanup. That includes more factual information and even a player picture. Also required to make this article good is more informational and club references for those people that wish to view more details about him and/or the club itself. Otherwise, the article has been created with pride - rating of around a 4/10 but after some editing it should look great. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gateways club

I have added a lot of infomation to this article, including finding some pictures. It's a challenge to write as the club is a very passionate item amongst the older lesbians in the UK. I would like to see it elevated from a Stub. Fluffball70 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Cites come after a full stop and not before. Also try reviewing Wikipedia:Citation templates which'll help as concerns suggested citation styles. When citing from a book, it's best to quote the specific page number for each citation. LuciferMorgan 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am confused? There is completed citation template for the book that was used. I'm not sure how you would do the page numbers? Except be doing each point as a complete new reference entry? Do I need to reference every single line? Fluffball70 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you would do each point as a new entry, like; Surname (Publication date of book), p. number

The Iron Maiden (band) article does this. You would then add the book name to a References section. The section you've named References should be called Notes. LuciferMorgan 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guinea pig

I've done some heavy sourcing of this article, and would like to get it to GA-status or better if possible. I would like recommendations especially regarding any sections which need expansion, and suggestions as to what's missing. Chubbles 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article Chubbles. Perhaps the lead could be expanded somewhat to two evenly sized paragraphs.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a few sentences to both paragraphs; thanks Chubbles 07:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Lester

John Lester was a Philadelphian cricket around the turn of the last century. This article is along the same lines as Bart King which is slowly nearing FA status. The Lester article was just promoted to GA status after a couple fixes. I'd like some advice on how to make this article even better than it is and some day get it up to snuff for an FAC. If anyone has a copy of Lester's book (A Century of Philadelphia Cricket. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951.), that would make a lot of Philadelphian related articles much easier to improve. Any other help is greatly appreciated. Thanks much.--Eva ^bd 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I had put this on the article's talk page but since I noticed the peer reivew I'll cut and oaste it here. One minor note that should be addressed is a sentence or two about his personal life. Such as whether he was married, whether he had any children, etc. Quadzilla99 08:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC

Thanks for the note, Quadzilla. I've got big plans to address this. I mentioned this on the talk page, as well, but I'll reply here, too. I've just checked out a couple library books that may address some of this and want to repeat that Lester's A Century of Philadelphia Cricket would be very helpful if any reviewers have it. Thanks again.--Eva ^bd 14:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feeder (band)

I have recieved a peer review for the article, and cleaned up the points made. I then sent the article for a Good Article review which was unsucsessful.

I am looking for a series of peer reviews from at least ten wikipedians (more if possible), so I can get a good idea of what would be universially considered as a Good Article across the Wikipedia community :-).

Marcus Bowen 20:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

Based on the backlog, I think you'll be lucky to get 3 reviews. Here are my suggestions for your article:

• The lead doesn't need to have so many notes. It should be a summary of the rest of the article where are these claims are made in full at which time you should probably reference the information.
• Try to consolidate some of the paragraphs in the lead.
• "The band are..." vs. "The band is..." Is the first form a typically British English usage? I've only ever heard it in use for things like "Arsenal are running up and down the pitch" whereas in American English we'd often say "Arsenal is running..." I'm just double-checking to see if it's a grammar error or just a variation in dialects. In the second case, leave it as is, of course.
• You should be able to obtain fair use images of the album covers. Check album articles for the fair use rational.
• Is there any literature on the band yet? If not, don't worry about it as long as your web refs are legit.
• In the last section, there seems to be a lot of listing going on caused by sudden news of the band and a fan attaching it to the end of the article. Try to smooth this out into prose and figure out if some of it isn't useful. If you can, also try to flesh out the sections on the other articles.
• Check out other band articles for ideas on more sections and more information. Here's a good link for you.

That's all I have at the moment. I hope this is useful to you, JHMM13 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• Maybe an overall copyediting of the article could make the prose flow better. These are some problematic sentences IMO:

• "Displaying a vein of Pixies and Smashing Pumpkins influenced rock in their earlier sound, they have further incorporated elements of piano driven rock ..." Who influenced rock? Feeder? Is the subject the same all the way in thi sentence?
• "They both then moved to London, to become sound engineers, and recruited a bass player for their new band called 'Reel' and was later fired, and became 'Rain Dancer', in which that band didn't work out either." And recruited ... and was fired ... and became? I lost the subjects here.
• "The Singles (2006) Feeder returned to the studio with this time Stephen Street working as the bands producer, to record three new tracks to appear on their then forthcoming singles collection The Singles." Is this sentence OK? Why "The Singles" are both in the beginning, and at the end of the sentence.
• "The year ended with a small tour of London playing The Roundhouse and The Coronet. Two of these gigs seen guest appearances from The Sugababes and Jamelia. The gigs were in aid of War Child." Maybe a bit choppy?

• When we quote, we do not quote; we just "quote".
• I saw a criticism for wikilinking single years in the GA review. Well, it was not accurate. You can link per MoS single years if they are e.g. "2004 in music" or "2006 in British music" as you do.

In general, I still believe the article is entitled to be GA.--Yannismarou 07:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

Work has been ongoing to clear up this list, or lists, since October 2006. It has been converted to tables, vastly expanded, given a decent lead, see also section and images of people entered down one side. We are still working on formatting the references for entries and ensuring the sources are reliable, and are working to update the list with those who are elegible (please help!), so please ignore those issues. However, this is simple grunt work, and an FLC seems a real possibility sometime in the next few months. Advice on how to get there would be appreciated, particularly regarding what should be on the main page, it seems kinda empty. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reference 14 or 15 in List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/U-Z has messed with all the references. M3tal H3ad 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The images need to be looked at and possibly redone. As examples, Guy Burgess is unsourced. Alan Turing is copyrighted (there's not nearly enough critical commentary to be able to justify fair use her). Rupert Everett gives no indication that the image is actually free and doesn't state who the copyright holder is. Also, lots of the references need to be improved. For examples, Mark Levengood is cited to another Wikipedia. Steve Kmetko has a link titled "www.findarticles.com". No article title, no name of the original publisher, no author, no original publishing date, no date of retrieval. ShadowHalo 12:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did say in my original message that the references were an ongoing thing. I didn't know about the images though, I will go have them sorted out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

I've been working on this article sporadically for a while, and I'm looking for some input on what else to do with it. --PresN 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krator

Big points:

• Excessive use of quotes (like: "level", "Paradise", 'life', "sandbox", "leveled" and "Blood of a Divine") throughout the whole article. Things that have an unusual name (like level in Oblivion context) without an internal link specific for that meaning should be made italic (e.g.: level system), and those with an internal link should be not within quotes (e.g.: Paradise). Quotes from cited sources should be rephrased, or use {{cquote}}. The reception section is a huge clutter of quotes right now.

Done

• The Overview section is just a pile of information stitched together. Move the first four paragraphs to a 'development' section just before 'reception', and the last two to the lead section.
• Section structure of the first few sections is confusing. Separate by world, lore, and story information, and Gameplay information. Move guilds a and playable races to setting, and write something about the gameplay. Check out Final Fantasy VIII, a FA, for a good example (though it names the section Plot, which I wouldn't do).

Split it up into sections, though I wouldn't call it done yet. --PresN 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gameplay and Story need images.

Smaller points/nitpicking:

• Try to cut some information from the infobox. Long infoboxes are not well-read. Make the image smaller as well - consider having only the logo and name as image, and use the full box cover somewhere else.

Done

• WP:LS. Lead section is poor.

Done, I think. I tried to model it off of Final Fantasy VIII's. --PresN 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gameplay of the Elder Scrolls series shouldn't be a main article, but a see also.

Done

• Guilds section is poorly written and unreferenced.
• Story is too long. Cut non-essential information, or move to a separate article. A good way to do this might be to move the information to "The Elder Scrolls" articles instead of this one, like Cyrodiil.
• Translation errors is a fourth-level section header, should be third.

Done

• Reviews table is too wide. Should be half of the page (on 1024) maximum, and even then the column of text next to it should be made text-align:justify with a div.

I narrowed it, but I'm not sure what you mean by text-align:justify with a div --PresN 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done it myself - see my most recent edit. Non-justified text next to a table is unreadable. --User:Krator (t c) 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you mean. --PresN 15:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Downloadable is an awful neologism, especially in a section header. Consider rephrasing.

Done

• Reorganise references to the official game guide. Twelve times the same reference is not good, I'm not sure how it should be done, but I do know that someone must have encountered this problem before, so a template might exist.

Done

• Why are only wiki fansites listed? This is Wikipedia, not a guide to all wikis. List a few fansites (three or so), and leave it at that. If one of these happens to be a wiki, so be it, but don't make exceptions for wikis.

Done

I do not consider this done, really. It still lists these sites only. --User:Krator (t c) 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hashed it up again, only one wiki linked now. --PresN 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

--User:Krator (t c) 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I would appreciate it the appropriate parts of this review could be marked with a {{done}} template, if any edits are made based on it, or made because of it.

Thanks! It has some pretty serious flaws, but they do get hard to see after a while. --PresN 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Once Upon a Forest

This is my third visit to Film PR. Right now, I am in the midst of getting an article about one of my favourite cartoons to FA level, on or before Easter, as promised in a previous edit summary of mine and on my to-do list. Thanks to Jerry Beck's Animated Movie Guide (I now have it amid an inter-library loan) and various web sources, the page is now starting to get complete.

Except maybe for the screenshots: while images may or may not be pre-requisites for all FAs, for me it's something else. I have the film on my laptop, but, sad to say, our battery's wiring has most certainly run its course. So, on the family PC, I'm trying to do my best without them.

If you see anything in the article that has to be cleaned or fixed (see also this list for potential ideas), please let me know. Wish me the best of luck by the deadline. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ice-minus bacteria

I am looking for advice on how to make the article better.Amkered 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:IvoShandor

At a glance:

• Lose the list (convert to prose)
• Add inline citations for anything likely to be challenged or otherwise in need of citation, assertions of fact, conclusions etc.
• I really don't think the intro provides enough context, (I remember thinking that when I saw it on DYK too).
• Expansion: So how does this all work? How does it "win out"?
  • Further, how does a farmer introduce it to their crop?
• Wouldn't historical perspective be better as just "History"?
• Talk about its use more. When? Where? How often? Why or why not?
• When all is said and done lead should conform to WP:LEAD.
• An actual image of the bacteria would be wonderful for the upper right hand corner of the page.
• Watch for tense agreement as here: found that when this particular bacterium was introduced to plants where it is originally absent
• Talk more about the differences between the minus and plus.
• Are there any applicable WikiProjects? They might have guidelines regarding what to include and what not to.

Hope that helps. Happy editing and good luck with a most interesting entry. IvoShandor 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making Waves

I've expanded this article from a stub and provided a history of the series from various sources. I'd say production info is pretty comprehensive but the page could still do with being looked at before it is submitted for GA. WindsorFan 16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RegisterFly

Nominating this article for Peer Review--I would like for it to be eventually FA level, and have it up for GA review now too, but want even more people to review it so that it can be the best article it can be. I think the prose... is good, and the sourcing is rock solid; but the various overlapping natures of the history of this make me a bit nervous. Some sentences have multiple sources due to this, and to make the fairly... insane story/facts cohesive to read, especially as... there were basically two major overlapping incidents happening at the same time, but that also fed off/were related to each other. Any advice would be very appreciated! - Denny 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buena Vista Social Club

I'm working on this article to reach featured status. Reviewers please make comments.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ayaan Hirsi Ali

This is a Good Article which has received a lot of work since its GA rating. I think it is well on the way to the FA process, but what do other people think? Any specific concerns or general comments appreciated. Metamagician3000 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For FA, it'll need "Retrieved..." dates on all the web references. See today's featured article on the main page for examples.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Good point - I'll put it on my "to do" list. Metamagician3000 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dawkins

For earlier discussion see Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard Dawkins/Archive1

I'd like to re-open this peer review and see if it is possible to obtain any more feedback on the article in its current form. It has been worked on quite a bit since a year ago. I think the article is just about ready to be submitted to the FA process, but would like to identify any possible objections. Metamagician3000 13:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence Both were interested in the natural sciences, and answered the young Dawkins' questions in more scientific than anecdotal or supernatural terms. is kind of jarring in an encyclopaedia.

He then studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. Was this during his undergrad or PhD. In his info box Niko Tinbergen is described as his Academic advisor, does that mean the same as his PhD supervisor? There is a differing level of involvement in the two, and it would be really useful to clarify that.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation section could use some explaining, don't rely on a quote to do all your talking.

Hope this helps Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to deal with all these points, or to find someone else who can. (Edit: have dealt with the first one.) Metamagician3000 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert College

Any comments on the layout and the text are appreciated.--Maestro 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Smyrnan

These are my suggestions for further improvements in the article (version: 117619187):

• Lead: Most prestigious/most selective. These claims need to be cited either here, or further down the article from WP:NPOV sources or taken out. I would note that two universities that could make similar claims Harvard and MIT and prep schools that have similar stature in the US, Phillips Exeter Academy, Stuyvesant High School do not have these claims on their WP articles. For most selective, perhaps entrance statistics could provide support, though I have no idea how most prestigious could be measured or made encyclopedic.

You may also wish to shorten the lead, and move the history that is present in the lead to the History section.

Mention the grades rather than call it a "high school", the definition of which changes according to country. As far as I know, it still has a boarding section, which should be mentioned in the lead, as well as co-educational status.

Rather than call it independent and have to explain in a footnote, call it private. Private/public is a well understood distinction, independent/dependent is murky.

• Co-educational status: This should be mentioned in the lead as well as developed further as a subsection in the history. The time of co-educational changes is always interesting for older schools and Robert College's merger with the American school for girls is of significance.

• History: Can be and needs to be developed much further. Which sultan was it that gave the irade? The school has status specified by the Lausanne treaty. Musurus Pasha's estate is now part of the campus. The school had waves of different influences and ethnicities educated - e.g. the first couple of cabinets of Bulgaria were mostly educated there. Split into Bosphorus University can also be mentioned here. There is enough history of RC to expand into a major article.

The major events section looks too lopsided towards the Republican period. However, I would caution against making the history section too listy. More prose/less listing seems to be a good thing.

• List of Presidents: Aside from notable presidents, do we need every headmaster listed? I notice a lot of red links there. Unless there are plans to provide bio's, separate articles for every headmaster (meaning they would be notable), de-link the red links.

• Curriculum: very demanding program, take out POV

A list of every single elective given is unnecessary and makes it read like a school catalog. Highlight what is special/distinguishing about the curriculum w.r.t. a regular college preparatory school internationally, or a Turkish high school.

• Higher education: It can be inferred, though not specifically mentioned that college placement is close to 100%. Should be mentioned and cited at the beginning of this section. Last year - what year is that? Statistics should be cited, one per sentence seems like a good idea, esp. in this section.

• Extracurricular activities: As of 2006, Robert College has nearly 100 clubs including the sports and publication club, which may be found below. The school has a rich history of extra-curricular activities and sports. - awkward and repetitive. Robert College has a rich history of extra-curricular activities and sports, with nearly 100 student activity clubs as of 2006.

• Student council: Why do we have a student council paragraph, which reads like a student council intro from practically every good high school? If there is something specific about it, mention it in the lead.

• Publications: Should be named something like student publications if it is to be kept, for a casual reader expects something other than the student newspaper from that section title. Neither of the three articles I used for comparison (Harvard, MIT, Phillips Exeter Academy have such a section, but Stuyvesant High School does, which can be used as an example. If the significance of this section is to illustrate the depth and breadth of student activity, perhaps should be merged into a paragraph in the relevant section.

Move the alumni newsletters and such to an Alumni section.

• Athletics: Expand into something other than a list of names of sports. Facilities, sports teams, championships, statistics (what % of student body is a member of a sports team, is the # of sports teams significant?)

• Music clubs: The music club being 2nd largest in RC does not mean much to anyone who is not a graduate. Is there anything otherwise notable about it?

• Extracurricular activities in general: IMO, this entire section needs to be rewritten to make it less like a school catalog. 3-4 well structured paragraphs would convey the information that this is a school that has a very large amount of extracurricular activities available to the student body and mention a few interesting details, rather than the current format.

• Festivals - change the format of this section so that every festival is not a very stubby subsection. There is enough material for a paragraph, not enough for a subsection. The FAF begs the question what the largest festival for high schools in Turkey is. Also, 2000 people come, from where? Do other schools visit? Is it local community? Is it alumni?

• Campus - something in the lead about the section about history of campus grounds instead of as a footnote. When was this campus established? When did RC move into it? Again, too much subsectioning in this section. Some details/statistics/capacities about facilities can be given, sports facilities in particular. Labs - capacity? Biology Museum has a rarest collection of what? Expand.

• Bosporus Beetle - what a wonderful tidbit! Was it discovered on campus? What is the taxonomy for it? Expand.

• Tuition - are scholarships/financial aid available? If so, what percentage of the student body receives financial aid? Cite most expensive school claim, or make it encyclopedic by providing dates and more statistics.

• Notable Alumni - change this to a section on Alumni and provide at least a paragraph about the alumni and give the link to List of Notable Alumni. Remove the very POV quote, utilizing the facts in the quote. Alumni associations / newsletters, foundations etc can go here. Also, quite a number of RC alumni support their school later, providing endowments, buildings etc. Some statistics?

• Notable faculty - if it is to be kept as a list, provide dates they were faculty and subjects they taught. No non-Turk is going to assume that Tevfik Fikret would have taught Turkish literature. Better to form into 2-3 paragraphs I think. Mebrure Gönenç is an alumna not an alumnus. (female, alumna, female plural, alumnae)

• References and notes - very few non-affiliated sources are used. Sources are not formatted strictly per WP:CITE - take a look at Hrant Dink for strict use of refs. Non-English sources should use {{tr icon}}.

• Books on RC - Use of citation format here would be nice as well. Perhaps you can use some of this bibliography to flesh out the article. I am sure that RC also gets mentioned in a number of works specifically not on RC. Should the title be changed to include these and list a few of these?

• See-also - this section should be for only those WP articles that are not linked in the main body of the article.

• Endowment? - Does the school have an endowment or affiliated foundation that provides monetary support to the school?

• General - this subject has FA potential. For a high school article that is FA, take a look at Stuyvesant High School. I have left GA review notes on the Talk:Robert_College page and have placed it on hold, pending those issues specific to GA. Good luck! Regards, --Free smyrnan 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estádio do Maracanã

I'm looking for comments on what kind of information could be added to make the article more complete. (Suggest section headers?) Comments regarding bad grammar are also welcome. How far off GA is the article? Thank you for your time! -GilbertoSilvaFan 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michaelas10

Well it certainly has a lot of GA potential. Could use copyediting and less point of view. Comments:

• Sole years and decade shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE.
• ...commonly called Estádio do Maracanã - Change to ...also called.
• Notes should be separated from the references to avoid confusion.
• On March 21, 1954 a new official attendance record was set in the game between Brazil and Paraguay match, as 183,513 spectators entered the stadium with a ticket - Add a comma after the date, "as" > "after", remove "match" as redundant to "game".
• ...three big football clubs in Rio: Botafogo, Flamengo and Fluminese - Replace colon with m-dash.
• ...a much loved Brazilian sports figure - Remove "a much loved" per WP:NPOV.
• ...the stadium after him, to Estádio Jornalista Mário Filho - Remove the comma.
• Put the "Construction", "Opening", "Post World Cup years", and "Modern day" as subsections to the main "History" section.
• References should be properly formatted using the cite templates.
• ...leading to the death of three supporters, and 50 more being injured - Remove the comma.
• Corinthians won the game on penalties - ...,which resulted in the Corinthians winning the game on penalties.
• On June 16, 1950, the opening match of the stadium took place - Move the date to the end of the sentence.
• ...was still by no means finished - ...was still unfinished.
• ...FIFA were happy for matches to be played - ...FIFA allowed matches to be played.
• The official attendance of the game was 173,830, however, the actual attendance was estimated to be closer to 210,000 - The two parts of the sentence aren't opposed to each other. Reword to The official attendance of the game was 173,830, with the actual attendance estimated to be about 210,000.
• However, the widely used nickname of Maracanã continued to be used - Remove "widely used" as redundant.
• Brazil beat Mexico 4-0, Ademir becoming the first scorer of a competitive goal at the stadium with his strike in the 30th minute - Brazil beat Mexico with a final score 4-0, with Ademir becoming the first scorer of a competitive goal at the stadium with his 30th minute strike. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Michaelas, much appreciated! -GilbertoSilvaFan 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of software patents

Ages ago, this article was nothing but a "list of patents that geeks don't like" to quote one person who voted it for deletion. Following an extensive editing process, it's now got to the stage where I think it includes a lot of useful info, including links to main articles that report further on a particular patent or the effects that that patent have had. It's also pretty stable as an article.

However, the article still attracts mainly geeks (of which I include myself). I'm hoping that this peer review request will lead to a review by people who aren't patent specialists or who aren't programmers. Hopefully this input will tell us how to further improve the article so it is useful/interesting/understandable by the general public. Thanks in advance. GDallimore (Talk) 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably would benefit more from a review by a patent specialist than by ordinary Wikipædians... what do you think? 69.140.155.148 03:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a patent attorney. As, I believe, are User:Nowa and User:Edcolins who are also regular contributors to the article. As a consequence, we can be pretty sure the article is factually correct and non-attorney contributors have never raised any WP:NPOV objections since my major re-write. What I want to know is whether it's useful/interesting/understandable for the average Joe. My personal goal with the article is to make this tricky and often misunderstood/misrepresented area of law more accessible. GDallimore (Talk) 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crash (song)

I'd like to improve this article, but I've been having a lot of trouble. Truth is, the song isn't that far above the notability requirements. No music video was produced, and it hardly charted at all since it was only released because Gwen Stefani got pregnant and had to put recording on hold. Most reviewers overlooked it, and "Bubble Pop Electric" was predicted as the sixth single. Does anyone have some suggestions on how to expand the article and improve its quality in general? ShadowHalo 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaziranga National Park

This article on an Indian national park and an UNESCO World Heritage Site was selected as Collaboration of the Month (February 2007) on WIkiProject Protected areas of India and had undergone huge expansion. Now wanting review from expert editors to take this article to the FA level or atleast GA level. However I make a request to the editors to correct the minor errors and grammar themselves. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Have not read the whole article yet. Some observations: Please consider creating a daughter article on history, and shift such details as notification numbers, or amounts of areas added to the park to the daughter article. History section needs massive summarization.

created need to summarise

Do not use citation superscripts in section headers.

Removed

Try to reduce so many levels of sections. For example, you can get rid of "Flora and fauna" section (which has got multiple levels under it) and have two separate first-level section of "Fauna" and "Flora".

Done

The section "Conservation Management" need summary form, and avoiding bold fonts. Consider creating a daughter article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten and daughter article created and need to summarize

I cannot see any locator (red dot or shaded area) in the map.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how to resolve this problem, need help from experienced persons.

Nice observations, will work on it soon. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tried to resolve some of the problem. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

• Copyedit needed
• Linking the audio to baruah.in is bad style. The link should be internal. Ambuj.Saxena could provide you with one aural rendition.
• Lead size should be doubled in size Done
• Etymology can be merged with the lead Done
• charming American --> remove charming Done
• ...firewood etc --> etc remove reword Done
• hectares --> use square km (SI) use the {{convert}} template to generate imperial equivalents. (See Climate of India) for working.). Use for all units. Done
• Unlink standalone years 1918, etc; link full dates like this August 7, 1999 Done
• chapories, nallahs? -- meaning needed as they are Indian terms.

Already clarified

• Graph needs to be svg

If there a rule in Wikipedia not to use other image formats.

• Geology
• Why are places italicised? Remove Done
• Visitor information --> rename as Tourism and rewrite as neutral tone without giving travel information to tourists. (One can access the park, Kaziranga can be accessed easily by road etc) Done Still may need editing pls review
• Administration: What is the budget? Done The actual amount was not provided event to the UNESCO, every year there is a change in the budget.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• =Conservation Management= needs to be summarised. Move content to daughter articles and write a summary of the content here. Done Summarised to about 45% of the original content.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Kaziranga - Karbi Anglong Elephant Reserve -- why is this bold?

Remove bold

• pleasantly mild --> remove word pleasant Done
• Seasonal variation --> content in this section can be merged with climate and Flora/Fauna

This part can be added to both and to avoid redundancy created a subsection

• Golaghat District --> Golaghat district Done

Will pause review. Fix these first and let me know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• A few comments:

• "Etymology of the name" → "Etymology" (see India and try to follow its example).

Merged with lead

• Try to reduce the number of one- or two-sentence paragraphs.
• Administration: Try to make the bulleted list into a paragraph since prose is preferred to lists. Same with the Biomes section. Done
• Flora: Fix the link in the list. Done
• Constraints: Delete extra spaces. Done
• Kaziranga in popular culture → In popular culture or just Popular culture Done
• Fix all Citation(s) needed tags. Done
• Further reading and viewing: Fit information into {{Cite book}} template. Done

Can U show me a article where it has been used.

• External links: KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK → Kaziranga National Park. Done

Happy editing, S.D. 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done some revision today. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding {{Cite book}}, an example of its usage can be found at the "Further reading" section of Pericles. Here's an example of the first book using the template:

• Oberai, C.P.; B.S. Bonal (2002). Kaziranga: The Rhino Land. New Delhi: B.R. Publishing. 

Also, "Further reading and viewing" could be renamed to "Further information." Done

Jaws of Death → Jaws of Death. Done Cheers, S.D. 12:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Replying

• SVG: See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. SVG is recommended. A few people can make is easily for you.
• Seasonal Variation: I don't think it's redundant. The part about climate can go in climate and the part about animals migrating can go with flora/fauna.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Images

Image:Kazi-elegrass.jpg is actually cc-by-nd (acc to original image at FlickR). So are Image:Kazi-openbill.jpg, Image:Kazi-sunbird.jpg, Image:Kazi-pallaseagle.jpg and Image:Kazi-broadleaf.jpg. All these have been tagged as cc-by-sa. So this issue need to be resolved. You can write to the photographer asking for permission to use, or, asking to release those works under cc-by-sa, or just attribution. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/pankaj/325052000/ the user agrees to release the photos under the commercial use licensing. Probably this can please the Wikimedia. Also a not so clear about the release type the Flickr user send me an email which is send to the Wikimedia for further clarification.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 12:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1984

Why are so many figures dating back to a 1984 census? Are there no more recent statistics? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Only in case of two animals Gaur and Indian Muntjac the datas dated back to 1984 were used and in all the other cases the year 1984 figures are used for only comparision with the present figures. After the 1984 3 worst flood hit the park in 1988, 1987 and 1998, so this is a significant year. We have tried to add datas even of 2005, In India most of the survey are done at an interval of 10 years, so most of the datas were of 1999 when the last survey of many animals were done. Reference provided in all cases and the figures are taken from reliable sources like UNESCO and other government surveys. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Geology

There are no special geological features in the area of Kaziranga as there is in case of the US national parks. We have to use some facts from the geology of Assam and India which are not much influential in Kaziranga. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Need more suggestion and further review.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S.H.E

Many changes have been made to this article, including the adding of sources, as well as information on their musical style and influence. I know we're missing information on the Girls Dormitory section, so I would like to request to reviewers to temporarily ignore that section. I am looking for prose feedback, as well as feedback on what info seems inappropriate for a musical biography article. Also, I'm a bit conflicted on how to organize this article: by years (current article), or by type of career e.g. musical, television/acting (second version of current article). Yes, I know it's on my user page, but it would be unfair to just rearrange everything without prior discussion or commentary.

I'm also looking to boost this to GA, if not FA. In the latter case, I'd like feedback on what this article lacks to get FA status. Thanks. Pandacomics 00:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GoldenEye

Archive 1

Archive 2

I think this page is ready for FA status. It's a Good Article, and done a lot of work on it, especially the plot section to shorten it up and remove some redundancies. Hopefully there won't be any major problems, and this can be nominated for Featured Article in a short short. ColdFusion650 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it so funny that for a copyrighted film there are so many free images! I'd find some film shots for the Plot though, like Bond vs Treyalan and Bond actually jumping off the dam. WikiNew 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miriam Rivera

I have been attempting to source a lot of unsourced statements and information in the Miriam Rivera article, including:

• birthdate
• place of birth
• aliases
• work in pornography
• claims about a recent hospitalization

I have also been trying to limit the citations to reliable published sources. Many exist from 2004, when the subject was in the public eye. However, other sources, including a message board and blog for sex workers and people attracted to them keeps getting inserted as a reliable source. I'm seeking outside opinions regarding the quality of sources after a lot of back and forth with an editor who insists WP:IAR trumps all policy regarding sourcing and reliability. Jokestress 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

I have expressed my opinion in the article's talk page, and my reservations towards blogs. I am happy to see that the situation is calmer now there. Now, I understand the difficulty to source the information the article needs, but I don't think I can offer any original ideas. The article, as it stands now, is a start-class article; with some work and expansion it could get B.--Yannismarou 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paris

Past peer review

The Paris article has been undergoing several minor changes over the past months, but has had much added acclaim over the same period: it is now A-class in three seperate categories! I think now may be the time to make those last final improvement that will raise it (finally) to FA class. This is a major article, so quality (and precision) is not to be taken lightly! Any constructive suggestion would be helpful. THEPROMENADER 12:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

FA reviewers tend flip a lid if more than a sentence goes unsourced. Let alone a paragraph. As the Paris article has unsourced sections, then I think there still needs to be a lot of work in rectifying that. Ironically, the lead is the most heavily sourced section, but leads don't generally require references, as the material should be sourced below. I recommend taking a toothpick to the article and beginning the laboriously tedious task of adding references to each detail. I think Sheffield was the last city to pass FA, but I doubt even that would get through now due to lack of sources.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to know more than a thing or two about this, perhaps could you help by adding an invisible <!-- source needed --> or the like tag to sentences you think need sources? There is, of course, the ^{[citation needed]} template as well - but things can get pretty ugly with too many of those. Anyhow, thanks for the input. THEPROMENADER 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello ThePromenader. Rather than go through the article and make a bit of a mess of it, what I've done is detail where I believe the FA crowd will expect to see citations in this sandbox: User:Zleitzen/Paris sandbox. My flags have not been an exact science - but it should give an idea of what is required. It may look daunting, but sections like the history section could be covered by only 2-3 main sources, preferably reputable historical book sources, with other points patched together with web citations. Some of the flags may seem so obvious as to not need citations, and much of it I knew to be easily verifiable. However, they'll still need to be visibly cited to escape the FA hawks. It's an exceptionally well written article by wikipedia's standards - I added strike-throughs to only 2-3 sentences, these I believed were a touch too personal and bordering on original research. However, I do think the article is too long to pass FA at its current length. The education section in particular could be farmed out to a sub article leaving a paragraph or so remaining.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus College, Oxford

I'd love to receive any comments on how the article could be improved. Are there any major things which should be covered but aren't, for instance? Any input would be most welcome! --Casper Gutman 11:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from WindsorFan

• Academics/teachers and Notable former students are both lists and need to be prosified. Combine them into a single "People" section.
• The College Graces section is unreferenced.
• Some of the language is very tentative; "somewhat obscure" and "relatively unusual", for example.
• The Welsh Connection might be better merged with Student life or History.
• Don't wikilink single years (e.g. "founded by Elizabeth I in 1571").
• Look at Oriel College, a featured Oxford college article, for other ideas.

Thanks for your input! I can act on several of those items immediately, though the combining and prosification (prosifying?) of the people sections will need a little longer.

I see at the Oriel article that they mention only a few key people in the main article, selected partly to show the breadth of the college's notable connections, and this seems a good idea. The rest of the list can be easily shunted into a separate "List of Jesus College People" article as has been done for Oriel, so as to preserve such completeness as has been achieved with the current arrangement while at the same time decluttering the main article.

If there is another lesson from the Oriel article it would seem to be that a longer article can be tolerated. However, I'd be wary of making (e.g.) the Buildings section too long as I suspect it could risk going beyond what is of general encyclopaedic interest! That said, more could probably be added e.g. on the portraits (by the likes of Holbein and Van Dyck) in the college Hall, and brief sections on the other (less obviously touristic) parts of the college. Time to dig out Pevsner perhaps..... Casper Gutman 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)

Requesting comments and suggestions on the overall article and also suggestions to organize and make the article look better. Thank you for your time and comments. Good friend100 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• You need to tread carefully on issues like this, because unfortunately a lot of people take Asian history very seriously and personally, and tend to take offense at the slightest slight, often even when it's unintentional. This goes doubly so where Japan is involved. However, from what I can see here, to my Western eyes, this seems more or less without POV, and with enough detail to be comprehensive. I think it's probably at about the upper limit of how long it should be though. Lankiveil 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

So is there anything POV going on the article that I should change? thanks again. Good friend100 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of the wording is awkward. It reads as if it was written by a non-native English speaker. The article could use an English-language edit. I did not get all the way through the article, but it appears to be very informative.imars 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll run through the article and make the neccesary grammer edits.

• Are there any problems concerning POV issues?

• Is the article organized correctly?

• Is the article ready for FA status, and if not why?

Thank you again for the comments. I really appreciate the help. Good friend100 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fritz the Cat (film)

I'd like to submit this article as a featured article candidate. Comments, questions? (Ibaranoff24 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Good article. No issues on first glance, though perhaps the lead might need trimming down to 3 paragraphs to satisfy the FA crowd.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luis Federico Leloir

I'd really like some input and comments as to how I can make this page better. I've translated it from Spanish(where it was a featured article), and have been tweaking it for the past few days. I know I need to add more citations and stuff, so whenever you come across something that isn't verified, you can put (citation need) next to it so I can correct that. Thanks a lot.Ychennay 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The information in the "Trivia" section either needs to be incorporated into the main body of text, or discarded. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. A few more citations would be good too, but you already seem to be aware of that. Lankiveil 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Thanks!Ychennay 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Teresa

This article is under peer review for upgrade to GA status. Please review the article and add your comments below. The article had been a frequent victim of vandalism and spurious edits. It had also lacked proper citation of facts. Since then we have removed vandalism, copy edited most of the article and added citations. The final sections of the article may require some additional cleanup. Your thoughts? Majoreditor 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Expand lead.
• Incorporate quotes.
• Add and properly format references with author, title, publisher, date etc; mine the external links.
• Add pictures.

Good luck. WikiNew 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I will start on them. Majoreditor 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Expand early life. How did she get to India?
• Early life in Darjeeling not mentioned
• Life during the Bengal riots (~1944) missed out. These were turning points in her life
• October 7, 1950 -- wikify date
• Calcutta -- the name is now Kolkata. First instance should be Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), and then use Kolkata. The only exception is "Archbishop of Calcutta", where the title has not changed.
• 1940s to 1950 missed out
• Sections too small. Expand
• Difficulties she faced need to be expanded
• There was a Hindu priest of the nearby temple who opposed her in the beginning. He later asked her for her forgiveness
• Supposed miracles?
• Beirut link
• Funeral can be expanded
• Remove subsections
• Mother Teresa with Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandrann --> CM of which state?
• President Ronald Reagan presents Mother Teresa... --> US President...
• the Prime Minister of Pakistan --> ..."then" Prime Minister...
• Balzan prize --> link; what is that?
• Copyedit required: When the walls of Eastern Europe, She never again set eyes on her

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you for your observations and comments. I will need to check out some books in order to act upon some of these suggestions. One question. Which subsection(s) do you suggest removing? Majoreditor 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics, external links, and Commemorations could all be converted to free flowing prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Fetter

After a failed GA nom., I have worked to improve the article based on the GA reviewer's comments. He suggested that I seek a peer review after following his advice on revisions, so here I am. Please note the GA review here for an idea of what areas the previous reviewer cited as needing some work. I would like to get this article to GA status (and perhaps eventually FA status), so please keep the GA criteria in mind. Thanks, DickClarkMises 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majoreditor

It's off to a good start but still needs more work. Some suggestions:

• The sections on Professional Life and Theoretical Contributions aren't developed enough. In particular I suggest enriching the first two parts of the Theoretical Contributions section.
• An additional image may be helpful

Good luck.

Thanks for your input. I found a book cover image to add to the article and am asking permission to release another image of Fetter himself from a school website under the GFDL. As for the Professional Life and Theoretical Contributions section, I'll probably try to elaborate on those tomorrow. Any other suggestions? DickClarkMises 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I also added images of Alfred Marshall and Irving Fisher in the subsections that talks about Fetter's criticism of each of them. I have also expanded the Theoretical Contributions section a bit. DickClarkMises 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kya: Dark Lineage

As the diff shows, in the last 24 hours I've done a lot of work on the Kya: Dark Lineage article. I'm going to continue to make edits to this as I move along, but I was wondering if I could get some input on the layout or suggestions to improve the article. Sourcing is going to take place when I get home and have access to the game and instruction booklet. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

The layout of every article is likely to be different than the next. For some examples, check out the layout of featured articles of other video games. You can get ideas from any of these and use them in your article. Also look at some of the newer FAs in that group and note the amount of referencing and the various kinds of references that are used. You'll need to have a wide range of reference types to bring this article to a superb quality. Also look at the amount of wikilinking that is done in those articles. Use it, but don't go overboard like this. Often your best bet is to just look at how things have been done in other similar articles and try to either mimic it or improve upon it. JHMM13 07:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

---

• You need a development section -- look at some VG FAs for examples.
• The reception section can go into more detail.
• In the lead I read "the titular character Kya", then at the start of the body there's an image with "The titular character, Kya", then the text starts with "Kya: Dark Lineage begins with Kya, the protagonist". If you tell me that the game's protagonist is Kya, I can figure out that she's mentioned in the title.
• Improve the Captions.
• The article needs copy editing. Ex: "During each of the nine stages within the game ..." doesn't needs "within the game".
• Another ex: "Complimenting Kya's mobility is her 'Boomy'" -- You mean complement, and I don't understand how the weapon is a complement to mobility.
• Add fair use rationale to the images.
• Flesh out the refs: add publication date, publisher, and author information when available.

Pagrashtak 15:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit)

My favorite game ever. But I think the article could do with a big improvement. Buc 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd start by writing a "legacy/reception/history" section, explaining just how it was the Genesis/MegaDrive's "Killer App" (as mentioned in the dev section), and all that entails: See Halo: Combat Evolved#Reception as an example. Check out the WP:VG Magazine archive for other editor's resources. Nifboy 11:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate of India

I need comments about the article's structure, and how to keep the text comprehensive without making the article bloated. I've been looking at Climate of Minnesota, and am wondering whether readers need temperature tables and separate sections like "Precipitation" and "Temperature"; if so, I can add them. Also would appreciate comments regarding prose, organization, flow, length, comprehensiveness, etc. Please feel free to also comment regarding whether a "History" section is needed; it would describe how India's climate has evolved since it was a part of Gondwanaland. Thanks. Saravask 19:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Looks nice; did not read the whole article though. IMO temperature tables are not needed. If necessary, a daughter article named Seasons in India can be created which will host the temperature tables. A "History" section in line of your proposal would be damn interesting! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll get to work on a "History" section. Thanks for the advice. Saravask 05:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Seasons are once mentioned under "Climatology", and again elaborated under "Seasons". In fact, it seems the section "Climatology" can be removed, it's mostly redundant. Can be incorporated in other sections. The first paragraph of "Climatology" may be incorporated into the intro para of Climatic regions. Regarding the maps in "Climatology", rainfall map may find a place in "Monsoon" (may be one image has to be sacrificed), while "wind zone" map, may be, under "Cyclones". As a start, all images may be right aligned. Those may be rearranged later if need be. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the redundancy. I got rid of "Climatology", shuffled some pics, and made other changes ([1]). Still working on finding sources for the "History" section. Please let me know if you have other ideas. Saravask 13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• A monsoon wind map would be useful
• States which receive snow would be useful (6 total)
• PNG map needs to be converted to SVG
• low value common nouns should be unlinked, duplicate cases of linking should also be avoided
• Amritsar -0.6 needs a cite (That figure was reached in Dec 98)
• Use &minus; for negative figures
• Lowest temp needed. (use the ref I posted on your talk)
• Monsoons need to be differenciated into southwest and northeast. I believe these are two separate incidents, and NE <> to retreating
• "Many textbooks however, refer to this as a separate season." -- cite needed to debunk this
• The Nilgiri Range is exceptional -- actually this applies to the Westen Ghats, hills in Kerala too fall below freezing, and it is plausible that northern western ghats too might fall below freezing at elevations over 1500 m
• The Himalayan and Nilgiri hill other hill stations can also be included such as the Gharo-Khasi, Western Ghats (instead of Nilgiri)
• Snow disrupts life in Kashmir + blizzards in J&K
• Mention the Loo
• Many textbooks mention that the Thar Desert is responsible for the monsoons, can this be clarified?
• Max rainfall in a single day: [2]. Source here would be the ToI-Mumbai 27 Jul.
• Western Disturbances from the Medit. Sea? Brings rain and snow to N. India (IIRC -- my class 10 geography)
• A table showing select temperatures across India would be helpful: Fields: Summer max, winter max, summer average, winter average, monsoon max, monsoon average. Cities: Srinagar, Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Guwahati, Kolkata, Bhopal, Port Blair.
• A standard X-Y graph, rainfall vs months for selected cities would be useful.
• NE India is much cooler in summer, any reasons?
• submersion of parts of Mumbai and Chennai.. I think the islands of LK and AN would be also severely affected
• What about climate of AN, LK? tropical?
• The climate of India is difficult to generalize due -- starts negatively. Should be rewritten in a positive tone
• NE India is kept cooler in winter through cold air coming in from the B'putra valley. Could this be researched?
• Tropical dry, wet, etc could do with some apt photographic images of the vegetation
• Some left-aligned images push the section headings, need to be realigned

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the critique. It's going to take me several days to address these points; I'll post here after I think I've finished. But there are two issues:

• − does not work with {{convert}}; the template probably makes this switch automatically (I haven't checked)
• I agree that redundant wikilinking within the body or lead should be removed, but think that some of the climate- and weather-related common terms ("glaciers", "summer", "cloud", etc.) should be kept linked.

I'm willing to discuss these further after I've done the map, tables, research, and your other requested changes. If you see other problems, please share. Thanks. Saravask 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think cloud and summer should be linked. They are common nouns known to 10 year olds, and just a "type and Go" away. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Saravask 21:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment More inline citations are needed in certain section eg "History", and the whole of "Climatic regions". --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark romanticism

I'd greatly appreciate peer reviews on this article as a whole. I'm particularly interested having the "Characteristics" section re-organized so that comparison of Transcendentalism and dark romanticism is more clear. I've considered using bullets for the three major points of comparison, but they don't seem right. Thank you.

Stcircumstance 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article on first glance. Agree with the bullet points idea. That section, which I imagine is very difficult to write, needs more clarification. Could also do with a small summary Done at the beginning of the Prominent examples section.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

• If you eventually want to go for FA, you will need to expand the lead. It should be about three paragraphs and summarize the article. WP:LEAD
• I think that you have to explain transcendentalism more so that the contrast is clearer. I would do this in the "Origin" section when you describe the rise of transcendentalism.
• DoneSpawned in eighteenth-century England from ideas of the Romantic intellectual movement - This is difficult to substantiate. Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto is often labeled the first gothic novel and it comes before the beginning of the Romantic movement (traditionally defined).
• DoneYou might try to explain why "gothic fiction" is different from "dark romanticism."
• Rather than having separate sections on each author, I would use their stories, novels, poems, etc. to illustrate what dark romanticism is.
• I would also suggest that you read quite a bit more before expanding this article. Your sources seem a little thin. Using an introductory textbook and an encyclopedia is generally not the best way to go because these works simplify a topic. You should know much more than you include in the article. You should decide what to include in the article (which is actually a summary of the scholarly work on the topic). You should discover what the scholarly consensus is by reading many scholarly books and articles. Google scholar is a good place to start. The MLA database, if you have access to it, would be another good resource. Awadewit 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cerebral hypoxia

This is my first article. I would very much appreciate feedback of any sort. Egfrank 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has also been added to Wikipedia:Peer review. This discussion page is now common to both Peer Review and Scientific Peer Review, so the deabye occurs in this one place. --Bduke 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- Egfrank 03:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. A few comments:

• The first set of categorisations don't appear to have a reference, the ref guidelines for medical articles suggest inline citation for things even if they're covered by the general refs. There are one or two other places where a paragraph doesn't have any refs, might be good to check they are covered by the refs in adjacent paragraphs. Generally the referencing looks robust though.
• You might like to standardise the reference style using citation templates so the reference title rather than the raw URL gets hyperlinked.
• A lot of the paragraphs are very short, and it might flow a bit better if some of them were combined, particularly in the lead section.
• It's no longer a stub - I removed the tag for you!
• Are there likely to be any appropriate images you could add? It would make it look prettier, but I have no idea whether there would be anything relevant.

Good stuff, keep up the good work. Eve 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Chrysostom

This article has come a long way in the last few months, including coming through a couple of significant content conflicts. The end result has been a well-cited article. Aware that there are still some things to address (see talk page), I am looking for some suggestions/criticism to help get this article to GA status. -- Pastordavid 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majoreditor

The article is very close to GA status. Some suggestions:

• Add an image of a Byzantine icon of St. John Chrysostom
• Add final cites
• Further description of author's argument in footnote 44 (Wilkin), along with citation of specific pages
• Some additional information on liturgical contributions and influence. I will help with that over the next three weeks.

[edit] CTSWyneken

I believe the article has a good chance of passing GA. The article is much better documented than many I've passed. I'd try to remove the citation needed tags, either by removing the point or finding a source. I'd also take a quick look at the WP:LEAD standard to see if adjustments should be made to the lead. On a style level, I would also try to turn passive into active tense where possible. It makes text easier to read. Having said that, I would likely have passed it. (Having commented on it now, I have to recuse, though. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac (film)

A lot of work has been done on this entry and I think it is not far away from either GA or FA status with maybe a little more input and advice from others. I would appreciate any help or suggestions you may have. Count Ringworm 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

All dates need linking. Plot could be expanded considering it's close to three hours. WikiNew 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot definitely could use expansion, also a 1-2 fair use pics could be added to the production section. Quadzilla99 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I changed one or two things—saying reviews have been generally positive when it got an 87% score on rottentomatoes, strikes me as suffering from wiki NPOV paranoia. With numbers like that it's well within reason to say they've been highly positive. The actors complaints don't belong in the post-production section, also the MPAA and Box office sections are hopeless one sentence stubs, either expand them or merge them under a section called simply "Reaction". Here's a couple of phrases that could be put into more formal language:

"he was raised in Marin County during the Zodiac Killer's reign of terror." Replace reign of terror with active years or something of the sort.

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Graysmith went from cartoonist to crime-stopper." Very hokey.

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fincher was keen to work with Shire" This might be British language, sounds informal to me.

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also as a side note I've never seen the film so I didn't read the plot section, so I don't know if that needs work. Quadzilla99 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of these helpful suggestions. I've implemented several of them already. Count Ringworm 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay nice work, I'll look it over again today or tomorrow and see what else I can point out. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

This page looks like it's close to being a FA. Giving it a PR to see if there is anything eles needs doing. The main issue is that it's a bit unstable. Buc 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bcasterline

My thoughts:

• Google's purchase of the company, which appears in both paragraphs, seems to take a disproportionate amount of space in the intro. Some other issues are left out, so it doesn't conform to WP:LEAD.
• "...YouTube presented three agreements with media companies..." What does that mean exactly?
• "However, the real cutoff is 10:58." needs attribution to avoid WP:OR.
• The end of "Media recognition" begins to sound like a list. Much of the subsection is also redundant with "Copyright infringement" (under "Recent events") below.
• "Press Coverage" and "Revenue model" are stubby. It's not clear why they deserve their own subsections.
• "Recent events" also has a number of stubby subsections. I think it could be reorganized without too much trouble to avoid them -- "Banning" probably doesn't need subsections, for example, and a lot of content could be put under a more general heading like "Legal troubles". As it is now, I think much of this section amounts to a list of miscellany of unclear relevance.
• Seems like "Social impact" could be fleshed out a little bit -- web2.0, democratizing of information, the significance of "everyone's a content creator", and so on. But, perhaps there hasn't been anything serious written on the topic (yet).

Hope it goes well. -- bcasterline • talk 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments Nice work so far, here's some comments to help improve the article:

• Expand the lead and improve it's overall quality. Given the size of the article you could double the size if the lead. I know this can be hard when you want to get the wording perfect. I myself am having trouble expanding a few leads in articles I'm working on. Also the lead's prose needs a little work, words like popular don't really add much. Try to be more descriptive, point to definable numbers. Second sentence in the lead contains a few redundancies. This is a recurring problem throughout the article sentences like: "In its short time on the web, YouTube has grown quickly and received much attention." are kind of useless and could be replaced with moe concrete definitive descrptions. Like, Since it's inception in 1999, youtube has steadily from x number of traffic hits to x number of traffic hits."
• There's a lot if informal language like: "signed a deal" (should be contract) and "Hollywood remains divided on YouTube" surely that one guy speaking doesn't represent Hollywood. I mean unless he the official representative of the city. Be more specific and make it clear that whoever is talking is offering their summary of the opinions of the entertainment community. That one's a little broad of a generalization.
• "Examples of infringement complaints" has no flow and looks a trivia section with the bullets removed and the title changed.
• Prose could use some work; this is from the banning in Thailand section: "As for now it is unclear as to the reasons why."
• In general the article is severely oversectionalized.

That's enough for now, deal with those and contact me and I'll try to see if I can give more comments. Quadzilla99 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Search engine optimization

Can we get suggestions on ways to improve this article so that it ultimately reaches good article quality? Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What You Waiting For?

Currently listed as a good article. I'd like some input on how to improve the article and possibly taking it to WP:FAC when Love. Angel. Music. Baby. is done. ShadowHalo 09:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

Hi there. I made the mistake last time of closing up this peer review too early, so here it goes again! I'm looking for anything you think is wrong with the article, or could use improvement. Please be honest, and list everything you think should be reviewed. If we ever want Reagan's article to become a Featured Article, these peer reviews are very important. All comments are welcome, and thanks so much for taking the time to do this! All My Best, Happyme22 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutralize the POV

• The lead is much too long and detailed. We need a high level overview of why Reagan was significant in American history.
• The general tone of the article is very flattering, as if written by a Republican operative. There was much controversy surrounding the Reagan administration. This controversy needs to be given the same close attention as his accomplishments.
• The writing has many parenthetical statements, including actual parenthesis statements and statements set off by commas. Consider simplifying some of these sentences to improve readability.
• The legacy section is pure fawning and needs to be completely rewritten. Shouldn't this be more even handed and cover the great increase in national debt that resulted from Reagan's tax, budget, and economic policies, for example? This should cover the good and the bad, not just the good. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The length of the lead is fine, especially given the length of the article. Quadzilla99 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The lead is way too long and dense. It hasn't a hope of passing with the FA article reviewers at its present length. Three medium sized paragraphs should be a maximum.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The length of the lead is perfectly fine - it is not too long. See WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think its too dense, Sandy. The paragraphs are too long for me and it is not the clear concise lead outlined in the guidelines. Four smaller paragraphs would be an improvement and would aid reading for old fogies like me. I also don't think you should have to scroll down to continue reading the lead, which I do. It would be better fitting into the opening screen.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. See what I did with the lead, and let me know what you think right under this statement. I slightly shortened it down, and I think it's more to the point now. Happyme22 05:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a little bit better for me, Happyme22. Good luck with getting the article towards featured status, it's a massive subject, riddled with controversy so you'll need it!-- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majoreditor

Overall comment: it's a decent article. Some specific thoughts on how to improve it:

• < ref > appears in introduction
• Legacy section could be better written - it's clunky in places and is the weakest part of the article.
• I don't agree with Jehochman 's comments that the article reads as if it were written by a Republican operative.
• "Reganomics" section has some statements which need citation. Majoreditor 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Specific ideas for the legacy section:

• Wordsmith the first paragraph in the section, eliminating passive voice. Re-work the third sentence; it's choppy.
• The section would benefit from more quotes and observations from U.S. and world leaders who have commented on Reagn's legacy.
• I'd add in a short paragraph from critics on his legacy to ensure balance.

Once again, I think the article is in good shape overall and needs just a little additional work. Majoreditor 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biography or hagiography?

What this article needs is a good deal more than work on minor issues like passive voice; it needs to be rewritten by someone who has not been drinking the Kool-Aid. There is a distinct lack of objectivity which makes this entry highly problematic. Overall, the article reads like a hagiography penned by one of Karl Rove's staffers, and does not belong in a database that purports to be encyclopedic.

[edit] POV problems

From a brief look this article is quite POV. You make it seem like he ended the cold war and wanted an end to nuclear weapons - this is quite untrue and even the titles of the books that you cite for this show their strong POV. "Ronald Reagan quietly worked to make the world safer from the threat of nuclear war and earnestly desired the abolition of all nuclear weapons." sounds like something from his campaign brochure. You should not take these out of course, but instead you should be attributing these words to specific writers or groups of writers.--Konstable 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We did address the phrase "Reagan worked quietly to make the world free from nuclear war" to certain writers, including John Lewis Gaddis, Paul Lettow, Lou Cannon, Richard Reeves, and Reagan himself (see the phrase in front of the sentence). I agree with you, the "he worked quietly" phrase had to go, and it now says "he worked to...." Any better? -- Happyme22 05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead does not mention much criticism and has some factual inaccuracies:

• "confronted communism and the Soviet Union" - assumes that there was communisim in the Soviet Union (a very popular media-created myth) and that the Soviet Union was doing something worth "confronting" - which is quite debatable. (Later on this same story is mentioned more accurately: Reagan escalated the Cold War with the Soviet Union and Reagan's foreign policies were criticized variously as aggressive, imperialist, putting the world at risk of nuclear war)
• Reagan's supporters credit him with hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union - which is just nonsense... do they really? Serious educated supporters with something to back up their claims? I find this hard to believe. A couple of seconds with Google print, first hit found me this - a British scholar: "the end of the Cold War had little or nothing to do with US strategies". And the collapse of the Soviet Union is a different story altogether which was spurred by interior issues - it is not another name for the end of the cold war (as I think someone may have made the mistake quoting that source, or otherwise the source is rubbish).

--Konstable 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

Hello again, Happyme22. I am giving the article a thorough peer-review in the hopes that we can work together to make it an FA because I agree wholeheartedly with you that the Reagan article should reach that level. I just want it to be done well. I am posting the first part of my peer-review. I will finish it up later.

• During Reagan's administration, America's economy and morale improved after a period of stagflation and high interest rates. - You should try to be as specific as possible (the economy did not improve for everyone and not everyone was happier, for example).

Added more precise, cited claims about economic accomplishments, working on morale. Kaisershatner 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think all we need to add is the fact that the econmy did not improve for everyone. The lead is already long, and I don't think we should get so detailed. Details in the lead don't encourage the readers to read the article, for they see it there, as stated in WP:LEAD. -- Happyme22 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Made a second attempt- I'd prefer more specific assertions about the economy and moved 95% of that into the footnotes, adding only a few words. Kaisershatner 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Following an attempt on his life early in his presidency, Reagan implemented controversial large tax cuts, resulting in economic growth and a significant reduction in inflation and unemployment, but also rising federal deficits. - This sentence makes it sound like there was a connection between the assassination attempt and these policies - was there? Agree. Separated these sentences for clarity. Kaisershatner 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• In foreign affairs, Reagan rejected détente and actively confronted communism and the Soviet Union. - This is a little confusing - you cannot personally confront an ideology and the Soviet Union was not run using communism per se. It is all much more complicated than that. Changed to rejected detente/described USSR as Evil Empire; I think that makes the point that Reagan broke w/the 1970s foreign policy pretty clear.Kaisershatner 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reagan's supporters credit him with hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union, and helping to bring down the Berlin Wall. - It is good that you say his supporters, but what about the other side? I am pretty sure that there are people who say that Reagan had nothing to do with it, that the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own anyway.
• The "Early life" section is choppy; there are one-sentence paragraphs and the early paragraphs are listy.
• In Dixon, Reagan attended Dixon High School, where he developed a gift for storytelling and acting. - You need to demonstrate that he was "gifted" otherwise it is POV.
• I have added some "fact" tags. In general, I would say that this article needs more citations.

I agree. Happyme22 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Are there any reviews of Reagan's more famous films that you could include? Was Reagan considered a good actor or not by the critics at the time? Reagan spent around 30 years in Hollywood. That whole section seems a little truncated.

Finding it difficult to locate contemporary reviews of his acting online (subsequent ones are colored by political POV), but added one. The NYT archive is searchable, but they tend to say v little about his performances other than the one I added. Added citation about his popularity. Kaisershatner 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why did Reagan divorce Wyman? There should be more information on this relationship. Also, is there any way to more seamlessly integrate the stories of his marriage into the narrative? This section is a little listy as well.
• After working with UC Regent Edwin Pauley to crack down on anti-war protesters at UC Berkeley, he was re-elected in 1970 - You imply that because he "cracked down" on anti-war protestors, he was re-elected - is that right? Also, you might want to explain what he did - explain the "crack down."
• During the People's Park protests in 1969, he sent 2,200 state National Guard troops to the Berkeley campus of the University of California. In a speech in April 1970, he stated, "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer." - You might explain the context of this event for people unfamiliar with the history. (Also, whenever you have a direct quotation like this, you should immediately give the source.)
• The second paragraph of "Governor of California" is choppy; it needs to flow better.
• As of 2006, no other clemency has been granted to a condemned person in California. - I'm not sure what this is trying to prove.
• Reagan was forced by court order, including the landmark Lessard v. Schmidt ruling in Wisconsin, to begin dismantling of the public psychiatric hospital system, proposing that community-based housing and treatment replace involuntary hospitalization, which he saw as a violation of civil liberties issue. - Please provide context for this issue for readers unfamiliar with the history.
• Reagan was the first governor to use a corporate business jet for official travel. California received one of the first Cessna Citation jets manufactured. His pilot, Bill Paynter, changed his Democratic voting registration to Republican within six months of meeting Reagan. Paynter often told listeners the Reagan on TV was the same Reagan in person, a man who walked his talk. Reagan claimed that he would often ask his flight crew if it would be any inconvenience to change the published flight schedule because he did not want to keep his support staff from being with their families and any family planned events. - This paragraph seems unnecessary.
• In 1976, Reagan challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford, a moderate. - a moderate what? rewritten.Kaisershatner 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Poor management of expectations and an ill-timed speech - It is not clear what "poor managements of expectations" means
• During his Presidency, Ronald Reagan pursued policies that reflected his optimism in individual freedom, promoted individual liberty domestically, and pursued freedom abroad. - The source that this is based on seems questionable and the entire sentence is hagiographic.
• Is there more to the hostages being set free right after Reagan became president? Was it just a coincidence?
• Reagan later famously told his wife, "Honey, I forgot to duck" (borrowing Jack Dempsey's line to his wife). - explain context for readers unfamiliar with it Kaisershatner 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• This situation painted a new picture of Reagan for many Americans. - what kind of new picture? Could you expand on the air traffic controller's strike? put it into historical context?
• and inflation dropped even more significantly (plus wages fell) - you might want to explain what happens when people's real wages fall (since the seventies, there has been no increase in real wages, as you know)
• Stockman's claims are considered by most to be untrue - by most what? historians?
• Although there is some disagreement over how much Reagan's policies contributed to the unequal distribution of the benefits of economic growth among the rich and the poor, supporters would argue that by dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense.^{[citation needed]} He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit. In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated some deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. - what would his critics say? Perhaps something like: the recession that hit America right after his presidency during the presidency of Bush was not unrelated to Reagan's policies (particularly because Bush continued many of Reagan's economic policies).
• Yet, most Americans still consider Reagan's economic strategies successful and are thankful for "Reaganomics". - sounds hagiographic - what does the source say exactly? By the way, just because Americans think Reaganomics was successful does not mean it was. That is why it is important to have the views of scholars and economists.
• A few notes on sources (I will expand these later):

• You use Nancy Reagan's autobiography as the sole source for the 1976 election. There are far more reliable sources for that election. Nancy Reagan is not an expert on that issue; she has a very one-sided view. See WP:RS.
• You often say "critics say" or "analysts say" without citing them. I have added some tags for a few of these statements, but you must say who these critics are.
• The first two paragraphs of "Reaganomics" uses an obiturary and Reagan's autobiography as its sources. Again, these are not the best sources for economics-related information since there is a plethora of books and articles on Reagan's economic policies.

• There seem to be a lot of pictures of celebrations. Perhaps you could find some other images as well?
• I would recommend a thorough copyedit for this article once you have revised it. There are some awkwardly worded sentences, contractions, problems with emphasis, incorrect diction, etc. Many of the sentences begin with "Reagan;" there should be more variety. I would be happy to help if you want me to. Awadewit 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit. I want to work with you, not against you in trying to get Reagan's article to be a Featured one. I'm glad that you are giving us your thoughts in such detailed form, which really helps. I would love it if you could help us out, if you find the time. Again, I look forward to working with you. Thanks, Happyme22 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More comments.

• Critics charged that the policies did little to actually reduce the availability of drugs or crime on the street, while resulting in a great financial and human cost for American society. - you need to cite statements like this
• The decrease was reported by all national, independent measures including the University of Michigan's National High School Seniors survey, the National Parents Resource Institute on Drug Education, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse's National Household survey. - you need to cite these
• Critics pointed out that the conservatives justices were equally activist, but showed sympathy to corporate America. - cite please
• In the "Invasion of Grenada" section, you focus on the military operation. I would cut that down significantly and explain the political context for the military operation. I do not believe that the Americans were "hostages" in the sense that you imply.
• Reagan's Second Term consisted mostly of Foreign Affairs. - odd statement
• saying "I was there"; he was in a film unit in Hollywood that processed raw footage they received from Europe for newsreels, but he was not in Europe itself during the war. This incident has often been used to describe Reagan as either confused or lying about his role in WWII, but no claims have been confirmed - I'm not sure what you mean by "no claims have been confirmed" - he was either lying or confused because he was never in Europe at that time
• "The Cold War" section jumps around a lot; it should flow better.
• "The end of the Cold War" seems to conflate too many ideas: nuclear disarmament, free markets and Reagan's aversion to communism. These threads need to be disentangled.
• "The Close of the Reagan Era" seems unnecessary.
• These convictions of personal responsibility, individual freedom, and the goodness of people guided Reagan's policies as president. - this is highly dubious since politics is all about compromise and making sure one's campaign contributors are happy (no matter which side of the aisle one is on)
• When Ronald Reagan died in June 2004, he left behind a nation that had been revitalized, and a world free of nuclear war. - The world was never in the throes of a nuclear war and even after Reagan's presidency both the US and the USSR had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons with which to wage a possible nuclear war.
• Ronald Reagan has become the iconic image of today's Republican Party. Republican politicians frequently call on the philosophies of Reagan when making speeches, or voting on bills. - example would be nice
• He has become a hero to many of them, and to many ordinary Americans - what does the source say? Might be hard to prove that Reagan is a hero to "many ordinary Americans."
• The "Legacy" section should probably include less about his popularity and more about his political legacy.
• On FOX News Channel's show, "Hannity's America," (hosted by conservative Sean Hannity) there is a segment titled "What Would Reagan Do?" The segment looks at issues facing the world today, and compares them to the ones President Reagan faced during his Presidency. - Frankly, this should not be listed as an "Honor" next to having ships and airports named after one. It is a rhetorical device used by Fox News, it is not an honor.
• The "Honors" section is disjointed and contains informatin that should be in the "Funeral" section.
• Why aren't the "Awards and Honors" sections combined?
• The "Coinage" section does not deserve its own section - this repeats information given before. Condense! This is already a long page. Awadewit 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More comments on sources: It is not clear to me why the editors, who have access to a solid bibliography on their own page, have chosen to use such unreliable sources. I will keep adding to this list as I have the time.

• The primary source for the "War on Drugs" section is an interview with Mary "Angie" Hammock. You need to tell the reader who this person is and why they are a reliable source (in a quick google search, I could not find her, which is disturbing). I would also advise you to have a mulitiplicity of sources. I have never read that drug use actually declined in America; it simply changed form. So, I question Hammock's account.
• For the "Invasion of Grenada," you refer the reader to a 97-page pdf document written by a government employee. This is a primary source. Secondary sources are more reliable.
• Remembering Ronald Reagan "Remembering Ronald Reagan". Retrieved on 9 June 2004. - I'm not sure why you are using this source (a later speech by a congressman remembering Reagan) to quote Reagan's "Time for Choosing" speech. Can you not find a copy of the whole speech?
• "I Hope You're all Republicans". Retrieved on 14 April 2003. - About.com is not a reliable source.
• Hart, Robert (2 June 2004). NYT's apologies miss the point. Consortium News. - This source does not prove your point about the Iran-Contra scandal. It is also an opinion piece that is primarily about the Iraq War.
• A Tale of Three Countries: The Iran Contra Affair. Retrieved on 9 March 2007. - It is not clear what you are referencing here since there are many pages about the scandal linked to this page, but if you are referencing the summary of the Iran-Contra affair, it is written by a librarian at the Central Rappahonnack Regional Library. There is plenty of information on the Iran-Contra affair written by scholars that is available.
• "SDI: The Next Generation". Retrieved on 15 March 2007. - This is from Fox News. We could enter into a long debate on the reliability of Fox News. I am willing to go there if you are. Awadewit 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know that there were so many things that need to be worked on! Again, you really sound like you know what you are doing, and any time you find to help us edit this article would really be appreciated. I look forward to working with you. Happyme22 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Reagan, I am just a good researcher. Like I said before, I would advise the editors of the page to read the books on their bibliography and then revise the page. Many of those sources look much more reliable than the ones they have currently cited. Awadewit 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

More comments on sources.

• Several of your sources are not cited properly which makes it impossible to locate them. For example, what is "Regan, Donald T.. "For the Record"."? or "Hammock, Mary "Angie". Interview. ""Interview with Mary 'Angie' Hammock"."? Where can I find these?
• Gorby Had the Lead Role, Not Gipper "Gorby Had the Lead Role, Not Gipper". Retrieved on 10 June 2004. - You have to have an account to get this story. Also, again a news story is not the best source for this issue.
• White House Explains Reagan Church Habits White House explains Reagan Church Habits. Retrieved on 6 March 2007. - This article does not support the claim you are making.
• Reagan Dies-National Review". Retrieved on 9 March 2007. - This article is written by a screenwriter and is a personal opinion piece reflecting on the screenwriter's politics and his experiences at Reagan's funeral. This is not a reliable source for what you are claiming.
• America Mourns: Ronald Reagan dies at 93". Retrieved on 19 March 2007. - Fox News
• Reagan Laid to Rest". Retrieved on 24 March 2007. - Fox News
• Ludwig von Mises (2007). "Supply-Side Gold Standard: A Critique" (English). Vronsky and Westerman. Retrieved on 21 March 2007. - Looks like it might be self-published. Does not appear to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Awadewit 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to start off on a bad note, nor do I want to get in an argument, but Fox News is a news channel (the most popular cable news station). I don't always agree with Fox, but I definetly consider it reliable, just like CNN and CBS, and so forth. I don't think there's anything wrong there. If you read the article, there is nothing that talks about politics, or issus to disagree on. It talks about Reagan's funeral, and there's really no debate there. Would you rather I cite CNN? That would be POV, in favoring one news station. What do you suggest using as a source, other than Fox? -- Happyme22 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because Fox is the most popular news channel does not make it reliable. Also, Fox has a strong ideological tilt to the right (just watching their channel for a few days can demonstrate this - almost all of their commentators and news anchors are conservatives); that is why it is less reliable than other news channels. Ideally, you should find this information in a printed source like a carefully-researched book or a major newspaper (such as the New York Times or LA Times) because those media are fact-checked more carefully than any news channel (Fox or otherwise). You might want to watch the documentary Outfoxed; it details the ideological leanings of Fox and shows you how it is not "fair and balanced." I believe it is available on google video. Awadewit 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument, so let's leave it at that. I'm working to implement many of your suggestions (if you go up, you'll see that I have crossed out the ones that have been implemented). I think that the "Radio and film career" section should be cut down, and not so much like a list. What do you think? -- Happyme22 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Office

The current article entitled The Office has had a confusing past. It once was about the British version of the show and it has changed multiple times. Now it pertains to all versions of the TV show, The Office. There are currently five versions of The Office in the world and they are in a total of three different languages. I feel that this intense article can be helped by the Wikipedia community by means of a peer review. Yaanch^Speak! 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wii Remote

This article has many refrences and I am planning on putting it up on FAC so I'd like a peer review before i take it there. It is indepth, but I would like a review from a non-biased editor. The Placebo Effect 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krator

This is an uncommon kind of subject in WP:VG, but I'll try my best.

• This article could use an infobox of some kind. Maybe make one, even. Include the image currently at the top in it, and list information like dimensions, manufacturer, hardware (what kind of sensor?), etc. Done
• Move the 'pricelist' from the lead section to the infobox (above), and state both the local currency price and the prices in a reserve currency.
• The images in the article are horrible. Make them have a size at least somewhat viewable (the sensor bar image is particularly guilty here) and better quality. Wiimote nunchuk.jpg is grainy, zapper and the classic controller are too small on the article, while the images themselves are quite large.
• Split 'design' in two: 'How does it look' and 'How does it work', with different titles. Colour and the current lead paragraph of the section go into the first, power source, sensing, memory, and feedback go into the second. Need to figure out where 'strap' belongs.
• A schematic drawing (svg!) of how the sensing works would be great in that section.
• Memory is a stub section. Either expand or merge.
• Improve the lead paragraph of the expansions section. (How does one expand it, what does one need an expansion for, etc.)
• A small infobox for all three expansions would be great. Just put the images in there, the prices, the manufacturer, the dimensions, and more. The pricelist in the content text doesn't look nice, and infoboxes make great overviews. Note that these are sections, not articles, so keep the box small.
• Wii zapper needs expansion.
• Tennis rackets, baseball bats and golf clubs? Tell me more. Make a section for each of them complete with small infobox, if there's enough information/content to warrant that.
• Steering wheel needs expansion.
• More see also - articles about infrared sensors, the wii, list of wii games, and maybe more. Keep see also to about 5 articles. Not much more, not less.
• There's a 'articles which may contain original research' category on the page. Why? You can remove it, IMHO. Done

--User:Krator (t c) 10:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I would appreciate it the appropriate parts of this review could be marked with a {{done}} template, if any edits are made based on it, or made because of it.

I am working but it won't be fast because of school. The Placebo Effect 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Product images and an Overstock.com listing indicate that game accessory manufacturer Intec is releasing a third-party Nunchuk controller for the Wii Remote. This is the first third-party expansion to be discovered for the Wii Remote. Surely that should read ...first third-party expansion to be released for the Wii Remote. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daylight saving time

The U.S. DST hoopla has died down, so now's a good time to do a peer-review for Daylight saving time. I'm a first-time editor trying to achieve "Featured article" status (why not be ambitious?). Some sample questions:

• Is there too much detail and too many references?

• Section order? For example, "Origin" doesn't come first, on the theory that people first want to know about DST before knowing its history; is this reasonable? Also, "Mnemonic" and "Name" are widely separated; is there a better or more-traditional order for this sort of thing?

• Should there be explicit sizes for the thumbnails? The style guide says no, but the map and graph get a bit hard to read with the default sizes.

Eubulides 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bcasterline

Regarding your questions:

1. Definitely not. Some FAs have well over a hundred citations (see AIDS) so 30 is certainly not too many. As I say below, I think you could add more detail in some areas.
2. I think I would put origin first, benefits and drawbacks second, and when it starts and ends (technical details, really) third. If people are interested in only a specific topic they can use the table of contents. "Name" and "Mnemonic" are both short and could probably be combined -- maybe put that information before origin?
3. Thumbnails look pretty good to me at 1280x960. Smaller would be a problem. If they're left at default size the user can always set a personal size preference (in "my preferences").

Some other comments:

• The intro paragraphs should be a summary of the article that follows. (See WP:LEAD.) In this case, I'd say it should be longer. The second paragraph, which is just a sentence, could use elaboration.
• Under "When it starts and ends": I think the skewing of time zones could use some more explanation.
• Reading through "Benefits and drawbacks", I get the feeling the author is more interested in the latter. For example, benefits are always introduced by "this study reported", whereas drawbacks are simply stated as fact. Some drawbacks (especially under "Complexity") aren't even sourced. So I think NPOV could use some work.
• "Computing" is rather long for something that seems to me rather trivial. Is that really one of the core concepts?
• Lots of stubby subsections throughout the article after "Origin". Expand or consolidate: if the topics deserve their own sections, they need more information; if they don't, combine them.
• I would remove "Cultural references". (See WP:TRIV.)

This is an interesting subject and it'd be great to see it reach FA -- but I think it needs some more work, especially if it's controversial. Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and careful review.

• I'll raise the section-order issue in the talk page; the current order arose because people kept bugging us about details during last week's big DST change, but now that it's no longer a hot topic perhaps we can rethink this.
• I will work on lengthening the intro.
• The "benefits and drawbacks" section is hampered because there seem to be relatively few reliable sources on the "benefits" side; I asked for more cites on the talk page but so far no luck. I will work to remove bias from the wording, though.
• "Computing" used to be waaay longer! I'll trim it down more; some of this can be moved to another page perhaps.
• The sections "Mnemonic", "Associated practices", "Name" seem to be stubby in the sense you describe; I'll add something on the talk page about them. Or perhaps you are referring to all the subsections of "Benefits and drawbacks" as well? I suppose some of them could be combined too.
• I have removed Cultural references.

Eubulides 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the page and have followed your suggestions as best I could. Thanks again for the review. I hope it's more suitable for FA status now. Eubulides 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit unusual not to have a single wikilink in a three paragraph intro. Kaisershatner 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that: I added some wikilinks. Eubulides 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnegat Light, New Jersey

I am seeking any comments which could support this article's current assessment as a B class or for improving it to GA. I have an additional book en route which may provide for some additional expansion; and I intend to upload a couple modern-era photos hopefully within a week or two. Thanks! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by JHMM13

As I wrote in the peer review for Barnegat Lighthouse below, your best bet would be to search out how other towns are laid out on Wikipedia, especially ones that have articles that have reached featured status. Finding literature at your local library about the town of Barnegat Light would probably be a lot easier than finding info on the lighthouse, so be sure to ask around at the ref section. Also, note what I said below about how to cite sources regarding claims made in the articles. It might do you good to go lurk around WP:FAC for a little while to see what it takes for articles to get to featured status. Hope this helps, JHMM13 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnegat Lighthouse

I am seeking any comments that could be used to support this as a B-class article or for improving it to GA. The references cited provide much of the information in the main text and, as the information from each source is scattered about, it would be difficult to footnote it. I have requested some additional photos regarding its earlier history. Thanks! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by JHMM13

Well, first of all you could create separate sections instead of just one long lead. After you write the different sections, you could write a lead that incorporates information from the rest of the article in a summarizing fashion (see: WP:LEAD). There might be a wikiproject on lighthouses out there that could help you find a common structure for the article, so you should look around for that or any other kind of sight-seeing-related articles wikiproject. Otherwise, you could check other lighthouse articles and see what seems to be the common way of presenting the information. If you can improve upon what they have, be sure to take the initiative. Also, be sure to read the Wikipedia guide to article layout which I'm sure could give you lots of great ideas. Something that is typically required for GA and FA articles is consistent referencing of claims made within the article to reputable sources. I don't know how many Barnegat Lighthouse books or scholarly articles are out there, but if you want to make this article shine, find as many as you can and put the ones you use in a separate References section. Then when you cite each one using footnotes, you can use a minimal amount of text. Just to review, your first stop might be the local library. When you've got more of a layout going, please don't hesitate to start another peer review or drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers, JHMM13 19:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinbad (actor)

I've tried to expand this as much as I can. Besides how jumbled "Films and other projects" is, how does the article stack up? The aim is to get it to featured status within a month. -- Zanimum 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The ikiroid

Wow! I'm glad you've taken on such a project—although FA is really difficult to attain. In your case, I would go for GA instead. That being said, I see a few problems with the article. The recentism needs to be fixed, and the multiple single-sentence paragraphs need to be merged together. Also, the article needs to be expanded, and the prose needs to be severely rewritten so that it flows. Right now, it reads like a timeline (In 1991, he did this. In 1994, he did that. In 1999, he did something else). On the flip side, the article is cited quite nicely. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice start, but it needs further work. This is my review:

• Maybe you could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
• I don't like very much stubby sections, where a quote is longer than the prose like "Military service".
• "Under the professional name Sinbad,[6] he began his career appearing on Star Search, Sinbad won his round against fellow comedian Dennis Miller,[7] appearing a total of seven times." If this is really one sentence, it is not nice. In general, you should improve the overall prose, which is often prose and not "professional". Further problematic prose: "While Bonet only stayed with the program for a season,[8] Sinbad stayed with the cast from 1988 until 1991 as "Coach Walter Oakes"."
• "With the exception of later addition Marissa Tomei to the cast, the students at Hillman were all high-achieving African Americans with unique personalities, contrary to the "token" roles previously focused on." I don't get something here: the College is fictional; Tome is a real actor. Are you talking about her or about the character she plays. The whole Hillman analysis in these two paragraphs looks to me confusing.
• "Films and other projects" is spread with one-sentence paragraphs and looks listy. I see the same problem is other sections as well. This is not nice for a prose that flows badly and seamlessly.
• I think that all the quotes in "Sinbad in pop culture", although from TV series, should be cited.--Yannismarou 13:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Goonish Shive

This article was partially re-written in the last few weeks. I think the current version is already in B-Class territory, but would like to clean it up further to get it near GA criteria. Ambi Valent 14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would especially like to know the answers to some questions:

• I've read "statements should be attributed to primary or secondary sources" as main guideline and on the other hand "there are too many links to specific strips" as criticism for an article. I'm slightly confused; should there be only a few general attributions to the primary source instead of specific ones?
• Where exactly is the line between attributing to the primary source making necessary assumptions and original research?
• The "Cast" and "Synopsis" sections are the longest of the article, pushing it over 32K. What would be the correct reaction to this: keep almost all of it, cut short and put the rest in extra articles, or cut short discarding the rest? Ambi Valent 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nifboy's review

• Avoid citing a strip for a statement about the strip in general; just because PvP runs strips like this on occasion does not make it an indication of its theme.
• See above, plus WP:WAF emphasizing the use of sources that are not the work itself.
• There isn't a "right" answer. Cover as much as is necessary but no more. I would discourage the use of forks simply by virtue of the fact that they tend towards eventual deletion. Nifboy 12:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll work on it. Ambi Valent 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK if I used Howard's "Tangents" as a secondary source? He wrote both a lengthy review for the entire comic as some long comments to some storylines/scenes. "Tangents" is nearly as old as "Websnark". And how would I put it best in the article: "According to Howard's 'Tangents' review, ..."? Ambi Valent 07:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PresN's review

I think the synopsis is way too long. I would prefer it to be about 1/3 of the length it is now, covering only the biggest details. I also think that the order the sections are in is a problem- while a "history" or "development" section does need to be near the top, the section as it is references the story so much that it should be below it in the article- it's very hard to follow right now without it. Done

I was going to say that the cast section was long, but okay as there are so many characters, but then I realized that there is a "characters of EGS" article linked to. If that's the case, you should use summary style, not just a copypaste of the major characters section of that article. Cut each character down to about half the size they are now, but as this is a webcomic article, save a copy of the "chars of EGS" article in your userspace, in case someone gets in a bad mood and deletes it.

The article needs a thorough copyedit, as there's a lot if times where the tone shifts from out-of-universe to in-universe and back within a paragraph. It's a problem that's inherent in fiction articles, but it's hard to notice when you're writing. --PresN 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added that to the article's To-Do-List. Cutting may be an easier task than the others, but it will still take a while. Ambi Valent 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So far, I made two attempts to cut the synopsis in size, which I threw away. I threw way the first one when I noticed it was getting only barely shorter than the current one, while I threw away the second because I cut so much the rest didn't make sense. Now I'm trying to make a new list of what should be in it, and then put it into text form; I hope that will work... Ambi Valent 07:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than halfway through with the third attempt to cut the synopsis in size, but the parts I cut are just over half as long as before, not cut to 1/3. Maybe someone else can compress it further without losing vital parts, but I think I'm at my limits. I'll complete this and move the sections around, then head for the cast section. Ambi Valent 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malkinann's review

All your images need detailed fair use rationales in addition to the templates. Also, your citations need more detail - author, date, last accessed date being bare minimum. Rather than citing the strip itself, cite reviews of the strip. Like, when it talks about the art originally being bad, cite the review that says it was, rather than the first strip. Good luck. -Malkinann 04:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Would creator's permissions for the images be sufficient, or are more rationales needed? As for the citations of strips for statements that talk about the comic in general, I will cite reviews there, and will make cite web statements for reviews more detailed. But what about strips I cite as support for an extraordinary statement inside a summary, like a transformation into an anthrofeline? Ambi Valent 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - ask the Wikipedia:Help desk. I had thought that as they were there under Fair Use, you'd need the detailed citations, but if you've got Shive's permission, then that may yet be another kettle of fish. Try and use the reviews and author's comments as much as possible, and only use comics for non-interpretive facts. You can also make the cite web statements for individual comics more detailed - I've plunked a goodish-filled-out example in the to do list that you can copy-paste and use. I'm really suprised that the author's commentary isn't more extensively quoted as a primary source in the article. -Malkinann 11:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd use more of his commentary, but he mostly comments in EGS forum articles, which I hear are must-not cites. I have already cited "Painted Black Special Features" as well as the early roleplaying sessions of Elliot, Tedd and Sarah. Ambi Valent 11:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd gathered from Wikipedia:Reliable sources that forums could be cited, as long as it wasn't just shooting one's mouth off about anything. My interpretation of WP:RS is that the author of a webcomic talking about his inspirations on a forum created for the purpose of talking about the webcomic could be considered a reliable source. Read the policy and judge for yourself. -Malkinann 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer the above questions, "Use with permission" images should still be tagged fair use with rationale (Wikipedia:Image use policy). Citing forum/blog posts by the author is perfectly acceptable (with caution), but the further you get away from "authoritative source", the more care should be used in citing it. Nifboy 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. Up to now I've never been sure if I was actually doing the right thing, or if I tainted every word I wrote with OR, and put it closer to deletion each day. Now I can finally start working with the rules to write an informative article. Ambi Valent 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to rework the storyline section as it's a bit confusing, (the League of Copyeditors may be able to help you there) and lastly, rewrite the lead. According to WP:LEAD, each section of an article should be represented in the lead in a sentence or paragraph. -Malkinann 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby union at the Summer Olympics

Users at WP:RU would like feedback on the article to get it to FA status. It has had two previous peer reviews and is currently listed as a good article. Cheers. Cvene64 08:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shudda's review

My thoughts:

• Lead needs to be expanded as per WP:LEAD
• In the 1900 section, does not explain how the France team is selected? Was is a representative team, or a club side that won the right to compete for their country. Also, how did the Frankfurt club and Mosley Wanderers RFC come to represent their respective countries.
• Also, are their match reports for the games?
• Why was it not played in 1904 and 1906?
• What was the RFU's involvement in 1908?
• Is there more information that can be given about the 1908 game?
• Why was the sport not included in 1912?
• Did the american team in 1920 ask to compete? Were they asked themselves?
• Why did Czechoslovakia and Romania withdraw?
• Any other info on the 1920 match.
• Can you say who installed France as 20-1 favourites?
• Can you expand on the game?
• I've read about the 1924 match before, can more be said about the French media's reaction, rather then just one sentence.
• The 1936 thing is interesting. Can more be said about the matches? Is there a wiki-link to exhibition match. If not, please include more details.
• I think the info regarding the 1976 boycott can be expanded.
• There is not much about all the reasons for rugby being turned down for inclusion. It's been requested many times, but turned down every time. Why is this?
• Apart from that, just general things. Seems to be several types of English used. Organization?
• References seems fine.
• For FA, would need more images.

Hope this helps. - Shudda ^talk 10:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loïc Le Meur

Some language in the article is very biased and/or is missing references. Maybe someone who is French or is living in France can contribute. --Heikoh 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outkast

This is a quality article that I have helped write, and I am at the point where I don't know exactly what to do to improve this article to GA or FA status. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 17:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FP, here is an automated peer review output to get things started. Not all may apply since it is an automated review, but a quick scan shows a few you can work on to improve the article. Although not officially required for GA-status, I would suggest trying to have a cited reference for every paragraph and for the tables (i.e. where did the ablum chart info come from). That will help the GA review and you will have already met requirement 1.(c) for FA status. I would also recommened workingon the prose for the beginning of the history section, it could be written in a more encyclopedic manner IMHO. Good luck!

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Roswell native 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

When I go back and find the citations for the tables, is it acceptable to say "The information presented in the below tables is from (source)"? Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would put it by the column header assuming the source is the same for the entire column, e.g. after "USA" and after "UK" in the first table.

Album covers should not be used in the discography section (see Wikipedia:Fair use), and the ones that are being used in the main article space need detailed fair use rationales. The Grammy Award history should not be separated by whether or not they won; rather, it should be one table with an additional column for the result. ShadowHalo 08:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Cady Stanton

There are quotes in this article that are not appropriately cited, and I am hoping those editors who contributed these quotes, which are good ones, will add the citations. While factual and providing a solid array of "hard," academically qualified citations, the section on Stanton's break with the abolition movement clearly ruffles some feathers. I'd like to know what others think of this article and would welcome suggestions on this and any other aspect of the article. Jancarhart 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

I thought that this article was quite good. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "ruffling feathers;" historical personages from another era do not always do what we want them to do. I am assuming you are presenting the story as scholars have presented the story, so no feathers are flying over here.

• If you want to go for FA, I would recommend a copyedit. There are some awkwardly worded sentences, spelling mistakes, etc.
• Any direct quotations should immediately be followed by a citation. Also, again, if you want to go for FA, you will probably need some more citations, particularly for claims about what Stanton felt and larger claims about her impact on society.
• You might look to wikilink a bit more. I thought Charles Grandison Finney should be linked, for example.
• I wonder if you could create some sort of "Legacy" section that more clearly outlines which of her ideas were adopted and which of her ideas influenced later feminists.
• I wonder also if you could discuss her writings in more detail, either within the narrative of the biography itself or in a separate section.
• Have you tried searching for the quotations on google? I have had a lot of luck using google for that sort of thing. Awadewit 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural selection

This article has been in a good-but-not-perfect state for a very long time; I remember promising to work on it soon back in October after an unsuccessful FAC nomination, and it was recently the subject of a stillborn SCOTM in February. I've been intermittently picking at it over the last couple of weeks but have left the basic structure intact. Specific questions:

• Placement and size of the antibiotic resistance example.
• Readability to people who haven't had this article watchlisted for months, possibly years
• 'Impact' section in particular, I think, needs further development. On the other hand, I think the history section may be hypertrophied considering that the subject is treated very well in other Wikipedia articles.

Thanks in advance. Opabinia regalis 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bcasterline

I have a few comments, mostly regarding article size and organization.

• The article is fairly long. You might be able to summarize more briefly some of the sections that have their own articles. ("Historical development", as you suggest, is a good place to start.)

35k prose at the moment. I hate to cut this section too much because it's long-standing and rather well-written, but it does seem excessive. I'll give it a trim.

• Under "General principles": "Sexual selection" could be cut down and combined with "Types of selection".
• I would remove the "Nomenclature and usage" subsection and put that material in a paragraph immediately following the first paragraph of "General principles".

This and sexual selection have actually been trimmed a bit already. I moved the nomenclature section to the top but kept the subheader, as it doesn't really qualify as top-level material for 'general principles' (personally, I'd probably remove it altogether, but apparently this has in the past been a point of dispute). My bias is to keep sexual selection as its own header, but you're right that logically it goes under 'types'... will think about this.

• Too many stubby subsections under "Genetical theory of natural selection", though I'm not sure how it could be reorganized other than just removing the headings.

These are pretty standard subtopics, and I think there's a utility in keeping the recognizable terms in the TOC so people can find them easily without reading the whole article. But the TOC is quite long; does it at least fit on the first screen for you?

• The "Speciation" subheading under "Evolution by means of natural selection" is probably unnecessary.
• "Impact of the idea" has more stubby subsections which should be removed or reorganized. I would also rework the first sentence -- to say only that it had a profound influence on 19th-century thought suggests that its influence was less profound later (and today). The section is tangential by interesting: I like that the article is not limited to the science.

Good suggestion; I'm planning on rewriting that first paragraph, and I've been trying to think of where to move Lotka so he doesn't get his own header; all that maximum-power stuff is one of those systems concepts that's right on the border between 'useful' and 'nonsense'.

• More inline citations would be a plus. "Fitness" (under "General principles") and "Genetical theory of natural selection" are especially lacking.

Well, the material in those sections is really very uncontroversial, and mostly definitional more than anything; it can all be found laid out very straightforwardly in the Rice book. However, that book is very mathematical and probably not accessible to a general reader, so I'll try to rustle up a text that's less quantitative as a supplementary source. Are there any specific statements in those sections that you think need explicit citation? (You may also be interested in this thread on FA citation criteria, which didn't happen in the most visible place.)

• Overall, seems like scientific jargon is treated well. But I'm familiar with it so my opinion might not be the most useful.

Looks well done, but I think it'll need a little more work before FAC. Also consider submitting this entry to WP:SPR, although feedback may be long in coming if it comes at all. -- bcasterline • talk 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll post here again after looking at the impact section, at minimum. I'm not sure scientific peer review would be helpful, since most if not all of the people who would be likely to participate already watch and maintain this article. Opabinia regalis 04:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

This is, in general, a very well-written and clear article. My biggest issue is that it is written on too high a level. Because natural selection is "foundational" to modern biology, as the writers say, I feel that the page should be more accessible. I also feel that it is possible to explain the concepts to people unfamiliar with the material (it does not require higher mathematics, for example). Many of my suggestions below bring up sentences or sections that I feel my college freshmen would not understand (some I did not understand, and I am a graduate student in English who is an avid reader of popular science books). I want to make clear that I think that the editors have done very good work, I just want to make sure that their work is comprehensible by the general public. I have posted my comments on the first third of the article. I will post more later.

• Opening sentence is crystal clear to me, but I keep thinking of my freshmen. Does "genetic" mean the same thing as "heritable"? If so, I wonder if you could use that instead. It is a much more familiar word.
  • Not quite the same, although this is part of the subtle nomenclature distinction below; it is possible for something to be heritable without being genetic, or to be genetic only in a second-order kind of way. This is a common criticism of the claim that intelligence must be genetic because it's highly heritable - maybe there's no gene for intelligence, but intelligent parents create the kind of environment that produces intelligent children. It is also at least possible for something to be genetic but not phenotypically heritable - as in cases of low penetrance - due to stochastic variations in gene expression. This distinction is currently preserved in the lead to evolution (which changes by the day lately, but anyway...) and I think it's worth preserving here. Anyone with a decent grasp of English should be able to grasp the basic meaning of 'heritable', I'd imagine? Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that explanation. In regards to the article, it all depends on what you mean by a "decent grasp of English." I would say, no, that the majority of the college freshmen that I teach would not be able to define that word or, unfortunately, even guess what it means from context. This is, of course, just one person's opinion. I have only taught a few hundred undergraduates so far. Perhaps we should find someone with a larger data set to ask, someone who has taught a few thousand, for example. :) Anyway, all of these suggestions are simply that, suggestions for making the article more accessible to a wider range of readers. Awadewit 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, you're beating me by... a few hundred ;) But I'd be really, really surprised if the connection to 'inherited' wasn't a clue... the word could just as well have evolved as 'inheritable'. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You would think so. Sadly, no. I just thought I would point this out. Do want you think is best for the article. Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• What do you think about introducing "genotype" and "phenotype" later in the article? Do you have any idea how often people look at this article? I would actually think quite a bit and I remember even in my college class on genetics for non-scientists at Columbia people could not keep genotype and phenotype straight (it was so ridiculous). You might think about this in terms of the article. That whole semester, the professor kept repeating the definitions over and over again. They were on every test and people still kept messing them up and Columbia is no slouch school. For some reason, people cannot wrap their heads around the nuances of the difference.
  • Oh no, that's... so sad. So very sad. I have, however, spoken to an aspiring medical student who told me that his 'mnemonic' for this was that genotype meant genes. I always knew the pre-meds turned their brains of.... anyway, isn't this a good reason to put the distinction early in the article, and very clearly? Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not really sad. It's pathetic. Anyway, I would leave it out of the lead and give yourself room at the beginning of the article to really explain it in detail with examples if you are going to use these words as often as you do. I just wanted to give you a sense of how difficult this terminology seems to be for (supposedly) smart people. Awadewit 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Even banishing the word phenotype from the lead wouldn't really help this problem, I don't think, because the concept is critical - and it doesn't seem to make sense to discuss the concept extensively without giving it a name. I think the fact that natural selection works on the phenotype but has effects on the genotypes of future generations used to be considered a trivial point, and became more important when people started noticing that the fitness of an individual gene could diverge from the fitness of the body it inhabited. I added a small example in the general principles section, and a definition of alleles (from a classical perspective... we don't need to get too much into the chemistry of DNA here). Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Over time, this passive process can result in adaptations which specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and in speciation events by which new species emerge. - "passive process"? You mean the organisms don't choose it, right? Odd phrasing, though. Repetition of "species"; how about, "adaptations which specialize organisms for particular ecological niches; this is how new species emerge." Something a bit more dramatic and clear, maybe?
  • The idea was to work in a wikilink to speciation too - rephrased. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Link is good - attach to other words? Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't understand that last part. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I meant attach the link to a different word than "speciation" so that the word doesn't repeat. Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I thought we weren't linking individual years (1859 book) - are we or arent't we? AHHHHHH!
  • Eh, I can't keep up with this stuff, and it's sad that many people can apparently find nothing better to do with their time than argue at length about this. I think this one is marginally useful, as other events in 1859 could be vaguely related, but it can go if someone cares more than I do. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I could care less as well, I just wanted to point it out because I keep seeing that criticism arise at FAC. Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species,[1] by analogy with artificial selection, a process by which individuals with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. - "by analogy" comes too late, we've forgotten what the analogy would be to by this time; it seems like we're talking about Darwin's groundbreaking book, not "the term" - reword (also, choose one verb tense)
  • Rephrased.
• The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a theory of inheritance; the union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. - explain - this is all so opaque - I think you mean that they didn't know about genes and DNA (Mendel was a closeted monk, right?) - is the "modern synthesis" the joining of Watson/Crick to natural selection?
  • Actually a little less modern than that; more like the joining of Mendel and Darwin - classical genetics didn't require a theory about the physical nature of genes to work. Tried to give a bit more context in the lead, without bogging down too much. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Although other mechanisms of molecular evolution, such as the neutral theory advanced by Motoo Kimura, have been identified as important causes of genetic diversity, natural selection remains the single primary explanation for adaptive evolution. - if it is the single primary explanation, should it not remain alone in the lead in an article by itself? This introduction of another concept that I had to click on (sorry, I've never heard of "neutral theory" and it's not explained here) was distracting. All of a sudden, I, a stauch evolutionist, was going, what, natural selection is wrong? I don't think you want that. Something about the wording is off. Perhaps it is the "although." I would leave it off the lead, altogether, unless it is vital to understanding natural selection.
  • Is it really that jarring? Is it better now? There's a population of biologists who will smack people for 'naive' views of selection, especially those who work with molecular data - which are full of drifty stuff that makes actual adaptive changes hard to see amid all the noise. Hopefully some of the others who watch this article will have an opinion on this, though, as I know I'm biased on the molecular side. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, but this article is not for biologists, really, is it? They should know all of this stuff, right? Isn't this all from Bio 101? You know how in physics you start with the planetary model of the atom and then move to the orbital model of the atom and then move to whatever comes next. There are more, but I never got there. The point is, these other models are not really correct, they just help people understand some of the basic concepts. So the article may initially look naive but it will go into more detail and of course it can never provide all of the detail that evolutionary biologists know. In this case, I think your article is actually more accurate than an planetary or orbital description of the atom, right? Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not inaccurate, just (some argue) misplaced emphasis. (Do people still teach the planetary atom thing? I don't think I ever got that without the obligatory asterisk.) I suspect that, if the molecular people were in charge of bio 101 (and there were no political minefields to deal with), they'd present selection and drift as parallel processes, rather than the current common setup where selection is discussed in detail and nobody hears of drift until they take a dedicated genetics class. But if you work with and present only morphological data, you really don't 'see' much drift. I put this question on the talk page for now. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I was taught the planetary model first (without the asterisk). Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Didn't Darwin do the finch analysis in the first picture you have? You might mention that.
  • Done.
• The phenotype is the overall result of an individual's genetic make-up - "overall result" is not clear - isn't the phenotype the "outward" or bodily appearance of an organism, which is the result of genes, environment, etc.? Am I wrong? Was all that repetition in my class to no avail?
  • Reworded a bit to make this clearer - it's supposed to be 'overall result of genes, environment, gene-gene interactions, and gene-environment interactions', so they're all elements of a list. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Often, natural selection acts on specific traits of an individual - what do you mean by "trait"? The most common usage of this word, by the way, is "character trait." I know you don't mean that but a lay reader doesn't automatically know what you mean by "trait."
  • Linked again to trait (biology). It's a fuzzy enough concept that trying to define it here for those who can't jump the chasm from 'character trait' to the biological usage is probably fruitless. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm just letting you know what the general associations of the term are and why the word should be defined. You know how scientists use the word "theory" differently than the general public and how that has caused a lot of commotion in the evolution debate? It's the same principle. The connotations of these words can be very different to a lay audience. I'm not saying they can't understand it, I'm trying to tell you what many people might think when they read the word "trait." Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't really think the biological usage is so different from the common usage in this case, though, do you? Or is my 'normal usage' already contaminated? ;) Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Trait in biology seems to be a lot more concrete than its everyday usage. Character traits are often elusive things like "patience." Dictionary.com, for example, defines "trait" as "a distinguishing characteristic or quality, esp. of one's personal nature: bad traits of character." Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Most traits are influenced by the interactions of many genes, but some traits exhibit Mendelian inheritance patterns and are governed by only a single gene. - perhaps "Most traits are influenced by the interactions of many genes, but some traits are governed by only a single gene - they exhibit Mendelian inheritance patterns." - that way the easy part comes first and it is clear that the two definitions mean the same thing
  • Reworded.
• The "Nomenclature and usage" section makes subtle distinctions. I know that wikipedia is against explanatory examples, but they are necessary here. My students would never understand this passage. If wikipedia won't let the editors write their own, there must be published examples. I know I have read them somewhere. Let me know if you want me to dig them up.
  • I don't know what they're lawyering about on ATT or wherever, but I'm not sure an example is really what this distinction needs - I'd just as soon throw out the section altogether, as the distinction is subtle enough to be irrelevant at this level. But you've seen examples of this nomenclature distinction? Where? Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll try to find them, but it will be a few days because I am off to an academic conference. Might be Dawkins, I'm not sure. Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, enjoy the conference, then! Opabinia regalis 03:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Back from the conference. Looking for the sources, but I'm leaving for another conference in a few days. I don't know if I will have time to find them before then. Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• The basis of this approach is easily seen - most writing manuals will tell you it is not a good idea to tell your readers that something is "easy" or "obvious" because if it's not "easy" or "obvious" to them, you have just insulted them
  • Ah yes, 'the proof is trivial' ;) Reworded to 'is clear', which may not be much better, but I felt like I was insulting the reader just writing this out. It really should be very obvious, shouldn't it? Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid many things are far from obvious to many people. You might see some of the debates I am engaged in at FAC over the use of sources as examples. There is apparently a wide misunderstanding regarding the reliability of primary sources (such as autobiographies) and popular histories and biographies. What seems perfectly obvious to me, such as one cannot rely on Reagan's autobiography as the main source for his article, does not seem obvious to others. Obviousness seems to be in the eye of the beholder. :) I am currently writing a manifesto on sources I have had so many debates over this. Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh my, I had seen the Reagan FAC in passing but hadn't really appreciated it till now. There are tons of misconceptions floating around here about proper use of sources and the function of references - I suspect this arises from lack of writing experience, but I guess you're not supposed to say that out loud ;) You should definitely write something about this; you're one of the most articulate defenders of good choices of source material. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• if an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become enriched in the adult population of the next generation - "enriched"? - I found that confusing diction
  • Changed to 'more common'. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Natural selection acts on individuals, but its average effect on all individuals with a particular genotype is the fitness of that genotype. Fitness of a genotype is measured as the expected number of surviving progeny for an individual with that genotype, equivalent to the reproductive success or to the proportion of surviving progeny multiplied by the expected fecundity. A fitness value of greater than one indicates that the frequency of that genotype in the population increases, while a value of less than one indicates that it decreases. The relative fitness of a genotype is estimated as the proportion of the fitness of a reference genotype. Related to relative fitness is the selection coefficient, which is the difference between the relative fitness of two genotypes. The larger the selection coefficient, the stronger natural selection will act against the genotype with the lowest fitness. - This paragraph could be explained a little better. I don't think that I really understand it.
  • This is basically an attempt to say what's in fitness (biology) without the equations. Which seem to put people off for some reason ;) I don't think the formal definitions need so much airtime in the absence of the equation, so I'll reword this. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think that the equation would help. Seeing the equation written out in words is very confusing to me. Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• The fitness of an organism may be broadly said to be a function of the fitnesses of its alleles. - first time the word "alleles" has appeared - no link - no explanation
  • Will put a paragraph in the general principles section on the basics of this stuff. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment, including mates and conspecifics - give us a phrase and "conspecifics," especially because the link was to the middle of some page on competition, so it was not immediately clear what I was supposed to be looking for (are "conspecifics" organisms that are in competition? it doesn't say that anywhere on the "competition" page)
  • That's bad, I didn't realize there was nothing very relevant there. It means 'members of the same species' and is now defined inline. (And this is as far as I got today... more later.) Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• It is also useful to make a mechanistic distinction between ecological selection and the narrower term sexual selection. - "mechanistic distinction"? Again, this is sophisticated language.
• Ah, we finally get to "An example." While this is a nice example, I would argue that the article needs examples sprinkled throughout it. Frankly, most people cannot learn from abstract concepts alone. Educational theorists will tell you that being able to learn from concepts alone is a mark of intelligence (those theorists who believe in intelligence, anyway).
• You might mention what you mean by "misuse" of antibiotics in the first paragraph, rather than burying it in the middle of the example.
  • Example's been rearranged a bit, so that the arms-race stuff is all together. I'm not sure this is the place to get into all the ways people misuse antibiotics though. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You might at least mention not taking antibiotics until the end of their specified run. "Misuse" might imply drug overdose to some people. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Have you read the NSF report on scientific literacy (they do this study every other year)? It is appalling. Anyway, one of the things people have a really poor idea of is numbers, so I would suggest instead of saying among their vast numbers of individual members saying how many specifically and explaining one reason why it is that bacteria can become resistant so fast - there are a lot of them reproducing very fast.
  • I hope you don't mind me commenting on your review, especially a rather trivial point, but I wonder about this. I was always under the impression that stating an actual number, when that number is extremely large, is even less helpful because people simply can't visualize it. As a result it means nothing to them. In other words, a "vast number" is more easily grasped than "about 110 million", or whatever. -- bcasterline • talk 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a good point. But what if the editors put the number in context somehow? Something like "there are 10 times more bacteria in the human body than human cells." Or some other illuminating comparison. Awadewit 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. The difficulty with this is that there really isn't some fixed number that can be offered up as 'you need this many bacteria to get this effect' or whatever, and the bacteria/human cell ratio is mostly irrelevant since the vast majority of those bacteria are not the pathogenic ones. Also, the number of pathogenic bacteria present during an infection is certainly widely variable, though I'm not sure that it's been reliably measured. On the other hand, 'vast' is really weak for expressing the magnitude of this.
• several new strains of MRSA have emerged that are resistant to vancomycin and teicoplanin - how about "resistant to the antibiotics"?
• In your schematic representation of resistance, which is great, by the way, I would move the key to the bottom so that people don't confuse the key with the populations. Again, it really is enlightening to read reports. The tests associated with No Child Left Behind (whatever you think of the law - let's leave that aside) reveal that many if not most of the high school students in the United States cannot interpret a basic table or graph (let us not even consider a slightly more sophisticated graph).
  • I'm not sure what you mean - the key is at the bottom? You mean put more space between the populations and the key? Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I mean put the key under the caption. I have a feeling some people might think the key is another population set. Awadewit
      • Ahh. OK, assuming I see what you're getting at, that would make the key its own separate image displayed below the text caption. I think that might cause more problems with images lining up and such - would it help if I just moved the key down in the image, so that there's more white space between it and the populations? Opabinia regalis 06:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't realize it would be so complicated to move it! How about more space and a thick black line? Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Natural selection by itself is a simple concept, in which fitness differences between phenotypes play a crucial role. It is the union of natural selection as a mechanism with genetic material as a substrate that offers most of the theory's explanatory power. - again, with the "simple" - also, "substrate"? not a common word - makes me think of rocks, for some reason
  • 'Substrate' is the most natural choice in my mind - guess I'll have to think of a better word. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is "genetical" a word? Why not just "genetic"? It sounds like the always annoying "ironical." Awadewit 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's an old word, but it was the one used in originally formulating the theory and is now universally but exclusively used in this context. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow - that is incredibly detailed, thank you! Hard to believe it's just the first third of the article ;) Sorry for not responding more specifically, or doing any work, but I've gotten tied up in meatspace (hmm, mixed metaphors...) and may not be around much for the next couple of days. Opabinia regalis 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

More comments.

• Overall, in the "Genetical theory of natural selection" section, I would say: examples, examples, examples.
  • Added a couple; can add more, but I wonder how useful these are given the fact that there isn't enough room to go into much explanation of the example itself. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Anything concrete seems to help. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I wonder if you can condense the first few paragraphs of "Evolution by means of natural selection." There is some repetition there.
  • You're right; will be truncated more. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would say that you could cut the first two paragraphs under "Pre-Darwinian theories." I would stick to the direct history of "natural selection" and let the rest fork.
  • OK, it's been chopped a bit - I do think a little background is relevant, as the theory was anticipated to a greater degree than is usually taught. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• radical evolutionists such as Jean Baptiste Lamarck had proposed that characteristics - what is a "radical evolutionist"?
  • Nothing in particular; removed. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• might be inherited by their progeny, causing, in enough time - "in enough time" - sounds awkward
  • Reworded. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• It is not totally clear how Lamarckism is different from Darwinism.
  • Lamarckism as a theory is essentially about inheritance, and happens to have a mechanism of evolution attached. They aren't inherently incompatible, except in the practical sense that acquired characteristics don't change subtly over time as is usually assumed for natural selection. Darwin explicitly did not posit the inheritance of acquired characteristics as a requirement of his theory, though he didn't really have a better theory of inheritance. (One criticism was that 'blending' of characteristics wouldn't maintain them long enough for selection to work, but as far as I know, most people by that time didn't take blending inheritance very seriously.) Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You might explain this a little more clearly, especially the first part. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Does the current version serve this purpose? 'Inheritance of acquired characteristics' emphasizes the inheritance angle and links to more detail. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I think this is better, but I was wondering if you were trying to link it to the geological theories or not. I was assuming you were but that was not explicitly clear. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• For Darwin, natural selection was synonymous with evolution by natural selection - just confusing until you read further - start with something that is not confusing
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. It's confusing that Darwin didn't conceive of other evolutionary mechanisms? Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The sentence as it is worded sounds odd because most people don't think of natural selection as a mechanism. The rest of the paragraph makes this clear, but the opening sentence might confuse. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Reorganized a bit. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Within a decade of The Origin of Species, most educated people had begun to accept that evolution had occurred in some form or another - this is debatable - you might want to find a source
  • It's been reorganized a bit. I need to hit the library this weekend, I suspect, as a significant fraction of the books I own related to this subject are still in a box in another state. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That is so annoying, I'm so sorry. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It's my own fault, this has been true for months. But books are heavy and hard to move, dammit! Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't even have room for all of mine. They are stacked all over my apartment and in suitcases in my office. It's sad. Poor books. :) Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• This synthesis propelled natural selection to the forefront of evolutionary theories, where it remains today. - "forefront" - I think this is the wrong word, don't you mean something like "the center" or "foundation"? "Forefront" often means untested and unproven.
  • It's now a foundation. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darwin's ideas, along with those of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, had a profound influence on 19th-century thought. - why are you invoking Smith and Marx? You need to explain - there are many people who influenced 19c thought - why are you mentioning these two? how are they connected to Darwin?
  • I don't really know; I didn't write that section, and intend to rewrite it when I get some time. Smith in particular is a little curious - I know I've seen references to Marx, Darwin, and Freud as the three most influential 19th-century thinkers, though I suppose swapping Smith for Freud makes sense given the time period being discussed (which is itself curious). I expect this will be rewritten after the aforementioned library trip. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I know why Smith is included (Wealth of Nation and the division of the labor). I think it would be odd to include Freud since his ideas primarily influenced the twentieth century. It depends on what you want to say. Do you want to talk about thinkers who "profoundly influenced" the nineteenth century or the twentieth century? Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, it's a bit awkward to be talking about the 19th century so narrowly in the first paragraph of that section (it was more than half over when Darwin finally published, after all), especially since the subsections all focus on 20th-century thought. I don't propose including Freud here, but rather dethroning Smith and Marx; this should be very brief and general, not an intellectual history essay. There is also an extended series of articles on Darwin's reception and influence that are not well titled, but seem reasonably complete, and I'm fine with offloading most of the 'big' stuff to them. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Tell us who Engels is when you quote him. Not everyone knows. And what about giving us his first name, too?
  • Done. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Interpretation of natural selection as necessarily 'progressive', leading to increasing 'advances' in intelligence and civilisation, was used as a justification for colonialism and policies of eugenics, as well as broader sociopolitical positions now described as Social Darwinism. - awkwardly worded
  • Left alone for now, as I'm planning to do some reorganizing here. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Extensions of the theory of natural selection to such a wide range of cultural phenomena have been distinctly controversial and are not widely accepted within most fields of cultural studies. - I don't think you mean "cultural studies." "Cultural studies" is a real subfield within history and literary studies and I have a feeling that many of its practitioners would accept the extension of natural selection into these other realms.
  • I think that's true in the sense that they don't oppose natural selection, and would grant that it has had influences on the emergence of human psychology; however, most of the theories thus far put forth under the sociobiology/evolutionary psychology umbrella have not been well received. (Particularly true for any theory involving the evolution of sex differences.) I think the wording is off; it's not that anyone opposes the idea of natural selection applying to human psychology, but that they oppose how it's been applied so far. Also, as far as I understand, the majority (but not the entirety) of this opposition has come from anthropologists. 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, the opposition has come from scientists. Unfortunately, some people in the humanities have taken this idea and run with it (sad to say - I fight these battles all of the time). I just think that you shouldn't use the phrase "cultural studies" because to any humanities academic it signifies something totally different than what you mean. I actually do cultural studies and it is not this at all; it is a study of society that joins the techniques of history and literary studies (very loosely). Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh dear, anthropologists are scientists now? ;) I didn't realize 'cultural studies' had been claimed as a standalone term any more specific than 'the study of culture', but I just dropped the qualifier phrase altogether. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think anthropologists are in between science and social science. Certainly many of them claim to be doing science and some of them are using much more scientific methods (data sets and all) than we would ever use in literary studies or history. I can tell you that literary scholars and historians think anthropology is something very different than what they do. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• The "Social and psychological theory" section seems choppy and truncated. Is it necessary for this page which is really about scientific natural selection? Could there be a different page for all of these adaptations? :)
  • This will hopefully get better. It's sort of an odd union of topics at the moment, mixing early reactions that have completely lost their currency with much more recent work. I'm a little hesitant even to leave the two together (even though I put the new stuff there), given the fact that 'sociobiology' got accused of advocating eugenics and all sorts of terrible evils to the point where the word has completely fallen out of favor. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• For FAC, you will probably want to include more citations. At least one per section!
  • Fortunately, I think, the tide seems to be shifting away from counting notes over there. I'll probably just put a note along with the Rice book and a (hopefully) forthcoming simpler text that they are solid works to consult for more information on the definitional stuff (fitness, genetical theory section). I could just repeat notes to Rice in every genetical theory subsection, but I don't think that really helps. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it turning? The tides turn quickly, then. I would still think that you would want to be able to point readers to specific sections of a book on specific topics. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Done at the chapter level; this article just isn't 'granular' enough for specific pages to be pertinent, except as a restatement of definitions. Will definitely need a general text; in looking this up I skimmed a whole bucketload of unnecessary integrals. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Chapters sound about right to me. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• What do you think of more pictures? For example, of close alleles and far-away alleles or even just pairs of chromosomes? Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • More pictures good. I hope to track one down for genetic linkage, which is kind of hard to visualize from a text description. I think you're right that a picture of a chromosome with a few arrows will help people concretize the descriptions of alleles and loci and whatnot. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In case I don't see it, let me know when this comes up for FA. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you so much for what may be the most detailed review I've ever seen on WP ;) This probably won't hit FAC for another couple of weeks, as I'm still busy in the real world, and I expect to be out of town next weekend. Opabinia regalis 02:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States Navy

old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Navy/Archive1

Submitting for second peer review, just to get some more comments. Arcimpulse 20:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First pass here - I think it is a very good article! A small point, but do you think a reference to Alfred Thayer Mahan in the neighborhood of the Civil War to WWI history would be useful? I don't want to overemphasize something unimportant, but it has been my understanding that he was a chief architect of the "expand the Navy" philosophy. Kaisershatner 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 (film)

The article is currently part of a hot debate (hence sprotection for the past week), but many of a wide variety of editors have been working diligently to work and rework the article to both properly represent current controversies as well as the unique production and surprise success of the film. It is very well referenced, well written, and once the vandals back off a little more (it's already begun to quiet down), we plan to nominate the article for GA status. With this goal in mind, any and all outside opinions and suggestions are very much welcome. Please help us improve the fourth (or is it third now?) most popular article on Wikipedia. María: (habla conmigo) 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fourth. Anyway, I'd recommend going through the references and using {{cite news}} for proper referencing. WikiNew 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a member of the WikiProject and haven't seen the film yet, but I'll comment anyway. Here are some points to consider:

• Some of the wording in the Historical accuracy section needs watching. A nice subtle way to smuggle in your point of view is to put all the dissenting view points in "person x claims" and "x states that historical record states", while putting your viewpoints "in x dismisses" and "x points to historical research" this is done in making the case that the film is not historically accurate. Instead of dismisses and points to historical research "this point is debated by x who states or claims that" and "x states (or claims) that the historical record is actually different" are more fair and less subtly devious. Claims implies doubt of the statement's accuracy, I would just use states in both cases. Basically try to use the same wording for both points of view and let the facts do the talking while hopefully presenting them in an accurate, even handed manner. If one side's facts genuinely dominate another's it should be clear and obvious to everyone.

Most of that has since been removed, and further additions will be smited into neutral phrasing. Arcayne 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• The image with comic and film spliced together has no source information, please explain how it was made and where the two images came from. This is done well on the other image with two images spliced together and should serve as an example.

The fact it comes from the comic book and film should quell many copyright sniffers. WikiNew 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It still needs source info for attribution purposes, as a matter of fact it's only a matter of time until it's tagged by the bot as not specifying the source and creator of the image. Quadzilla99 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

These are the two sources, here and here and I'm going to add them. The first one is from the actual website that put the images together, the second is where "our" image came from because it was resized on the other screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• The last two paragraphs in the Political aspects section probably belong in the critical reaction section or perhaps could just be deleted as there are already several negative reviews quoted in length in the critical reaction section. The whole political aspects section seems unnecessary to me. Perhaps it could be just mentioned elsewhere that the film has been interpretated using contemporary political views but there is no evidence it was made that way (especially given the source inspiring it was written in 1998) and the filmmakers have denied it. Maybe it needs to stay as there obviously has been some debate about it but I would delete it. It seems like someone used that section as a chance to include several more negative reviews quoted at length. Basically I would suggest to perhaps eliminate the section and mention it briefly elsewhere (There's already a Persian depiction section which could house some of this info) and pick 2-3 of the most essential negative reviews to use in the critical reaction section.

This strikes me as an interesting point; as I wrote quite a bit of that section I'll briefly give my reasoning here. The question of the film's contemporary political relevance became a major topic of discussion immediately after it was first screened, and I thought it was worthwhile to track that discussion, giving Snyder's replies throughout. (Snyder's replies, incidentally, are quite nuanced, if colloquial, and don't simply consitute a "denial"; more a subtle understanding of the way a film takes on a life of its own once it is released.) That's the first half of the section. The second half charts a major theme in the film's reception by significant critics (i.e. "fascist aesthetics" and the like). Here again, I've attempted to provide balance by supplying demurrals by other critics and by Snyder himself. I don't think these reviews belong in the main "critical reaction" section, which is concerned with more traditional subjects (style, characterization, etc.). Nor do they belong in the "depictions of Persians" section -- the questions of androgyny, mysticism, etc., that are appropriate to that section are not addressed. In general I think the "historical accuracy," "political aspects," and "depiction of Persians" sections provide good coverage of specific significant themes in the film's reception, thus providing some structure to the "reception" section and preventing "critical reaction" from becoming a formless laundry list. But they may all need to be trimmed. --Javits2000 10:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a suggestion. Like I said if it is genuinely a large and reported enough issue it will deserve it's own section, but if it's just a temporary reaction that has no merit and will die down in a matter of days. It should deleted or mentioned briefly in my opinion. Also, be aware that to people who aren't as in to the film as you are the endless detail and subdivision might look like needless overanalysis. The statement that "films take on a life of their own" looks like classic reificiation in it's most pure sense to me. I feel it's pretty absurd personally. Correct me if I'm worng, but the film was written in 1998 and is closely based on the original story hence there is no way it could have been made with current political events in mind. The idea that the film is floating around out there in some nebular region developing a mind, consciousness, and life of it's own, is kind of like when ancient philosphers would get so detached from reality they would ask questions like, "What happens when Liberty confronts Justice?" or when "Will confronts Eternity?" Forgetting for a second that those concepts are nothing more than adjectives created by human beings to describe things. Quadzilla99 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the record I'm not so interested in the film itself (although I did enjoy it) as I am in its reception (i.e. as a discourse -- now there's an article that could use some copy-editing!), so naturally I give greater weight to these sections. Whether or not any political allegory could have been intended by the creators, the fact that such a reading has been repeatedly bandied about by the press strikes me as an interesting historical phenomenon in its own right. But I recognize that someone who is less interested in the subject will probably have to slash these sections -- just as I've slashed "marketing" (see below)! In any case, thanks for your remarks; I think they're on point and very useful.--Javits2000 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for taking as what they were meant to be: helpful advice. Quadzilla99 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While not legitimizing the validity of the current uproar or comparisons to current events, it would appear that certain stories, or the methods of communicating them are timesless, i.e. East vs, West, Good vs. Evil, Pure vs. Polluted, Invader vs, Defender, etc. When the earlier film version of Thermopylae was made, comparisons were made between it and the Cold War. All politics is allegory, as all history is repeated. Seen in that context, the grasping at 300 as a sign of the times is to be expected. For that reason, maintaining the political reaction with a minimalist eye will likely work in the long run. Arcayne 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Marketing section contains a lot of trivial cruft and short sentences which look like they were converted from a bulleted trivia list. Condense the paragraphs to two or three and eliminate the cruft.

That's all for now, if it looks like I'm being harsh I'm just being thorough. I actually came here as I saw the article and thought "Damn this is a pretty good article for a new movie" and went to the talk page as I wondered what it was rated. I expected it to be a GAC or undergoing something like this and wanted to come comment. Quadzilla99 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/Archive1

[edit] Dungeons & Dragons

This article has been twice nominated for FAC and failed twice, including once just after a previous peer review (Oct 2005). Much has been done on the article over the last 16 months since the last failure and I consider the article is close to being nominated again for Featured Article. I am currently working through the article adding more inline citations, mostly to the current references, however there are already a large number of inline citations. I am particularly looking for feedback on making the article "Well written, means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.", but any feedback on Featured article criteria or the article generally is appreciated. -Waza 11:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a decent article, but it still needs editing throughout the article to address grammatical issues. The start of this sentence seems awkward to me: "Also much of, in some versions all of, the action takes place..." The lead section, p2/s1, should mention non-violent interactions with other denizens of the settings (rather than just between the PCs). The notes section has inconsistent citation format, and there are some in-line links that would be better as citations. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and edits. I will try an address these sugestions soon. Can I please ask for clarification on what exactly you are refering to with "notes section has inconsistent citation format".

The sources both in the references and footnotes use Wikipedia:Citation templates except in a few cases where the unusal format is required to references the peculiarities of a game as it varies from standard reference types. General sources which apply to the article as a whole or are refered to numerous times are in the references section, specific sources applicable to one or two points only are in the notes. The footnotes are all one of three types:

1. A reference by author and data to one of the general sources in the References section, with page number and section heading or quote where relevant.
2. A full citaion in the same format as those in the references section.
3. An explanatory note of the text footnoted, often including info in the style of type (1) or (2) inline with the explanatory text to reference the explanatory text.

Thanks - Waza 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apologise somewhat for above. I have gone through references carefully and noted some inconsistancies. I am continuing to work through them and will also add some discussion on talk page about how unusual references are dealt with. However I would still appreciate any feedback on particular issues with references. - Waza 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It looks like my concern was mostly with the some inconsistent date fields, but this is only an issue with footnotes 50, 77 and 85. For your other footnotes, it isn't really necessary to keep the empty assignments in the citation templates: that just adds extra characters to the article size. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The dates in the notes have been presented mostly as how are described in the source themselves. However I was considering if they should be all put in yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601) as I have actually done with 77. This is then consistent with the "Retrived on" date as generated by the citation template. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) it is appropriate to use ISO 8601 only in non prose, but most dates in footnotes are not prose, therefore I will change all applicable ones to ISO 8601 and link so they will display as per users date preferences. - Waza 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Siddha Yoga

I think that this is a decent article that is somewhere between a start and a B class article. I would like to see it get to good article status. I think that it could benefit greatly from the insights of fellow editors. Thanks. TheRingess (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bcasterline

The vast majority of the article is in list form, which is generally considered infirior to prose. I'd say start there. Explain the practices in greater detail, explain the causes/effects of historical events, explain the holy days, etc. -- bcasterline • talk 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. TheRingess (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mailer Diablo

Length of article is a major concern - I think the bulleted points under 'Practices' can be expanded into prose. Citation of sources should be in a consistent format for the references section. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanne Blank

This article needs a thorough general review.

The subject is a contemporary historian and author with a new book coming out within a week (by March 20, 2007) for U.S. nationwide distribution. Subject of book is the history of virginity in the Western World.

Because her previous books/publications have been via relatively smaller publishers, and because she's had a varied and interesting career (not always just a historian or just an author), it's been very difficult to find and use secondary sources. Many sources are primary, currently, and could probably use work (it may be possible to find secondary sources now that the primary sources are provided).

It would be grand to get this article in tip-top shape, but I don't know what the interpreted rules are and where the wiggle room is. Good article would also be great, but a B would be fine too.

Finally, because the picture I submitted still hasn't been processed through m:OTRS, I didn't feel comfortable submitting this for Did You Know... consideration, but please let me know if that should also be done at this stage.

Thank you in advance for your time, whoever gets to this. --MalcolmGin 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

I think this article is between stub and start-class. In order a peer-review to be useful, I think former improvement is needed. Some initial remarks and suggestions:

• Read and implement WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article, in order to bring this article to at least B-Class status.
  • I did read and implement, what I thought was comprehensively, the recommendations in WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. Can you please clarify what parts you feel I missed?
    • You may have done it all fine, but in order to get it to B-Class status, you do need more material and a better structure. Right now, the prose is limited, and with no appropriate structure (lead, sections, maybe sub-sections). As it is now, it is a fine start article, but I am afraid it cannot go higher.--Yannismarou 09:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, I will leave the fleshing out to others, beyond what I can find in published book reviews (which are beginning to come out now). Reviews tend to be short on biographical data, but what's published is certainly fair game. I can't really flesh out the article with private info I know anyway, since it's not published via a reliable source, but I will also be crippled by the boundaries she and I draw between public and private (e.g. I won't use my special knowledge to unfairly bias my search techniques to dig up stuff I think I might be able to find in reliable sources about her - I'll leave that to other folks who are more inclined to search that stuff out and put it here). So I'm OK with the article not achieving the B rating due to my in-built limitations. --MalcolmGin 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Use Template:cite news and Template:cite web for your online sources and references.
  • Thank you for the pointer to Template:cite news and Template:cite web. I'll implement those in the article as soon as I have time to devote to thatDone. I reviewed several authors' bios to see whether you intended your recc here for the Works/Bibliography section as well, and concluded that you probably didn't, but if you did, please let me know and I'll convert those entries too. MalcolmGin
• You article has no proper structure: lead, sections etc. Read WP:LEAD, WP:EDIT, Help:Section, and expand your article.
  • I'll also review the article for the proper structure and implement when I can. I will note here that the article was recently converted to the same format as {{subst:Biography}} by me very recently, so the mechanical parts of structure that are missing from the template are essentially because there was no material I had to put in them. Thank you anyhow for the links and pointers. MalcolmGin
• Maybe you could find some secondary sources through Google book or Google scholar, but I can't be sure.
  • I'm pretty familiar with the extant primary and secondary sources about Hanne Blank. I have been her life partner for 10 years or so. I'll give the sources/scrapbooks another pass for public information I can use, but I don't think there's (yet) a lot of hope there. Do reviews of books count as "news"? I do know that book reviews for her latest have come out/are starting to come out now. MalcolmGin
    • • Book reviews are reliable printed sources, and could be used.--Yannismarou 09:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Cool, I'll add bio new information as it comes out via the reviews. --MalcolmGin 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Expand your paragraphs or merge them. It is not nice to have stubby paragraphs.
  • I'll do what I can to merge the paragraphs sensibly. I personally cannot expand them without breach of privacy, but others are of course welcome to. MalcolmGin
• Place inline citations straight after the punctuation mark and not before.
  • Done, thank you. MalcolmGin
• Try not to have so many external jumps (links to online sources within the text) in your prose, and prefer to cite these online external sources through Template:cite news and Template:cite web as proper citations.
  • Done. I left in 3 external jumps to issues/articles not in Wikipedia. All others link internally to extant Wikipedia articles. MalcolmGin
• About the "See also" section read here, and format it accordingly. You could also get rid of it by incorporating the links there in your main text. And, of course, we do not link the WP:Biography in the See also section!
  • For the "See also" section, I'll definitely do the reading done. On the other hand, regarding your And, of course, we do not link the WP:Biography in the See also section!, I think this must have been an artifact of my misunderstanding of the {{subst:Biography}} template, in that those links were in the template, and I thought they were standard for Biography articles. I'll know better next time. MalcolmGin
• I see confirmation of release under GFDL has been received at OTRS.--Yannismarou 13:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the OTRS has confirmed GFDL of the headshot, which is good, but I think I'll wait to implement your suggestions before trying to submit the article for Did You Know consideration. Thanks again! --MalcolmGin 03:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Yannismarou --MalcolmGin 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZeD

Improving this article was long overdue. It's been hurting for a while now, but I finally got around to researching and rewriting it. I think people have found it confusing before, I'm wondering about its state now and if there are any suggestions for further improvement. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

Please review the entire article. I would like to know what would need to be changed so I can nominate it to be a good article. 1312020Wikicop 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Gosgood

Nice article. I think it is just about ready for a good article review after one more pass. Some remarks:

• I find the prose straightforward and uncluttered.
• I find it strange that the history ceases with the American civil war. Has the town been that quiet since then? Not much is needed here, however. Possibly some remarks on how the town fared through WWI, the Depression, WWII, the cold war, or other historical milestones.
• Does any significant newspaper, radio or television station provide coverage for this region?
• Economics: is the town/region changing from economic pressures? Is the agrarian sector in decline? Has there been significant population shifts?

The last three points would be where I would start to develop detail. If there is any defect here, it is the absence of history after 1870 or so. Gosgood 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative divisions of Adygea/update

This is a somewhat unusual request for a peer review, because it deals with an already featured list (administrative divisions of Adygea), which was featured fairly recently.

A peer review is requested because the list was so significantly expanded and reworked that it would be wrong to just replace old contents with a new draft without subjecting it to public scrutiny first.

The main differences between the current version and the updated version are:

• infobox has been re-designed;
• prose has been significantly reworded;
• layout was changed;
• a new large section on administrative division structure has been added;
• "municipal division structure" section has been re-written;
• additional references have been provided;
• the map was adjusted;
• layout of district composition sections has been changed;
• content of district composition sections has been expanded.

Any feedback will be much appreciated!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classes in World of Warcraft

This article is a fair way from GA or FA, however, it's hard for me to see what needs improving about the article as I have edited it so much. We'd really appreciate outside comments on how to improve it :) Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, try to use sources related to WoW rather than trying to conjure explanations from unrelated sources (e.g. the references to Celtic, EQ2 druids). Not particularly attached to either the infoboxes or pics (There are only so many people in 8/8 Tier X sets). Nifboy 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The two sources you named were meant to provide sources for showing similarities World of Warcraft druids have with druids outside the game. If I removed those sources I'd have to remove that section. I only really added it in the first place because someone in the AfD said that they thought it would be nice if something like that would be included for the classes. I can prose-ify the infoboxes if you'd prefer - are you against pictures in general or just ones of characters in full sets or whatever? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because "Druids outside WoW" has only a very tenuous connection to WoW; unless there's a significant link, wherein the link itself is stated in a source, you start drifting into original explanations. Blizzard could have been inspired by Druidism, D&D druids, EQ druids, or any combination of the above. The article is on, ultimately, WoW, so use WoW-related sources. Nifboy 10:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appalachian School of Law

I would love some advice on how to improve this article and take this on the path to a featured status. I would like to get feedback on the whole article, but on the following sections in particular:

History

Academic Program

Student Life

Should I add any other sections? One section you might notice missing would be notable alumni. As this school will graduate its eighth class this May, I feel that it is too soon to start that section. Plus, I don't know of any prominent alumni. Feedback on the article is greatly appreciated. Chrisfortier 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beijing

I would like to receive some feedback on the Beijing article, even though I have not contributed to it, but will be trying to spend roughly a week editing Beijing and Beijing-related pages, possibly leading to a featured article and hopefully a Beijing portal in time for the Olympics.

Especially I am interested in comments on the amount of interwiki links, article length, possible overlong sections that justify a own page and required rewrites and missing information. Poeloq 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The most glaring problem is the complete lack of referencing. I see hardly a single inline citation. There are other issues, like the tendency for too many lists. But references are desperately needed here. Harryboyles 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it really is quite unsourced. I have some books ordered from our library and will see that I can update and source the data/facts I have/find. Thanks! Poeloq 08:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CBWT

Hi, I've been working on the CBWT article since August 2006. It has a photo at the top. Is the photo light enough? It has a History section where I used the digital archives of the local paper (via Archive.NewspaperArchive.com) to summarize the station's history. It has a list of current and past personalities. The past personalities list is getting a bit long, should it be put into a separate article? --Jimj wpg 12:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you're sending it for FAC, the logo gallery definitely has to go. (WP:FAIRUSE) Several paragraphs are only one or two sentences, looking very scattered (looks like listing). You may wish to merge some of the paragraphs. Still a lot of work to go. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to keep the Gallery, so maybe we can shoot for GA status. --Jimj wpg 08:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kanon

Previous peer review

This article has gone through much revision in recent months and achieved Good Article status in January. I am looking to nominate this article for Featured Article status soon, and would like to know how to improve it more.--十八 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automatic

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3Ft, use 3 Ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3&nbsp;Ft.^[1]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[3]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

GunnarRene

• Should link to Lycèe Trading Card Game

I'll get on that.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's been GA rated and is comprehensive enough to be A (more than the Air article), but has a few problems that might undo the GA rating:

• • Livejournal and forum posts used as sources.

This is merely because that information cited in those source could not be easily found in other places, but the information is still very true. I'll try to do some sorting out and find some other sources to use.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The lead is inadequate: It should summarize the main points of the article rather than serve as mostly a release history.

The main points...Going off the TOC, we have Plot, Setting, Themes, Gameplay, Characters, Release and Sales, Reception, Adaptations, and Music. The Plot, Setting, Themes, and Characters most likely do not belong in the lead, or am I wrong? Gameplay is lightly touched upon, so that's there. While there is nothing on the Music in the lead, the lead is composed primarily of Release and Sales and Adaptations because there isn't really much else to put about the other sections.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They do. Move some of the release details into the release section, and keep less detailed info in the lead. For example, exact release dates belong in the release section, not in the lead unless it's a particularly notable day like September 11 or Christmas Eve. You absolutely need to say something about the setting, plot, themes, characters and reception in the lead, without having to go too far into detail. Those things are the things that set it apart from other works. As for the music, you don't need to say much. Perhaps just state the number of soundtracks along with the other release info. In my view, the lead does not need to be equally balanced regarding each section length, but it has to summarize the article, and it needs to be equally NPOV. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Why do the secondary characters have severly in-universe articles?

Wait, are you talking about the individual character articles themselves, or the short summaries in this article? If it's the former, then I'd say that's not the concern of this article. For the latter, you can't really describe the characters without getting in-universe, or am I wrong?--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The second. Be aware that on Featured Article review, daughter articles will also be scrutinized. It might be good to proactively reduce the secondaries to a list and reduce the amount of information. See {{plot}} and Wikipedia:Fair use for some reasons why. WP:FICTION is also relevant here. Some in-universe is good, but not so much. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • What kind of source is hentai.co.uk? I can't find an "about" section even.

This was one of the original sources on this page. I believe the site serves many functions, but also gives information on hentai games, such as Kanon.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We need more information about who publishes it, and who writes on it. Without such information, it can't be relied on.--GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Anime Densetsu seems like a site that hosts reviews written by anonymous, unpaid, users. WP:RS?
  • Why that geocities reference?

I've removed them.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Sales into reception, preferably.

I'll get on that.--十八 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, the prose could use some work before a Featured Article request, but it's understandable as it is - seemed better than the Air article. --GunnarRene 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the points about the sources that the article uses...I suppose I could remove all the sources and information taken from those sources if you are saying they shouldn't be there.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes

I am listing this article for Peer review to get feedback on the episode list, as I feel this is an important list relating to Aqua Teen Hunger Force and I am looking for ways to improve it further.

I should also note that the length of the episode summaries will (within the next week) be shortened to one or two sentences each, as a lot of the information belongs, and is present, in the individual episode articles.

I speak for myself and other editors when I say that we appreciate any and all feedback regarding the list. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 03:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend adding fair use rationale for each of the episode image, especially if you're going for featured list candidate. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Done

[edit] Perplex City

Hi there. Not sure how familiar Wikipedia users are with Alternate Reality games, but I've sort of run into some problems with the Perplex City article that I need feedback on. First of all there is the problem that there are two distinct parts of the Perplex City article - The huge plot section and the parts about the game. Because the game is going into another season that will have a different plot but a different set-up, I was considering moving the plot section (besides the "Background" part) to a separate article, but I'm not sure if there are other guidelines to adhere to.

Also, there is the problem about an ARG term known as "line-blurring". Line blurring is what "puppet masters" (people who run ARG's) attempt to do - to blur the line between fiction and reality. In reference to Perplex City, this would involve, for example, the fact that The Receda Cube is both a fictional artifact (it is not really a weapon or a religious artifact, those are only part of the story), but it is also a physical object that actually exists (but is only a metal cube). Characters aren't real, but their blog posts are. See the dilemma? This poses a problem in the plot section. It's hard to adhere to WP:FICT while remaining concise (Scarlet's blog said that, in the game, she was going to the town of Vindenbourg, a fictional city in the game.).

So, please review and give me some feedback. Thanks. -AtionSong 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin "Pap" Singleton

I wrote this article last fall and would like to have it peer reviewed for quality, readability, etc. I want it to be a Good Article. Please be aware that this article has been the target of sporadic vandalism over the past few months, although nothing recently. Also, there was a controversy over the article title and naming protocols. There are no photographs available for this article. There are two extant pictures of Singleton, but both are owned and copyrighted by the Kansas State Historical Society. One user tried to illegally insert one of them and it was deleted. StudierMalMarburg 14:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Same issues as noted below, particularly the lack of precise footnotes. Your list of references is good, but you need to let your reader know exactly where (reference & page) your various pieces of information came from. One other thought -- when I taught history, I had a copy of the transcript of the hearings Singleton went through in, I believe, the US Congress. (Clearly people who lost a significant number of sharecroppers through the Exoduster movement were not happy about and tried to have it stopped.) If I can locate these transcripts, which I found on line, I'll post the link here. Jancarhart 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just found the testimony I spoke of: Benjamin Singleton Congressional testimony; April 17, 1880 (PBS)Jancarhart 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MarkBuckles

• Only one in-line citation. References are good, but we need to know what information comes from where specifically (most people use footnotes). Not sure if this is an absolute requirement for GA status, but most have that and certainly all FA's require it.
• There's a lot of bolded text. I've hardly ever seen this in articles I've read. If it's important enough, wikilink it and make a short stub about it.
• Why are the first subject headings subsections? (=== ===) vs. (== ==) ?
• ISBN numbers are helpful for books.
• Watch out for statements that sound subjective like "Such misconceptions are based upon inadequate research." Anything like this needs to be cited specifically for sure or cut.

Hope this helps! Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you. It does help. I appreciate your taking the time to read through it. StudierMalMarburg 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• The lead is short. Check WP:LEAD.
• No picture of him?
• "Although it is known that Benjamin Singleton was born in 1809 ..." Known by whom?
• Add inline citations. Try to have at least one in each sentence, and read WP:CITE.
• Why so many "bolds"? Only the name of Singleton in the lead should be bolded. Nothing else!
• "Singleton remained in Detroit until the end of the Civil War.". Which civil war?! Probably the American, but you don't say that; you only wikilink it!
• "Unfortunately, white landowners were unwilling to bargain with Singleton and would not sell land to blacks at anything other than outrageous prices." Avoid POV expressions like unforunately. Maybe (not sure though) this sentence could also be regarded as POV: "Disgusted by the posturing of political leaders who failed to deliver on their promises of freedom and equality for former slaves".
• "Many histories of Benjamin Singleton incorrectly state ..." Weasel; which historians?
• "Such misconceptions are based upon inadequate research." Avoid such expressions; they are ofter considered POV and one-sided. In general, "Misconceptions" should be rewritten to reflect a more objective approach to the subject. You may have to change even the heading.--Yannismarou 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keven Mealamu

Some details of his 2005 and 2006 seasons added. Breandán Dalton 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shudda's review

My thoughts:

• Add the {{rugger}} template to the article.
• Include information on his playing for Auckland, and the Blues.

• Why is he not captain for the Blues? Are you sure about explaination, for example Richie McCaw will take over captaincy for Crusaders when he returns. So why him and not Mealamu?

• Include information on his background, so before he started playing first class rugby.

• His schooling, his family, did he have a job before rugby, or has he only ever been a professional player?

• More references need to be added.
• Expand info on his All Blacks career, esp regarding reconditioning squad.
• An image, preferably free, should be included in the article.

- Shudda ^talk 08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cvene's review

• There is not much written about his RWC03 selection. Cvene64 08:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relative density

I did a recent semi-overhaul of the page. But I'm not an expert, I'm just an engineering college graduate who got A's in his physics classes and math classes. I know the power of using natural units and I appreciate using unitless dimensions. Hence the large section for the unitless properties of RD. Also, my physics proff. wanted us to demonstrate the hydrometer problem shown. I figured it was important enough to be encyclopedic. I've got a second proof, showing that a hyperbolic cross sectional area would create a linear relationship between displacement and change in RD, but decided it was not encyclopedic enough to warrant placing it on here. Since it required the use of calculus, I doubt most readers would understand it as well. (Also, I'm not quite an expert, as I've said before.)

If anyone has grammar issues, spelling issues, etc... change up the page. I'm not fammiliar with wikipedia's standard code of conduct as much as I'm sure everyone else out there is. I'm not a grammar expert, and I don't know how to program this math code for beans. If anyone thinks the math isn't important enough to warrant placing it there, let me know and I'll just put it on my talk page. I don't have any source for the proof I listed concerning the hydrometers, but I did cite other wiki pages which had sources and used basic algebra for my proof. --Markozeta 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'd like to see in this page.

I'd like to see some history of relative density. But I was terrible at history. Why is it called "specific gravity"? Doesn't that name seem contradictory?

I'd like to see someone talk about the uses of relative density in the Navier-Stokes Equation and other fluid equations where dimensionless quantities are usefull.

I'd like to see a better explanation (other then mine) about how relative density conveys more information then the actual density does itself. I just made that up by comparing the densities of iridium and lead.

I'd like an explanation of the Planck density and relative density. Obviously, if one took a density relative to the planck density, then the numbers would be incredibly small. My hypothesis is that the relative density with respect to the Planck density can not be greater then 1, or else the object becomes a black hole and physics as we know it ceases to exist around that object. But I can't prove that.

I'd like to see a resolution about sinking and floating. It's hard for me to grasp "water" being heavier then "oil". Even if I standardize it to "a liter of water" and "a liter of oil", it's still not easy to visualize. When I see it as "Oil floats on top of water", it sorta clicks and I realize that the water is heavier and sinks. Though it is true that for solids, there is no such thing as sinking and floating, for 2 outta the 3 states of matter commonly found on earth, it is true. And that should make it at least notable.

I'd like to see a difference between SG with comparison to air vs. SG with comparison to water. I think that should be at the top of the page. --Markozeta 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vitamin C

Hi, I recently obtained GA status for this article, and hoping for FA, with this being a logical step along the way.

I'm looking for a review on scientific verifiability, particularly from experts in the areas of biochemistry, etiology, and genetics. Also, any suggestions the community could make on reference formatting and prose would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance — Jack · talk · 06:50, Tuesday, 13 March 2007

• If you're looking for expert feedback, you might try WP:SPR. I think it's semi-active. -- bcasterline • talk 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've now nominated it there, thanks or the heads-up. If there's anything that you could suggest here about prose, or other general improvements, that'd still be ace :) — Jack · talk · 11:36, Wednesday, 14 March 2007

• Firstly all the bullet points need to be either incorperated into prose or into tables. Secondly the article really needs overall tightening, as several points are repeated in various sections. It actually needs to be reorganized entirely. "History" should rather be something like "History of human consumption" or something, as you hardly give the evolutionary history of Vitamin C in that section. Then you can move the "Daily dosage requirements" under that etc. Also see if there any non-dietary uses of Vitamin C worth mentioning (preservitive, etc.)--BirgitteSB 20:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've moved history up, and converted a whole bunch of bullets to prose. There are non-dietary uses of the vitamin, and they're mentioned in the third paragraph of the intro. I can totally see what you mean about repetitive info, and it's been mentioned before. Trying to fix it now, let me know what you think — Jack · talk · 20:03, Friday, 16 March 2007
    • I will re-read it completely this weekend; but two qick points. 1) WP:LEAD say that The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. Everything in the intro (i.e. non- dietarty uses) needs to be followed up in more detail in the article. 2)The "See Also" section is huge. This section is supposed to only hold things which are not yet covered in the article. Featured Articles do not have a "See Also" section at all as everything should be incorperated into the article by that stage.--BirgitteSB 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Hi Jrockley. I originally checked out the article because I saw the request for scientific review; I was forwarded to this page for discussion. I think the article on the whole is solid, but there is one statement in it that gives me pause. I've started a discussion of this on the article's talk page. Briefly, my concern is with a sentence in the introductory paragraph that presents one side of a controversial topic. This statement is factual, but its location and its meaning are such that it biases the reader. The intro paragraph would be just as good without this sentence, but if it is to be left in, I have suggested adding an additional sentence to reference the mainstream scientific point of view, too. Sorry for making this comment so long - jump to the talk page and you'll see my analysis. Antelan ^talk 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter fandom

Don't be alarmed -- I know, you see "Harry Potter" and "fandom" come together and you immediately think "cruft." Please pass these thoughts aside as you look over this article -- it was just passed as a GA and the reviewer suggested it would make an excellent FA. I want to see how far away from that we are. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

I think that this is a good start on a very disparate topic. You have done an excellent job in keeping the length of the article in check. Here are my suggestions as you revise the article in your efforts to achieve FA.

• You need to expand the lead so that it summarizes, in three or four paragraphs, the main contents of the article. WP:LEAD
• Perhaps this was just an oversight, but when you use "not only," the rules of English grammar require that you use "but also."

Fans of the series not only interact online in Internet forums, but meet at fan conventions and parties held for the release of each book and film.

Studies on the fandom have shown that the series is not only for children, but that adults are fans as well.

• I would suggest that you submit this article to the League of Copyeditors. There are awkward sentences, poor diction, incorrect grammar and spelling mistakes that need attention. There is also a lot of repetition in the article.

Ex: The fandom community consists of a wide variety of media, including web sites, fan fiction, podcasts, fan art and songvids, and a distinct genre of music. - Can there be a community of media? This sentence is awkwardly phrased.

• I'll work on reconstructing this sentence.

Ex: In 2005, Entertainment Weekly listed the midnight release of Goblet of Fire as one of the top moments in entertainment of the previous 25 years. - "top" is colloquial; "entertainment" is too vague

Ex: In the United States, the book's initial run printed 3.8 million copies - runs don't print

Ex: Despite the hunger that the books' publications satisfy - what does this mean? what hunger?

Ex: While explaining the use of the word " 'ship " is appropriate, the article itself should not employ it nor words such as "item." They are too colloquial for an encyclopedia.

Ex: romance among characters is a theme- Romances are not generally themes, they are plot elements.

• • Sorry, would you mind pointing out the spelling mistakes? I can understand the awkward sentences and diction, and the grammar as you mentioned above, but from many rereads I certainly haven't found anything misspelled. I'll submit the article to the LoCE when the peer review finishes, thank you. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ex: emphasise - article is written in American English, so this should be "emphasize"

Aha, I'll take a look at that. Thanks.

• Incredibly, 6.9 million of those copies were sold in the U.S. within the first 24 hours of its release - some FAC reviewers will jump on you for the "incredibly" - it could be construed as POV
• I would remove the paragraph about The Devil Wears Prada - it is not relevant. You have proved your point.
  • I don't know about this. I think this is an excellent (and brief) example of how the series has notably been portrayed in pop culture, without having one of those pesky "In pop culture" sections, because it fits here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Why don't you try reducing it, then? Right now, it has undue prominence compared to other topics. At most it deserves a sentence.
      • Shortened it.
• The first site to receive the award was Immeritus - why is the website not linked?
  • As in wikilinked? There's no article about it. (The external link is in the appropriate section, though, if that's what you mean.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I mean linked to the website itself within the article. That way, readers who want to see what sites won the awards can easily click as they are reading.
      • Well, if you take a look at Talk:Harry Potter fandom#Conversation conclusion (and the latest talk page archive), there was a large discussion on the inclusion of certain sites in the "external links" section. We decided that, so as to cut down on listing random fan sites, only sites mentioned in the article would have links, and those would appear in the EL section. I don't think inline external links look very professional, [3] anyway.
        • I understand that problem. I'm giving you another perspective. As a reader, I wanted to immediately click on that website to see what received an award. But I had to scroll down to the bottom of the page. 15:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Godric's Hollow; strangely, the site's domain name is occupied by advertisers and its content is lost, and there is no further record on Rowling's site that Godric's Hollow received the award. - there should be a record of the website in the wayback machine [4]
  • Okey dokes, you can find it here, but where/how should I put this into the article? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You can link to it using the note format you used or piping within the article.
• It would be best to turn the list of websites award the prize into a prose paragraph.
• What is the comparison in numbers between Potter fan fiction and Trek fan fiction? I would think that Trek would still reign supreme. Your source for Potter having the most fan fiction is a student newspaper - this is not the most reliable source.
• The Harry/Hermione relationship incident seems to be covered in a little too much detail compared to the other sections.
  • This was one of the most newsworthy events in the fandom. I understand it is slightly long, but I've tried to keep it as short as possible, and it certainly shows how much fans are affected by the series. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you could make the description of the entire event more concise by working on the writing, then.
• Though match rules and style of play vary among fandom events, they are generally kept as close as possible to the sport envisioned by Rowling, though without brooms. - do you really need to say "without brooms" - we all know flying is impossible
  • I think the point of the sentence is that they don't even put brooms between their legs to simulate the HP characters, brooms are just completely out. However, I couldn't think of a good way to say this, so I just took it out completely. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Some of the information in "Roleplaying games" could be expanded for those unfamiliar both with roleplaying games and Potter (such as "house cup").
• Also, I noticed that almost all of your sources come from newspapers or websites. I would urge you to acquire some scholarly sources as well. Newspapers and websites can establish the existence of a fandom to an extent, but scholarly sources will analyze it for you - they interpret fandom for you, tell you what it means in a social, cultural and political context. Much has been published on Harry Potter and Harry Potter fandom. You can begin with Google Scholar and then use something like EBSCO or the MLA Bibliography (you would need a library for those as they are by subscription only). WP:CITE recommends that articles be written using scholarly sources as much as possible. Awadewit 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for all of your suggestions! I took care of most of the minor ones, responded to some I had questions about, and will take care of the more important ones, especially finding scholarly sources, when I get a bit more time. Thanks again. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Small point. I don't think that it is a good idea to strike out reviewers' comments yourself. It is altering their comments, which is frowned upon at wikipedia, as you know. A better way to keep track of your progress is to check things off with Done. Awadewit 05:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry! I had seen previous reviews done using strike out, and I certainly don't have the intentions to change your comments! I simply think it's an easier method of seeing which comments have not been addressed yet, more so than {{done}}. But if you'd rather me continue with {{done}}, I can do that. Sorry, once again! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dev920's review

• Ditto about the lead.
• Your images need to alternate, not congregate on one side.
• There are a few very short paragraphs that could do with expanding or merging.
• Some of the references are not formatted correctly (missing authors, mostly).
  • I think that's the only thing, and that's only when a page's author isn't listed, or if it comes from Leaky, or MN, mostly, where I didn't think it very relevant to write "Melissa Anelli" or "Andrew Sims," etc. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree. I'll look through the references myself and see what I meant by that, as I've forgotten what I was referring to. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just went back through and checked each one. The BBC and CNN don't list author names, and I decided to throw in all the Melissa Anellis and Andrew Simses anyway. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a personal note, I would deeply appreciate it if you could get Sirius/Remus in, theirloveissocanon (He loves Tonks, my arse - rebound much?).
• Ditto about the scholarly sources, I once found an entire MA thesis on fanfiction in Harry Potter, it's somewhere on the Internet and I'm sure there is more on Harry Potter generally. There are entire websites with banks of scholarly works on Buffy, I'm sure there is one similar for Harry Potter.
  • Mind pointing me to that thesis? Sounds extremely helpful. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • While there are indeed many MA theses and PhD dissertations on this topic (I know of one on just Potter slash fiction), usually one does not use theses and dissertations unless there are no other sources available. In this case, that is not true. There is published scholarly material on Potter fandom. Awadewit 06:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Put in more about what happens at the conventions. Was anyone notable there?
• I know who Immeritus is about, most readers don't. Please clarify.
• How do other people feel about fanfic about their characters? Surely Emma, Rupert and Daniel have all read fanfic about themselves?
  • If they have, they certainly haven't mentioned it in public, or what their reactions to it are. And this comes from two years of steady fan site RSS feed bookmarking. :) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Ok then. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• That fantasy template is annoying and should be removed.
  • I didn't just want to remove it, as the article is actually linked from the template and that would be odd to do so without consensus. So on the template's talk page I brought up whether anybody else was for removing the "fantasy subculture" section.

I love this article almost as much as I love the fandom, but it needs a bit of work to make FA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Ok:

• "For that release, 9000 FedEx trucks were used with no other purpose than to deliver the book. Together, Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble presold more than 700,000 copies of the book." is unreferenced.
  • Erm, well, it is, just that the sentence right after that also comes from the same source, so it's three sentences tied together from one ref. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Almost none of the roleplaying section has any references.

I think this article is nicely shaping up. If you cover the stuff listed by me and the chap above you've not yet done or explained away, this will be a very nice FA. Good luck! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Godfather

• Wikipedia:Peer review/The Godfather/archive1

I am planning on rewriting this article for GA and then FA status. Any suggestions would be helpful. :) The Filmaker 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Extend production information.
• Cite differences from plot, don't make it part of synopsis.
• Get better pictures, like everybody around Vito at the wedding and the aftermath of Michael committing his first kill.

WikiNew 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Cast section seems more like a Characters list. Perhaps reverse the actor/character order and make it so?
• Combine, in some way, the three tiny paragraphs about people who auditioned.
• Citation 10 is blank.
• More pictures would, indeed, be good.
• I added a number of "citation needed"s. Please find sources for those sentences.

Polymathematics 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W. H. R. Rivers

We are wanting to improve this article to be a good article. Idea's for structural improvement or how to expand the article would be most beneficial. John Vandenberg 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *Exeunt* Ganymead

Having briefly glanced at the article, there are some structural things that pop out to me:

• • Not all quotes should use the Cquote format. Only long quotes (a paragraph or more) should utilize this format. The remainder of the quotes can be incorporated in the text with "regular" quotation marks. Additionally, the sources for all quotes should be footnoted.
  • In the first paragraph under the first heading, you shouldn't have an external link in the text, especially when the work is on Wikicommons with a link provided. Fixed John Vandenberg 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The references should link to the title of the source, etc. AND include the page numbers for where the specific information being cited is found. This will vastly expand the number of references you have.
  • The text of the entire poem, Anthropological Thoughts, is unncessary. Select a few quotes from it, but the entire poem is not encyclopedic. Fixed John Vandenberg 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Try summing up some of the quotes, there really are too many quotes about him. They are interested, but they break up the text.

Overall, this is a good start to the article and there is a good deal of good information. Really, I think the quotes are the biggest problem and it is easy to remedy. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. I have tackle one of them now; the hold up was that I wanted to put all of the book on wikisource before removing the link. I have struck that review point so everyone can see what is left to do; I hope that isn't inappropriate. Next, I'm going to tackle Anthropological Thoughts. John Vandenberg 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• The lead is short. Per WP:LEAD it needs expansion.
• Per WP:MoS inline citations go straight after the pm; not before.
• The article is full of stubby pars like this one:"Rivers suffered from a stammer that never truly left him, he also had no visual memory. He dedicated Chapter II of his book Instinct and the Unconscious to describe his lack of visual memory." Read here, and think about reworking some parts of your article.
• "He later concluded that something must have happened to him on the top floor of his house so terrible- at least to a child- that he had blocked not just the memory of the place and event but the ability to remember visually in general; in the words of Barker's character Billy Prior, Rivers "put his mind's eye out"." Uncited.
• "Pat Barker, in the third novel in her Regeneration Trilogy, The Ghost Road suggests a reason for these problems but Rivers himself, although he may have had some idea of the causes, does not appear to cite them fully in his writings." Too vague. What reason? What idea? I'm lost!
• "However, these things did not seem to affect his academic performance." Not the most encyclopedic expression.
• I see a series of uncited quotes.
• "He was made a fellow of the Royal Society in 1908 and won the Society's gold medal in 1914 (information obtained from Rivers fonds)" Why in parenthesis and not a proper inline citation, also using Template:cite web or Template:cite news?
• "(Head 1923)" Mixed citing systems.
• Are you sure about all these quotes and the way you put them? IMO they interrupt to often the prose. Maybe you could incorporate them more in the prose, in order to make the article flow better.
• "Rivers' methods are often, somewhat unfairly, said to have stemmed from Sigmund Freud". WP:POV.
• "however, this is not truly the case as you can read both in Pat Barker's novels and in the words of friends such as Myers." POV and uncyclopedic prose ("as you can see").
• "Although he was aware of Freud's theories and methods, he did not necessarily prescribe to them (See Pat Barker's Regeneration pg 28- 32- Penguin Books- for his interpretation on dreams. For this, see also Rivers' Conflict and Dream for his methods of dream analysis and his thoughts on Freud)." Again mixed citing system.
• "As such, he really is a pioneer in his field- both for his new methods and for the fact that he went against the grain of the beliefs of the time'. Uncited and possibly POV.
• "Sassoon came to him in 1917". Per MoS we don wikilink single years or partial dates; only full dates.
• "In Pat Barker's novels and in Rivers' works (particularly Conflict and Dream) we get a sense of the turmoil the doctor went through." "We"? Again, have in mind that you are writing an encyclopedic article; not an essaie.
• What a loooooong citation by Jean Moorcroft Wilson!
• No reason to have books and papers in bold as you do at the end of World War One. Per MoS, it is just italics.
• "Rivers signed the papers as he lay dying in the Evelyn Nursing Home [2] following an unsuccessful emergency operation. He had an extravagant funeral at St. John's[2] in accordance with his wishes as he was an expert on funeral rites and was put to rest in the chuchyard of St Giles Church, Cambridge[2]." You cite the same source three times in just one sentence. Why?!
• I don't see a reason for a "Quotes" section. It looks like trivia. If these quotes are useful for your story incorporate them in the main biography. And the second one of these quotes s again tooooo long. Turn it into your own prose and incorporate it in your text.

A good start definitely, but it needs much more work, in order to get a proper encyclopedic article. Right now with the quotes, the short paragraphs, the POV assessments etc. it looks like a very nice report of Rivers' life, but it is not a proper encyclopedic article. Have a look at some of the recently promoted FA biographies. It could be helpful in terms of structure and prose.--Yannismarou 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sorrows of Young Werther

Comments/Contributions on:

• Infobox
• Plot Review
• Other sections needed (Characters perhaps?)
• Background Information
• Sources

Millancad 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• (Update) If anyone who knows German could see what could be added from the German article, that'd be great.

ɱўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

• Could you find a cover that is at least closer to the time and place of original publication? I'm not a stickler for first editions but that picture is silly. The page is supposed to be about Goethe's book after all. Let's try to put it in historical context, please.
• Also, the novel was not published in Germany. Germany did not exist as a nation until at least the middle of the nineteenth century. You might check where Goethe originally had it published.
• Do you have a reference for the climactic scene being the poems? I would tend to think that the climactic scene would be the suicide. Statements like that tend to be a matter of personal interpretation. Be careful with them.
• The lead should be a three-paragraph (or so) summary of the article. WP:LEAD
• leaves after a great embarassment - mention what it is
• You need to have scholarly sources for your material, such as the claims that the book is partly autobigraphical and had a wide cutural impact. See WP:CITE
• The cultural impact section could be greatly expanded. This book had a dramatic impact on writers at the end of the eighteenth century. "Everyone" read it, as they say. It influenced Romanticism in England and Sturm and Drang in the german states. That should all be there. Also, I would suggest that you have a section explaining what literary scholars have written about the book.
• You might consider a small section on Goethe.Awadewit 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by BirgitteSB

Honestly this is not ready for peer review but I wanted to point you at Google Books which will have a wealth of full view critical resources for a book of the age. This article needs LOTS of work, but follow what the sources have to say most often and it should be easy to see what points are important to get across. Also you need to get a free content image for the info box. There should be many public domain possibilities This is almost certainly PD.--BirgitteSB 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Springs Massacre

(See previous review here).

Looking for overall comments, going for GA, eventually FA with this one.

Current issues (any elaboration on specifics would be appreciated):

• Citations: Aware that I need more (IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)) (if you see anywhere that needs {{fact}}, please add it. Also, aware that some are not linked, as I retrieved many of the articles from microfiche I didn't originally have web links, I am in the process of finding digital copies via research database and will slowly be adding links to increase verifiability. : )
• Need for copy edit: any specific problems you see, it would be helpful if you can point them out.

• See comment below, request filed with League of Copyeditors. One user has done some tweaks already. : ) IvoShandor 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of images- added some, still need more, should be some public domain stuff out there. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lead length: expanded a bit, may need more.
• WP:MOS issues: again, point these out; I can think of WP:DASH, but there are probably other problems.
• Further reading section is a bit redundant at this point, but I am using it for reference right now, it will probably be reworked though: Still plan to rework. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done Deleted for now. Will add non-referenced reading later in due process, probably after GAC. IvoShandor 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some possible POV issues, how connected is the other violence? Do the sources confirm this? If not, are there others that do? Worked on this heavily, please let me know what you think. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Still need WP:SUMMARY for post massacre violence section. Done IvoShandor 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Needs additional sources for description of riot. IvoShandor 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wondering about:

• Could use some suggestions for some more wikilinks.
• Is it too lengthy, where could it be trimmed? What info specifically?
• Are any relevant aspects of the topic missing, glaring omissions?
• Any other suggestions?
• Major prose issues?

Thanks ahead of time for anyone who responds. I worked pretty hard on this article. IvoShandor 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I cleaned this article up a lot for POV, any help would be greatly appreciated. I think this could be FA someday. IvoShandor 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Another comment: I have filed a request with the League of Copyeditors for an outside copy edit. IvoShandor 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV discussion

The following is from the Rock Springs Massacre talk page. It has been copied here as it developed in the midst of this peer review. Feel free to add to it.

The subsections from "Post-massacre violence" are the makings of separate articles entirely, and are not about the Rock Springs Massacre directly; they should be placed in other articles and each section here should have a "Main" template; all that's necessary to say is that other violence broke out; this is not a history of THOSE events, but is supposed to be only about Rock Creek. Also, if stuff like this is trotted out as though it's connected, but some source hasn't said it's connected, stringing all this in one place to expound a thesis about post-massacre violence is actually original research, and a no-no. But it's clear from the tone of some of the content here that there's a thesis being expounded ("the NYT was 'just as guilty'" and other POV language). Please remember this is an encylcopedia article and NOT a political tract.Skookum1 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This comment could have been before the peer review was posted but the article is still being worked on. Some of the sources HAVE connected the events to Rock Springs. So it's not original research. Guilty was probably a bad word choice, but they did do it. Will look for such things as I work. Political tract? IvoShandor 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"just as guilty" is clearly a political statement; also IMO is the seeming effort in the article to tie in general historical materials and also other not-necessarily-connected events; it comes off like a tract, and is full of not-neutral language; like so many Chinese-American/Canadian history articles. Just the facts, please, no editorializing. And no introducing extraneous materials as if they had to do with things; if the sources make that connection, it should specify that it's the sources that made the connection, and which sources.Skookum1 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what the inline citations are for. I have no political agenda related to 19th century America. IvoShandor 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would hardly call a wave of anti-Chinese violence beginning with Rock Springs and encompassing events for the next six months a general connection, the Oregon stuff might be stretching it, but I thnk you're wrong. IvoShandor 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, there is absolutely no question this was a racially motivated attack, even the President agreed with that assessment, in 1885. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

And what in my post led you to think I was disputing that? Your re-asserting it seems to indicate that you think it was THAT that I was criticizing; but that's just more POVism, i.e. assuming that a criticism is about something that it's not. The point remains that the language of this article is very accusatory. And THAT is POV. It's possible to report facts and events without brow-beating people or using invective.....Skookum1 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So why don't you just fix it instead of making general objections. I have changed some of the wording but as the writer it can be hard to flesh out stuff, at least for me, that I have done myself.IvoShandor 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well. Go ahead, if its just POV, it won't matter to the material. I'm not that worried about, if there are any problems presented by your edits they can be fixed and discussed later. Go for it, it would really help. Sorry if I seemed hostile, I think I missed your point at first. IvoShandor 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the events to edit conscionably; as you can tell I'm also prolix - infamously so - and my edits tend to be emendations; I find it easier to point out issues here, unles I know the material well.Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed some POV wording, a lot of which is leftover from when this article was started, about eleven days after I registered for Wikipedia. : ) The Post Massacre section is already set up for WP:SUMMARY, I believe the sources confirm that this violence was related to the massacre in Rock Springs, but if you don't please point out where and I will try to verify. Remember there is a difference between "unverified" and "unverifiable" information. Also, if you are using caps for emphasis, could you please use italics, it looks like you're yelling. IvoShandor 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in another parallel case, the Anti-Oriental Riots in Vancouver were seen as some historians as an offshoot of or reaction to the Boxer Rebellionsm the ongoing Nationalist uprising after that, and fears of Asian imperialism in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War, and also by various labour practices of Chinese workers and Chinese labour contractors; yet to mention any of these, despite their presence in sources, is dismissed as "racist propaganda" and no recent histories go anywhere near the background of the events, choosing instead to condemn the antagonists instead of understanding "why" - it's so much easier to paint people simply as goons, or to try and boil everything down to "racism" and "racists" (and "racist" is often used as a dehumanizing term, often by people who are very racist themselves....). So I appreciate your un-POV'ing this; the point, central point, of this is what THIS article is about, or supposed to be about. "Splinter events" certainly have their place; but if they're so notable as to be mentioned, they should ahve their own articles, and a summary of those that sources state are connected, should be made (but no others).Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care if I moved this discussion to the 2nd peer review? So it would be archived? This article will take some work but I can make it shine. I wrote it way back when I was a wee little youngling wikipedian, didn't know as much about policy as I do now. That and no one ever mentioned this before, some help that other peer review was! ; ) IvoShandor 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darius (Highlander)

I want this article to reach GA, but I've been working on it for too long and I need other people's advice. I'm not sure all the references are reliable, but I've exhausted Google resources, so ideas are welcome and any feedback appreciated. Please note that I'm not a native English speaker and that I'm a newcomer, so I might have done some basic mistakes - but I'm eager to learn. Thank you.Rosenknospe 10:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George V of the United Kingdom

His two sons, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and George VI of the United Kingdom were recently peer-reviewed. DrKiernan 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"The King George's Fields in London were created as a lasting and fitting memorial by a committee in 1936 chaired by the then Lord Mayor of London."

The words "lasting and fitting" are POV. LuciferMorgan 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I missed those. Now removed. DrKiernan 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

This is an excellent article overall (as usual). My list of suggestions (though long) focuses mostly on small issues of clarity.

• was the first British monarch belonging to the House of Windsor, as a result of his creating it from the British branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. - awkward - how about "was the first British monarch who belonged to the House of Windsor because he himself created it from..."
  • Simplified. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• (from 1927, split into King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and King of Ireland) - do we need this information in the lead? is it essential to understanding George?
  • This is a politically sensitive issue, and an over-simplification of the Irish titles is likely to lead to offence. Perhaps an option would be:

George V (George Frederick Ernest Albert; 3 June 1865 - 20 January 1936) was the first British monarch belonging to the House of Windsor, which he created from the British branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. As well as being King of the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth Realms, George was also the Emperor of India and the first King of the Irish Free State. George reigned from 6 May 1910 through World War I (1914-1918) until his death in 1936.

• I like this better. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a youth and young man he served in the Royal Navy - unnecessary repetition? not really clear what the distinction is between "youth" and "young man" until much later
  • Amended. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• They toured the British Empire but George preferred to stay at home with his stamp collection, and lived what later biographers would consider a dull life because of its conventionality. - doesn't quite make the contrast clear - "Although they toured the British Empire initially, George preferred to stay at home..." OR "Although they occasionally toured the British Empire, George preferred to stay at home" (I don't know which one is more accurate)
  • Well, they toured until they were in their mid-forties, and then their children took over. I've chosen occasionally. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Another significant event in his reign was the passing of the Statute of Westminster which separated the crown so that George ruled the dominions as separate kingdoms. - can you transition better than "another"? also, perhaps the more detailed information regarding the split should be moved here?
  • Rewritten. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have changed "Early life" to "Early life and education" since "Early life" had so few details before "education." Feel free to change it back.
  • That's fine, thanks. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• The Prince of Wales appointed John Neale Dalton as their tutor, although neither excelled intellectually. - the "although" does not seem to follow logically - explain - was Dalton brilliant? his wikipedia page does not say much about him
  • Sentence expanded to make clear that Albert Victor and George did not excel intellectually as children, not the Prince of Wales or Dalton. It is unclear whether their lack of attainment was because of poor teaching or poor studentship. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Do we know why the two princes were given naval educations?
  • Their father wanted it (Queen Victoria didn't) because it was "the very best possible training". Traditionally, second sons go into the navy and it was thought unwise to separate the boys because Albert Victor was reliant on George to induce him to work. Their father also thought it would be better for them to mix with ordinary people. I'll add something brief in about this. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• You might briefly mention what the "Flying Dutchman" is.
  • Done. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• There are a lot of links here. I don't think it is common practice to link individual years and do all of the geographical locations need to be linked as well?
  • Yes, you're quite right WP:MoS deprecates the linking of years like this, so I've removed most. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• When they returned to the UK, the brothers were parted with Albert Victor attending Trinity College, Cambridge and George continuing in the Royal Navy. - confusing - do you mean - "When they returned to the UK, the brothers were parted from Albert Victor who began attending Trinity College, Cambridge and George who continued in the Royal Navy"?
  • Amended for clarity. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Why did "the mothers" oppose George marrying Marie?
  • Alexandra was anti-German, the Duchess of Edinburgh was pro-German. But I think basically they just didn't like one another. I'll add something about this after checking Pope-Hennessy. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• You might explain why being second in line to the throne "effectively ended George's naval career."
  • Added a phrase. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• The marriage was a success, and unlike his father, George did not take a mistress. - the mistress information seems like an odd intrusion - why are we suddenly comparing George to his father?
  • OK, reference to non-existent mistress removed. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Throughout their lives the couple exchanged notes of endearment and loving letters. - some editors at FAC may want a source for a statement like this
  • Added. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• It was claimed that at the wedding, the crowd were confused as to who was the Duke of York (later George V) and who was the Tsarevitch (later Nicholas II) of Russia, because their beards and dress made them look alike superficially. - I'm only bringing this up because at FAC (where I am assuming you are headed), sentences such as this one are often criticized. We academics love the passive and it makes sense to us in many contexts. But I have been asked numerous times "who claimed" and that sort of thing. I just mention it. Defend your use of the passive!
  • I've removed "it was claimed" but inserted "may have been" just to irritate FAC by adding "may have been" and you by removing "it was claimed"! DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• George Frederick Abbott's Through India with the Prince (1906) describes the tour. - can you tell us a little more about why Abbott was chosen to describe the tour and what his book said? his wikipedia page is a stub
  • No idea. I'm not responsible for adding this, and I tried to remove it. I've moved it to a footnote in the hopes that it will wither and die. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • May it rest in peace. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• May chose the regal name of Queen Mary - was she naming herself after Elizabeth's sister? if so, could you mention that fact - you say the name was "regal" - that is the reason I can think of
  • That's a typo - I think it should be "regnal". Officially, May was styled "Princess Victoria Mary", and signed herself "Victoria Mary". When she became Queen the use of a double name was deprecated and she chose "Mary". Do you think I should put this in? DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If you can do it in two sentences! Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is the only relevant historical event during WWI really the whole title business? Wow. Maybe you could just mention in a few sentences what the war was about and who the British were fighting, just in case readers don't know and don't click on the relevant link (I am again thinking of those poorly educated American college students). Even if someone clicked, they would have to read a lot of the WWI page to understand. Just a little relevant historical background. Many Britons died, etc. But perhaps this is asking too much and the article already flows so well.
  • I'd rather try and focus on him rather than the war. There are other events which happened to him during this time, for example he fell off a horse and fractured his pelvis at a troop review (the cheering troops spooked the horse). But the section is already rather long. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • But that is so funny! Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• He had always had a weak chest - this sounds like a nineteenth-century novel! - can you be more specific?
  • Amended. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• A bout of illness saw him retire to the sea - "to [a place] near the sea" perhaps?
  • Amended. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• he would never leave the room alive - a bit dramatic for my taste
  • Well, to be quite honest, that's why I put it in! Maybe I will remove it, I'll see if anyone else complains. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• At the King's lying in state in Westminster Hall, his four surviving sons, King Edward VIII, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, mounted the guard at the catafalque on the night of 28 January, the day before the funeral as a mark of respect to their father. - awkward - how about "As a mark of respect for their father, the king's four sons [insert names] mounted the guard at the catafaulque on the night before the king's funeral at Westminster Hall" or something like that
  • I've tried to clean that up a bit. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• At the procession to George's Lying in State, as the cortege turned into New Palace Yard, the Maltese Cross fell from the Imperial Crown and landed in the gutter. The new King, Edward VIII, saw it fall and wondered whether this was a bad omen.[46][47] He would abdicate before the year was out. - this suggests it was - I would delete the last sentence to avoid that suggestion
  • OK. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• The title list has odd formatting issues on my browser. Why is "and, occasionally, outside of the United Kingdom, and with regard to India" on its own line with no bullet - it looks weird
  • Yes, that needed re-formatting. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have changed John's cause of death from "epilepsy" to "seizures." I've never really heard of a person dying from epilepsy. It's the seizures that cause the death or the resulting injuries from the seizures that cause the death. I checked the John page, but his cause of death was not precisely listed. Seizures seemed the best way to go at this point. A somewhat flawed analogy: people do not die from AIDS, they die from other diseases that they get because of AIDS. Also, how sure are historians that John had epilepsy? Lots of diseases cause seizures but that does not mean that a person has epilepsy. It's a very tricky distinction to make.
  • Yes, you're right. Thanks. Most biographers do say seizures. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would move the "Tributes" section above the "Titles" and "Ancestry" sections.
  • Yes, Done. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Most of the article seems to be written in British English. Make sure it is consistent - I changed one "honor" to "honour."
• Why are all of the images on the right side of the page? I would move a few over to the left side for variety.
  • I had to delete one (or was it more?) because of uncertain sources/copyright. I've moved one over to the left. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• You describe the Punch cartoon as "depicting" the King as "relinquishing" his German titles. But cartoons usually have a political slant - could you make this cartoon's slant clearer to the reader? Is it supporting or deriding the King's move? Political cartoons from a previous era are often very difficult for later readers to understand (as you are well aware). The eighteenth-century political cartoons that I myself look at are well-nigh impossible for students to understand (they certainly don't find them funny). I would guess that this is slightly derisive. Am I right? Showing a king sweeping, showing his robes hiked up, the "made in Germany" stamp, etc.
  • No, I think Punch was patriotic during the war and was supportive of the move. The King is wearing the Garter robes, which, although seemingly comical, do actually look like that! DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, there you go. A reason to explain. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• In the names of the "External links" can you tell us a little more about where we are going so that we know if we want to click? "George V at geocities" or something like that?
  • Right. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• You probably want to add in the rest of the ISBNs on your "Reference" list, if they are available.
  • Added one. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• My only real substantive issue would be that the "Issue" table indicates he and his wife had several children but we never really read about them in the biography. There is really only the mention of their parenting style and his desire to see "Bertie and Lilibet" on the throne. Why is there not more on their children? At least noting the births of each one (and death of one)? Awadewit 09:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Each child has their own article, and the issue are in the table and the infobox. I'd prefer to concentrate on the two most important relationships from a historical perspective: his relations with his two elder sons. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • But, he had a child that died, John, right? That seems worth a mention. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venezuela‎

Looking forward to comments regarding prose, organization, flow, length, comprehensiveness, neutrality, etc. Saravask 02:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Self-nomination. No peer review.Saravask 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Opposed. Until major POV issues in the Politics section are resolved:

1) How do you explain that "A New Era (UNT) together with its allied parties Project Venezuela, Justice First, and others." are "center-right"? where are the reliable references to their ideologies? How do you explain, for example, that they are allies with Movement for Socialism (Venezuela), Red Flag Party and Radical_Cause?

2) Is the word "watchdog" the best way to describe Súmate?.

3)"Historically, Venezuelan politics was dominated by the center-right Christian democratic COPEI and the center-left Social democratic Democratic Action (AD) parties". Do you mean after the fall of Marcos Pérez Jiménez? or for ever and ever?

4)"Because voting is not compulsory". Voting is compulsory in Venezuela, although no punishment is enforced and, by the way, in this regard I'm still wating for an answer to my arguments at the Talk:compulsory voting

5) "As is common elsewhere in Latin America, the National Assembly has twice voted to grant Chávez the ability rule by decree in several broadly defined areas, once in 2000 and again in 2007". Now this is just grotesque! "common elsewhere in Latin America"? where is this coming from? facts? references? or is this article trying to justify a president ruling under an enabling act? (by the way, enabling act is another article clearly aimed at trying to justify the enabling act of the current President, since it does not explain that Lusinchi's act was under an economic crisis and restricted to economic issues, Ramón José Velásquez was to rule for a brief period of one year after the destitution of Carlos Andrés Pérez and Pérez's occurred after the Caracazo, hence those enabling acts have nothing to do with the current act which was dictated under no extraordinary circumstances) (Caracas1830 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

• Erm, how did you find your way here? I'm afraid you're jumping the gun a bit. This FAC is not even open yet (and was not meant to open for another week or so); the page was completely orphaned according to "What links here". At any rate, feel free to comment further, as the article still requires major overhauling. Saravask 02:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• See changes. Saravask 04:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From SandyGeorgia - unbalanced whitewash

This article looks to be heading for another POV tag; too limited input from too few editors, and that's not likely to change. Items that will need to be addressed include those mentioned by Caracas1830, and:

• ... national politics in 1958. Since that year, Venezuela has generally enjoyed an unbroken tradition of stable liberal democracy. (That may be a semi-true statement in a technical sense, but it does a gross injustice to factual reality of the Venezuelan political situation. Cite please?)
  • A CIA citation was added to support the wording "Since that year, Venezuela has generally enjoyed an unbroken tradition of stable liberal democracy." I don't find that wording from the CIA. What I do find is a more realistic summary, lacking from this article:
    • Democratically elected governments have held sway since 1959. Hugo CHAVEZ, president since 1999, has promoted a controversial policy of "democratic socialism," which purports to alleviate social ills while at the same time attacking globalization and undermining regional stability. Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples.
• This sentence needs fixing: According to another theory, the fact that, in Spanish, the suffix -zuela usually resulted in a diminutive term (e.g., mujerzuela, cazuela); thus, the term's original sense would have been that of a "little Venice".[2]
• The lead is not a compelling or adequate summary of Venezuela. The lead also contains a strange selection of items to mention; Guayana dispute is mentioned, but nothing of political upheaval of the last ten years?
• Christopher Columbus, upon seeing its eastern coast in 1498, referred to Venezuela as "Tierra de Gracia" ("Land of Grace"), which has become the country’s nickname. (Never heard Venezuela called that in my life. Also, that is mentioned in the lead, with no reference, yet never discussed in the text—the lead should be a summary of the text.)
• Murder of Tamanaco is mentioned *before* colonization; seems out of order. "Put to death" is a nice euphemism.
• Biased sources, similar to what we saw on Chavez? Please attempt to aim for more neutral sources (Health and Neoliberalism: Venezuela and Cuba).
• Collapse in oil prices resulted in coup attempts? That's a simplification and a whitewash, not surprisingly from a leftist source.
• This statement is opinion, biased, one-sided, and has no citation. (Venezuela continues to enact a program of wide-ranging socialist reforms while placing more emphasis on the nation's future as a part of a more integrated Latin America.) You could alternately say that Chavez continues to consolidate power, undermine democracy, and so on ... one-sided reporting.
• Complete failure to mention significant historical and political events resulting in complete upheaval in Venezuela; article dives straight into current politics and government as if nothing ever happened. Unbalanced, biased by omission. No indications whatsoever of the consolidation of power, president for life, or how Chavez achieved that. Whitewash of history.
• The president can ask the legislature to reconsider portions of laws he finds objectionable, but a simple parliamentary majority can override these objections. Yes, but, don't you think we should tell the whole story? I notice that these items are completely uncited, and summary (daughter) articles are also uncited. This verison of Venezuelan politics is according to whom? Several sections here need an uncited tag.
• Main article Government of Venezuela is a redirect; what became of Government of Venezuela, which should certainly be distinct from Politics of Venezuela.
• Political parties, politics does not adequately cover the divisions or unions that exist and the controversies. Whitewash.
• NGO organization is redundant.
• Saying that voting is not compulsory only tells part of the story and is misleading; the full story should be told, include how voter rolls are kept.
• Foreign relations, again, POV by omission—no mention whatsoever of Chavez pursuit of relations with enemies of Israel and the USA, or how radically he has changed Venezuela's foreign relations. No mention of Iran, first visit to Iraq, Libya, Russia, etc? Oh, so much left out; too much to mention.
• Armed forces, no mention of activity or plans in Bolivia? Glossing over of militarization of society?
• For a country article, this is dramatically undersized, at 24KB of readable prose, and the daughter articles do not make up for what is missing in comprehensiveness. See Turkey, Germany, or Canada for example—each have 40KB or more of readable prose. Only a very favorable (to Chavez) story has been told; pls fill in the rest of the blanks. There is plenty of room to tell the whole story.
• Subdivisions leaves out entirely consolidation of power.
• Please tell me, where is the mention of crime (highest murder rate of any world capital), where is corruption, and where is human rights? Where is the mention of Chavez's role in all of these societal declines? Where is the economic turmoil and decline? None of this is mentioned, a complete whitewash. How about Chavez' destruction of the oil economy? How about the decline in medical care? (Oh, we believe that Cuban care is superior to what Venezuela had before Cuban "doctors" were brought in?) How about the decline in education, plans for indoctrination, and universities with no standards? Scanty mention of education and health care, and certainly no mention of indoctrination in the schools. No mention of Bolivarian circles? A very scanty picture of a very ugly situation.
• The article is very scantily cited.
• Sorry, the article is unbalanced and has a very very long way to go towards being comprehensive.

And now, stand by for the usual rejoinders from the usual parties ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enano275

Lead:

• In the opening sentence "coast" should be replaced with a more comprehensive word, "region" or "area" maybe. Considering that Venezuela spans from the jungle to the coast, going through the llanos, coast may confuse readers into thinking Venezuela is geographically just about beaches.
• As noted already, 'referred to Venezuela as "Tierra de Gracia" ("Land of Grace"), which has become the country’s nickname', needs a citation.
• You should probably insert some history in the lead, talk briefly about the move from a colony to a nation, and also that Venezuela is officially under a participative democracy.
• Overall the lead does not summarize the article.

History:

• Mention the year in which Colón arrived to Venezuela.
• Contradiction: you first say that caudillos dominated the first half of the 20th century, you later say that their demise occurred in 1935, so which one is it?
• I think you should mention Pérez Jiménez.
• This section needs more comprehensiveness. What exactly happened between Colón's arrival and the independence movement? How come we ended in dictatorship less than a century after independence? What was the mestizaje? What about the oil nationalization?

Government:

• This section should be expanded overall.
• Mention governors and mayors.
• Introduce major constitutions, and other government milestones.

I will complete the rest of the peer review tomorrow.--enano ^(Talk) 04:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing...

Government

• Add public powers and how these changed with the 1999 constitution.
• Talk about all the ministries.
• How are governors and mayors elected?

Politics:

• You think the last paragraph summarizes well the current status of the politics in Venezuela? Needs expanding.

Foreign relations:

• Separate military from here. They are not the same, and specially in Venezuela, the military has a lot to do with the domestic policy as well.

Subdivisions:

• The regions have changed a lot throughout the history of Venezuela. When was the current layout decreed?
• Explain how the capital of Venezuela is composed. (By the Libertador municipality of the Capital District and by the Sucre, El Hatillo, Baruta and Chacao Municipalities of Miranda).
• I don't see the Capital District categorized in any of the lists. You could put it with the Federal Dependencies and replace "Dependencies" with "Other administrative divisions." Maybe add The Esequibo there as well. Your choice.

Geography:

• No beaches?

Flora and fauna:

• According the the Guinness World Records the biggest spider was found in Venezuela. I think this would be interesting to readers.

Economy:

• This section is very weak overall.
• "The country's main petroleum deposits are located around and beneath Lake Maracaibo and the Gulf of Venezuela." True, but it's worth mentioning that there also deposits in Barinas, Apure, the Orinoco, Anzóategui, Monagas and half of Guárico.
• The 2nd paragraph has several interesting facts—all worthless if there are not citations.
• What's the minimum salary?
• Talk about the control de cambio and the parallel market of currency, and how events like the government acquisition of CANTV and the Electricity of Caracas have affected the black market and other aspects of the economy.
• The government has announced the biggest economic reform in decades: they want to eliminate three zeros to the currency. This should be mentioned.

Demographics:

• "Diseases ranging from typhoid, yellow fever, cholera, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and hepatitis D are present in the country." Dengue fever should be added to this list.
• No more recent HIV data?

Culture:

• As I mentioned in the to-do list several month ago, there are too many names in this section.
• Sports should be in a separate section.
• Add media here.
• Cinema?

Misc:

• Take a look at es:Venezuela. I haven't read it carefully but a quick glance tells me that it's much more detailed than the English version. Specially the history section is very weak in the English article. The economy section is also mediocre in comparison toe Spanish article.
• Sections completely missing: Education, Infrastructure (transportation, urban development)
• POV issues:
  • "Venezuela continues to enact a program of wide-ranging socialist reforms while placing more emphasis on the nation's future as a part of a more integrated Latin America." What's this supposed to mean? If you are going to mention social programs, you may as well talk about the international community accusations toward human rights violations in Venezuela.
  • Mention the intentions of the present administration to reform the municipal organization.
  • The current layout of parties (MVR vs UNT) is too subjective to be worth mentioning.
  • The control de cambio should be mentioned, and how the Venezuelan Bolívar has been fixed to the US$ since 2003.
  • Explain how this 4-year-old government control of the currency has affected international investment.
  • No recent inflation?
  • "Venezuela is also highly dependent on its agricultural sector." Highly dependent is what really bugs me in this sentence. It's true that you later mention that coffee and cacao production has decreased, but I think it would be more accurate to mention that agriculture has decreased as farmers move to urban Venezuela, making the economy more dependent on oil, and less dependent in agriculture. Explain how this affects poverty.

It still needs a lot work.--enano ^(Talk) 16:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Adding to Enano's Culture list, it's hard to avoid mention of Miss Venezuela when discussing culture—comparative number of Universe/World crowns relative to other countries. Also, couldn't help but mention the failure to include Alma llanera with national symbols, and no mention of typical holidays and regional celebrations. No mention of world waterskiing championships or other Olympic champs warranted in Sports? And no mention anywhere of the Tupuy discovery a few years back? Is world-class fishing worth mention? Isn't the Guri dam still one of the largest in the world? No mention of Angels Falls and its place in the record books, or the teleferico (is it still the longest)? The article is massively lacking in comprehensiveness, in addition to POV, and needs a lot more Venezuelan input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Angel Falls is mentioned in Geography, but I agree 100% with the rest.--enano ^(Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dolphin

Article has seen fairly big changes in recent months and has expanded and improved a lot. Over time, I hope it can become a featured article. Some specific areas of attention are references (are there things that still need references, are the references used ok?) and the human culture section. Are some of the entries perhaps too trivial? Are important appearances in human culture left out? But obviously, ALL comments are welcome and as always, edit where you see fit yourself! BabyNuke 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it! - apart from the taxonomy and long list of dolphins which kinda screws up how the whole page looks. Couldn't that be moved to its own page? Think outside the box 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe it's one of the things more commonly looked up in the article so it'd be nice to have that in the same page. BabyNuke 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, but could it be moved to the end of the article. I just feel that I'd rather see some pictures of dolphins and how they basically are, before we get more specific. Think outside the box 11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the current location. I suppose however, some photos could be put next to the species list as examples of various dolphins? BabyNuke 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh that would work. Think outside the box 09:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments a quick look over showed some promising material but also some causes of concern.

• TOC is a mess, frankly. Headings like Genetic evolution and anatomy of dolphins with only one subheading? Break it up with more conventional subheadings. In fact, evolution, taxonomy and genetics should be separate from anatomy/morphology and sense. Likewise more subheadings for behaviour (breeding, play, feeding, social organisation,). Consolidate threats, role in culture and other like things as subheadings of one section called Releationship with humans.
• I agree that the species list should be moved to the botom. Most TOL articles folllow this convention.

I see no "convention" here. In the deer article it's roughly in the middle, in the porpoise article it is at the top, in the bird article it is also at the top, in the Cetacea article it is at the bottom. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dolphins entered the water roughly fifty million years ago. Dolphins' ancestors maybe?

Changed. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unlike most mammals, dolphins do not have hair, but they are born with a few hairs around the tip of their rostrum which they lose after some time adult dophins do not have hair perhaps?

It is clear as it is. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Origin of name aka etemology can be moved to relationship with humans. Start with biology, then move onto human-dolphin aspects.

I would agree, but some other things are clarified in this section also which help in understanding the article, namely which definition of the word is used. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• In this article, the second definition is used. which refers to Any member of the families Delphinidae and Platanistoidea (oceanic and river dolphins), , yet the taxobox only has Delphinidae. Which is it?

Added Platanistoidea to the taxobox. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hybrid dolphins can move to genetics/taxonomy/evolution section

They are in the taxonomy section already. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Six species in the family Delphinidae are commonly called "whales" but are strictly speaking dolphins. They are sometimes called "blackfish". A dolphin by any other name would still smell as fishy. If this is an article about the family Delphinidae (and Platanistoidea) then include these 6 species as any other in the taxonomic list.

They are in the taxonomic list already, these are just given special attention as mistakes are commonly made with them. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dolphins are often regarded as one of Earth's most intelligent species, That should be some dolphin species are egarded as amongst the worlds most intellegent animals or something. Dolphins aren't a species.

Changed species to animals. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• In behaviour... the section begining Because of their capacity for learning, dolphins have been employed by humans for many purposes can probably go with the sectin on human-dolphin interactions rather than behaviour.

Agreed and done. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Feeding sction geneally needs expansion.

Perhaps, will take a little more time to do. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• The culture section needs rationalising. Too much info, and it isn't organised to best effect.

Pruned. Organisation in my eyes if fine, it's roughly chronological. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Get rid of the See also section. It isn't FAish and most of it can be inclded in the text.

Done. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that helps some. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments: seems too similar in appearance to a number of related articles; based on that I suggested, for example, that list of dolphin species be merged into it. In the alternative, the taxonomy section can be removed and merged into the list of dolphin species article. 69.140.155.148 04:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I blieve the entire list of dolphin species article can be removed. It contains no information that isn't in the dolphin article. BabyNuke 15:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay controversy

Hello, I would like to have a community peer review on this article done, based on it's compliancy with established, written policy, and also for the linguistic feel/style/wording of it. thank you. - Denny 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• The incident is still too new, in my opinion, for it to have settled on a form which would be eligible for peer review; it is barely one week old. However, it does seem to follow our written principles of NPOV and ATT, in that all statements of merit are sourced, and that the prose is written from neither an apologists nor villifier's point of view. Whitewashing/bowlderization is as much a POV violation as is defamation. We have sources, we bring them accurately, and we refrain from editorial comment. At this point, the article should be allowed to evolve, and perhaps three months from now, when it is semi-stable, it could undergo a more complete peer review. -- Avi 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree in principle, but as 1 to 3 people are so vocal still in the content choices, I want to do this now, and have more people avaluate where we are and where best go, then bring it back again in 2-3 months to build on that and aim for Good Article status... - Denny 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• The article is in serious need of oversight. Any attempt to organize the article is being revoked. A few minor adjustments to the sections will improve the quality of the article. I have attempted to organize the sections but to no avail. The images were removed without consensus. Previously, many editors wanted to pictures to remain in the article. I have made comments on the talk page without collaboration. More editors are welcome to participate and read the comments in the talk page. Please help. For more detailed information read my comments on the article's talk page. Thank you. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What personal private information is in the article that Oversight is needed? -- Avi 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • QuackGuru was referring to oversight in general, attention needed, not speaking of WP:OVER. Hbdragon88 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has considerably stabilized, and I am hoping for more input. - Denny 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New review needed

Since this peer review was first put up, it has changed considerably. Most issues have been thrashed out, consensus reached, and the article could do with another review. Several editors on the talk page have expressed a wish for the article to reach FA status; pointers for how to reach that would be gratefully received. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's very difficult to write so soon after a events. The editors at this page have my thanks for their efforts. Yet even if all other elements were perfect I don't think this article could qualify for FA yet because of stability and comprehensiveness issues. The long term impact hasn't happened yet. Durova^Charge! 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• One glaring omission is that the article by Michael Snow and Andrew Lih from The Signpost is not referenced. In the context of this article, it is probably a more reliable source than any of the mainstream media publications, and includes original reporting. It would be a mistake to exclude it simply because the article is being written on Wikipedia; were it written on a different hypothetical wiki encyclopedia that follows our policies, it would most certainly be a valid source.--ragesoss 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While I see your point, one problem there is that if the signpost is reliable, then it brings up the very relevant question of why my personal observation (or a userspace essay/report I wrote on the subject) wouldn't be. After all, I and most of the other editors on the page where there when the on-wiki blowup happened. If nothing else I agree that we should include it as a related link, like we have Essjay's user talk. --tjstrf talk 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Saint Lucia

It's an interesting, if obscure topic. This article is easily the single most comprehensive source on the subject on the web, and possibly in print too. I think it's in pretty good shape, considering the subject is the music of a tiny island with virtually no historical documentation, international acclaim, scholarly study or web presence. Anyway, suggestions welcome! I'd like to move this on to WP:FAC in the near future, so please let me know if you know of any information to add. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just saying I'm working on typing a long commentary. So far, the content looks fine, but the writing could really use some slicking. Circeus 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The lead needs adjustments to conform to WP:LEAD.
  • Avoiding a link inside the bolded title would be good.
  • If Music of the Lesser Antilles is any hint, you probably don't need to bold "Lucian music" (it's not an "alternative name", more a grammatical variant)
• I'd recommend "in Saint Lucia" (it's a country) over "on Saint Lucia"
• Too much "especially"s in the lead.
• The lead should probably be divided in three paragraphs,not two as it currently is. The way the first paragraph strings facts verges on the nonsensical.
• The article lacks an historical overviews. Small bits across the articles have historical reflexions, but it's hard to have a picture about what styles where popular when.

Folk music

• You start with "Lucian" in the lead, but "Saint Lucian" afterwards.
• "based around" usually refer to a smaller subset. The list given easily constitutes a full band.
• [H]owever, the kwadril is increasingly viewed as a national symbol.
  • There doesn't seem to be a pertinent reason to use "however" here.
• That paragraph mixes elements about dances and musical styles. Since the dances and their associated musical style are not discussed specifically, these two elements should be kept more separate.

jwé

• You would probably do better merging jwé here. I realize that thearticle is brodly linked, which probably means that the section should be shortened slightlyand the bulk of it moved into the separate article.
• Linking both as a "Main article" and in the firsts sentence is redundant.
• débòt comes up without warning. What is it? (see Principle of least astonishment)
• Jwé is performed as an informal, social event
  • This is a strange formulation at best
• Jwé includes both songs for men and women, both of which can be singers
  • This comes off strange,since there has been no previous indication of musical division along gender lines
• clapping, responding to the leader and singing and dancing
  • Can you spot the redundant word?
• Some Lucians avoid jwé altogether because of its sexually raunchy lyricism and atmosphere;
  • Is the sexually raunchy part typical or integral to the genre? Maybe expanding slightly on the themes associated with it would be appropriate.
• "saying the opposite of what is meant"
  • In English, we call it sarcasm
• 'jwé chanté (sung songs) and jwé dansé (song-play-dance)
  • How interesting! Such things as "unsung songs" exist? And what is a "song-play-dance"??
• their use of call-and-response singing between a leader and a chorus, with the exception of listwa,
  • dashes or parentheses would be more appropriate here.
• You don't need to repeat the parenthetical definitions.
• The last part makes it clear that débòt is a part of jwé (specifically jwé dansé), not the other way around,as implied at the beginning of the section (cf. above about débòt).
• Overall, the section is poorly organized. A firmer instruments/substyles/dances division would help.

kwadril

• Same merge as above suggested.
• The modern kwadril has declined in popularity; it had come to be seen as a symbol of colonialism around the time of independence, and was shunned as old-fashioned and out-of-date.
  • This sentence is rather clunky. The semicolon is probably superfluous.
• Learners act as a sort of apprentice for more established performers.
  • Act as X to Y
• A successful performance brings respect and prestige for all participants who dance the correct steps which are traditionally said to "demonstrate control over behavior, manner, and skills" and "symbolize... a set of special values linked with a higher social class".
  • Run-on relatives...
• are the lakonmèt and the mazurka the same thing or not??
• latwiyèm fidji fixed this typo.

rose and marguerite

• With only 3 other incoming link, this one can definitely be merged here for the time being.
• La Rose and La Marguerite are rival societies that commemorate the Anglo-French heritage of the island; the factions represent the warring colonial powers, between whose hands Saint Lucia changed fourteen times.
  • It should be made clear what type of societies they are. Cultural societies? Learned societies? Or something closer to the arab world's tariqahs?
  • Also, that sentence is poorly built.
• Both societies draw on English royalty traditions and have a number of positions, including the King, Queen, Prince, Princess and various lower titles like the Chief of Police and nurse.
  • Why is "nurse" not capitalized?
  • One redundant word in the two first.
• La Rose and La Marguerite meet once weekly except during Lent.
  • I'd think weekly meeting do occur only once a week.
• At these meetings, which are on Saturday for La Rose and Sunday for La Marguerite, members sing or play instruments and dance.
  • It,s not clear whether the last part is intended to split, or describe all meetings: parsing as "sing or play instrument, and dance" comes more naturally in this context.
• earlier, it was vaguely implied that the lakonmèt can be substituted to parts of a kwadril, but here it's clearly made to be an entirely different dance. that needs to be cleared up.

other styles

• Just making sure: is "merry-go-round" pointing to the right article?
• Lucian drinking songs are the chanté abwè, which are rarely performed in recent years.
  • Why "the" chanté abwé? And "recent years"? Not exactly the best word choices
• Chanté abwè are performed in a game in which the singers
  • Less than ideal stringing of prepositions
• performed one couple with a leader and chorus

funereal

• • looks like a word's missing
• in contrast to other Caribbean islands, which hold their wakes on the first and ninth days
  • Wow, wordy mcwordiness: "whereas other Caribbean islands hold theirs on the first and ninth days"
• accompanied zo or tibwa and ka.
  • Missing word
• the images makes it difficult to spot the location of wherever the places are right away.
• The villages of La Grace, Piaye and Laborie in the southwest area of Saint Lucia
  • Missing commas
• the paragraph switches from past to present.

Kélé

• Yet another ridiculously short "sub article"
• "region" is a wee bit sweeping term for a country the size of Laval and Montreal combined...
• Only one family, from Resina, in modern Saint Lucia claims to have the religious authority to perform and pass on the kélé rituals.
  • My mind reads this and expects a "still" somewhere
• these are the adan, èrè, koudou and kèré rhythms.
  • Use a colon and drops "these are"
• Kélé rituals also include singing and dance
  • "Singing and dancing" or "songs and dances"
• The following enumeration? way too long and complex.

Popular music

• "found through" should be "found throughout" or "found across"
• Music scholar Jocelyne Guilbault has called calypso the primary way modern Lucians "express social commentary"
  • The placeen of the quotation marks looks off. This probably needs to be recast.
• Along with calypso, Lucia has
  • Saint Lucia has...
• mostly on 45-RPM
  • If grammophone record is any indication, this probably should be "45 rpm"
• That sentence does not connect well with the following one, and the paragraph seems mostly redundant to the "government and industry" section below. If its not, then the latter section probably needs to be re-titled.

Roots revival

• I'm really not fond of a section having only a subsection. It can probably integrate into the parent section or an historical outlook.
• I wasn't able to trace what the "1969 Expo in Grenada" was, but it's definitely not a World's fair: there was none in 1969. Also, "1969" appears twice in that sentence.
• The section is odd, because there is no indication that the "revival" was preceded by a decline... Which leads me to recommend the whole "popular music" (by the article's own admission, St.Lucia has little Pop music proper, and no industry) be completely rewritten to an history overview.

Government and industry

• Section is poorly organized, and hardly reflects its header.
• The 2005 festival was a boost for the local music industry
  • Is there or is there no music industry in St. Lucia?

Education

• change the header to "musical education" or something similar
• Music is a part of the curriculum at public schools in Saint Lucia; it has long been taught in younger grade levels [...]
  • No semicolon, break the sentence.
• Primary education on Saint Lucia, music and other artistic education is commonly used incidentally to teaching other subjects or for special occasions.
  • Looks like you started a sentence and finished a different one.
• while others spent more time on general group singing
  • while the remaining spend [...]
• Many of the schools that do not normally instruct in music may offer volunteer clubs
  • drop the "may"
• Many Lucian schools have formed ensembles, most commonly a wind ensemble (30% of schools), or a steelpan band (20%) or combo group (20%).
  • Stringed "or"s
• both for the benefit of all students and the enrichment of the musically-gifted among them.
  • This is very poorly worded, bordering on the garden path sentence
• from across the island.
  • from the whole island
• The footer template there needs to move to the full bottom of the article.

Circeus 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trams in Adelaide

Self written article, currently listed as a Good article but needs other sets of eyes to look over it. I'm working this towards FA and need advice on what is wrong/missing - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenio Espejo

This article might need to be checked for grammar mistakes (I'm not a native English speaker). References (especifically notes) seem to be disorganized. Perhaps the article can be shortened a bit. Let me know what do you think about it. Dalobuca 05:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Raëlism

• I would like to get an assessment on this article. Thank you!Kmarinas86 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:IvoShandor

I will try to review the prose later, it would help if you could convert it from lists first. : )

A quick review:

• Lists: Way way too listy, convert all lists to prose.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sub-sections:

• Too many sections, combine them, no need for a section for every year.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Try to use more descriptive section titles, such as 'Founding' or 'Early years,' or something of the ilk, when you combine and retitle them.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Intro: The intro should conform to WP:LEAD and, also, not include any lists.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• MOS: Read and understand the Manual of Style

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pronunciation:Might need a pronunciation for this subject.

OkKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Images:

• This image: Image:Betty Dodson hugging one of her friends.jpg, is a vanity photo and unencyclopedic.
• Same with: Image:Raelian Women and Hugh Hefner.jpg.

OkKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• References:I would separate the bibliographic lists from the footnotes.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• External links: The external links section is beginning to look like a link directory, See WP:NOT. Try to trim it down to the most pertinent links that are on topic, just the history, the other stuff probably belongs linked from other articles.

RemovedKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Criticism links (unless the criticize the history), unofficial websites, sexuality (unless they directly discuss it related to the movement's history) - should probably all go.
• Trim the rest down, too many official links too. Try to find the best history ones, and maybe one or two that might act as directories of the official stuff and try linking that.

• Content: Like I said I will comment more later, but at a glance, try to remember that not every event is notable in the movement's overall history (which is what this article should remain focused on).

OkKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope that helps for now, as I said, if you could convert it to prose I could do a much broader assessment.IvoShandor 05:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sailor Moon

Previous peer review

We're looking to nominate this for Good Article sometime soon. Are there any problems we should clear up beforehand? In particular, does the reception section look okay? Are the other various sections well-explained? Is it generally clear what we're doing here? :) Thanks for your time. --Masamage 02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Sailor Senshi2.png is high resolution and does not have a detailed fair use rationale. Shrink it to no more than 400px high. Image:Smlogo.png and Image:Sailor Moon English logo.jpg have no fair use rationales at all, and they are also unsourced. ShadowHalo 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, thank you! I totally forgot about the image-work. I'll get that done this afternoon when I'm on my own computer. --Masamage 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, I shrunk the Senshi image, added the Fair Use stuff for everything, and now we're working on hunting down sources for the logos. --Masamage 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at cult television, Sailor Moon is listed as an example of cult TV - if we could reference that and add it into reception, then maybe it might cut down on some of the confusion of the bit where Sailor Moon is popular, yet unpopular. Do we need to expand on the whys and wherefores of Sailor Moon being compared with Barbie and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers? Anne Allison's chapter in particular discusses MMPR as a success localisation story compared to PSSM. From hanging around GA/R for a while, I can say that sections without any inline citations are looked upon badly.-Malkinann 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's some suggestions:

• In the lead, in the last paragraph, video games is linked as [[video games]], when it should be linked as [[video game]]s. The word tokusatsu is linked, but not explained; you did well explaining where the term "Sailor" originates.
• This article needs to go through copyediting to remove weasel words, such as the word "many" in the last paragraph in the lead; just how many are there?
• In the "Story" section, you introduce Usagi Tsukino without presenting her as the main protagonist. I know she is, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Try to start the section from an out of universe perspective, such as "Sailor Moon's story begins with the main heroine..."
• In the beginning of the Characters section, knowing that they are in order of appearance may be considered trivia that does not necessariy need to be known. The next thing said is to check the individual character articles, but all the names are linked and bolded, so this is obvious without this notice; the western-order of names notice has been phased out of most articles and it's become common (especially with the WP:MOS-JP) to name Japanese names in western ordering, so this too I think can be taken out. Also, bullets make it look too listy, and lists tend to be looked down upon in potential GA articles. There are two alternatives: 1) Write in a paragraph or two where you go through all the main characters by name and what they do, or 2) Write it in ;[[Character Name Here]]: format and expand some to make it more readable and less listy.
• In the manga section, the phrase "nearly a dozen" is used; try to be as specific as you can get; again, avoid weasel words. Next, you link Nakayoshi; point out that it's a shōjo manga magazine. While I realize there is a main article for the manga, the manga was still the source material and thus should be a worthwhile section on this page. First, it's best not to leave lone sentences, as is with the end of this section (which is also missing a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi"). Possibly try to expand this section a bit more. I say this since the Anime section below it is much larger, yet the manga came first and thus should be of more focus.
• In the Anime section, the phrase, "Sailor Moon has since become one of the most famous anime properties in the world." is unsourced; either tag with {{fact}} or find a source; otherwise remove it. In the third paragraph, the word "numerous" is used; be specific. You're missing a comma in this paragraph in the final sentence between "North America" and "only"; copyedit the article for grammar as well as with spelling. The next sentence, "All of Sailor Moon was animated traditionally" seems odd to me; possibly reword it. There are 5 links in this section that do not have pages, all of them people. I'm sure with a series this popular there is at least a minor amount of info somewhere on them, possibly at Anime News Network or the Japanese wiki I find is always a good resource. GA and FA articles should have very little red linked pages, or none at all. Consider making stubs for all the red linked pages in this article.
• In the English adaptations section, there are two unsourced lines; GA articles should have none of these.
• In External links, the {{ja icon}} should be placed at the end of the link.
• This article is specifically deficiant in categories. I know of at least 5-10 that would work well. Try to look at other articles that have similar genres and try to include as manga categories as possible. This makes the scope of an article look greater and more important.
• Lastly, the number of inline citations is centered in the Reception section, with only 9 of the 24 being used in the article; there are sections without citations that need them, though I believe this has already been adressed.

Take care of all these things, put it through some rigorous copyediting, and the article should improve greatly.--十八 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wowee... Thanks for the hints! We'll get right on them. Good luck with Strawberry Panic!. -Malkinann 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've been pluggin' away at this. Let's see what we've got.

• Fixed everything you mentioned in the lead, story, and character sections. The character bits look weird in this format; one long, skinny line each. No more info can be removed, and I hesitate to add much more; what would you suggest?
• Expanded the manga section and removed its weasel words. Does it need anything more? I also disagree about adding that comma. :P Some comma uses are required, some are forbidden, and some are a matter of taste.
• Fixed almost everything in the anime article. I ended up just relegating most of the redlinked people to the anime page itself and leaving them out here. I also really don't want to replace the word 'numerous' with something more specific, because just about every song was written by two or three people, and hunting down all the overlap would be an absolute nightmare. Not sure what to do about that.
• I believe I have some sources for the English adaptations section and will plug them in.
• Fixed the external links thing.
• Category:Sailor Moon is in a ton of categories, so we just put this one into it. Is that not the way to do things?

Thanks very much for your input! --Masamage 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; for some reason I didn't see the update.

• Re: Characters; I agree, which is why I suggested you add more to the characters section than just one liners. I've done this before in the Kanon and Air (visual novel) articles, so I don't think it's too much to ask for a little bit of expansion. It would also be more useful for the readers who don't want to leave this article to learn more, but having read enough feel satisfied with what is supplied.
• My suggestion for a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi" had nothing to do with taste; a comma should be there because due to the way the sentence is worded, it's more natural to pause at "completed".
• Re: Anime; all right, it's fine then to keep "numerous" if nothing else will fit. I'm just saying, it might come up again in the future with a different reviewer.

Final note: A lot of good work has been done, but it still needs work. I think I have exhausted my reviewing abilities for this article as I beleive I've adressed all the salient points for a GA promotion. Perhaps try to get another neutral editior who is involved with WP:Anime to add suggestions.--十八 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. :) I'll take a whack at expanding the character descriptions. --Masamage 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• 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.
  • correctly
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?] <-- This may be where we talk about how, with the anime, they are correctly termed series(es) as opposed to seasons, as this has come up on Talk:Sailor Moon once or twice, maybe we should find something to cite this.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The series/season reference is actually the Wikilink itself, somewhere in there, to an article explaining the difference and the tendancy to misuse the terms. --Masamage 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You sure? clicking on metaseries gives me "The series Tenchi Muyo! and Sailor Moon have been comics, multiple TV series, and movies, but they do not have a rigid single continuity. Though the latter does have Continuity within the same form of media.", which doesn't explain it to me, and clicking on seasons gives me an idea that each 'cours' of Sailor Moon should be only 13 episodes long, which clearly isn't the case! -Malkinann 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rar, it's the second one, but it's been modified since I last looked at it. The relevance is not as clear now. :/ --Masamage 07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put a {{clarifyme}} on that part because it's come up on the talk page a couple of times. If we can find a reference, then we could put it on the TV program article. -Malkinann 07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madrid

Editors of WikiProject Spain have selected the Madrid article for a Peer review request, with the hope of obtaining Good article status, and possible Featured article status.

All comments, suggestions and edits are requested regarding this Madrid article.EspanaViva 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Veesicle

General comment: There's a massive lack of inline citations throughout the article... that really needs to be fixed for it to be GA and FA.

See Wiktionary for the name of Madrid in various languages other than English and Spanish. - A link to Wiktionary shouldn't really be included in the text like that, especially not in the lead. It's already included in the infobox at the bottom, I think.

I would make other comments but the lack of citations makes it really hard to see if any of the information is verifiable, and if it's not verifiable it shouldn't be in the article. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I do see some 20 inline citations currently in the article, so I'm not sure that there really is a "massive lack." Can there be more, of course, but 20 is a good start! EspanaViva 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about quantity but usage. The "History" section currently has just one reference, covering only the modern Olympics bullet point, and its main article is no better. Melchoir 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for the feedback. :-) We are aware of the lack of citations, and are working on it (especially on the History section). Are there any other comments about the article (structure, type of info that should/should not be included, prose...) you'd like to make? :-) Cheers Raystorm 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well… the table of contents is awfully long, and some of the latter subsections are listy. It seems to me that both of these problems could be fixed by creating more summary-style daughter articles, which would internally contain more lists and subsections but present a cleaner face to the main article. Melchoir 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. We'll see what we can do about it. Raystorm 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Dev920

I concur over the lack of citations. Other points I noticed:

• The initial infobox is too wide, please cut it a bit.
• The culture section is too listy, bitty and untidy.
• Virtually all pictures are located on the right hand side, ideally they need to alternate.
• The Universities section has too many short paragraphs. These need to be merged into coherent structured paragraphs. The number of redlinks too is a concern. The entire section would be better off being turned into a general education section and throwing in some more about secondary schools. See Ann_Arbor,_Michigan#Education.
• I really do not think you need tables explaining every motorway in madrid!
• You cannot use the Spanish Wikipedia as a reference! (ref 10)
• Sister cities thing not needed. Use the space saved to put in some more see also.
• You have absolutely nothing on how Madrid is governed.
• For such a pivotal city in Spanish history, there's not much in its history section. Could do with some expanding.
• Similarly for the modern economics section. Much more information could be added. See London#Economy for inspiration.
• Would like to see religion stats in demographics.
• I presume Madrid has some really good quality architecture, given it's place as the seat of the Spanish empire, either historical or modern? There should be a section on that. Hong_Kong#Architecture.

That's all I can think of at the mo. Go do that and I'll check back later. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Dev920 for these useful comments, and thanks to Raystorm for following up on many of them! EspanaViva 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thanks Dev, we'll try to address all your concerns asap. Raystorm 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Neil

My thoughts:

• The article is too many lists, not enough article. And it seems to only focus on the tourist areas. For example, the 'Popular neighbourhoods' section. Don't capitalise 'opera theatre'. If the district has an article (such as Gran Via, Retiro, AZCA and so on, it doesn't need a whole paragraph in the article, just use {{mainarticle}}. Also, it's subjective - why do only certain districts get mentioned as "well-known barrios"? On what are you basing this? Plaza Elliptica, Callao, Goya, etc for example, aren't mentioned. You need to cut and paste into a spell checker - "effectivey" isn't a word. I like the photo of Osito, no explanation as to why he's the emblem of Madrid, though. It is clear that the article has had a lot of contribution from non-native speakers of English, as it's very stileted in parts ("Through its programmes this new channel tries to advertise Madrid city."), and could really do with a good copy edit - I'd be happy to do this once all the information is on the page, let me know via my talk page. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe we can give more info on the districts you mention. And there is a legend about the osito and the tree, we need to find a ref for it. We'll try to address everything asap. Thanks for the copyedit offer, btw! :-D Raystorm 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier comments from WikiProject Cities Assessment

Rated B Good coverage and well written. Excellent collection of images. Reasonable referencing of sources.

• Resolve copyright issue with Image:New Coat of Madrid.svg or remove it.
• Use Citation templates for all references.
• Remove px sizing and left placement from thumbnail images to improve article readability.
• Reduce usage of subsections by writing comprehensive paragraphs instead. (Eg. Culture)
• Avoid usage of incomplete paragraphs.
• Remove or create sub articles for lists such as City attractions.
• Remove wikilink tagging of broken/red wikilinks.
• Change URL references to footnote references as only one reference style should be used.

Copied from Madrid comment page EspanaViva 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from MJCdetroit

Some of the other editors above already said some of the things that I would have said but let me ask this:

• Why isn't there a Geography section? I know as a little kid I learn that the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain, but you'd think that there would be at least a few sentences worth saying on the geography of Madrid. —MJCdetroit 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, we'll try to address them asap. :-) Funny rhyme, that one... Raystorm 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No more comments requested

Thank you to each of the reviewers, your comments are appreciated! At this point, we would like to request no more comments at this time until we have had a chance to implement the comments above. EspanaViva 16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't do a lot of these, do you? :) Just leave it open and get as many suggestions as you can - it'll drop off the bottom of the list soon, and the more feeback the better... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Some improvements have been made following Dev920's suggestions, such as the City Government, Transportation, Universities, general infobox, Television and Climate. --Maurice27 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphian cricket team

This is a very interesting article about a little-known American sports team. One reviewer has already requested that more information be given on non-first-class cricket matches. Surely the team played less important matches, but I've not found information on those yet. The article seems to me to be a bit to much of a match summary, but I'm not sure how to remedy that. Any information that can be provided to make this article better would be much appreciated. I'd like eventually for it to become a GA with a view towards and FAC. Thanks a lot.--Eva ^bd 13:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A credit to the editors after my first read this article is in better shape than most that appear at FAC. Its well referenced, appears to cover the subject except for the period between the last Australian visit and 2004. Question what happened after 1912 did everybody just pack up their kit and walk away? Gnangarra 13:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An excellent question. That's what I'm looking into right now. I'm trying to get my hands on a couple of books that will explain the prehistory of this article as well as what happened after the first-class span ended. Hopefully I'll get to that soon. If anyone else has any sources on it, they are welcome to add. Thanks for the compliments.--Eva ^bd 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Needs a copyedit
• What was the home ground of the team? Can a picture be sourced of the ground today?
• Team logo (if possible)
• Graph of the FC wins/losses

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that it needs a copyedit. I think that ought to wait until all of the bits and pieces have been put together properly.
• I'm not sure that the team ever had a "home ground." Most of their matches in the states seem to have been played at Germantown, Belmont, Merion, and Philadelphia. There are images of at least three of those on the commons (I'll have to check to be sure). We could add a section listing which grounds the matches were played on.
• I'm not sure if there was ever a logo. Did sports teams in this period do that sort of thing? I'm still working on getting my hands on Lester's book that may have a lot more inforation.
• Graph of the FC wins/losses--good idea.

Thanks for your input. I'll do my best to get all of this implemented soon.--Eva ^bd 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been about a couple weeks since this PR was updated. I think it can be closed now and we can implement the suggested changes. I've added a todo list to the talk page using these suggestions. Thanks all.--Eva ^bd 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cameroon

This article's been rewritten over the past two or three months. I'd like to submit it to WP:FAC, but this is by far the most ambitious article rewrite I've ever attempted, so I want to solicit opinion first. Any suggestions, comments, or criticisms are welcome. For example, the citation density was very high just a short while ago, when I had cited a source for every single statement in the article. Did I cut too much? Not enough? What needs to happen to make this an exemplary country article? Thanks, — Brian (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bcasterline

I don't know much about the subject or the standard for country articles, but, caveats aside, this looks like a great overview. Well-written and organized; not much I can criticize. Couple comments though:

• The sentence "Cameroon came to international attention on 21 August 1986 when Lake Nyos belched toxic fumes and killed between 1,700 and 2,000 people." comes out of no where since the rest of the history section focuses on politics. It's a noteworthy event, but in the scope of the article it may not be important -- unless there's more to say about consequences, etc.
• Perhaps add more on tribal vs. national affiliation? The conflict was mentioned a couple times but only in passing.

Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Regarding your first point, it's a toughie. Basically, the two facts most everyone knows about Cameroon are: a) They have a good football team; and b) They had a natural disaster in the 1980s where a lake killed a bunch of people. I wanted to make sure I covered both points. I'll see if maybe I can't work Nyos in somewhere else, such as the Geography section. Regarding your second point, I'll see if I can't dig up some more information about tribalism in the country. Thanks again! — Brian (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nichalp

• Subsections needs to go
• Sections need to be summarised
• Further review once this is done.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but I'm not sure I understand. What's wrong with subsections? And the prose size is currently within standards, so I'm not sure why further summarization is needed. However, I do acknowledge that "History" may be a bit long. I'll see if I can't reduce it some. — Brian (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited down the "History" section to 4 KB of text-only prose, which is equivalent to the same section of the Featured Article on India. — Brian (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Much better, now other sections need to be pruned down. Culture, Demographics and Economy can get rid of unessential data, while politics and government can be split into a one or two sections.
2. Remove all set pixel values for images. Align them to the right for now
3. Administrative divisions could do with the regions as a list. Also could you request that the map be converted to SVG format?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I disagree that anything else needs to be really pruned. Readable prose is now almost perfect: 32 KB (so I could conceivably trim 2 KB of stuff, granted). I think you may be onto something about splitting Politics and Government, so I'll look into it. I rather like the image distribution at the moment; what would be the point of removing the pixel values and right aligning the lot of them? As for the list of provinces, lists get the ax regularly on FAC, in my experience. But the SVG map would be a good idea; I'll ping the folks at the graphics lab. Thanks again for the comments! — Brian (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be pruned further, 6-7 paragraphs make the section too long, and sections for a geographic location article are all summaries. Ideally, it should be three mid paragraphs (~200-250 words) with the content being the summary of the main article (ie the content of the article which appears in the lead of Geography of Cameroon, Economy of Cameroon etc.). About the list for administrative divisions, that's one case where nobody objects since putting it in prose is more difficult to read. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If I can add my opinion, I tend to agree with Brian here. I full agree regarding the list of provinces: few things are as ugly in this sort of articles. While I disagree with the radicality of Nichalp's proposals regarding pruning, I do feel that a minor pruning with the sections "economy" and "culture" could be useful. After that, pass it to FAC, where other editors will be ready to offer further suggestions. That said, I'm no expert in FA.--Aldux 12:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed some more fat and killed another 1KB of text. Trimming further from the "Politics and government" or "Economy" sections is problematic, since these are actually conglomerations of things that other country articles devote several sections to. For example, "Politics and government" covers the politics of Cameroon, foreign relations of Cameroon, education in Cameroon, and healthcare in Cameroon. Likewise, "Economy" (now renamed "Economy and infrastructure") includes the economy of Cameroon, tourism in Cameroon, transport in Cameroon, and communications in Cameroon. In other words, they cover a lot of ground and shouldn't need to be cut further. — Brian (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aldux

Damn, this article is simply too good, I really would love to have a similar one for Chad :-) It's certaincainly ready to stand for WP:FAC. Also the sources and the images are very good. Only, I'll observe:

• I also feel that the subsections should go; really one of the problems is that the history of the economy sections of this article are much better, and almost greater of the respective history of Cameroon and economy of Cameroon, which in theory should give a more detailed treatment of these topics. I advise to reduce especially the history section, moving considerable chunks of material to History of Cameroon.
• The "external links" section is really meagre. Couldn't you add some other valuable external links to to this sections.--Aldux 00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I primarily write articles on Cameroon's history, so it's tough for me to decide what to cut from the "History" section. I do note that it is the longest section in the article and could be shortened. However, I don't think that the abysmal state of history of Cameroon and economy of Cameroon should be held against this article; my goal is to get this one up to FA first and then turn my attentions to the sub articles. But I'll look at maybe reducing the "History" section a bit more and moving stuff to history of Cameroon. :(

As for the external links, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries suggests linking only to official websites, and the Cameroonian government just doesn't have much web presence. There was a huge link farm before I began my revisions, but it was mostly spam. I'll take another look at it to make sure I didn't miss anything, though. — Brian (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A thing I've noted only now: there are almost no categories. Shouldn't you add :Category:African Union member states, :Category:Organization of the Islamic Conference, :Category:La Francophonie. Among the navigational templates, you should remove {{Countries of West Africa}}; if you give a look at West Africa, Cameroon is not considered part of that subregion by the UN.--Aldux 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking these things. All of those subcategories are appended to Category:Cameroon. (It's my understanding that if a subject has an eponymous category, further categorization should be done at the category level rather than the article level). As for the region, the UN has it's categorization scheme, and many other sources differ. Cameroon is regularly categorized as both West and Central African, so I'm not sure that the UN should be the only source deferred to on this. — Brian (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac

I would like to raise the quality of this article up to the FA quality. I would appreciate any feedback, in particular those concerning the sections that need expansion and the missing information from the article. Thank you very much. --Aminz 10:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

This is a good start. I am no Biblical scholar, but I am familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures. Here are my suggestions:

• I noticed that most of your sources are other encyclopedias. Because encyclopedias summarize and omit information, these are not the best sources from which to construct an article. You want to read as much about the topic as possible and then decide yourself how to summarize the material. Simply imitating other encyclopedic entries is not, I believe, what wikipedia is trying to do. WP:ATT
• The "Etymology and meaning" section would be hard to understand for someone not already familiar with the Biblical story. Spell out what you mean in more detail.
• The "Hebrew Bible" section in which you retell the story surrounding Isaac could be revised. The writing is choppy and needs more detail.
• The writing throughout the article is choppy. Paragraphs do not cohere and there are few transitions between paragraphs.
• You need to carefully reread each section. You have some sentence fragments and incorrect pronoun referents. You might consider sending this to the League of Copyeditors.
• In the "Academic view" section, you need to identify the academics. Who are these scholars (essentially, why should we listen to them)? Also, that section needs to be expanded.
• The "Testament" section should also be expanded - more details!
• What about including a section on Isaac in art and culture? Paintings, plays, etc.? Awadewit 06:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and your good suggestions.

1. Regarding the sources, that's true. Most of them are encyclopedias, but I tried to read various Encyclopedias and Dictionaries of the Bible for a good coverage. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the relevant literature.

Could you go to a library and read some books? Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

2. I have revised the "Etymology and meaning" section. I hope it is more understandable now.

I would say, no.

• The Hebrew term Yiṣḥāq literally means "may God smile." - This is the first sentence. If the reader doesn't know Hebrew, it is not clear that the word you are referring to is the Hebrew word for "Isaac."
• The term conforms to a well-known Northwest Semitic type - type of what?
  • The source didn't give further details about the linguistic type the term conforms with. I'll try to find more details or otherwise would remove this sentence. --Aminz 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• "The Ugaritic texts from thirteenth century BCE refer to the benovolent smile of the Canaanite god El." - where is this quotation from? you should have the inline citation right next to it - also, why are we suddenly talking about a smiling God?
• According to the canonical collections of sacred writings of Judaism (Bible), however, the laugher is ascribed to Isaac's mother(Sarah), who was amazed to learn by God that she would have a child despite her age. - ("laughter") - what laughter? unless the reader knows the story ahead of time, these sentences are going to be very confusing
• (Sarah was ninety years old, and Abraham (Isaac's father) was hundred years old[4])[3] Abraham had also covertly laughed upon hearing the promise from God. - poor use of parantheses - very confusing for a reader unfamiliar with the story
• The section needs to make explicit the connection between God's smile and the Biblical story (that's where you need a source - scholars will have theories on these things). Right now, the sentences are not really connected together and assume too much knowledge on the reader's part.Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making that clear. I have made some changes. I hope it is more understandable now. --Aminz 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3. I am not a native speaker unfortunately. I asked help from the League of Copyeditors.

That's what they are for.Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

5. I have found who these scholars are. Sorry, that it took a long time (I couldn't get anything by just googling for their name). --Aminz 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

6. I started the section. --Aminz 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:IvoShandor

At a glance:

• Inline citations aren't really needed in the intro unless you are making some extraordinary claims. As the intro should usually provide a good summary of the topic, most of the information and citations should appear somewhere else in the article.
• The section titles seemed a bit vague to me, I keep looking for a 'Life', or 'Early years' section and I got nothing.
• Could use some peer reviewed, scholarly sources, as well as the prominent views of theologians.
• The templates in the genealogy section are distracting, perhaps include them as footers.
• The external links in the body of the article are undesirable and unnecessary.
• Along the same lines, it is probably not necessary to list every reference to Isaac in holy literature.
• The last half of the article doesn't have very many Wikilinks, though it is hard to tell with all of the external linking in the text.

Hope that helps some. IvoShandor 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much.

1. I fixed these.

2. It is a good suggestion. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the works of Christian or Jewish theologians. Will add one once I found.

3. I moved the template down.

4. I removed some of the inline links and will remove several others.

5. I removed the list to every reference to Isaac in holy literature.

6. Done. --Aminz 07:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate

This article is reasonably-well developed, but it has an odd style. What is needed to get it to GA (or better) status? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:A mcmurray

At a glance:

• References:

• article should probably have inline citations, while not required for GA it is recommended, highly. See: Good article criteria. Done

• External links:

• Should be titled as such, section goes last per WP:MOS. Done

• Table/Chart:

• The table in the 'Football' section is very confusing. Done (removed it)
• Additionally I don't think the graph in the 'Basketball' section adds much at all to the article. Done (removed it)
• Same with the comparisons between coaches and stadiums later, those could easily be converted to prose.

• Word choice: Be careful using words like however, they can imply POV. Done
• Image: POV here. The one photo (isn't that great because it is hard to decipher) is the only one present and it leans the article in favor of Tech. Done (additional images added)
• Trivia: The whole trivia section should be converted to prose and inserted in the appropriate section(s). See WP:TRIV. Done
• General comments:

• In general rivalry doesn't imply that comparison be made between every aspect of the schools and their athletic program. Not done

• Could you clarify/explain that statement/suggestion? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• With the book sources I think ISBN numbers are preferred included. See Wikipedia:ISBN. Done

I will likely complete a more thorough review soon. It will include much more in depth comments but hopefully that gives you a starting point. Good luck.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking much better. I will take a look in the next couple days, try to give you some tips on other stuff. I will look more at the prose itself, which is an essential part of GA. See WP:WIAGA, just FYI. IvoShandor 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times can I post the same link, I wonder? ; ) IvoShandor 18:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the progress of the article, too. You've been quite helpful so far :D ... I've even added an appropriate picture I found in the GT archives. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feeder (band)

I have recieved a peer review for the article, and cleaned up the points made. I then sent the article for a Good Article review which was unsucsessful.

I am looking for a series of peer reviews from at least ten wikipedians (more if possible), so I can get a good idea of what would be universially considered as a Good Article across the Wikipedia community :-).

Marcus Bowen 20:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

Based on the backlog, I think you'll be lucky to get 3 reviews. Here are my suggestions for your article:

• The lead doesn't need to have so many notes. It should be a summary of the rest of the article where are these claims are made in full at which time you should probably reference the information.
• Try to consolidate some of the paragraphs in the lead.
• "The band are..." vs. "The band is..." Is the first form a typically British English usage? I've only ever heard it in use for things like "Arsenal are running up and down the pitch" whereas in American English we'd often say "Arsenal is running..." I'm just double-checking to see if it's a grammar error or just a variation in dialects. In the second case, leave it as is, of course.
• You should be able to obtain fair use images of the album covers. Check album articles for the fair use rational.
• Is there any literature on the band yet? If not, don't worry about it as long as your web refs are legit.
• In the last section, there seems to be a lot of listing going on caused by sudden news of the band and a fan attaching it to the end of the article. Try to smooth this out into prose and figure out if some of it isn't useful. If you can, also try to flesh out the sections on the other articles.
• Check out other band articles for ideas on more sections and more information. Here's a good link for you.

That's all I have at the moment. I hope this is useful to you, JHMM13 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• Maybe an overall copyediting of the article could make the prose flow better. These are some problematic sentences IMO:

• "Displaying a vein of Pixies and Smashing Pumpkins influenced rock in their earlier sound, they have further incorporated elements of piano driven rock ..." Who influenced rock? Feeder? Is the subject the same all the way in thi sentence?
• "They both then moved to London, to become sound engineers, and recruited a bass player for their new band called 'Reel' and was later fired, and became 'Rain Dancer', in which that band didn't work out either." And recruited ... and was fired ... and became? I lost the subjects here.
• "The Singles (2006) Feeder returned to the studio with this time Stephen Street working as the bands producer, to record three new tracks to appear on their then forthcoming singles collection The Singles." Is this sentence OK? Why "The Singles" are both in the beginning, and at the end of the sentence.
• "The year ended with a small tour of London playing The Roundhouse and The Coronet. Two of these gigs seen guest appearances from The Sugababes and Jamelia. The gigs were in aid of War Child." Maybe a bit choppy?

• When we quote, we do not quote; we just "quote".
• I saw a criticism for wikilinking single years in the GA review. Well, it was not accurate. You can link per MoS single years if they are e.g. "2004 in music" or "2006 in British music" as you do.

In general, I still believe the article is entitled to be GA.--Yannismarou 07:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mission blue butterfly

• There are a number of suggestions on the article talk page I have yet to incorporate. I will have time to now and was hoping to get some other suggestions, aside from those already given. Looking to bring this article up to GA status, it surely needs a copy edit. Critique welcomed, critique and editing very welcomed. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems pretty decent. Here's a few comments that I hope are of some use:

• The lead section seems to brief to me. It isn't [Wikipedia:Lead section|capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article]], &c. A longer lead would also help with the images colliding with the infobox.
• Is there a larger image for the infobox? The current image looks slightly degraded due to expansion.
• In the description, the image of the female should be co-located with the paragraph describing the female.
• The "Habitats" section is very brief. Is there any reason it couldn't be merged with the "Range" section? I.e. "Habitats and range"
• A color-coded map of the range would be a good addition.
• The images in the "Host plants" section are creating an irregular format for the surrounding text in my browser. Is there any reason why the images couldn't be moved to the appropriate descriptive section of the text?
• Any reason that Taxonomy and Evolution can't be combined, as on the Albatross page?
• The first units on the page are in metric; the remainder are old English. Personally I favor using all metric on scientific articles with old English in parentheses. But it would be good, at least, to use consistent units.
• It could use one or two more images of the Butterfly. There are currently more plant pictures on the page.

Thank you! — RJH (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh excellent, thank you. I will address each comment with a few specific comments after I get a chance to incorporate them. IvoShandor 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with your article. — RJH (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kota Kinabalu

Hi there. I have contributed a lot to this article and would like some feedback on its current form: prose, grammar, content, anything that needs improvement. Any feedback will be appreciated very much. kawaputra 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why no review? a simple comment, or even automated review is ok. Just want a little feedback. Thanks. kawaputra 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youngstown Ohio Works

I actually haven't had a hand in writing this article, except for a few minor prose tweaks. I found it while assessing baseball articles, and I believe it's near Good Article standards. A couple specific questions I have are whether the article is too quote heavy, and whether any parts of the "Dissolution" section read like original research. Comments on these questions and any others would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.--Djrobgordon 04:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks in reasonable shape as far as I can see. It is perhaps a bit quote heavy in the "Formation and league championship" section, but I think the rest are ok. The "Dissolution" section seems pretty well referenced, provided the refs do support what is said then it doesn't look too OR to me. Eve 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alanis Morissette

I think this article is well on it's was to GA status, but I still think the prose is still lacking brilliancy. The whole thing of starting each paragraph with "In April 2002" or "In late 2005" or whatever is quite tacky. The Personal information section could probably be done without, or integrated into other section(s). Anything to improve the writing itself is encouraged, but other points are welcome too. --Reaper X 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BuddingJournalist's Review

Only read the beginning parts, but here are my comments:

• Lead could be expanded per WP:LEAD.
• Early life section suggestions (hover over underlined text to see my comments; if they scroll off into ellipses, edit this to see full comments):

• Alanis Morissette was born in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada's capital, to Alan and Georgia Morissette. The couple brought their three children (Alanis, her twin brother, Wade, and their older brother, Chad) up as Roman Catholic, but Alanis later converted to Buddhism [citation needed]. From 1977 to 1980, the family lived in Lahr (Black Forest), Germany.

• At the age of seven, Morissette wrote her first song. With the money saved from her stint on the children's television show You Can't Do That on Television, she released an independent single "Fate Stay with Me" with the B-side "Find the Right Man". She appeared onstage with the Orpheus Musical Theatre Society. Morissette attended Glebe Collegiate Institute in Ottawa during her high school years. In New York City Morissette landed a spot on Star Search, a popular American talent competition on which she used her stage name, Alanis Nadine. Morissette flew to Los Angeles to appear on the show, but she lost after one round.

• During this period Morissette suffered from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, catalysed by "hardcore" professional pressure and managerial demands. She recalled returning to the studio to re-record some vocals, only to be told "I actually wanted to talk to you about your weight. You can't be successful if you're fat." During this period, she lived on a diet of carrots, black coffee, and Melba toast, and her weight fluctuated by 15 to 20 pounds. She subsequently began therapy, which she called "a long process to un-program [my brain]. I try to remember, whatever my body is, it's perfect the way it is." BuddingJournalist 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I have made these edits to address some of them. I don't have sources for the time periods for "Orpheus Musical Theatre Society" or "In New York City". As per explaining "'hardcore' professional pressure and managerial demands", I made this edit. The record label part and album is explained in the next section. The quote "I actually wanted to talk to you about your weight. You can't be successful if you're fat." is included in the citation of the whole paragraph it is in. Again, thank you. Hopefully the other missing details can be assisited by other editors. --Reaper X 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For Orpheus, see http://www.orpheus-theatre.on.ca/members-only/alumni.html. Hope that helps! :) BuddingJournalist 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for that. Of course I didn't properly cite it, but I will go through it all as per LuciferMorgan's review sometime when I am free or if anyone else does. --Reaper X 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LuciferMorgan

Review {{citeweb}} with the citations. LuciferMorgan 03:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metamagician3000

I'll see if I can do anything to tighten up the prose myself - might be simpler. I think the lead needs another sentence or two; I'll look at that. Metamagician3000 13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also made some comments on the talk page of the article. Metamagician3000 01:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disneyland Resort Paris

This article has gotten relatively comprehensive (compared to a few months ago) but I'm not sure what could be done to make it an actually good article.

It's a relevant topic (considering the shaky and infamous history of Euro Disney) but unfortunately many potential contributers are French or speak another language, leaving the English article with very few real contributers. Being one of these contributers, I don't feel qualified to assess it.

I'd especially like a review for the economic aspect of it and the style of the prose. Thanks. - SergioGeorgini 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

This is a very difficult article to review because it does need a pretty thorough copyedit. As I'm writing this peer review, I'm going through the article to find problems. I'll be posting problems I have with specific sentences here after I've made basic copyediting changes. Here are my suggestions:

• I wouldn't use French spacing (ironically enough). Browsers suppress extra spacing so that the following two sentences look the same. This sentence has French spacing. This sentence does not.
• "Both of these nations saw the potential economic advantages of a Disney theme park and competed by offering attractive financing deals to Disney, including free land and more." I don't like the wording at the end of this sentence. You should go into more depth about what was offered and not just leave it off with "and more." Perhaps you could end the sentence at Disney and follow it up with another sentence about the more interesting specifics of the offers. You don't have to give everything, just more than one thing.
• You do not need to separate the paragraphs quite so much. One longer paragraph about a certain topic should do and then separate it at turning points in the prose or when you switch the topic within the same section.
• "However, the site in the Alicante area was abandoned when it was discovered that strong Mediterranean Mistral winds affected that region for several weeks each year and Spain itself was deemed to possess an inferior infrastructure to other European nations." This sentence needs to be split up. Also, how can the site have been abandoned when it was never originally gone to? Consider rewording the beginning. You need to cite the specific claim about Spain's infrastructure.
• "The pleasing landscape of that region as well as its climate made this spot a top competitor for what would be called Euro Disneyland." If you want to cite climate, and I don't think you should, cite it when it first shows up in the article. The fact that the landscape was pleasing to Disney is relevant to this article, and if sourced, it would be worthy of inclusion. Just stating that the landscape is pleasing is POV and contributes nothing. What was pleasing about it's climate and can you prove that Disney liked it? You don't need to bold Euro Disneyland.
• The rest of this paragraph needs references. You need to verify that the location was chosen for the reason you said it was and you need to verify estimations made.
• "Unlike Disney's U.S. theme parks, which tend to hire many seasonal and temporary part-time college students, Euro Disney's employees (a required 12,000 for the theme park itself) would be permanent cast members on the Euro Disney stage." Cast members? Stage? Are these official terms? Why was it required?
• Throughout the article, you switch back and forth between American English spelling and British English spelling. You can choose whichever you like (Disney is an American company, but in Europe they tend to use British English), but be consistent throughout the article.
• For specific quotes, you may want to use a quotation template like you can see here: Simeon_I_of_Bulgaria#Culture_and_religion.
• Search around for other tables because the one you have in the Name changes section is a bit boring.
• The Disneyland Resort Paris today section needs to be expanded and you need to not have nearly as many subsections. Some of them are just one or two sentences long which could easily be converted into a paragraph. Overall you need more information here.
• You need more references and a topic of this magnitude would need several reputable literary sources or essays from trade journals. This topic has been well-covered from the economic point of view, as far as I know, and I think you can find some interesting articles on it written in peer-reviewed journals.

Alright, I've gotten up to the hotels section and I'm realizing that this is taking far too much of my time. It might do you better to find a native English speaker who is willing to copyedit the entire article and start referencing more of your claims in the article. I know this is general and does not get as specific as you wanted, but I simply don't have the time to do the entire article as I've done the first few sections. I hope you understand. JHMM13 07:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You're absolutely right obviously (although I can't find any American spelling outside of the quotes). Now I hope someone competent will be willing to put a little time into solving these issues, although I'll try to pitch in. - SergioGeorgini 08:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Wintour

I was pleasantly surprised when this article, which I'd greatly improved as part of my work on The Devil Wears Prada (currently undergoing a peer review of its own) was given an assessment of A-class this morning despite three statements flagged as needing citations. So I took care of them. Any suggestions before I take it to GAC? Daniel Case 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Thank you for reading this! I was beginning to worry that no one cared enough.

Much of your very good criticism will probably be taken care of by a forthcoming expansion. Daniel Case 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the second and the third paragraph repeat the same things. Maybe they should be merged or re-phrased.

• • It's likely that they will be ... I have been doing more research (i.e., reading Jerry Oppenheimer's biography). I had written that because I couldn't see where to put the bit about the sunglasses

• "Her salary is reported to be $2 million a year.[1]" Avoid stubby one-sentence paragraph like this one. Merge or expand.

• • That's because I took something out that wasn't sourced. I have a source for it now, and it can go back in.

• "Politics" is too stubby. If you cannot expand the section merge it with another one.

• • Same thing.

• "There have also been accusations that she has imposed an elitist aesthetic on the magazine, promoting celebrities over fashion personalities and making demands that even prominent subjects change their image before being featured in its pages." Assertions like this one need citing.
  • They are cited further down in the body of the article, but I'll put them in the intro.
• I think you overanalyze The Devil Wears Prada. Most of this material should be moved to the film's or book's article through WP:SS.
  • The film article is long enough as it is, and the book article needs a lot of reworking. Some of it could probably go there, though. I'll see what I can do to trim it down and keep it relevant.

    But it is important.

• "She has often been the target". Personally I do not like a new section to start with "she". Who's she? "Wintour ... " looks to me better. But maybe it is just a personal preference.
• "In Paris in October 2005 ..." The trend is to wikilink full dates (date-month-year) not year alone or month-year. Check WP:MoS about dates.
  • I didn't do that; someone else did.
• "She has often been the target of various animal rights organizations such as PETA who are angered by her use of fur in Vogue, her pro-fur editorials and her refusal to run paid advertisements from animal rights organizations. Undeterred, she continues to use fur in photo spreads. She is routinely assaulted by activists over this matter." Uncited. Try to have at least one citation for each paragraph of your article.
  • Again, cited further on down.
• "Wintour has been accused of exercising ... have also been criticized as being motivated ... despite its heavy reliance on advertising dollars". Mixing styles?
  • Not quite sure what you mean here ...
    • That you mix American with English spelling. Am I wrong? If yes, diregard this comment.--Yannismarou 13:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. All three of those are the generally accepted and widely-used American spellings. Daniel Case 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• "Popular culture" is a trivia listy section. Especially in FA such sections are not esteemed at all. If you could make it proper prose or incorporate its material in other sections ...--Yannismarou 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Will do. I can probably use the DWP stuff to springboard that. Daniel Case 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Chemical Romance

This article I feel has gotten too much information in some places and not enough information in others. It would be great for an outside person to come in and review it and tell things that can possibly be improved to help this article reach Good Article status. I feel that the main body and the criticism section could use the most work but I feel the article as a whole could use a nice edit. Any comments on ways to improve this article are appreciated.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JHMM13

Well, here's what I've got so far:

• The lead is way too short. Check out WP:LEAD.
• What's the copyright status for the second reference? Is that website licensed to reproduce those pages of that magazine? Remember, it's also acceptable to cite the magazine itself without linking to that website.
• Don't link single years like this: In 2001 something happened. Take off the wikilink for those.
• Cite web references properly per Wikipedia:Citation templates.
• If there is any literature out there about the band, you should find it and use that as a source. It's generally not the most advisable thing to have a wealth of internet links with no reputable books backing it up. I know this is difficult for a band that has really only been in the public eye for 3 years, but try your best.
• The Black Parade section is way too listy. Try to turn this into better prose.
• In general, the prose doesn't flow extraordinarily well. This might be a result of the band's popularity and different sections, even different sentences within a section, being written by different people. This is one of the more difficult aspects of turning an oft-visited and oft-edited article into something worthy of GA or FA. It's why I tend to choose more obscure subjects to work on.
• There are far too many large swaths of text that make claims with no references to verify them. This is evident in most sections, but especially in the Black Parade section. Not every last word needs to be referenced, but particular claims like: "In Rolling Stone magazine's ranking of the top 50 albums of 2006, The Black Parade was voted the 20th best album of the year." There is no easy way of finding out if this is true or false.
• Think about reworking the "Criticism" section without separate subsections for each source of criticism. There doesn't seem to be enough text here to validate separate sections for each criticism.

That's all I can think of right now. This article needs a pretty big reworking that will take a lot of time. There are lots of other FAs out there for bands from whose layouts you can steal ideas. Check them out here. Cheers JHMM13 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

This article was only rated as Start-Class on the quality scale, despite being such an important topic, and was previously almost unsourced and contained large chunks of OR. In the last couple of days I've rewritten it and added sources, but it's still a little confusing, and contains a lot of material that's duplicated from Political power and the tripartite classification of authority. I think I've improved this article considerably, but it needs a bit more work to get up to GA/FA standard. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AnonEMouse

• (and many non-human) - that animals have what we call politics is a pretty strong statement. Expand, and cite, or remove.
• Political science, ... - unbold.
• Political Philosophy, Public Administration - uncapitalize
• Aristotle asserts in Politics - I know what you mean, but considering the title of this article, specify that it's a book
• Thomas Hobbes ... proposed - contrast with Aristotle, above; pick a tense for statements made in books, and be consistent
• left-right - cite, and specify that this is fairly recent. Hobbes, Aristotle, etc., didn't mention such a divide. What divides, if any, they mention? Monarchist/populist maybe?
• Certain politicians have tried to transcend - frankly, most politicians try to transcend, saying they are "a uniter not a divider", all that. Unless you have a really good set of sources, I'd leave that out, and certainly not mention specific politicians in an article on all politics, reads biased. Just saying Morin is more notable than De Gaulle is going to get you a lot of opposition, for no good gain.
• Authoritarian-Libertarian - need more than one sentence for a subsection
• Machiavelli's The Prince is pretty important, no? Just a suggestion
• Some within ... various ways - be specific in each case; who says, and which ways, per WP:WEASEL. End with a period. It is also often considered a good idea to have more than one sentence in a subsection. :-)...
• and sociological perspectives. - is this the same as Pragmatic, per that subsection? Specify.
• May want to mention the roles of politics in popular modern and ancient forms of govt: monarchy, democracy, communism... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

• The page begins with "Approaches to the study of politics," but Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, etc. were not just studying politics, they were coming up with political theories. I would suggest that the page begin with some short "Definitions" (such as "politics," "republic," "democracy," etc.) so that the reader has some basic terms to work with and then move on to "Political theories" that would encompass Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. in subsections. The "Related concepts" should be discussed in terms of the political philosophers and philosophies when relevant and defined when necessary. This is what needs the most work right now, as I see it.
• "Political power" should come after the "Political philosophy" section (the section on "Political spectrums" should come later). Might Michel Foucault be a good representative of the postmodern view of power (Discipline and Punish)?
• The bulletted lists should be changed into prose, for example, in the "authority" section.
• The "other considerations" section does not seem necessary at this time.
• Of course, when you are tired of writing, you can add pictures. :)
• And, of course, you already have all of my comments about the sources.
• By the way, just to make everything more difficult, I have feeling Eastern philosophers also discuss politics. You might add a tag to the article saying that it does not represent a worldwide view (it is no reflection on yourself - no one can know everything). That might alert someone who does something to add to it. Awadewit 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

• 2007:
  • March (current)
  • January, February
• 2006:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2005:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2004
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 1