Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Talbot Tagora[edit]

I believe this article might have FA potential, so I would like to hear from you what you think requires further improving in order to make it a successful nominee. The article already went through a internal WikiProject peer review - please see the talk page for issues discussed and how they were addressed. Thank you in advance for your help! Bravada, talk - 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.

I guess that's it then. I am archiving the peer review and placing it on FAC. Bravada, talk - 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones[edit]

I've been working on this article for a while, taking it slow. I recently got the Revenge of the Sith promoted to featured status and am looking to do the same here. The article is formatted and written (in some ways) in the same way the Episode III article and would like some input on anything I might have missed before I submit for FAC. The Filmaker 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).

Alison Krauss[edit]

Finally, after a long series of edits, the fancruft and long uncited bio from this article has been fixed and refenced. I tabled and split-off the awards data and tabled the singles/albums, and generally gave the article a good tuning up IMO. I was wondering if you folks see anything else that needs help. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 01:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • After the fact side-note If you think the article needs more images, I just sent out a request today for permission to use this image to display Krauss as a fiddle player for the early career bit. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • I really don't think there is anything else specific that needs summarizing in the lead. This is the issue with an auto-PRer, do you have any SPECIFIC examples that need lead noting? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give it at least a once over for examples or potentially a full copyedit? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 01:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs attention to dates. This can be done quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a bit more depth (btw, I was hoping by creating an automatic peer reviewer that it give newer editors a general sense of what is needed for a FA, since many articles don't seem to align with WP:WIAFA, and many articles with lesser notability seem to be ignored on PR):
    • Commas are needed after states if a city is provided: was born in Decatur, Illinois, but
    • favorite songwriters.[5] and typo
    • and "likely change quite a few more minds about bluegrass"; this doesn't quite fit along with the sentence, perhaps adding [would] in front of likely would help
    • Per WP:MOS#Headings, "Present" in "2000-Present: Current career" shouldn't be capitalized; I'm not sure if the same goes with "Current" or "Early" or "Rising".
      • Done. I don't think it applies to the other two, if for no other reason than "Current" and "Early" are the first words in those section heads. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full dates like "August 14, 2001" should be wiki-linked.
    • vocals, or fiddles or harmony vocals extra "or"
    • Tony1 has a whole bunch of useful subpages for meeting critera 2(a) of WP:WIAFA - see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a and User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a: redundancy exercises.
      • I believe my article fulfills 2a, and should Tony or anyone else raise any specific and actionable complaints here, in the eventual FAC, or anywhere else I will be more than happy to deal with them. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I imagine that this article can be expanded a bit more; for example, general reception/praise/criticism. I can't seem to find any other major problems with this article- great job! Andy t 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! A general criticism thing is the one thing I was thinking about. I'll try to work it up tonight, may be difficult to avoid either using reactions to specific works while not sounding like a fluff piece. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition Added general critical reactions, and grouped with Awards into a proper "Responses" section. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article's GA nomination, and was quite impressed - it's neutral and very well sourced. A suggestion for future improvement: the tone of the article sometimes seems a bit flat and sterile, listing events and milestones in Alison Krauss' music while skirting around discussion of the music itself. I understand that this is a somewhat unfair criticism, given the boundaries of NPOV. Maybe searching for Alison Krauss' comments about her music would be a good place to start. Great job and good luck! --Alex S 02:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Webster[edit]

1st PR

Previous Peer Review only received a single review from an automated bot. I'm interested in improving the article to Featured Article status and would appreciate suggestion on how to do that. TonyJoe 17:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the auto peer review again and left the results on the talk page. I think increaing the lead needs to happen. I also did some minor cleanup on the article. You could also reduce the number of redundnat wikilinks. The paragraph that begins "Many New Englanders, including those of Portsmouth..." needs to either tell more about why what webster did was important or be removed. I personally dont like "...his proverbial national star... ". The "Upon his arrival," sentance needs to be broken up and cleaned up. "fall from his horse and a crushing blow to the head." He fell from his horse and then someone hit him? Overall you may want to look for long sentances and chop them up. Stats: 6009 words,188 links,6images, 15 categories. I would say after some work getting the prose a little better and completeing the auto-suggestions its ready for FA-Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also check out the cool timeline on Pericles. That might be a cool addition. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks a lot for your response. I've always known that the sentences could use some chopping but I never really had the will to do it... I went through the article and I think I shortened some of the most obvious ones, as well as some of your other suggestions. I actually think I did most of what you recommended except increasing the lead; I'll do that sometime soon. I think the time line would be cool and I've always liked the Pericles article... it's actually where I got the idea for putting snippets of oratory and letters in the floating blue boxes. :p Thanks again for your help. TonyJoe 09:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuary[edit]

Note: please add your suggestions in a 5th level heading under "Suggestions" and any actions taken under actions. Thanks. -- Avi 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Lincher[edit]

The article has been improved to the point that it now listed as a good article. I would like to do my best to improve and develop the article, if necessary, to bring it to featured status, and thus any and all constructive criticism and advice is welcomed. Thank you. -- Avi 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are some minor avenues that can be explored :
  • Needs more inline citations.
  • Needs a broader coverage (international ... other countries).
  • Adding pictures would be a plus (like an actuarian sitting at his desk).
  • Are there actuarians' organisms?
  • The Disciplines section should be expanded, including examples and problems actuarians have with the job.
  • Laws pertaining to actuarians?
  • Notable actuarians? if there are any?

Lincher 20:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Prophet[edit]

If it hasn't all ready been done, the article should be copy edited for spelling errors.

other ideas:

  • See WP:LEAD as the intro should adequtely summarize the article.
  • The see also section, External links, and Categories should be Alphbitize.
  • You should double check the articles talk page to see if all complaints have been taken care of.
  • You should look over the following articles for advice:
  • User:AndyZ/Suggestions
  • WP:WIAFA
  • User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a
  • You may want to go to WP:FA and take a look at similar articles that are all ready featured for ways to improve it.

False Prophet 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanter[edit]

Some brief initial comments:

  • Overall this article is good - for example it is much more extensive and relevant than the corresponding Britannica article (which is three paragraphs or so of basic information only)
  • The article could very much benefit from a section on the history of the actuarial profession; at the moment, there is very little on the way of history and I think there needs to be for this to be a complete and balanced encyclopedia article.
  • The section on credentialing goes into perhaps more detail than warranted for a general article on actuaries; I think much of this material would be more appropriate if moved elsewhere, perhaps into the articles about the relevant actuarial associations (Society of Actuaries etc.). A paragraph or two on credentialing should be enough.

Enchanter 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (I am a qualified actuary with a long-standing involvement in writing this article)[reply]

Andyzbot[edit]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, please strike this comment).

Actions[edit]

History[edit]
  • I have added a pretty detailed history section, based mostly on the FIFA webpage, but with a number of supporting citations including Halley's documnet of 1693. I agree that it adds a lot. This also serves the purpose of increasing the number of citations. -- Avi 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started a list of notable actuaries. I do not want for it to get too long, as it would make the artile unwieldly. -- Avi 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved the specific credentialing information to the articles of the societies themselves, streamlined the portion of it in Actuary, and added a small paragraph about other countries for completeness sake. -- Avi 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added public domain image of Hurricane Katrina damage as lead picture. -- Avi 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have decided against looking into specific laws, as in my opinion that is beyond the scope of the article, similar to the specific credentialing requirements. If an article about Actuaries and Laws are created, it would deserve a heading and a link. Common problems are also beyond the scope of a general article on actuaries, I think, and more properlyshould be in articles like "reserve valuation", "premium calculation", "mortality analysis" etc. -- Avi 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyedited and spellchecked. I am going to close the peer review and nominate the article for candidacy. Thank you all very much! -- Avi 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To-do[edit]
  • add history of profession
  • list of famous actuaries
  • move credentialling to appropriate society pages (in-progress)
  • copyedit
  • alphabetize
  • try and find more usable images
  • briefly discuss/expand laws or common problems

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter[edit]

Hey, just looking for some ideas as to what we can do to better this article, with the goal being to become a featured article. Thanks! Tuvas 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Can authors be provided for the references?
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, am starting to work through this list, starting with a new lead topic statement, which will probably need to be edited some. Thanks for the input!

I do have one question for you, perhaps even for the WP:MOSNUM. Sometimes it appears to be okay to use abreviations for units, other times, it seems inappropriate. When is it okay, and when should they not be used? Tuvas 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, with Featured Articles, you should try to spell out miles/kilometers at the start and you can use abbreviations (mi, km) after the first instance. More comments coming up. Jtmichcock 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To reply, units should be spelled out in text, but conversions should use abbreviations, like: I am 25 centimeters (5 in) tall (okay fine, no I'm not, just making this up). AndyZ t 21:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments:

  1. I agree that the lede needs to be expanded. Focus in briefly on the specific objectives and tie this in to the equipment to be used." The phrase "Much as a good scout will path the way for incoming armies" is too cute (and ungrammatical too). Path the way? Cost of the mission should be noted. The last paragraph, in contrast, should avoid the names of the other programs (insert into the body, however) and make clear that "Upon reaching Mars, the Orbiter became one of six active scientific missions, with four now in orbit and two on the ground."
  2. The Overview should detail some of the battles over space exploration funding. With a number of notable failures (the latest being the Beagle), it wasn't eady to have Congress pony up for the launch. Also, I would call this "Overview and Launch" not only because the two topics are inextricably linked, but also because there are way too many sections in this article.
  3. The timetable is a deal breaker as far as FAC goes. Let me stress, this will never become a Featured Article with any sort of list that can be converted into prose. The only lists that are tolerated are ones with ungodly amounts of names that could not fit comfortably into a paragraph (for example, the names in Bath School disaster -- and I had people wanting to turn all those names into prose!)
  4. Since there is a whole lot of things happening on the timetable, you should prepare a separate article called "Timeline of the Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter." Insert in there all elements of funding approval, launch, testing en route, reaching the planet, orbit, scientific testing, lifetime estimate and planned future follow-ups. Check out the Toledo War that I helped write to see the insertion of the Timeline article.
  5. You should never, ever insert something like "MARCI (see below)" into the text. Explain acronyms right then and there. Supra is fine, infra never!
  6. The three part aerobraking section likewise needs to be converted into prose and you need to cite where the rationale is coming from Is this NASA material? If so, cite the web page or other authority. By and large, the number of cites, just by eyeballing, needs to be doubled.
  7. In the Orbital Braking section, you state: The final speed of MRO relative to Mars was only 0.17 m/s (0.4 mph) faster than expected.[2],[3],[4]. Why are there three cites to the same fact? If one cite is better that the rest, just use that one. You can add the other citations into the body of the footnote with a see also.
  8. The "Science operations and extended mission" needs to be prose. Again, there's no reason it should be bulleted lists. Detail not just the what in terms of tests, but why the tests are essential. You state that one purpose is "map the martian landscape in high resolution" and four bullets down note another goal as "choose the best landing sites for future landers and rovers." Doesn't the first one go with the fourth? If not, why not?
  9. Instrumentation section should also be combined with the Science operations section. Then deal with the separate instruments as they relate to the what and why questions. If you state that one intention is to "map the martian landscape in high resolution," it would flow better to see how that would be accomplished.
  10. I can't figure out why there's a section called "Instrumentation" followed by a section called "Science instrumentation." Very awkward. More seriously, it's repetitive. The first section has a one-line about an item that's discussed in the second section. One section: Instrumentation, followed by subsections dealing with the gross tasks (camera, radar, gravity, etc.). Let the reader know how these parts fit all together and what ultimately is the goal of each experiment.
  11. There are way too many subsections in the Scientific instrumentation section. Some of these are only a sentence long. Don't feel you need to break everything down into bolded headers. The readers are capable enough -- with solid prose -- to comprehend the various aspects of the program.
  12. Engineering data should be at least in part at the start. "How was this built" is a question that should follow funding approval.
  13. There is no $ symbol in the entire article and the word dollar never appears. You have to address costs. It's scary that I have no idea how expensive this was.
  14. You need a conclusion. An "okay, now what?" section. Give the reader some idea as to how long the orbiter will be in service, what sort of follow-up would be appropriate, how a manned mission might benefit, etc. Recapitulate the expected accomplishments.

This article needs quite a bit of work but it is fully capable of reaching featured status. So long as you aren't afraid of pulling it apart and putting it back together. Jtmichcock 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English has never been my strong point... I've found myself to be a bigger contributer in content than the words themselves... Thanks for the advice, I'll look towards getting alot of stuff in here. Tuvas 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember, Peer Review can last for thirty days. That's a lot of time to rethink and fix. I would not be offering the above points if I did not think there's a Featured Article in there. Good luck. Jtmichcock 01:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it. I'm just realizing it's a bit further from FA status than I thought, I'm just glad I decided to post here. I'm working on condensing the parts of the article that aren't quite as interesting, I might have gone a bit overboard, but would appreciate any comments. I also managed to add the cost of the spacecraft. There's a few more sections to add a bit more about, and the intro still needs to be re-worked (I semi-intentionally wrote a rough-draft, I know that it needs some work, just hoping that some of the regulars would help me a bit, who have a bit more knowledge of that type of stuff). Tuvas 02:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have made alot more changes. I think now that the instrument section is alot more organized than it was before. There isn't any sections that are only a few sentances long. I've still left most of the information on there (With a few bits of HiRISE being moved, the timeline being moved to a differnt page, and a few things along those lines), but as a whole, the page is pretty decent from the standpoint of organization.

Still needed are some careful checks to make sure I didn't remove anything I shouldn't have, a conclusion type section, probably a bit more organization in the overview section, perhaps even a bit more cleaning up there. Also needs a new intro section. I just hope that the article is improving towards the better, although it's probably a bit messy right now... Also needed is some kind of overhaul in the engineering data section, but I don't think anything too terrible ugly there, just changing a few lists to prose. Tuvas 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some major changes have happened in the last 24 hours, I think most of the problems above cited are taken care of. There might be a stray few, but the bigger ones are gone. Any more comments? Tuvas 17:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better looking. It's actually pretty close to FA status. You may want to see if there are other sources bedsides NASA's that you can reference wo validate the information. For the most part, these are going to be newspaper accounts since there are likely no books in print. You should also look to beef up the individual components with added information about the systems. For example, I looked at the Electra page cited and discovered that it can act as a conduit for communications for landers without sufficient battery power. That wasn't in the article, but I inserted it. Jtmichcock 20:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, most non-NASA sources will be sourced from information from NASA, and I'd rather use the primary source. I'll take a look at more of that kind of stuff soon, probably not today though... Tuvas 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This paragraph...

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has two nickel metal hydride rechargeable batteries. Used as a power source when the solar panels are not facing the Sun, the batteries will not be charged during launch, orbital insertion and aerobraking or when Mars blocks out the Sun during a period in each orbit. Each battery has an energy storage capacity of 50 ampere-hours (180 kC). The spacecraft cannot utilize the batteries' capacity, because as the they discharge their voltage drops. If the voltage drops below 20 volts, the computer will stop functioning. Planners anticipate that instruments will only require some 40% of the battery capacity.[12]

...is very sloppy. I tried to fix it but I kept making it worse. I may try again later. TimL 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:CONTEXT you will find this guidance:

Avoid duplicate links on a page. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. However, link the first occurrence of a term, and always link when directing to a page for more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series". It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article, but there's hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section.

I noticed you article tends to use certain words as links to the relevant article over and over again, rather than just the first time you use the word. Gerry Ashton 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at it, and I found one case that it was blatenlty incorrect to double-link it. There is likely more, but I couldn't find them... There is some cases where in different sections, they link to the same part, but as I understand from WP:CONTEXT, that's okay. I mean, to mention in the begining of the article that the University of Arizona helped built HiRISE, and not link to it again when HiRISE is actually talked about would just not work. Still, I'll keep searching, thanks for the help! Tuvas 15:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, this article hasn't had any comments for a while. The question is now, is it ready to try for FA status? Tuvas 16:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, Tuvas 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)[edit]

We've been working on this article and would like a peer review to improve it. After the peer review, we'd like to submit it for FAC and hope it eventually becomes a FA. Rlevse 11:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • Eagle Scout is considered to be a significant lifetime achievement.
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
      • I've taken a stab at this. Rlevse 19:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 21:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sections 2 and 4 have been 'delisted'. See my thoughts on 5 and 6 below. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has grown (again) into a paragraph of its own, whereas it should merely define the subject and give a summary of the article. Citations are for the full statements in the article proper. May I recommend a copy-edit?
    • I've been mulling over how to do this. Do you have suggestions or would you like to take a stab at it? Rlevse 19:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is rather emphatic about the wonderful things that befall people who have achieved the Eagle Scout rank. Although this may well be considered a high achievement in a boy's life, I think the subsequent achievements in life cannot be attributed to the Eagle Scout rank but the qualities of the boy (grown to man) himself. May I recommend a rewording of several paragraphs, to make the article more straight forward?
    • Please look over again as this has been worked some. If you still have concerns, please be specific. Rlevse 19:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, but would merging the section 3, 5 and 6 be worthwhile? It would make delisting section 5 and 6 easier. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • I've been thinking that the badge and medal history (5 and 6) really pulls the focus away from the subject proper. Perhaps this should be split to History of Eagle Scout insignia. Thoughts? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think the (as suggested combined) history of the Eagle Scout insignia would be very valuable section in the Eagle Scout article. For me that is the subject of the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, guys, how about this: the intention in my copy-editing:

  1. History (why is it there)
  2. Requirements (what do you have to do to get it) + hist
  3. Insignia (what do you get) + hist
  4. Outside Boy Scouting (the difficult part for an encyclopedia, due to NPOV requirements)
  5. Remainder sections

I moved (copy-edited) the history of badge and medal to a subsection in the insignia paragraph. Then I copy-edited all requirements into the section. And I made a new lead text, just defining and summarizing, notably without Outside Boy Scouting text. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I LIKE THE CURRENT STATE OF THE ARTICLE! An article can always be improved, but this is the best it's been yet. We work well together! I also know someone who said I can photo his Eagle medal collection. I'm don't think he has all 17, but he has lots of them. I'll work on that. Gadget850 and Rebelguys2, if you can scan your medals, that'd help. YIS, Rlevse 21:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support, Rlevse. And I don't think scanning my Dutch Crown Scout badge will help for this article, will it ;-) Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Nope, but you could add it to Scouting Nederland. PS, I lived in Holland when I was 11-12 years old. I was in a BSA troop at Camp New Amsterdam. There was a Dutch boy in the troop named Hans. I loved my time in Holland. Rlevse 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

First Peer review request I'm responding to a request to feature this article. I'm going to have a look at it myself, but I would also like some others' comment. Thanks in advance. -- Selmo (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this article has had several FA nominations in the past but failed them all. I think it would meet the same fate if you were to take it in like this. My main problem is with the sources. An article about such a recognizable entity needs more than just random internet sites and newspaper reports. Books, books, and lots more books!

Some citations in the 'Notes' section have been done improperly. Some works there are described in a way that they should be described in a 'References' section, not a citation section. You need to fix that. I'd recommend getting an editor who has experience with country articles to take a look at this as well. They'd probably have more and better suggestions.UberCryxic 16:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda[edit]

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

Yannismarou[edit]

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

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

Yomangani[edit]

Fairly faultless. Some very (very) minor points:

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

Judaism's view of Jesus[edit]

This article has gone through many changes resulting in a great amount of sourcing and better organization. Any comments would be appreciated. I am not sure if it is ready for FA, but I hope it is on the way. Jon513 18:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The block quotes are a little intimidating. I suggest you summarize some of the information. Also, it would be nice if some sort of pictures could be added. — The Man in Question 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of pictures? certainly chirstain art of jesus is not fitting, and there is no jewish art of him. I'll see what I can do. Jon513 13:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of quotes, quotes should not be in italics, see the MoS--Peta 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have a picture for you, Jon513. It's Image:Jesusinjosephus.jpg, a woodcut by John C. Winston used in an old copy of Josephus that I've just uploaded for you. — The Man in Question 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you are going with the image. Granted it is better than a Christian art depicting Jesus, but not by much. I think a picture relating to Christian Jewish dialogue. Perhaps an artist painting on the debate in Barcelona. Jon513 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., you should read the article on Josephus on Jesus, and add a little about that into yours.
The article was changed some time ago from Jewish views of Jesus to Judaism's view of Jesus. This was done to make clear that not everything that any Jew believes belongs in the article. Josephus doesn't and never did represent Judaism. He is viewed as a traitor. I have heard my own rabbis say that the statements in his works referring to Jesus are forgeries, but that is really beside the point. Even if he did write them he would just be like the other Jews who followed Jesus (early Christian), and they certainly don’t represent Judaism. Jon513 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. I noticed that the section Jewish prophecy and Jesus has two major problems: 1) it says that if Jesus violates any of the rules, he could not be a Jewish prophet. The section needs to address any instances where Jesus does violate the rules (aside from calling himself the son of God), or else the section should be dropped. 2) Jesus is not considered a prophet by Christians; he is viewed as a prophet by Muslims. This should probably be clarified in the section.[User:The Man in Question|The Man in Question]] 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that responded to your post inline. I add you signuture to each paragraph. As for Judaism's view of Jesus#Jewish prophecy and Jesus, you are right on both point. For the first, such reference were always removed with a "Jesus didn't come to change to law but to fulfill it" line and I don't have the strength to keep adding it. You can see Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law for a full treatment of this topic. As for point two, I am not sure how much of the article has to compare and contrast ideas. There is a link at the top for other views of Jesus. However in this case it should be make clear why it needs to be said that Jesus was not a prophet (i.e. who believed he was). Jon513 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The next problem is the embodied in the article's title, "Judaism's view of Jesus". All other such articles (Christian views of, Islam's views of) acknowledge that there is more than one view on the subject. This article, however, seems merely intent on proving that Jesus was wrong according to Judaism. Obviously, this is the common belief of Jews (otherwise they'd all be Christians), but even so, some Jews undoubtedly agree with many of his teachings, while other Jews probably deny his very existence. There's a lot more that could be addressed. [User:The Man in Question|The Man in Question]] 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a major difference with Christian and Islamic views and Judaism’s. For Christians and Muslims they are required to believe something about Jesus. For Jews there is no such requirement. Judaism requires one not to believe in something. For the most part Judaism doesn't care about Jesus. He is an unimportant person that died long ago. So long as you don't think that he is a God or a prophet, or died for your sins there really aren't any requirement what you must believe. Granted there are differing views on Jesus but it not differing in the same way as the Christian and Islamic views differ. In Christianity and Islam there are different views of what one has to believe. For Jews there are arguments of what one personally believes. Hence it is an issue of Jewish views of Jesus not Judaism's view. Jew believes every possibility under the sun about Jesus. Judaism has a few red lines and allows the individual to decide the rest. Jon513 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere the article should discuss Jesus as a rabbi; does he meet the criteria? (The two biggest discrepencies — he wasn't married [unless you're Dan Brown] and he had no teacher; of course, one might say that he was married to the church and his teacher was God…).[User:The Man in Question|The Man in Question]] 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
see Semicha to understand rabbi ordiantion (having a teacher - God doesn't count - is nessisay, being married is an impartant part of Jewish Law but one can become a rabbi single). Why it important if he was a rabbi? He isn't quoted in any rabbinical literature, and he certainly doesn't represent Jewish views. Does it make a difference wheather he was a respected rabbi and then was ousted for teaching views incosistent with Judaism, or was never a rabbi. Do you know of sources one way or the other? Jon513 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good friend of mine knows a rabbi (I know that sounds contrived, but I mean it) who read the New Testament. He said that Jesus teaches exactly the way a rabbi should, using remez (saying part of a verse, expecting one's disciples to complete it), etc. He also said that many of the parables Jesus tells are Jewish parables, but that Jesus changed the ends to make his point. I find this vary interesting. If you wanted to make this a really good article, you could interview various rabbis and other Jewish scholars to find out their point of view. — The Man in Question 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to interview various rabbis, however WP:NOR wouldn’t allow me to include it. How much of the New Testament is consistent with Jewish views and how much is not, is up for debate but that debate is just as much about what Judaism teaches as what Jesus taught. Also in orthodox circle it is well accepted not to read it even if there are ideas consistent with Judaism in it (so it is hard to get an orthodox answer on this question). This also wouldn’t relate to what the rabbi of the time felt about his writings. Once he was rejected there was no need to point out locations that he was correct. Everything true that he said is already taught somewhere else! However everyone is clear that the New Testament is not part of the canon. Jon513 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Thank you for enlightening me. With all due respect, The Man in Question 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above you say that "he had no teacher...[but] one might say ... his teacher was God". Does no significant Jewish view argue that John the Baptist was his teacher? It seems plausible that in the missing years (9-30) he had some teacher, even if it was only the local rabbi that his parents brought round being good Jewish parents(TM). So, although I can see some Christian counter arguments to such possibilities, I seems odd that no Jewish source argues them. Clinkophonist 20:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not strange at all that no Jewish sources mention anything. You have to understand the Jews don't care about Jesus. There are very sources that relate to him at all, and much of those of much later only in reaction to christanity. Jon513 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies in the Snow[edit]

I would like to make this article a Featured Article Candidate, but first I would like some input on anything I should do to make it better. — The Man in Question 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead currently doesn't really explain if the movie really exists or if it is fictional. That's something the first sentence should make absolutely clear. Also, I don't see any reason for that Boy #1 and Boy #2 thing. Why not just call them "the boys"? They're mentioned together throughout the article anyway. Furthermore, the captions should not be in <small> tags and there seem to be too many unnecessary fair use images in the article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the fact that the film is definitely a work of fiction in the second sentence, because I couldn't find any way to fit it into the first without breaking the flow. Also, I changed Boy #1 and Boy #2 to "the boys", like you suggested. About the fair-use issue: I changed the main picture to what I felt was a more appropriate heading anyway ({{art}}). The obvious problem, of course, is that no other pictures exist to illustrate the article (except one which I didn't include and would fall under fair use anyway). If an acceptable solution presents itself, I'll be happy to accept.

Meanwhile, I would very much appreciate more input on the article, since I do want to try to get it up to featured article status. — The Man in Question 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Zombies in the Snow, is a fictional movie in the children's novel series A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket (a.k.a. Daniel Handler)." and then give the information about the fictional director in a second sentence? My concern with the images was not so much the license: Even if these weren't fair use images, I'd still think there are too many. You could easily drop at least two, as most aren't really essential to illustrate the article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I've re-written the first sentence (not quite the way you said, but closer at least). Also, I removed the picture of the fishing cannery. Should the picture of "Dolores" go? I think it helps the reader understand the whimsical nature of the story better (along with the forest scene picture). However, I suppose it could go. The other pictures, however, I think should stay. — The Man in Question 03:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things on a quick scan:

  • "Dolores has at least two songs in the film, but otherwise seems to serve little purpose." and "...The Reptile Room, is modeled after the classic science fiction/horror genre so common in 1950's filming (Creature From the Black Lagoon, 1954, Man From Planet X, 1951, Brain From Planet Arous, 1957, etc.), but with a singularly unusual twist at the end." Both are original research-ish and need references to back them up
  • See if you can find more references than the two (both by the author) that you have.

The Catfish 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately, there really are no other resources. Not trying to harp on anything, but more comments are always welcome. — The Man in Question 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Cuthbert[edit]

I came upon this article in promoting it to good article status. I got drawn into making small tweak edits of it because I'm a fan of Cuthbert, and now I've gotten myself dedicated to really fixing up this article. I think it is in pretty good shape now, but outside advice is always good. Thanks in advance! Staxringold 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads very well, although it looks a little skinny. The article seem to cover everything pretty good so this isn't too big of a concern. My main concern is lead is too short and "Later Career" section starts with a subsection. The sub-section reads fairly well as an introductory paragraph and a quick destruction of the "24" sub-section title would be great. - Tutmosis 00:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the notes! Staxringold 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dartford[edit]

For a town of its size and importance, I think we have a high-quality article here, however I also feel there are some things missing, but I can't quite put my finger on them. Any comments from the wikipedia community would be gratefully received. Jdcooper 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the priority for this article is expansion. It should be compared to featured article Bath. A broadlost of things missing:

  • Good lead. See WP:LEAD.
  • Geography section discussing umm let me see: geography. + climate and weather.
  • Politics sections.
  • Culture section.

Current issues:

  • two line sections need to be expand. On the other hand, alot of expansion on everything is needed.
  • If there is nothing you can add to the History section, then get rid of the sub-sections. Sub-sections like that are used for large amounts of information.
  • "Communications" section renamed to "Transport".
  • Population needs to be merged into "Demographics" and the section expanded respectively.
  • Include notable places.
  • Notable people should be on of the last things on the page.
  • Dont forget good references.

Thanks! - Tutmosis 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! We will get right on that, cheers Jdcooper 11:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a shot at the "Notable people" section, making it less wordy. I am also trying to set up a more comprehensive lead para - will be grateful for comments when it appears; and unless anyone else wishes to undertake it, the History section. I think that some of that could perhaps be included in a para entitled "Industrial history" since there are some good sections which would read better together. Peter Shearan (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fairly comprehensive history here by Mark Chatwin, by way of extra sources, although there are possible accuracy issues with it (see discussion ici). Jdcooper (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a comprehensive attempt at this article. Although I am sure there is much to be added, I will now leave it to simmer, so that any additional info will not come from me for the time being. I am now looking at the Dartford (borough) article which cannot make up its mind whether it is talking about the town or the borough! IMO we sould take the built-up area of Dartford as "town" and all the rest - the Borough Council, MP, parishes, etc etc - as the borough. It is a pity that the ancient meaning of the word "borough" has come to mean that much wider area - it is even more ridiculous in the case of eg Canterbury where its rural areas are still called the "city"! - the actual local government areas were all called "districts" but local government officials didn't want to lose the word borough where there was a mayor involved Peter Shearan (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apple Macintosh models by case type[edit]

(previously Gallery of Apple Macintosh case form factors)

I'm requesting peer review on this because it's in a pretty unusual format. Its name is also unusual, it might have been called List of Apple Macintosh models by case type, but I've decided to honor the format in the name. If there's nothing particularly wrong with it, I'd like to take it to the featured list candidates soon. Comments? -- grm_wnr Esc 22:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well referenced. The issue here is the images. Images make up the core of this gallery, and there is no way you are going to get this thing featured without all the images. We should persue completing that collection of photos, and preferably get better ones for some of them. Unfortuneatly, I can't help you there. See if you can get your camera to an Apple Store. They should have, at least, a replacement for the Intel Core Duo iMac. Make sure they'll let you take the image and release it under a free license, too. Besides the images, though, great work.--HereToHelp 01:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page might be better named as "List of ...", it would also be a good candidate for featured lists, but probably not featured articles since there isn't much text.--nixie 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the move, since it seems to be the more popular option. I'm still looking for the missing images, but getting all of them might take a long time (all of them are old and some of them pretty rare - just going into the Aplpe store won't be of much help) -- grm_wnr Esc 11:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there an apple museum, or have you tried asking apple for some (compatible licence) images? They might be able to help.--nixie 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We might be able to get some fair use images from Apple if we need only one. And even if it's just getting more images to add to the Commons, a trip to an Apple Store (again, if there is one near where you live) would be useful. They may have old stuff in the back. But I can't make you do anything.--HereToHelp 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, convert to inline sources. You know, <ref>FOOTNOTE</ref> and then </references> where you want the whole list.--HereToHelp 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears[edit]

  • As this is one of the most consistantly searched for topics on the internet, it would be very beneficial for Wikipedia to get this article to a higher state of completion.

So what separates this article from Featured Article Status? Judgesurreal777 02:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both the controversy, career achievements and trivia sections are problematic, revelant parts of the collected facts should be added to the structure of the article where possible and these sections removed.--nixie 07:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things that should be fixed before going to WP:FAC:
    • The images all need fair use rationales (see WP:FUC), with the exception of the first image and Image:Curiosityperfume.jpg.
    • Years and decades without full dates generally should not be linked- see WP:CONTEXT.
    • Web references need WP:CITE (see WP:CITE/ES) information- {{Cite web}} may be useful here.
    • The remaining inline external links should be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs, along with the cite information.
    • "Controversy" should be converted to prose (paragraph form)
    • There a few instances of missing commas with dates: full dates should have two commas (ex. In December 2, 1993, rest of sentence). For consistency, following a year/decade, there should also be a comma (ex. In 1993, rest of sentence).
    • Spears was born in McComb, Mississippi and Commas are needed after states.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really quickly adding something, Career achievements and Trivia should be prose-ified (converted to paragraph form), and I even suggest that trivia should be removed as it does create a lot of objections on FAC. AndyZ t 01:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply put, see Mariah Carey and make this like that. Here, the TOC is huge. Sparse inline citations, and many of the ones that are there aren't high quality. Get more critical analysis of her work (look up reviews in Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, newspapers of large cities, etc.). "Personal" section is light on real substance, and so is "career achievments". --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some pictures have network logos in them and the logos should be cropped out or another picture should be found as this is copyright infrigment. -- Underneath-it-All 03:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it's a very messy article but I have a couple of things to add. Firstly, a cover picture of Rolling Stone in April 1999 is discussed, yet the cover is not pictured in the article. It is mainly structural and syntactical issues like this that which separate it from FA status - there are plenty of facts but they are poorly presented and organised. The See also list is also shockingly biased - essentially a list of lists which make Spears look good. I wonder if I should add List of people with the shortest marriages to balance it out! I'm unsure whether this is relevant to the FAC criteria but the article also has a very messy supporting article base, many needing serious cleanup. That's enough food for thought for now I think. BigBlueFish 21:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles like this are insanely hard. First, I'd suggest to do a lot of paragraph merging - keep them nice and long. Second, I'd suggest getting rid of the subsections of "personal" and merging everything to get more prose. Third, obviously fill in the citation needed tags. FACs with pop stars like this one are really difficult. RN 09:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hana[edit]

General feedback would be useful on this article. Seeing what needs to be added would be useful as well. --Midnighttonight 02:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My comments:
    • The lead is too short, remember that it should summarize the rest of the content.
    • Does anyone now his age or birth date?
    • Specially in the history I noticed that the grammar could be improved, unfortunately, mine is not very good either. Someone else could probably check the writing.
    • Try not to place one image after another, because that causes the edit buttons to be placed incorrectly near the bottom (at least in Firefox). Instead, place the images individually in each section. You could place some in the left side too.
    • References seemed to stop after the sociology section. Also, using the <references/> tool would be better, though not necessary.
    • I'm not 100% positive about this, but is it a good idea to talk about that Wikipedia article in the Wikipedia article?

Good job! --Enano275 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest looking at, and following advice of, Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article, [1].moza 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester Grammar School[edit]

I found this stub so thought I'd have a go at expanding it- any comments are welcome. I know it repeats itself a few times, but I was about to go to bed when I started exapnding it...(I have signed up for the clinic, by the way).

It could really use a picture or 2, as well as your contributions! EvocativeIntrigue 23:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics[edit]

Hello everyone. This article is very close to being nominated for an Article Improvement Drive and I thought it would be good to get a decent peer review done before this. Any and all comments or suggestions for the AID will be appreciated and very helpful. Cheers! --darkliight[πalk] 11:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had a cursory read through the article and have a few questions that iw ould like to see adressed in the article, please bare with me though as my mathematical knowledge is pretty slim and some of these questions/suggestions maybe daft.

    • This article tacitly assumes that mathematics is a language but in my cursory read through i saw no discussion of why it is considered a language. Is mathematics a language and in what sense can we call it a language? What are the critiscims against mathematics being considered a language?
    • there is no discussion about the centres of the brain responsible for the processing of mathematical thought or the fact that some people have an inability to make sense of numbers as in the condition of Discalcula.
    • is a mathematical language solely the domain of humans or is there any research that would suggest that animals have a basic concept of number or quantity?
    • On a purely aesthetic level i think that some of the formatting could be tweaked. I think in my opinion it would look a lot better if the lists were formatted in the style of the mathematics portal lists.

I will go over the article again at some point today and try and give some more specific suggestions from my own laymens perspective.

yakuzai

Thankyou yakuzai! I think these are all very valid and to be honest, despite having some background in mathematics, your first three points haven't come to my mind, so thankyou again and I'm looking forward to your continued suggestions. As a bit of a side note to everyone, such a root topic should be accessible by everyone, regardless of their mathematical background. If things aren't clear or you think there is something missing, anything at all, please speak up. Regards. --darkliight[πalk] 13:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a good article that with a little work should be a FAC. I think it ought to be to, given the topic. I have a few comments regarding the article. Here they are:

  • The lead section should say more about the uses of mathematics, and in general I would like it to be a bit longer.
  • All the sections need citations.
  • The sentence "Mathematics since has been much extended,..." seems awkward and out of place. Either remove it or make it a full paragraph.
  • The sentence "Mathematics arises wherever there are difficult problems that involve quantity, structure, space, or change." seems wildly speculative. At the very least it needs a citation, but probably its best removed
  • It might be worth referencing work in the Philosophy of mathematics especially in the section regarding simplicity and generality.
  • The rigor section might benefit from a discussion of surprising mistakes in mathematical proofs. There is something regarding Hilbert and proofs about Hilbert spaces that I seem to recall, although I don't know the details.
  • Again, I know some philosophers have written about why axioms ought to be accepted, perhaps this should be included in the "notation" section.
  • The sentence "If one considers science to be strictly about the physical world, then mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, is not a science." needs a citation at least. I think there are some philosophers of math and science who would disagree.
  • The sentence "An alternative view is that certain scientific fields (such as theoretical physics) are mathematics with axioms that are intended to correspond to reality." doesn't seem to fit in the context, could it be made more clear?
  • "that is, long papers not supported by previously published theory" this doesn't seem right to me. Mathematics encourages innovation. Wouldn't a more proper characterization be "long papers not following widely accepted norms" or something like that?

Okay, that's what I have. As a philosopher, I notice the lack of reference to philosophical work even when problems discussed by philosophers are being described. Generally, I think the article quotes a lot of physicists on these topics, who are often ignorant of substantial discussion that preceeded them. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FoxTrot[edit]

This is the second peer review. (Archive1) The article has seen consistent improving since the last peer review; and I believe it meets Featured quality with the exception of references. Which at worst can be sprinkled into the article and refer to compilation books. - RoyBoy 800 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the LEAD, maybe include some of the prominent characters or history behind it or something. It's too brief. Kaisershatner 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, WP:FOOTNOTEs will be needed. Outside of referencing, sections like "Other languages" need more information, or should be merged into other sections. About every single image in this article needs a fair use rationale- see WP:FUC- this is certainly pushing WP:FUC to the limit. See WP:DATE for date-linking issues, for example "May 7th, 2005" should be "May 7, 2005". Images (outside of those book covers in the tables) should have captions as per WP:WIAFA. The ToC is also pretty long, and should probably be cut down a bit. Thanks, AndyZ t 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miyamoto Musashi[edit]

The archived peer review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Miyamoto Musashi/archive1.

The concerns of the old peer review appear to have been addressed, and somewhat recently I went through and improved it enough to remove the factcheck template, and just generally improved it. Feedback would be great, because it looks like it might be FA quality. --maru (talk) contribs 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, headings should not repeat the name of an article whenever possible. Also, the word "The" at the beginning should generally be avoided.
Don't know what you are referring to. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Musashi's Way of Strategy -> Way of Strategy, since Musashi is redundant with the article title. See WP:MOS#Headings. AndyZ t
That better? --maru (talk) contribs 05:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to. One source for the majority of the article, and that's in the Reference section. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to be included, but preferably more can be added, as rising standards for featured articles require greater numbers of footnotes to fit WP:WIAFA criteria 2(c). AndyZ t
  • Avoid weasel words - right in the lead, the article states that He is believed to have been one of the most skilled swordsmen in history. - by whom is he believed to be so? Please provide a citation. Claims, "It is said"s should all have citations.
That's a bit silly. Miyamoto is one of the most famous martial artists ever, and definitely the most famous Japanese swordsman. As well cite someone saying that Jesus was an important religious leader... --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is good to be WP:NPOV. Weasel words are a big source of objections on WP:FAC. AndyZ t
I guess you are referring to using PD instead of PD-self like it should've been? Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions are not asked to readers, so questions like why Arima was there in the first place - was it to challenge Munisai, who as mentioned earlier was fairly famous adept? should be removed.
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep with the past tense (Musashi disappears from records. -> ~~ disappeared ~~)
That's fixed. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes need citations
I've fixed the only example I found. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use #: instead of a semicolon to avoid breaking a numbered list
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible untruths should have footnotes, and should also be prosified (converted to paragraph form).
  • Please alphabetize the categories and other language links.
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the &nbsp; (no-break space) between numbers and their units of measurement, as per WP:MOSNUM. Also, the units of measurements in the parentheses should use standard abbreviations (miles -> mi). Thanks, AndyZ t
  • This article finally needs a good copyedit. Some examples:
    • Also, he had a rather no-nonsense approach to fighting; with no additional frills or aesthetic considerations. - semicolon should be replaced by comma
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dorin and Musashi's uncle by marriage Tasumi both educated him in Buddhism and basic skills such as writing and reading. Comma needed before+after Tasumi, who is him referring to?
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1592, there is a suggestion that Munisai dies, is-> was
Your proposed corrrection is wrong, but I've fixed it to be clearer. --maru (talk) contribs 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AndyZ t 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As someone said above, "This article finally needs a good copyedit." Here are some points:

  1. Check links and style. Remove link to "Miyamoto, Japan" --- it doesn't need an article, and certainly not under that title. Link "Sakushū" to Mimasaka Province. Link Tajima Province. Clear up awkward constructions like "Banshu/Hyogo" (link Banshū to Harima Province, or Hyogo to the prefecture; do we need both?). Link Myoshin-ji and remove "temple." Likewise remove the "Cave" from "Reigando Cave."
  2. "Sirota" needs Wikipedia Hepburn. Macrons throughout the article where MOS-JA specifies.
  3. Check all links to see if they're direct. If they're not, change them.
  4. Look up "the war between the Toyotomis and Tokugawas" and link to it. Remove the "s" from the family names.
  5. Remove "of Mu" above the heading "Later life and death."
  6. Musashi in fiction: You have a link to the main article. Take out all but the most important and put them in the main article. The films, and the Yoshikawa novel, are more important than most of what's in the list.
  7. Bibliography: remove comma before parentheses; fix the macrons (remove where unnecessary and add where necessary). Dokkodo (#3) seems to be the same as The Way of Walking Alone (or The Way of Self-Reliance) (#5).
  8. "Anecdotes about the Deceased Mater" —— What?

Separately, is all the speculation necessary? For example, date of birth, parentage, eczema, derivation of name, crawling through dead bodies, number of duels and whether the estimate is conservative... The encyclopedia article should be about Miyamoto Musashi, with much less speculation, legend, modern fiction, and hearsay. Removing most of this would result in a stronger article. --Fg2 08:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC) and 09:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed your concerns (well, except the foreign language formatting bits, which I don't know how to do). I left in most of the speculation, since I don't think hiding the very real obscurities and uncertainties of his life does our reader a disservice- what if they come across a similarly dogmatic text which takes a different tact? From their perspective, our article appears to be lying, when it is merely differing interpretations. I did take out the dead bodies bit because that's bothered me ever since I saw it.
I'm gonna go copyedit it now. --maru (talk) contribs 06:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've improved the article quite a bit. Again, regarding speculation, I think the article would be stronger without it. Date of birth, eczema etc. The date of birth section is so detailed that it could merit a separate article. The main article could say "Main article: Birth of Miyamoto Musashi. The date of birth is conventionally given as so-and-so. It is inconsistent with such-and-such. Researchers A (citation), B (citation), and C (citation) have published theories. Amid much speculation, the actual date of birth is unknown." I don't think that does the reader a disservice; it acknowledges the inconsistency, provides suggestions for further reading, and balances the article with later sections. Fg2 12:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the section on his birth is all that long; I can read through it in a minute or three. --maru (talk) contribs 15:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earless Water Rat[edit]

I translated this from my Dutch article nl:Moncktonbeverrat. It would be nice to make it a FA here too :-), but I'd like to know what can still be improved on this article (the English, for example). Ucucha (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some initial notes:
    • The lead should be expanded to fit WP:LEAD.
    • Numbers in the metric system should also have converted values to the US system (see WP:MOSNUM). The &nbsp; should be used between numbers and their units of measurement.
    • History of discovery should be expanded, if possible.
    • I did a bit of English correcting with the article, though it could use some more.
    • Could 0+2=4 be explained more?
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your notes. I expanded the lead section and explained 0+2=4. I'm afraid I'm unable to say more about its discovery. I'll have a look at the American system in a few days. Ucucha (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a preliminary glance I have the following concerns:
    • Characters? Does this refer to Characteristics of the species?
    • Habitat, distribution and behavior needs to be expanded. Also a picture of the habitat is recommended.
    • The IUCN Red List link is broken. I did a search on their web site and could not find this species. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, characters should be changed. I fear I can't expand this section. There's simply no more information about it. This is probably already the longest text that has ever been written on the species. I'll change the Red List link. It was probably to the old Red List. Ucucha (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed there are a lot of 'red links' through out the article. Maybe the wikilinks should be removed for these or articles or at least stubs should be created for them. Also, a picture should be included to give the reader a visual representation of the Earless Water Rat. -- Underneath-it-All 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are none, as far as I know. Flannery's Mammals of New Guinea has some, but that's copyrighted.
I don't really see why there should be no red links. It doesn't have much to do with the excellence (or not-excellence) of an article itself, I think. But let's see what red links we have in fact.
I unlinked the scientists Musser, Carleton and Aplin and the book Mammal Species of the World, which are very unlikely to get an article. The Brown River, where it was first found, is apparently near to Port Moresby, but I won't be able to say more about it. Ditto about the tribes linked. Last, a lot of related rodents are linked. I think it is not really needed to give them their own article, since the article itself already states that they are other rodents related to Crossomys. I think that should be enough. If you don't think so, you can translate them from the Dutch Wikipedia, which has almost all of them. Ucucha (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at some of the other featured animals on en Wikipeida, like Island Fox and Short-beaked Echidna - they might give you some ideas on how to better organise the information so it is clear for the reader. There is no need to cite a reference like - scincedude (2005), where you are also using a system of footnotes. A phylogenetic tree may help explain the relatioships between species.--Peta 01:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What could be better organized in the article? I myself can't see anything, but I'm flawed, of course ;-).
I don't think there's a need to change these references; I think the sentences are fine as they are now; however, if you think it'd be better to put them in a different way, go ahead.
I think a phylogenetic tree would only worsen the situation, in fact. There have been about no real phylogenetic studies involving C. moncktoni. Watts & Baverstock probably was the only one. The other papers I cite were mostly phenetic. There's in fact no tree I could use. Ucucha (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas[edit]

I have been trying to improve this page by adding references for every statement made. I would appreciate any ideas about further ways to improve the page. The Singing Badger 17:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • After a quick skim, I would suggest working on those red links. There are probably a few too many. Also, since you have many inline refs to a few sources, I would suggest putting full citations in a ==References== section, and doing short inline citations a la J. R. R. Tolkien. More for neatness than any policy. - The Catfish 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, that's a much more efficient citation system; I'll work on it. The Singing Badger 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is broken into far too many sections, which increases the length of the table of contents and makes the text disjointed and more difficult to read.--Peta 05:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, "The 'second rescue'", "Smith's departure", "Nature of the relationship" is/are a bit short.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's really helpful. The Singing Badger 19:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Falls, New Hampshire[edit]

I have decided to put this article up for peer review because I know it can be expanded, I'm just not exactly sure how. So I'm putting it up here so some suggestions can be posted here. Hopefully, this will be worth it. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some expansion suggestions:

  • try to find more about town history.
  • Geography:
where in New Hampshire is it? borders anything?
climate
  • Demographics: Excellent work but try to merge some sentences together to make it look better. Right now there are alot of 1.5 line sentences. Also the population table would look better right aligned.
  • Government:
how does the town government operate?
whose the current mayor?
any concerns or controvercial, significant events by the government?
possibly talk about Political spectrum of the local governement.
  • Economy: self-explanatory and needs to be covered.
  • Education and Culture: which is also pretty self-expanatory and needs to be covered.
  • Infrastructure: possibly if significant otherwise merge into history.
  • Places of interest: Good thing to have if anything significant exists, although can be quite un-attractive in a bulletted list.

Thank you. - Tutmosis 00:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selena[edit]

Selena was a spanish singer who's life ended very short and since then she cult status in Hispanic countries. Selena is one of the best-selling hispanic artists of all-time. I know this article still needs heavy work, especially with refs and organization but I did improve it quite a bit and I'm planning to work on it to featured status. Let me place it on peer review first and I will welcome all comments to improve the article. Note I do need help copyediting the article. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the LEAD to three paragraphs, include after the first paragraph an overview of her life/career. Something like, "Born in X, she began her stage career at age X and by 19XX had achieved growing regional fame..." Also, the opening sentence has two mentions of "at the time of her death." Remove one. Kaisershatner 14:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD it's two to three paragraphs, I got two and added a quick overview of her career on it so Done.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:DATE, years without full dates should not be linked, while years with full dates should be linked. The bolding underneath early career seems a bit redundant. The categories should be alphabetized. There is a bit of weasel wording in here; for example Selena was considered one of the most popular and influential Latina musicians. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go Daddy[edit]

I would like to get this article up to snuff to become a Feature Article. Ardenn 19:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.

*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates should not be linked. Every single image in the article needs a fair use rationale - see WP:FUC. The references need WP:CITE information: see WP:CITE/ES and {{Cite web}}. Sections like "Corporate giving" are too short and should be either expanded or merged.Just see the above. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 23:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation is there for a good article but two things I would like to see expanded are:

  1. Company history, specifically its origin/foundation.
  2. Awards, specifically an explanation about why it won the awards (ie. fastest-growing in terms of what...revenue, profit, employees, capital, customers?) and what the signifacance of the award is (ie. who is giving the award...business comunity, industry review journal?). Peer Review 19:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SNK Playmore[edit]

Looking for ideas on what to expand and various other ways to improve. Manmonk 07:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Games".
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Games, Subsidiaries and related corporations is/are a bit short.

King Kong (2005 film)[edit]

  • I have worked very hard on this article, and I am overwhelmed. It desperately needs to be significently chopped up and made more useable, and I am not quite sure what is needed and what isn't. HELP! :) What keeps this from FA status? Please look especially for trimming and such. Judgesurreal777 03:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Deleted Scenes".
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • From "Origin of remake": there is a typo with the extra ]
    • And after the success no and required
    • being crushed by Kong, as the gorilla no comma is necessary
    • Fay Wray, the original Ann Darrow, was planned to appear and say the: 2 errors; was planning to, and says/said that
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 13:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forth[edit]

I think this is an excellent article and would like to move towards making it a featured article. Ideogram 09:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
Done. Ideogram 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
Done. Ideogram 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ideogram 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
Done. Ideogram 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
I don't really understand this. There are two inline external links, is this too few? Can you be more specific about what needs to be changed? Ideogram 17:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inline external links should be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs (I'll change them to the cite.php footnote system as soon as possible). After that, they should have WP:CITE information. Andy t 18:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ideogram 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
Done. Ideogram 17:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
Done Alex 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ideogram 03:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ideogram 22:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have difficulty thinking of images related to a programming language. We are trying to obtain a picture of Charles Moore, the inventor. Ideogram 17:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. We still don't have a picture of Moore, but we have some stack diagrams that help explain how the language works. Ideogram 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For other suggestions that may be applicable to this article, take a look at the list of suggestions located at User:AndyZ/PR.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 13:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the recommendations are done, I am putting this up for Featured Article Consideration. Ideogram 03:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Belong Together[edit]

This article has gone through a lot: two full FACs, and two redrawn ones. The main concerns have been over the quality of prose and the comprehensiveness. Since the last FAC, which ended over a month ago, the article has undergone major rewrites and changes, and the writers want to submit it to FAC by the end of this month. Please review it and see if anything needs improvement, and be as picky as you need to. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has obviuosly been worked on by many experienced editors so I'm not sure if I can illustrate anything the editors do not already know, but there are some notes I made:
    • Dates like "November 2004" (Writing and recording) should only be wikilinked if it provides context as it does nothing for the date preferences per WP:DATE#Partial dates.
    • What is the first quote ("L.A. was like,...") adding to the article? why a quote for this info?
    • There are a few sources listed in Notes section that are not in the References section (ie, NYT, USA Today). If these two sections are mostly repeating each other then you could combine them like this. Peer Review 04:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great suggestions; I will try to incorporate them into the article. Regarding the quote: I understand what you are saying. However, I just thought that it would sound better with a quote (it's more believable when it comes from the horse's mouth). I'll get a second opinion on that, then we'll remove/allow it. Thanks again. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you were to submit this article to FAC right now, I would be very close to supporting it. Understand that the following points are nitpicks.
    • The first sentence of Writing and recording feels like either a continuation of a previous section or conversation despite being the very first section, or like a non sequitor. Try to consider the lead section to be completely disparate from the rest of the article. The lead isn't part of the article, it's more like the dust jacket blurb. See if you can't reword the opening sentence here with that in mind.
    • In general, the tone of the writing is somewhat too informal. The lead has the propper tone, but the article is very newspaper-like, and not very encyclopedia-like. Phrases such as "She immediately became attached to..." and "...a new-found confidence that..." are a bit too chatty, and also could be seen as assuming too much. Quotes are one thing, assertions are another. How do we know that she immediately became attached to Shake it Off? How do we know she had new-found confidence? Either state it as a quote, or re-word... preferably rewording it, since the article is already quote heavy.
    • Possible opinions are stated as facts on a number of occasions, and even when you have sources for these, opinions should always be attributed in the text. This does make things difficult for an article of this nature, becuase so much of music is opinion based, not fact based. "Less is more" approach, for instance, is an opinion that should be attributed to the New York Times.
  • Things are looking very good for this article. The big thing to look out for will be people objecting on contradictory points... specifically, there will likely be some people who will object because the chart listings and album formats are there at the end in list format, and other people will object if they aren't there. Raul should be able to sort through that kind of thing though, so don't worry too much about it. Fieari 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is in pretty good shape overall.
    • The blockquote about Jermaine Dupri seems really out of place and unnecessary. Consider how difficult that will be to parse for people that don't know the context. That use of "LA" and "make magic together", for example, and then "I love Jermaine, is he free? I know he's doing a million things, Usher and this and that." -- which is perfectly sensible spoken, informal English, but isn't really encyclopedic written English. And then the only pay off is "Jermaine said, 'Come on down." Why not just say "Carey recalled being excited by the suggestion to work with Dupri again, and he proved agreeable". Though is that really very important at all? What does it illustrate?
    • Though uncommon for a pop ballad, the song is strongly influenced - this is a awkward sentence, but I can't think of an easy way to fix it.
    • It took me a little while to figure out the Tommy Mottolla wedding dressing thing.
    • Can you make the Charts section a little prettier? Maybe move the bottom bit into a separate chart on the right, beneath the graph?
  • Other than that, it seems basically ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new mammal species[edit]

Any feedback on how to improve this page would be very welcome, especially the best way to display mainly web-based references, and whether the division into taxonomic order is the best way of displaying the information. Petemella 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to be a good list, why are empty sections included - unless there is something to go in them, they should probably be <!--commented out-->.--Peta 05:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point, I put them in as a guide to other contributors where to put things, and as a guide to which classification system I was using. When I've got a spare few minutes will look to blank them out. Thanks for the input. Petemella 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All content except lead is bulleted. It would look much better in paragraph form. Also too many red wiki-links, just make them italic. - Tutmosis 00:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I prefer the bullets... I think it helps seperate each species in the list. But what does everyone else think? Fair point about the red links, I itend to stub most of the animals when I get time.
  • This is an impressive topic. Just a few thoughts,
  1. Maybe the article should be moved to New mammal species in the 21st century, to allow for articles on previous centuries (something the lead of this article alludes to).
  2. I think your divisions are fine, but is there any way the bullet points can be turned into some proper prose?
  3. I agree that something needs to be done with so many red links, but as you suggested, I'd rather see them turned into stubs.
--darkliight[πalk] 13:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. I like the idea of moving it to a more time-specific title, but I think decades rather than centuries would be preferable - a page dedicated to the 20th or 19th century would be way too long! As two people have both commented on the bullet points I'll go about trying to change them, although I do still prefer the bullets. Petemella 20:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesesteak[edit]

Looking to see if this meets FAC status. J.reed 05:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
You're welcome.

Every request above this line should have been included at the time of this message. Please note below if something was missed or if there are other suggestions. -J.reed 01:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:LEAD tells us to only summarize the contents of the article in the lead section (not provide anything that won't be further elaborated upon later on).
  • Go with a more concise first sentence, see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#The first sentence.
  • Deconstruct the sandwich in the body of the article, like in an Ingredients section.
  • Provide a history of the sandwich in a History section. (see Hamburger for inspiration)
  • Why is "Hoagie roll" capitalized? why not just a bun?
Don't know about the capitalization; but probably because the region generally calls it that. J.reed 04:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there not a more appetizing image available for the opening of the article?
Thats how they look. Looks pretty tasty to me! I'll try to take some more of the far superior Geno's when I am there next. J.reed 04:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the writing, avoid short paragraphs and sections, especially one-liners.
  • Avoid editorializing, like "Controversy abounds..." and "...cheesesteak, surprisingly, is Los Angeles." Peer Review 06:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • There are a lot of typos in the References section that need to be fixed (missing titles, extra ]s, etc.)
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Best of Philly award winners".
  • AndyZ t 13:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Significant changes occurred at this time including a majority of the above suggestions. J.reed 04:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xin (flash)[edit]

Looking for help with general Wikification of the main article and one character description -- AfroDwarf 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
The lead is one paragraph long, which is appropriate for this length of article, but I will try to revise it to better summarize the article. AfroDwarf
I checked, all artwork is copyrighted, and none under a suitable license for use on Wikipedia. AfroDwarf
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
When I get the time, I will carefully watch the episodes and cite using the style from the Final Fantasy X article. AfroDwarf
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
fixed
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Awards is/are a bit short.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon. Perhaps include reception information, critism, or praise?
To be honest I'm not even thinking about FA yet, just trying to get it up to standard enough that it won't be deleted. AfroDwarf
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing feedback. AfroDwarf 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Indians[edit]

I know the lead may need work, but what else is there? Lorty 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Whoops, some more:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • Starting randomly at 1994-2001: A new beginning, of the 1940s and 1950s; The 1989 motion picture the "The" should not be capitalized
    • era at Cleveland Municipal Stadium, 76-86, which first comma unnecessary, and era is inappropriate as it was a period of one year
    • teams newly found success - missing apostrophe in team's
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • This article might not be neutral and may be controversial in factual accuracy. Please make sure it is WP:NPOV, not WP:POV, by fixing potentially non-neutral sections and providing references to verify assertations. While it isn't extremely bad in terms of POV, there are some worrying statements like "found the light at the end of the tunnel" "hardly dampened the teams newly found success. Without losing a step", which seem a bit pro-Cleveland Indians.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akron, Ohio[edit]

Just tell me how to make Akron a better article. Chipka 18:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. For an article of this length, the lead should contain 2-3 paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Firsts".
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Sister cities is/are a bit short.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem (Mozart)[edit]

Its a good article, I think a couple of minor changes here and there on this page would be of great benefit.--GorillazFanAdam 01:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a decent article. But the "citation needed" tags need to be addressed by citations. Also some of the myths/realities need citations, such as the "Some scholars believe..." I'd have to say that the introduction is awefully brief. Perhaps it could be expanded somewhat? Possibly also the introduction could summarize what the musical piece is about? I.e. if Mozart was commisioned to produce this piece, what were the requirements? What was the music trying to express? (Sorry, I'm not classical music expert.) If the music is, as the name implies, a prayer for the departed, to whom was it intended? Finally are there any illustrations that could be added? Thank you. — RJH 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think the introduction is too short and the last clause is awkward: "not only for its music, but also its obscure composition history"
  • The "composition and completion" section needs to be broken up. I advise one broad section for the musical elements of the piece (orchestration, form, analysis) and one broad section for the historical elements (commission, composition, completions, myths). These could each be broken down in the subsections I have mentioned or otherwise.
    • The section on orchestration could include discussion of how much Mozart actually orchestrated himself
    • A bassett horn to the best of my knowledge is not a type of tenor clarinet, although they are certainly related. Try similar.
  • Citations are needed.
  • There is very little discussion of the actual music.
  • The article says "it has been given its own translation" Who translated it? Why would this translation be in anyway superior to traditional translations of the Requiem Mass. This confuses me.
  • Modern completions. A sentence or two about what makes these different would be nice. (ex. Robert Levin makes use of the aforementioned Amen fugue at the end of the Lacrymosa, etc.)
I will do what I can to help you with some of these things myself. Best wishes. =MarkBuckles 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been considerably fleshed out and I've changed the definition of basset horn to a type of alto clarinet. There is a limit to how much we can cite things; Mozart scholars tend not to publish their findings online. An unavoidable part of Wikipedia is that you take things on trust. In my opinion, the cititation tags are ugly and half of them should be purged. They're used too much, anyway: one example I came across recently was in Purcell's biography. The article said "Many people consider Purcell to be the finest English composer ever" (or something similar) and someone had put the cititation template next to it. The claim is undoubtedly true, but how on earth do you verify it by an online reference?

Anyway, enough pontificating. The article has improved immesureably recently, and while it's not ready to become a featured article, if it isn't a good article I do not know what is. (By the way, as far as we know, the Requiem was written in no one's particular memory). Thank you.Moreschi 19:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations do not need to be from online sources. Scores of books have been written specifically on this piece. These should be referenced and cited IMHO. I plan on helping with this some in the next month or so. -MarkBuckles 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3[edit]

Well, this is somewhat of a side project. After an extensive rewrite to model that of the LRT, I would like to get opinions on this article. As always, like the LRT, there's plenty of room for improvement. --Akira123323 04:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On "The MRT network" section: Normal operations resume after Black Saturday. Can usually be added betweeb operations and resume? Sometimes the MRT opens in Easter Monday. --Howard the Duck | talk, 10:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. I remember the MRT being open for Easter Sunday this year. I can change it to after Easter Sunday, like the LRT, just to be safe. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the change is done. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 11:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more pictures of the trains. -- Mithril tdd1 08:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MRT only uses one type of train, and I'm not even sure if the LRT photo ban applies to the MRT. I'll try to look into that because if it doesn't, I might want to take a better picture, but I'll check the MRT website for more pictures. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 08:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the trains look the same though, you can try taking a photo of the ad-infested trains if it is allowed. -- Mithril tdd1 12:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the trains with the wrap advertising? I might be able to take a train picture while on EDSA, so I'll try taking a picture tomorrow. Actually, I might add a line or two about the MRT's advertising. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 12:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we now have some info on the MRT's advertising, but I need to take a picture to prove it. It should be done by tomorrow, I hope. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 12:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is allowed to take photos inside the station i might also take pictures of an ad train if i encounter one on standby at Taft station. -- Mithril tdd1 16:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that can work. Actually, to make it better, how about a picture of a full MRT train? Since the trains are not completely covered in ad wrap, we can show an MRT car with advertising and one in the original livery, all in the same picture. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try if i see one, and if it fits in the shot as well. -- Mithril tdd1 17:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the full train. I sometimes see MRT trains with ad wrap either at the center car or one one of the side cars. Two cars would be fine. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to take a photo of a wrapped train today but i managed to take a photo of the interior though. -- Mithril tdd1 09:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice. I might think that if we do have a train with ad wrap, that can replace the current MRT exterior picture. But so far it's nice. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 10:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a picture i took at Taft station the other day. Maybe it should be placed on the very top of the article just like the LRT.

--Mithril Cloud 09:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (Mithril tdd1)[reply]

The picture is nice, but of course the MRT peer review ended ages ago. But, it is now a featured article candidate. Feel free to vote at the nomination page. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate (device)[edit]

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

Solar system[edit]

This article is broad and meandering, and lacks focus and structure. I was hoping that I might get some advice on how to strengthen it. Thanks Serendipodous 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article. (Here, the trivia section is pretty much the "Other facts")
  • There are some HTML problems, for example the formula and the caption for the graph are too large in terms of font.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
I've done what I can for now, and addressed many of the stylistic issues you raised. The deeper issues, such as referencing, are going to take time, particularly with an article with as broad a topic as this.
A few queries.
First, I should say that I have no idea about copyright issues for pictures, and I try to avoid them as much as possible. I simply take pictures from other articles in Wikipedia under the assumption that they are spoken for. What do I need to do?
Second, to which graph are you referring when you say their font is too large?
Third, which lists do you think I should alphabetise? There is only one category and the interlanguage links already are alphabetised.
Finally, which sections do you think are too short? It would be difficult to merge them, since they all deal with different regions of the solar system.
Thank you for your advice. Serendipodous 21:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond to your questions: Image:Gas giants large.jpg has a PD tag on it, which is obsolete; it is probably from NASA, so you can add the appropriate NASA tag to it (just check pretty much any of the other images). As for Image:Xenaandgabrielle.jpg, a fair use rationale needs to be added claiming that the image can be used on Wikipedia; take a look at WP:FUC. I alphabetized the interlanguage links; you missed quite a few. In the first graph/timeline, the caption of Scale of planetary orbits thing is appearing really large on my IE window. Sections like "Centaurs" can use a tiny bit of expansion, while other sections should be actually shorterned according to Summary style using a system of appropriate subpages. Regrads, AndyZ t 21:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system[edit]

I've made some alterations since a previous peer review; please note that the referencing system is temporary and will be made more permanent once I have settled on a format for this article that I am happy with Serendipodous 20:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, please strike this comment).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
It looks decent, but I think there are a few areas in need of some improvement. Here are a few comments:
  • I think the introduction needs to be longer. It should cover, for example, the ecliptic, briefly state the current direction and velocity of motion of the system, and describe the overall angular motion of the system. (I.e. the direction of rotation and the distribution of angular momentum. I believe the planets have 99% of the angular momentum in the system.)
  • There needs to be a section specifically on the Sun, just as there is a section for each of the planets. This needs to mention, for example, that the Sun is a Population I star and discuss it's variability, and steady increase in luminosity as it ages.
  • "orbitting" => orbiting.
  • The sentence, "By remaining out of the spiral arms, Earth may be unusually free to form large animal life on its surface." needs a source cited. Right now it sounds like speculation.
  • "If Pluto were placed close to the Sun, it would develop a tail, as comets do." Is there a reference for this? I'm a little skeptical as Pluto has a considerably stronger gravitational field than a comet.
  • Although the result is fairly recent, some coverage of the Jupiter-Saturn orbital resonance would be good in the history section[2]
  • In the "Hypothetical planets" section, please convert the bulleted list into standard prose.
  • The page is in need of inline citations that use the appropriate citation templates.
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Andy suggests, it can be improved by removing excessive links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parma, Ohio[edit]

I'd like some fresh eyes to take a look at this article to see what needs to be added and subtracted. Thanks! -- Mycroft.Holmes 19:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please move the "References" down to a ==References== section near the bottom
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Famous Parmans".

Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women[edit]

I would appreciate any comments, particularly those pointing out errors of wikipedia convention. I know the link "1" in the page body (supporting the fact that an official was sentenced to five years) isn't correctly formatted.Eh Nonymous 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point Park Civic Center[edit]

New article, looking to improve it. Please tear it apart. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for being brief, but I would like to see more external links. Computerjoe's talk 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, there are no external links I can find besides the reference that is already used which would add usefully to the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to tear it apart with a batch of minor issues:
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • One of the footnotes, the Strong one, isn't working
  • Please link the first occurrence of a dollar sign to United States dollar (like $)
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All now addressed, as far as I can tell. Let me know if I have missed something. Thanks, Christopher Parham (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Bluwstein[edit]

I've just finished merging this article with what used to be at Rachel (poet). I'd appreciate a quick go-over to make sure I didn't leave any redundancies, also please express an opinion as to whether this would make a good featured article candidate. --woggly 07:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty short for a featured article and needs considerable expansion. In the opening paragraph (the LEAD, add a paragraph giving an overview of her life and significance, something like "Born in Russia in XX, she immigrated to Palestine, where she became widely known for her poetry. Her collected works remain one of the most popular books sold in Israel." Kaisershatner 16:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a very nice merge. I was unaware of the page Rachel Bluwstein when I wrote Rachel (poet); my page is a translation of the Hebrew article, and since there was no interwiki mark there, and there was no article matching "Rachel Blubstein", I assumed the page did not exist. I made some fairly minor changes to your article; other than that, the page looks fine! --Zvika 18:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standards have been rising for featured article status. My suggestions if you wish to make WP:WIAFA:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • Rachel was born in Vyatka in Russia in Vyatka, Russia will reduce the extra "in"s
    • ubable to return to Palestine unable
    • where she worked teaching - where she worked as a teacher sounds a bit better to me
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • Rachel is considered one of the most popular and important modern Hebrew poets
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hattrick[edit]

The Hattrick article has come a long way, and we finally have a complete version of the planned structure. Many of us who contribute to this article believe that it could be one of the first FAs of its kind, but we also realize that it's very premature to be talking about such things. Here are some talking points:

  • Notability - always a problem with website articles. In my opinion there's no question of whether or not the article should exist, but there may be some sections within the article that need to be edited for notability. I'd like to hear a general idea of where the article stands in that area.
  • Verifiability - do we need more citations? Are the current citations from reputable sources and cited correctly?
  • Quality of prose - does the article need a full copy-edit, partial copy-edit, or only a few minor changes?
  • Structure - does the article have a coherent structure that is easy to follow? Is the structure logical or should it be tweaked?
  • NPOV - Does the article fail in neutrality in any areas? If so, how would the addition of a controversy section change the neutrality? Does the article read like an advertisement at all?
  • Comprehensivity - Do any sections need to be expanded? Keep in mind that the article is already 34 kb.
  • Quality of graphics - Are the images and tables provided logical and useful? Do any sections need additional images to improve the understanding of the subject?

Please add your thoughts below, and I will do my best to respond to your comments as soon as possible. I'm sure other contributors will assist as well. -DMurphy 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dunno about being the "first of its kind", take a look at WP:FA#Sport and games (by the way, some of those FAs can probably be helpful in getting this one to featured status).
    • I agree that some of those FAs can be useful in getting this article to featured status, but I also know that there is a big difference between a console-based game and a browser-based game, and this article would be the first browser-based game, and as far as I can see first website, to get FA status. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
    • Fixed. Footnote Citations was renamed References. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
    • Fixed for the most part, except for the title of the two real-life teams, which is officially FC Hattrick. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
    • Fixed, except for subheadings in some paragraphs. Do those need to go too? -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
    • After scanning through the article, I found three clear lists. I converted two of them to prose; the only list that remains is the list of types of administrators, which is necessary to distinguish between the types. -DMurphy 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
    • Fixed. Roughly five links were changed. -DMurphy 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Hattrick.png and Image:Hattrick Screen.png need(s) proper fair use rationales.
    • Added for both of them. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • Every user in Hattrick has a team of their own their->his/her (theres another occurrence in the paragraph
    • (one of four types of administrators within Hattrick) not quite a copyediting error, just noticed it while reading. I thought later in the article it said there were 5 types?
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
      • Fixed both of those, but I agree that a spelling-grammar copyedit is needed. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AndyZ t 23:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina[edit]

This article is quite good already, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones would like to know what else is missing for a potential FAC. This article is controversial, so it really needs all the eyes it can get. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the storm history as a separate article is needed. You can just merge it right into the article as it is; it shouldn't add to much to the length of the article. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Unfortunately, it would remove a few images, but the text should be fine. I think the article is probably too long, and should be cut down in places, especially the aftermath. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to cut something from that section without leaving the article with a feeling of incompleteness; however, the NGO response is unnecessary, IMO, so if something is cut, it should be that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The NGO response is significant unfortunately, if it wasnt we could get rid of the spam magnet, though maybe it can be shortened. Perhaps some govt response (the ex-presidents?) could be cut down a little?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, all the citations have to be transferred to {{cite web}} format, and to get accessdate parameters filled out. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of references here. What do we gain by moving to {{cite web}}? TimL 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is a prerequisite for FA's. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) FAC requires inline citations, and WP:CITE/ES is the recommended format. A few users may oppose a FAC for "bare diff" references. {{subst:cite web}} references don't have any problems, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing which is obviously capable of being cut down is "media involvement". All the other sections (apart from retirement) have subarticles - why not that one? If it did, that (minor) section could be trimmed. Oh and Hardy Jackson could disappear into it...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. That should cut out a few kbs. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does Hurricane Katrina media involvement work? Seems not quite right to me... On real benefit is it can be in the aftermath as opposed to being its own top level section (it only deals with aftermath coverage...). We could also do a records/naming section - I'm neutral on that.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Media involvement in Hurricane Katrina? I support something like that to trim it down some. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests the media was somehow involved in the storm itself though. Media involvement in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath? Its overly long but its more accurate.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The apostrophe looks a little weird... What about Media involvement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? That's a bit longer, but there's no problem with long titles. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done that, 8 kb to the subarticle. Both the remaining section in Katrina and the subarticle need a bit of rework for the new layout though.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me if these are already covered somewhere, but what about the Demographic effects. There should be a a daughter article Demographic effects of Hurricane Katrina ultimately, but there needs to be some mention in the main article as well. I'm from Houston originally and basically everyday the Chronicle has a story about Katrina refugees and the long-term demographic impact they are going to have on Houston and Texas. The hurricane displaced a lot of people and a lot of them decided to stay elsewhere; this has had an effect all across the U.S., not just in nearby states. Mayor Nagan's "chocolate city" comments are also relevant here. The long-term effects on the demographics of New Orleans are reported on a lot but it would be good if Wikipedia could bring them together in a single article. Not just in terms of race but also economics. A lot of land got bought up by developers etc. That's all I've got for now. savidan(talk) (e@) 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a significant amount of statistics on the main article, and I'm not entirely sure if we have enough info to make another split. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jabba the Hutt[edit]

I rewrote much of this article to emphasize the character's role outside the Star Wars universe. The majority of this article now deals with Jabba the Hutt from a real-world perspective. Most of the original article seemed to be copy and pasted from Wookieepedia and the Star Wars Databank and simply rehashed the plot of the films and books. I think to prepare the article for FAC it needs some "fresh" (non-Star Wars) eyes. Explanations of the changes I made can be found here: Talk:Jabba the Hutt. Any suggestions for improvement of the article to meet FAC standards will be appreciated. Dmoon1 05:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay a few suggestions:

  • Explain some of the Star Wars terminology (e.g., What is a b'ommar monastery?)
    • I tried to explain further, but it made the paragraph too bloated; people can just click on the interwiki link if they want to know more. Dmoon1 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sections read a little roughly/ need a little polishing
    • I assume you're talking about the "Jabba the Hutt in popular culture" section, if not, could you please give me some specific examples from other sections? Dmoon1 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literary Device and Term of Disparagement sections need work
    • Material on Dharma of Star Wars may not fit in Literary Device section, as the book is about Star Wars, Jabba is used because he is a Star Wars character, not for any particular value as a literary device.Cool3 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reorganized this section to discuss general "Usage" rather than specific instances. The Dharma of Star Wars is about Star Wars, but it explains the fictional universe's role in popular culture.
    • Thanks for the input. Dmoon1 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theres honestly not a lot to complain about, its very well written. This "Jabba the Hutt became an icon in American popular culture" though, theres no reason to believe that Jabba was any less on an icon in Australia/UK/etc..Cvene64 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally had "Western popular culture" because I suspected that, but all of my sources were American and about Americans, so to play it safe I just said America. I'll look around though, maybe I can find a reference elsewhere. Thanks for looking the article over. Dmoon1 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmm, I think you could replace it with Western without additional sources - I mean, Hasbro distributes in other western countries, the notability of parodies from South Park/Family Guy reach a similar audience share in other western countries etc. Cvene64 04:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright then, I changed it back. Dmoon1 04:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very good! I've gone through and made some relatively minor copy edits; I'm sure a more thorough pass by someone wouldn't hurt anything. Here are some specific issues I noticed:

  • Watch commas with quotations. Wikipedia usage is to place commas inside the quotes at the end of the quotation or title only if the comma is a part of the quoted material or title itself. In other words: "In the short story 'Jojo Goes to Paris', a tale of intrigue and suspense, Jojo dies." instead of "In the short story 'Jojo Goes to Paris,' a tale of intrigue and suspense, Jojo dies." Ditto for direct quotes and partial quotes.
  • Some of the Star Wars jargon could be explained briefly in appositive statements. For example, the average reader will not know what BBY stands for, or what the "Expanded Universe" is. As for the B'omarr bit discussed above, you could add a couple words to gloss over it: "Jabba the Hutt's palace on the desert planet Tatooine is a former monastery for a group of mystics known as B'omarr monks." Adds a few words, but maybe not as strange. I tried to do something similar with the rancor.
    • Fixed this somewhat. Dmoon1 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few instances where I felt a citation was needed to avoid drifting into original research territory. I have added the {{fact}} template in these spots.
    • Fixed as many of these as possible. Deleted some statements that might be original research. Dmoon1 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot synopsis for Return of the Jedi, you mix first and last names up quite a bit. Leia Organa is referred to as "Princess Leia", while Han Solo is called "Solo" throughout. It's a piece of fiction, so either is okay, but I'd be consistent on whether first or last names are used after the initial full-name introduction. So, either Organa/Skywalker/Solo or Leia/Luke/Han.
  • Is it mentioned in The Phantom Menance that Jabba is the main sponsor of the Boonta Eve Classic? If not, add a citation to this fact.
    • Mentioned on the Star Wars Databank; added citation. Dmoon1 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch the quotes when you're not really quoting anyone. For example, "big fish in a small pond" — Is this a quote of someone? If not, it's scare quotes, which should be used sparingly. Consider rephrasing if necessary. Ditto with "walking" in the A New Hope section.
    • Elaborated on the short, non-scare quotes. Tweaked scare quotes. Dmoon1 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's pushing 36 KB, so if cuts must be made, you might consider the quote from Donald D. Engen. It's not Jabba-specific, so it's arguably not suitable for the article.
  • I didn't read through the references in detail, but they seem fine. You might consider moving to a dual Notes/References format (like I used on Dixie (song)). I think it looks much cleaner, but in the end, it's just a matter of personal style.
  • There's some discussion on the talk page about the fact that there's no unified biography of Jabba. You could conceivably add one, which would open up the possibility of a daughter article, Biography of Jabba the Hutt. Your article would have maybe two or three paragraphs, with the {{main|Biography of Jabba the Hutt}} template at the top of it. That might satisfy any fans who want this article to look like the one at Wookieepedia. Then again, space is already tight, and I don't think the article needs such a section unless a massive edit war ensues. :)

The article looks very nice! You should consider an eventual Featured Article candidacy with this! — BrianSmithson 19:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: If you haven't already, check these search results from Google Books and Google Scholar. They may give a bit more critical analysis of Jabba that you can use to temper the Lucasfilm-approved sources such as the DVD commentaries and behind-the-scenes books. — BrianSmithson 23:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gone through them already.

I would change the spoiler template to something more specific. It says plot and or details follow, but it doesn't explain what movie is being spoiled. That one is usually used for a movie article or a TV show, when you are not on the movie article itself the tag should explain what movie is being spoiled. Is it just ROTJ? Or is it spoilers from the entire saga? Also, there is no endspoiler tag. A minor detail, otherwise looks very good. VegaDark 05:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese tea ceremony[edit]

Plan to nominate for FAC status, and would appreciate feedback first. The article is complete, well written and well illustrated. Exploding Boy 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: well written and well illustrated. A couple of suggestions. First, assess the need for the Japanese. Carefully consider each, and simplify when possible. Especially, when a term is a link to an article having the Japanese for the title, Japanese tea ceremony usually should not. The article Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly has good advice: " Foreign terms within the article body do not need native text if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles." You might consider including Japanese only in the certain sections, such as the title line, Equipment, and Types of ceremony. These last two are glossaries, where the Japanese is especially appropriate. Certainly, remove things like the kanji for "wind" since the kanji is unnecessary. Second, readers encounter English, Japanese script, romaji, and literal meanings of terms. Again, evaluate whether these are all necessary. Keep them where they're important; otherwise, remove them. Third, review the captions to the photos. A couple have similar glosses, with English, Japanese, and literal meanings. Some of these are repetitive and should be taken out. Simplify captions, where possible, by removing unnecessary description. See Wikipedia:Captions#Some criteria for a good caption, especially items 1 and 2. Fourth, critically evaluate whether literal meanings are desirable. In my opinion, in most cases in this article, they are not. Finally, consider removing links to things like "cloth" (there others too). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links where the authors advise that an article is over-linked if "low added-value items are linked without reason."
I already made additional comments on the article's discussion page.
Fg2 02:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Exploding Boy 05:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few things need to be improved before FAC. 1) One reference and no inline citation is not well-referenced, I am afraid 2) see also is long, try to put as many of the links in the main body, preferably dropping the section altogether 3) the entire article, but especially the second part, seems to be very light on ilinks - try to add more to every new notable term 4) 'Kaiseki ryōri' section should probably be renamed into an English title.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan and Cole Sprouse[edit]

I can't decide whether to pass the GA nomination or not because of the Biography section. I think that it should be reviewed. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 00:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks okay. I'd suggest is moving the image with Asia Argento up into the Acting Career portion. Right now it looks out of place above the filmography table. There doesn't seem to be anything about who raised them after their parents divorced. The personal life stuff is time-dependent, so it should have a date in their paragraph on interests so we know when that was relevant. Thanks. — RJH 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas hold 'em[edit]

Old Peer Review

Hello, this is the second request for peer review. The article has had several changes since the previous one. I think that its getting close to FA standard, but I would like to solicit some other opinions. Thank you very much for your time! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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.[?]
    • If a non-program agrees with this, could she suggest what might be added to make it more comprehensive? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.[?]
    • Found one instance, fixed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)
    • No infobox I know of. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • 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.
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
      • "Note that the blinds are considered "live" in the pre-flop betting round." is the only occurrence of "are considered". This is not a case of weasel words. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
      • I'll try to keep this in mind. This is case where a specific reference would be of great help. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid using contractions like: didn't.
    • Found one instance of "didn't". Fixed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
    • Found two spaces between punctuation and footnote. Removed them.--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. As a suggestion for the program, it would really help if you could point out where the offending bits are. It's very hard, for instance, to go through each and every footnote looking to see which one is before the punctuation. I suspect this wouldn't be a hard modification, although what do I know ;) I'll look through the article and find them. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Day[edit]

After doing obscene amounts of work on this article to improve it from the mess it had been, the article has recently been passed as a Good Article. Call me a masochist, but I'd really like to try and get it up to Featured Article status (or as close as possible) and so I request any comments and input from the community. One issue I'm conscious of is the need for better use of images in the main text, and I'm trying to source appropriately licensed photographs of Howie (particularly those of live performances) to fill that particular void. Any help would be very appreciated! Idp 21:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several minor issues: The web references at the bottom seem to have a lot of extraneous "]"s, which should be cleared up. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, decades and years without full dates generally should not be linked, though dates should be linked. Dates and years need 0 or 2 commas (please stay consistent, for example: In November 28, 2006 this that happened -> In November 28, 2006, this that happened) Finally, as is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, the inline citations generally appear after the punctuation mark, without a space in between. Thanks, AndyZ t 22:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to evaluate the page. I've made the changes suggested. Cheers! Idp 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin D. Roosevelt[edit]

This article has large portions of text with no attached sources. I don't trust the information without that, and I don't think anyone else should either. Please assist in adding inline sources to this article. Also, please verify the economic data and charts to make sure there is no original research. They are voting to make it a "featured article" and it is troublesome that so many are willing to feature it as such when there is such an obvious deficiency of attached sources. I don't think we should be so careless in putting our stamp of approval on something like this. RJII 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sentence on period of fastest economic growth: Underlying information on GDP from 1930 on is at the Bureau of Economic Affairs[3], and it looks like the data on growth is taken from there. It is clear that the period of FDR's first term and the period of WWII were among the periods of most rapid growth experienced in the 20th century (when the graph is pushed back, you'll see another high period of growth in the 20s as well). I haven't done an analysis to compare periods, and I suspect it depends on how you segment (e.g., if you take the 12 years of FDR and compare them to other 12 year stretches, I'll be surprised if any of them come close, but if you compare in 5 year increments or by decades you may get a different result). I also think the data shown may not be adjusted for inflation (which will greatly reduce growth in the first term period - in constant dollars it is less impressive). I also suspect that to the extent there is trustworthy data, there may be a period around the time of Jackson that would compare (pre 1837 crisis), but would be surprised if any time in the late 19th century (aka, the REAL great depresssion, aka, the gilded age) would compare because of deflation and its attendant effects (but, on an inflation adjusted basis, maybe). My conclusion: that sentance of the article is likely factually accurate but we can do better as far as adding meaningful material. The attempt to identify the period of "fastest" growth is meaningless (except to those trying to show what a great job, for example, Clinton, did - remember in reading the data that the data for the 90s is quaterly, and Clinton has some great numbers). I'll work on this as I have some time (having already done a fair bit on the article today). But the graphs are each cited to public information for their source - why would that be original research? Sam 02:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) I stand corrected - the graph on GDP is in real 2000 dollars (the left hand column of the BEA data. The graph is accurate and meaningful; I am changing the text to get rid of the comparisons to other periods, since even if accurate I do not think it is terribly informative. Sam 02:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit misleading to show GDP growth but not GDP itself? GDP recovery was very slow. With just that chart, it looks like the economy was doing great. RJII 02:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how much depth we want on economics; the article is already being criticized for being overly long. Yes, it is easier to grow a lousy GDP quickly (witness the growth rates of China and the US today - China outstrips our growth rate by a mile, but I'd much prefer the US economy to the Chinese!), but a steadily increasing rate of GDP says somethings going right. Another interesting comparison would be US growth versus growth in other major economies in the period (Germany, UK, France). But for that level of detail, I'd think about a daughter article. Lot's of people can come up with different reasons for charts being good or better to show the economy in his term - I don't know how to make others, and we'd need verbage to explain, but I'd put the raw numbers for GDP high on the list of meaningful figures. As you note below, the unemployment figures aren't necessary as meaningful as I'd like - a big problem with the raw figures, I understand, is they leave out people who have given up seeking work, and I believe this had a big impact in the 1930-34 time frame. But it would be useful to show year by year breakdown of total unemployment. The aggregates given in the text make the problem sound better than the worse years and worse than the better years. Just some thoughts. Sam 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how about the unemployment problem? If there is going to be charts, there should be one showing the massive unemployment. We need to see the negative as well as the positive. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make charts. RJII 02:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these charts do not show the context. They limit the years shown to the years during FDR's term, instead of showing the longer term trends. It's kind of meaningless visually. RJII 03:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chart is fine as long as the text has been changed (I changed it) to eliminate the comparison's to other periods; that's what didn't match. A broader range would show what you'd expect - the disaster of the crash and depression during the four years prior and rocky but solid post-war growth during Truman's term - and I'd tend to tell those stories on the pages of the relevant Presidents. Expand it by two years and you do make the point that it's hard not to look good when you're being compared to 30-32, and that may be a good point to make. I'd offer to do a chart expanding it by two years if I knew how - the data is there on the BEA's web page if someone wants to do it.Sam 03:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Note: a chart showing the same data (debt as a pct. of GNP) is included on the Herbert Hoover page for the earlier four years; I've added direct links to the discussion there. Also, it seems both charts show the period immediately around FDR's term now, and that GDP is shown (description still talks about rate of increase). I think this should address the question of these particular chart. I've made significant other changes to the FDR section at issue, which was anemic before, incorporating discussion of the increase in the tax rates and base. I've also deleted a number of unsupported sources, and see others have been adding citations. This should continue. Sam 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • All quotations should have WP:FOOTNOTEs or other forms of inline citations.
  • Comment: done. There are still other places where citations would be useful, but now all quotations are verified and cited. Sam 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
    • Comment: one pass through done, may be some strays. Sam 22:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
    • Comment: done Sam 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Administration, Cabinet, and Supreme Court Appointments 1933-1945".
    • Question: These lists appear customary on pages of U.S. Presidents. Should they stay or go?Sam 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • he is often considered among the greatest presidents.
    • Roosevelt is considered by many to be a great president
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • Comment: I've removed some weasel words, and others will show a link to a detailed article providing the support. If you see more left that are not supported, please note them. Thanks!Sam 02:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Puckett[edit]

Come on, lets get this to FA status False Prophet 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • The World Series that followed is considered by many to be the most exciting ever.
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia[edit]

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

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

AnonEMouse (squeak)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Supernature (Goldfrapp album)[edit]

I have recently added to this article about Goldfrapp's third studio album. Any suggestions on how to improve the article would be greatly appreciated, as hopefully it can be promoted to feature article status soon. -- Underneath-it-All 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood National and State Parks[edit]

It was commented that this article was one of the worst in Wikipedia a little over a month ago. Since then a complete rewrite has been performed and now I am looking for some assistance with copyediting and any enhancements that may be needed.--MONGO 02:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you have done and have given it a copyedit. There were a few places where I thought extra references would be helpful (ie it should be possible to know the number of actual earthquakes!) so I added citation requests. Overall a great job! InvictaHOG 04:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the number of quakes would be good...I've added a few references for you.--MONGO 05:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A I made the comment about how terrible the article was a month ago, , I must say you have done an absolutely phenomenal job on it! Just fix those citation requests and get this baby in for a FA nomination! PDXblazers 04:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all your Fault!:)...I meant to point this out, but help as you see fit...I actaully am waiting for someone to upload an image I still wish to add and I think, for some reason I need more details. It's still in progress.--MONGO 05:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll work to eliminate the redlined links...they at least deserve stubs--MONGO 05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that you should check the copyright tags on the images. At least one is obsolete and either the tag needs to be fixed or the pic needs to be changed. PDXblazers 02:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the image with a different one, thanks for noticing this.--MONGO 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cystic fibrosis[edit]

hmmmm this is so WEIRD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.160.254 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC) This is a former Medicine Collaboration of the Week. It's been entirely reworked and is fully referenced. We are working on obtaining more images and would appreciate it if anyone has a public domain chest x-ray of CF sitting around their hard drives! We would love to hear what everyone has to say about the article (aside from the known image paucity and current arrangement problems!). I am working on closing all red links in the next few days, as well. InvictaHOG 04:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Positives

  • Huge ammount of references.
  • Very very detailed information.
  • Information on treatment etc, very valuable information supplied.
  • Very well researched and compiled

Negatives

  • A little bit too long
  • Big bodies of text
  • Slightly difficult to read due to the mass of information supplied

Suggestions

  • Perhaps divide the article a little bit clearer
  • Reduce the ammount of information supplied and perhaps create sub articles for ex: "Treatment of CF" and "Symptoms of CF"

Nick carson 09:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! There's a lot to address here and to work on, it would seem. Is there some way to check the length of an article with certain parts excised? My past experience has been that external links and references add considerably to article length (I don't know if cite.php changes this!) and this article is actually much smaller than two other FA I've worked on (multiple sclerosis and prostate cancer) and closer to a third which had much fewer references (pneumonia)! It sounds like the structure is part of the problem from your comments on blocks of text and difficulty reading. The overall framework is taken from the medicine template and follows the goal for all medical articles. However, within each broad category there's obviously room for improvement! I'm interested in what you find to be unclear about the divisions - is it wording in titles, a need for more divisions, the order addressed, etc? Offloading subsections is something that has been used to great effect in other medical articles. However, I'm afraid, at least for the symptoms section, that the abbreviated version often left in the parent article will either be too technical or too imprecise! The reason for the overall length of the symptoms section is because of the need for lay explanations/interpretations of the symptoms (and because CF affects a lot of organs). If off-loaded, it would cut down on the length but I doubt that the replacement list of symptoms such as "bronchiectasis, recurrent pneumonia, pancreatic insufficiency, distal intestinal obstruction, etc" would really be preferable! Treatment is a much easier proposition to off-load, but I suspect that a few more subheadings might make a difference. I've made a few additions, let me know if they improve things at all! As for the amount of information - what are the particular areas that you think go overboard? As you might imagine, there's already significant truncation and abbreviation in every section. Thanks again for your input! InvictaHOG 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I redid the headings and sequencing of the symptoms section. I think it looks and reads a lot better now. Let me know what you think! InvictaHOG 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature this now. This is stunning! I would not support further forking of the content. The bodies of text are just fine (5-10 lines is fine, 15 is still acceptable). Highly referenced, very reliable and up-to-date with the latest guidelines. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant The article is fabulous. WP:FA -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is slightly overlinked which makes it more difficult to read (birth, infertility, infection, antibiotics - just in the first paragraph). The list of notable people is a bit non-standard (and includes some people that probably aren't all that notable) - could it ber merged as prose into the history section? I'm not sure if wikiroject medicine has this guideline, but it is standard practice in scientific literature to italicise gene names (non-italics for the protein). One last thing, please don't put wikilinks in section heading or bold text - they look terrible.--Peta 04:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful comments! I've delinked the bold text that I found. I am looking for a reference which italicizes CFTR. It certainly is a fairly widely used standard, but since everything that I'm looking at has it just as we do, I'm not sure if it is some exception? I'll dig further. As for the overlinking, I got about halfway through but it still needs more work. There's definitely some gratuitous double linking. As for the famous people bit, we unfortunately have this with every disease. In the past, we have spun off a separate article in list form. I think that with a disease like CF, it is actually nice to have successful people showcased because of the historically dim prognosis. II have created a new page for them. An alternative would be to discuss the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation within history or in a separate section, as several of the important people on that list were involved there. But, I think it works better this way. Thanks again, I'll work more on it later (have to go to work!) InvictaHOG 10:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all mean don't remove the notable people completely, it'd just work better if you could incorporate the listed material into the text more smoothly.--Peta 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While thearticle is impressive, I'm not for all-out gushing just yet:

  • the "Prenatal diagnosis" and "Theories about the prevalence of CF" sections look out of place, they look like they should be subsections. Also, "Theories about the prevalence of CF" is only one paragraph long, something that is shunned by the MoS.
  • Several instances of double linking within a few words due to redirects, such as "recessive gene" and "autosomal recessive", "meconium" and "meconium ileus"...
    • Similarly, a few cases of unnecessary overlinking (tobramycin, twice within 4 lines)
  • Stool is complete jargon (and is not even wikilinked). It should be replaced with something else.
  • "problems breathing" could generally do with being switch for "breathing problems"
  • Nasal polyps are mentionned twice, without any explanation as to why CF causes them.
  • "Bile secreted by the liver to aid in digestion may block the bile ducts within the liver, leading to liver damage." This sentence implies that this may happen in normal conditions. It should be made clear why this is here specific to CF.
  • The article does not explain the link with infertility.
  • The second paragaph in "diagnosis" looks vaguely out of place. The first sentence is also very poorly phrased in regard to the rest. The paragraph seems to describe tests used to monitor (not study) patients for particular complications (not symptoms).
  • Is CFTR the name of the gene or the protein? Does that protein have a specific name? Also, the gene is often referred to as "CF", and often as "CFTR", this is confusing.
  • Antibiotic resistance is referred in several instances, but not linked.
  • "The role of chronic infection in lung disease" the first2 paragraphs of this section have no refs
  • The sentence "One way in which infection has spread is by passage between different individuals with CF." comes completely out of the blue as tehre is no previous implication that these infections are contagious.
  • Image:CFTR.jpg is blown bigger than its base size. It could probably be rather easily reproduced at higher quality by a qualified wikipedian, too.
  • You might want to look into the proposed merge of ΔF508 into this article.
  • "Other methods to treat lung disease" section appears to discuss preventive treatment (against mucus thickening) and symptom relief (breathing problems) rather than treatment of the diseases themselves (pneumonia)
  • "may be managed more conservatively" ???
  • What is "lung exercise tolerance"
  • As trivial as it may sound, I'd like to see a cite for "several clinical trials [of gene therapy] have been initiated"
  • Maybe expand some on the most frequent cause of death in individuals wit CF, since CF does not appear to requently kill the patients itself?
  • Consider reformatting the two notes containing bare URLs. Personally, I like {{cite web}}
  • It'd be nice to have a comparisons with "normal" stats for the 191 pregnancy number.
  • "However, testing, as of 2006, is recommended for couples who have a personal or close family history of CF as well as couples at high risk because of their ethnicity such as those with Northern European or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry." This sentence is poorly constructed, and the purpose of "however" is unclear.
  • A few refs needs to be moved after punctuation per WP:FN style.

There. Hope you can forgive my rather extensive pickiness.Circeus 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input! I'll work on these things over the weekend (finally finishing up a stretch on service) and hope to fix them to your liking! InvictaHOG 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the thorough reading - close attention such as yours is absolutely required to make a great article. I have addressed the bulk of your points and the article has definitely improved as a result. I plan to self-resize the image when I am back home on my own computer. I also prefer to keep the referencing system standardized and think it's nice to leave off a separate system such as cite web - I am not currently planning on introducing a separate system unless there is a unified call or guideline available.
A few other points I'm going to need clarification on, however. The stats for "normal" pregnancy is confusing - do you want the total number of prenancies in the US, among "of age" women, etc? The CF stat is not one which is meant to be compared - it is simply there to show that there are non-trivial numbers of women with CF who are pregnant in a random year. Comparison wouldn't seem to give that more clarity. The bile duct blockage sentence does not imply that it happens normally to me - in fact, it is always abnormal. I think that, taken in concert with the prior sentence, more detail is not necessary but let me know what you feel is unclear. As for infertility, how CF leads to infertility is well described in the section on infertility - let me know what it is that is missing. ΔF508 is a separate page and, personally, I believe that it deserves its own page. It should be merged with CFTR and not CF, in any event. I have reviewed a lot of literature about the CFTR gene and protein - I do not know why it deviates from convention, but CFTR seems to. I have not found italicized gene names and the protein name seems to be the same as the gene name in every database and paper I pull. I believe that every instance of CFTR in the article is clear as to the product being referred to. I've tried to prevent your reading of "lung function and exercise tolerance" as "lung exercise tolerance" by linking exercise tolerance (without the lung!). As for the point about CF killing patients - I would hold that people with CF die of CF (unless they die of something like a car accident!). It doesn't matter if it's because of lung disease, heart failure, liver failure, kidney failure, complications of diabetes, etc. The root cause is CF and, just like the mantra "AIDS doesn't kill people," attempts to separate out cause and effect don't make much sense...let me know what you think. Thanks again for your close attention! InvictaHOG 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, some of my points resolved out of themselves(the merge I remove mentions of form the article since it hasn't been discused in months and was forgotten) or might not have compeltely appropriate(true, there is no sense incomparing the 191 pregnancy number).
  • You might to have a good look at User:Ekem restructuration of the article, though. They split the "prenatal diagnostic" in several overly short sections and shortened the elad, amongst other changes that might play against you at WP:FAC.
  • I converted the two web references myself. I do think they look better that way.
  • That's it! Circeus 01:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol[edit]

I would like to know what people think of this article, and how it could be improved. I have done some minor edits, but most of the work is done by other users. I also would like to know if it could possibly have a chance of becoming a featured article. Thanks. PlatformerMastah 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Controversy".
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Spin-offs produced by same company, Album sales is/are a bit short.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 13:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Imitations produced by other companies" title seems POV to me and the prose is choppy and basically a collection of trivia - suggest either tablizing or merging together and making into prose. RN 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin[edit]

I recently cleaned up most of the article, and I just wanted to get another editor's eye on it. Tell me also what you think is the best way to expand this article. I'd really like to make this a featured article, it seems like one of those topics that should be really easy to do because it's so broad. By the way, apparently there was already a Wikipedia:Good articles review of this article before I got there, so take a look at that on the talk page. J. Finkelstein 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall, I would say that the article focuses too heavily on the actual practice of using Latin, i.e. details of verb conjugation. It needs much more on the development of the language and its role in history and the present day. Take a look at Aramaic language for an article that I would say is better balanced for an encyclopedia article. Further, a short explanation of Latin pronunciation; this is more important that explaining grammar constructions.
  • Also, when you outline the noun declensions, you say that, e.g. "[it contains] mostly masculine words like 'wave' (fluctus, fluctūs masc.) and 'port' (portus, portūs masc.)" It should be made clear what makes these words "like" (other than the fact that they are in fourth declension) or it should be phrased as "It includes the masculine words 'wave' and 'port.'" Right now it implies a similarity that is not clear.
  • Also, if you want to get the article featured you'll need inline citations. On the whole though, great job, the article looks pretty solid. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations are needed for statements like "...almost no native ones..." in para 2 of the introduction. Where can one find a native Latin speaker today? I'd like to read more about that.
  • Detailed discussion of declensions should be moved to the Latin declension article - it just clutters things here. It is sufficient to say that declensions exist and that they are broad classes of nouns with similar inflectional patterns. If the reader wants details, he'll go to the main article.
  • The complete parsing of laudo should be moved to the Latin conjugation article. Again, it breaks up the flow of the main article -- if the reader wants the details, he'll seek them out.
  • I think the debate over the naming of this article should be revived. Latin has just as many meanings in English as Greek, and it is not clear that the Latin language is the primary definition. This article belongs at Latin language just like every other language article on Wikipedia; Latin should be a disambiguation page, just like Greek. --Jpbrenna 17:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>. - all I can find is one non-functioning footnote.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • Although now widely considered an extinct language
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.

Ray of Light[edit]

I have recently added to and expanded the article about this excellent Madonna album. I'm looking for any suggestions on how to improve the article, as I hope to nominate it for good article status in the near future. -- Underneath-it-All 02:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • with many critics complimenting the album's blend of pop and electronic music
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • Numbers like those under "Cerifications and sales" should have citations.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • generally positive; with many critics complimenting - semicolon should be replaced with comma
    • "had a "Take a Bow"- the inside "s should be changed to 's.
    • Los Angeles, California in 1997 comma missing after California
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • I can't seem to find the quote covered by the first footnote in the reference provided.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I went through and have adressed many of the issues. I will go through the article again to look for other spelling and grammer errors, as well as weasel words. -- Underneath-it-All 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering[edit]

Call me crazy, but I think it's almost time for FAC with this little article. I think I've pretty much exhausted all of the available sources, so I don't think there's much I can do to make it longer, unless people want me to add insignificant details about professors or individual labs. What do you think? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're completely crazy ;). Well, as the article is a bit on the short side, I only have a couple of minor comments to make (which should take less than a minute to fix):
  • After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all. (I believe the only example would be who in 2005 served)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • If possible though, please see if it can be expanded any more.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. However, re the commas, do you want that sentence to read, "who, in 2005, served"? Seems like overkill to me. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it could be rephrased to be "In 2005, the 25 faculty members of the department served a total of 127 graduate and 345 undergraduate students", but really I don't think it is too big of a deal. I also just noted that WP:WIAFA 3(c) calls for a "a substantial" ToC - I don't know if there is a strict definition for how long a ToC should be, but this one is a bit on the short side. AndyZ t 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's a "strict" definition, but I expect that people will understand that short articles require short TOCs. That said, this will certainly be one of the shortest articles put up as an FAC in recent times. Things might get dicey, if history is any guide. However, I did some poking around on the website, and found some more stuff that might be worth including about the students—the department's study abroad programs, and the student organizations that exist. Hopefully I'll be able to get a two paragraph section out of that... --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nunavut[edit]

I want this article to eventually becom featured. I may have a long way to go. Maybe not. Whatever the case, I need to know what else to improve it. 11kowrom 16:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it is not a state, I think you might benefit by changing this article to conform to guidelines at WP:STATE.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, "People" is/are a bit short.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • The article also needs a bit of cleanup; for example, it isn't acceptable to have "10 Largest Municipalities by population" and "Alternative map from Nunavut Government website (shows regions)" just right in the middle of the article (incorporate the former into the table, and the latter into the external links section)
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sundew[edit]

In mid-April I began a major revamping of this article, largly through the translation of the German sundew article. I'd like to know of any ways in which this article could be improved, possibly for nomination of FA status in the future. Please ignore the red links which refer to species, these species pages are all coming sooner or later. Thanks! --NoahElhardt 15:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
    • Does one list make an article list-weighty?
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
    • Fixed.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
    • Fixed.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
    • Fixed.
  • There is a bit overwikication at certain parts; some words are linked and then linked again in the section: for example, m, Lamina (which by the way is a disambiguation page, could you please pipe it to the proper page?), Africa, Australia, etc.
    • Fixed.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
    • Fixed. (Changed "Citations" to "Notes")
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank-you for looking over the article! I corrected each problem as listed above. --NoahElhardt 20:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine psychology[edit]

I would really like this article to be a 'featured article' in Wikipedia. This is a fairly new subject that all Filipinos, as well as other people with an interest in the Philippines, should be familiar with. Matthewprc 12:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC) User:Matthewprc[reply]

  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • Sikolohiyang Pilipino, in Filipino excessive comma
    • Philippine Psychology capitalization error
    • to a more wider perspective more wide or (just) wider
    • National Organization of Filipino Psychology, in English, again excessive comma before in
    • on 1975 in 1975
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • regarded by many as the Father of Philippine Psychology.
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud[edit]

Much has been added to the article since the comments below were made a few years ago. I don't know if it's enough for featured article status, but maybe for 'good article' or B class. A peer review is definitely long overdue. --ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 23:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this article to become a featured article. A peer review would do this. Also, it's an important article for any scientists/schools/colleges to read. --☁SX 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a fair bit of work. The section on cloud types should be converted to prose, more information should be added to the sections at the end, and inline citations need to be put in for this to go through FAC. I'm not sure about comprehensivity of the article as a whole--it seems to me that a substantial amount of information about the creation and significance of the different types of clouds could be added, for a start. --RobthTalk 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.

Becky[edit]

This page represents a lot of the articles that I've been making related to owarai in the last few months, and in order to create some sort of bar that I could rate the quality of the rest of the articles that I am creating against, I put this one up for review. Becky is a half British/Japanese entertainer in Japan, which makes for an interesting Wikipedia article. I tried to avoid writing a "profile", or advertising her as an "idol" (she's more like a comedian than anything). It's a pretty short article, any longer and it would probably be filled with paparazzi stuff, and I obviously don't want to pry into anyones private life. Anybody see any way that I can improve this article?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  08:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are shot-in-the-dark suggestions:

  1. Maybe a disambig at big at the top of the article due to the common name?
  2. "She held a dual (British and Japanese) passport until she turned 20, at which time she resolved to hold a single Japanese passport, as is required by Japanese law" - I'm not sure why this is needed, it might look like fancruft to some - maybe merge it with the other sentence....
  3. When you cite her real name, be sure to provide an inline cite for it
  4. Maybe "debut" should be "debuted"
  5. "Now showing" seems kind of off for an encyclopedia article
  6. In general needs references - maybe a tad bit of expansion too if possible
  7. People at FAC often frown on list-y sections, a.k.a. Now Showing and Discography (you can look to Maria Carey or Celine Dion for guidence here and elsewhere) - I think you might be able to turn Now Showing into prose with some work...
  8. "One of many Becky fan sites" probably should be more descriptive - I'd just use the url if nothing else suffices :).

RN 09:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I've referenced her real name, but since I got most of the other information off of Japanese wiki and her official profile, I'm not sure if I should include any more reference points. I wish I could expand her appearances into some sort of prose, but I honestly don't know anything other than whats on those lists. I'm not really going for FA anyways : P. Can you think of anything other than Now showing? I've used that phrase more than once for performers on TV.
About the reference to her passport, it links to a bigger issue, so I thought it was important. Japan has a strange law that doesn't allow dual citizenship (unlike almost any other developed country) and a lot of children of mixed parentage have to make very difficult decisions when they get older as to where they want to live for the rest of their life.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • All quotations should have WP:FOOTNOTEs or other forms of inline citations.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article. - specifically the reference to the passport- please move it to another section.

Taylor Hicks[edit]

  • I couldn't believe it myself, but I watched American Idol more regularly this year than I ever have before, and I grew to like not one but two of the contestants. I generally find them too poppish, but this year both Chris Daughtry and Taylor Hicks caught my fancy. Hicks just won Idol the other night, I've cleaned up the references and the formatting of the article (which itself has the right balance of content IMO), and I'd like to take any suggestions from the general population! Thanks! Staxringold 22:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • With his win Hicks (at 29) became the oldest person to win American Idol, only the second male to win the contest (after Ruben Studdard), and is the only man (as of Season 5) to win the contest against a woman in the finale, and he also the first and only white male to win American Idol and the 5th Southerner to win American Idol - run-on, comma should be after "his win", excessive "and"s
    • exclaiming "Soul Patrol! comma missing after exclaiming, same with next sentence
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for the quick notes! I've dealt with everything you mentioned here, and a more thorough copyedit would always be appreciated. Staxringold 23:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

This article has made great strides in the last 6 months. It has gone from a virtually unreferenced POV edit war to a fairly stable, interesting article, and it has gained many references in the meantime. Having worked closely on it, it would be interesting to get some outside perspectives on how I can make this article great. I look forward to responding to any comments made here, and I will be monitoring this review closely for everyone's comments. I thank you in advance for your criticisms. joshbuddytalk 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've posted some feedback on the article's talk page. BenC7

Jimi Hendrix[edit]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.138.176.51 (talk • contribs) . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zigthis (talk • contribs) .

FAC nomination

  • I think that more WP:FOOTNOTEs would be helpful. Also, the ToC is way too large, and should be shortened a bit. The ordering should be fixed up; for example, "Drug use" comes way after "Death". Please also alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links. Thanks, AndyZ t 20:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems very well written, though I must agree with AndyZ. Some of the categories could be broken down into each other to shorten the table of contents. Some of them also need to be re-ordered. My biggest issue, though, is that for an article of such a massive size, there are not nearly enough references/footnotes. Also, even as a Hendrix fan myself, I can see that this article is in need of some neutral point-of-view rewriting in some sections, such as Impact. ♠ SG →Talk 23:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks extremely well written, there's depth and insight into his life and there hasn't been review into this article for a long time. This article really needs to be a FA, especially since it's about someone of such caliber as Jimi.
  • FWIW, I've been researching the subject and editing the article in earnest since November 2012 and I intend to take the article to FAC by the end of this year. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria[edit]

I believe the article is comprehensive, well-written and well-structured (it was written by the Bulgarian University of Michigan byzantologist Ian Mladjov), so I decided to take it here. I'd particularly like to know if the lead section is not too long and if it is, to what extent should it be shortened. The article also certainly needs some more references. Could someone suggest any other good sources and help with inline citations (if they are really needed)? Another thing, is the length of the article sufficient (today's featured article "James II of England" doesn't seem to be much longer if we exclude the enormous "Issue" section). Thanks in advance! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More references were added by the author. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 15:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here. (date of access, ISBN numbers, etc. - check out {{Cite book}}.)
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. For an article of this length, the lead should contain 1-2 paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • and Maria (Eirene), daughter of Andronikos III was planned comma missing after III
    • This peaceful turnover constitutes the last major success I could be wrong, but shouldn't constitutes be in the past tense?
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andy! References now use {{cite book}}, the intro has been shortened a bit (is it sufficient?), some copyediting has been done and the dates' links have been removed, footnotes have been added (is it OK this way?). Any further suggestions? Todor Bozhinov  → 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therion (band)[edit]

In my opinion, this is a great featured article candidate, but it needs some improvements. Visor 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Other".
  • In response to Andy's point about dates in articles: this task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tent pegging[edit]

I should be grateful for your constructive criticisms of my article on tent pegging. In particular, I should be interested to receive views on whether I have adequately described the distinction between tent pegging as a specific game and tent pegging as a class of sports. - Tilting 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My general impression is, that while the page looks decent, it seems overly brief. I'm sure there is more content that could be added that would be of interest to a visitor. Also it is in need of incline citations and there are a number of terms that could be wiki-linked. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I have added more wiki links and created footnotes to verify the more important pieces of information. - Tilting 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albertosaurus[edit]

Another dinosaur article here. This one is pretty well fleshed out and I do plan on having it become an FAC but I think it could probably use a little tune-up first (at least). I would like to hear your ideas on how to make the article more readable. Also, if there are any concepts presented that could be better explained, please say so. Thank you! Sheep81 09:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I will try to find some. Sheep81 19:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added two pictures to the article just now. Sheep81 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article goes on for some length explaining about Albertosaurus and other tyrannosaurs, without even briefly explaining what a tyrannosaur is, until the 'classification' section 1/3 down. A brief note, saying something like "...tyrannosaurs, which were..." might be in order.
  • The pictures are nice. I like how one is just a photo of the area where the fossils have been found. Neat touch.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to work more info about tyrannosaurs into the lead. Sheep81 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As all concerns were addressed as best I can tell, the article has now been sent to FAC. Please comment there if you wish. Thank you! Sheep81 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ribonucleotide reductase[edit]

Wonderful peer reviewed thesis work

Peter J. Kos 04:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new reviw: M. Bennati, F. Lendzian, M. Schmittel, H. Zipse "Spectroscopic and Theoretical Approaches for Studying Radical Reactions in Ribonucleotide Reductase (review)" Biol. Chem. 2005, 386, 1007 - 1022. Should also be in. The article is a little to much on the biochemists side, and a little bit hard to read.--Stone 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why is it so special? The Abstraction of the non acidc hydrogen from the carbon is a hard task. The easiest hydrogen to abstract would be at the oxygen. The radical reactions have to be done shielded from the sourounding medium because water and oxygen would end the reaction....-Stone 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy text blocks, Batman! I wouldn't normally say an encyclopedia article has too much information, but... this has way too much information. It really looks like you just copied your thesis intro chapter wholesale, which makes it good scholarship but confusing to a general audience. Solidly referenced for the most part, but in need of significant rewriting to make it accessible to non-experts (and why would an expert be looking it up on Wikipedia?) Specifically:

  • There are no wikilinks after the lead. Not everyone reading this article will know off the top of their heads what a disulfide bond is, or what NADPH looks like, etc.
  • There's a ton of jargon. Again, non-experts don't know that dNTP = deoxyribonucleotide, and don't appreciate the dNTP/NTP distinction.
  • The illustrations are too large and rather difficult to follow. The captions are awkwardly formatted and very long. At one point it looks like there was an image depicting the reaction pathway in this article - was it removed for copyright reasons or just left by the wayside? In any case, it or something like it should come back.
  • There's entirely too much detail in text about the structure, and no picture of the protein! It looks like the PDB has a wide variety of structures to choose from, though I don't see a structure of the complex.
  • Minor bits of unnecessary detail like the residue number of the reactive tyrosine in different species should go. Same with the residue numbers of the electron transfer pathway.
  • Consider converting the references to a footnote style. Parenthetical citations just make already long text blocks look longer.

Lastly, a content question - I don't believe RNR is the only enzyme that uses a radical-dependent mechanism. Cytochrome c oxidase and chlorophyllide a oxygenase come to mind, I'm sure there are others. Opabinia regalis 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tikal the Echidna[edit]

1st peer review

I'm striving for featured article status, so what do you think can be done to improve the article? --71.105.12.115 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me - well done. Perhaps expand "personality" just a tiny little bit if possible. RN 05:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider converting the refs to the WP:FN system (see also User:Cyde/Ref converter)
    • Note also that references should go directly after puncuation, and never should be preceded by a space
  • It might be an idea to reduce the resolution of Image:Tikalx.jpg.
  • FA will probably protest the short paragraphs in "personality"
  • Try to reduce multiple links to the same article. A given article should not be linked more than once.
  • While at it, you might want to adjust links that point to disambiguation pages (such as Archie)
  • Have you looked at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check_your_fiction? Itmight provide useful hints
  • Circeus 05:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to fix those problems. Are there any other suggestions? --71.105.10.216 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Voice actresses".
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Voice actresses is/are a bit short.
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. For an article of this length, the lead should contain 2-3 paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • Starting randomly at Personality, has tried to stop her father in amicable ways and have never once have->has
    • In the cartoon, Sonic X, first comma unnecessary
    • also acts similar to her game -> similarly
    • Constrastly to the game, however Contrastly isn't a word
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to fix it. Is there any other advice? --71.118.84.247 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every paragraph should have a citation. --Hetar 05:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that would be a bit strict; every section should have a citation if possible, but every paragraph may be a bit extreme, depending upon the nature of the article. AndyZ t 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I saw a featured article have four references before (Tikal's article has five)...unless that's not a citation...Anyhow I put references in the right place, reduced multiple links in the same article, adjusted disambiguation pages, expanded sections, merged short sections, alphabetized categories, and copyedited. Unfortunately, I can't reduce the resolution of the Sonic X image or make the Sonic Pinball Party picture any larger. I'm sorry! But that won't stop it from becoming a featured article, would it? --71.104.188.113 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what other improvements can I make to the article? --71.104.189.245 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really would like to have the article reach featured status - I've been working hard to improve it. So how else can this article be improved? --71.118.80.60 18:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckham[edit]

I'd like to put this on FAC, so I'd like to hear any reasons people would have for opposing if it was on there so I can get things fixed beforehand. I'm aware that a free or fair use image is needed to replace the one at the top of the page, but is there anything else that needs doing? CTOAGN (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for starters IMO he needs a list of the honours he's won and a statistical season by season breakdown, probably in the form of a table. As a footballer, there's suprisingly little detail of his 10 year plus career... aLii 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh and the References/notes sections need sorting out. As it stands the References are actually a bibliography and the notes are actually (mostly) references. I had corrected this once before, but I guess you changed it all back. For the record I didn't delete any sources as you claim in the talk page, I merely reorganised them slightly. Also you don't seem to understand what references are. aLii 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 21:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the images is unsourced and going to be deleted, another's licence looks doubtful. Conscious 06:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor note, it'd be nice to fill the 'pcupdate' parameter in the infobox. Conscious 06:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no major issues. One or two minor things:

  • Subsection headers are overused, as several of them are only one or two paragraphs.
  • " played in centre-midfield for the UEFA Champions League final as United's first choice centre-midfielders were suspended for the match." A picky one, but it doesn't mention anywhere above that Beckham usually played on the right. I tried changing it, but succeeded only in breaking the flow of the sentence.
  • The quotations probably belong on Wikiquote rather than here.
  • There's a couple of places where I don't neccessarily agree with the wording, but my POV on issues relating to Beckham's former club is well documented :) Oldelpaso 11:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Rankings[edit]

I have been working a lot on this article, and I don't know what sort of level it is at at the moment, I'd like to eventually see it got to FA status, but that may be a while, I don't know, so basically, it would be nice to hear how the article can be imporved, or what is wrong with it at the moment. Admittadly alot of the information is from the same source (FIFA surprisingly) but there aren't really any other sources for information on this topic. So, lets hear your comments on the article! Philc TECI 14:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:
  • The lead should give a summary of the article as a whole, not just an introduction. See WP:LEAD.
  • The History section is very short, whereas the method of caclulation is long and detailed, which seems disproportionate. Perhaps some content from the latter can be moved into the former.
  • The article looks potentially bewildering for those who do not have an in-depth knowledge of the sport. Perhaps some of the articles about voting systems could be of use in terms of giving ideas for the method of presentation.
  • Whilst I realise most of the article is based on FIFA sources, 2 citations seems a low number considering the length of article. For example the lead says "The rankings obtained are, unsurprisingly, the subject of considerable debate." Among whom? If that is the case then other sources ought be available and should be cited.
  • "introduced a ranking system for senior national teams after calls for a system that gives a fair comparison of the relative strengths of national teams". Who called for the system? What were the reasons for such claims?
  • I'd have to look more closely to be sure, but it looks as though the Comparison with Elo ratings is written from a pro-Elo POV.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the pointers, curiously to the point you made about the "The rankings obtained are, unsurprisingly, the subject of considerable debate." quote, there is a debate on this very subject on the talk page! though I'll look for some reputable sources and if there aren't any I'll remove it. When you say some of the information could be moved from the calculation section to the history section, what sort of information? And seeing as most of the crticism in comparison is accurate, how do I balance it to a NPOV, as you are right, it is Pro-Elo, but as far as I can see it is also accurate, so I don't know. Well thanks for the feedback. Philc TECI 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By moving information from the calculation section to the history section, I mean things like a brief description of what the judgement criteria are, e.g. adding "When the rankings were first introduced the criteria were A B C.... The changes introduced in 1999 were D E F". This sort of information seems a little buried when put below the examples. Perhaps it'll be clearer what I mean if I make a couple of changes myself.
  • To be honest the whole examples section looks over complicated - I struggled to follow it and I have some knowledge about the subject, a reader unfamilar with the principles would have real trouble. Its not at all clear why each team scores the number of points it does. Why are 3-1 and 2-2 results used when 1-0 and 1-1 would be much simpler? This and the B and C pre-tournament scores look chosen specifically to make the Elo method look preferable. Oldelpaso 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The examples used were used because they were the ones on the FIFA website, they are still in the same table format as they were there, I'll see if I can re-organize them to make them more understandable. With the comparison I have now also highlighted the weakness with the Elo Ratings, and the scores chosen were chosen because with only three matches, I had to make something pretty substantial happen (i.e. the weakest team beat the strongest) for there to be anything worth comparing, now that you know my motives, do you still disagree with the scores selected? Regarding your other point, I will try to do that right away. I have re-organised the lead paragraph aswell, I think it conforms, though since you highlighted the issue, it's probably best if you are satidfied with the new one. Thank you for your feedback, It really helps. Philc TECI 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead now looks a lot better. Oldelpaso 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've satisfied everything you mentioned, say if I've missed something. How far off FA do you think the article is? Philc TECI 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there's a fair way to go. The only source cited is FIFA, as alluded to below. There must be people other than FIFA who have written about the world rankings. If the rankings are "the subject of considerable debate", the matters of debate should be mentioned in the article. Are the rankings used in any way (such as tournament seeding) or are they just a statistical curiosity? Coverage of the mechanics of the ranking system is comprehensive, but coverage of other aspects is not comprehensive yet. Oldelpaso 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, of course, the uses of the ranking. What sort of thing should I use to cite the issure of debate, as I take it people arguing on some blog site isn't good enough. Philc TECI 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, do you by any chance know what the rankings are used for? Philc TECI 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are used at least to determine which teams have byes to the second round of World Cup qualification in Africa (and possibly North America and Oceania, not sure about these). Conscious 10:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be the one to mention this since 98 percent of articles receive this complaint but it will come up eventually, is it possible to get more references? - Tutmosis 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh sure, pretty much All the information came from the FIFA site, so it won't take long to find it again and cite it, but I never know what to cite. Or do you mean more information from different sources? Philc TECI 11:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may make more sense to have more inline references, i.e. footnotes after most important facts (referencing to a specific page of regulations, for example). Conscious 10:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand as I have never heard the term inline references, but most of the references do go to a specific page on a report/rules&regulations/etc. Philc TECI 10:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone's noticed already, but sometehing has gone horribly wrong with this article .... big blocks of text are just repeated over and over and random sentences appear in fragments .... 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd better check your browser, all is fine to me. Philc TECI 09:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage (The Incredibles)[edit]

I'm striving for featured article status. Is there anything wrong with the article? --71.105.11.148 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to fix it. So is there any other other suggestions? --71.105.15.11 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to create a in pouplar culture section, like how important was this character in pouplar culture, etc. Please look at the Bulbasaur article as a example. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try, but I have to admit that some featured articles don't have popular culture sections. So is there any other improvements? --71.118.76.132 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alkane[edit]

I think this article could be considered good, but some parts may be a bit technical. The intro could use some work, and we need a good image at the top. The article is very extensive, and with a bit of work, could get up to FA quality. It explains many of the aspects of this type of hydrocarbon. TheKillerAngel 19:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like the content is there for it to be featured but two things jump out at needing attention.
  1. Format: the TOC is really long (a screen and a half on my browser). Work on reducing the number of sub-sections (and especially sub-sub-sections). Consider how the information is presented to the reader. I think the Isomerism section is an odd way to start the body. I would go with either Properties or Nomenclature...something that establishes the context of what this thing is and preferably has some good images (like what it looks like). Look at some similar articles to see how they are laid out. Also, you may want to notify some of the participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry or Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals that this is up for review as they would probably have valuable input.
  2. References: there is currently only one reference. Where can all this information be fact-checked? Can a few general organic chem textbooks be listed? any online general chem websites? Peer Review 05:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was reviewing this for WP:GAN and although I did like it generally, I hesitated to promote it because there is only one reference, and that's for a very specific aspect. If WP:FAC is also being considered, I think it would need more specific refs on things like alkanes in nature, etc. Some parts were apparently translated from the German featured article - could the translator also include the relevant refs from that (there are six), preferably as inline refs (unlike the de page)? I don't feel comfortable adding these, as I didn't write the article. Walkerma 03:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loung Ung[edit]

This article may or may not be acceptable in its present form. A peer review would be appreciated --RogerK 05:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • Can a level two heading ==Biography== or something like that be used to make the ToC hierarchal?
  • After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Thanks for your help, Andy and Mel. I'll address your changes first, Mel. Loung is an activist for human rights in many countries. Although she is Cambodian, her present home is not Cambodia (except in her heart, lol). The map should be large enough to be read clearly for reference purposes, because the subject of this article and her books are discussed in classrooms in several countries by students of various ages. I slightly increased the size of the other two images also, just because they seemed a bit too small to me. Thanks for the re-formatting.
Andy, I fixed the missing footnote link. As to the lead, perhaps her writings can be placed under another heading. The info box thing is not what I want; I never intended this to be a biography. Just an article about the person and who she is. I'll check CITE to try to improve the article, but your note about "ToC hierarchal" is something I know nothing about.
Alphabetization of categories has been accomplished by someone. As for interlanguage links, I didn't know that it existed, lol. So I'll check it out. --RogerK 02:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, addressed infobox, long lead, level two heading and ToC hierarchal. Will get to the rest soon. --RogerK 00:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In no particular order:

  1. The notice at the top is something I've not seen anywhere else in the WP. I haven't taken the time to look, but does the MOS: WP:DATE address this? The current notice seems obtrusive.
  2. Blockquotes, whether indented using html or the wikicode ':', don't get any quotation marks.
  3. Is she the national spokesperson in affiliation with the VVAF, or is the International Campaign in affiliation with the VVAF? The sentence is confusing and should be rewritten.
  4. Still don't care for "bustling" :) but will understand if you leave it there...
  5. My "pet rock" — use of passive throughout.
  6. In the section headed by: Education in the United States; "one bedroomed" → "one bedroom"

Very quickly done, hope this helps. --Easter Monkey 16:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, addressed (1) obtrusive notice, (2) blockquotes or otherwise indented quotes, (3) affiliation ambiguity, and (6) "one bedroomed" (not my phrase; Mel's). I'm content with (5) "bustling", lol, as are many other Wikipedians (just a poke in your ribs, :)). As for (5) passive voice, I'll get to it soon. Thanks for your review my friend. --RogerK 00:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savanna Theory[edit]

Need input as to whether this is actually NPOV, since it seems to be advocating a fringe scientific theory Silas Snider (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article. The history and actual theory should have their own sections.
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • Considering that the first subsection is ==Problems with the theory==, I would say it's not NPOV. As suggested above, the history and substance of the theory should be the first couple of sections. Then say why some people disagree. I would also rename ==Problems== to ==Criticisms of the theory==.
  • 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. The ==Problems== section should avoid using the passive voice and say specifically who objects to what (with references and possibly inline citations).
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
  • Hope that helps - The Catfish 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this review made possible by AndyZ's templates

Eldest[edit]

This has been suggested to be put under peer review to organize what info there is in the article. The WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy will hopefully put this up for FAC when a little better written. There are no specifics on what to be suggested here; just anything that will help. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 00:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more references to each of the press releases and reviews. As for the plot synopsis, I'll improve on that with references (I had originally written it :) Also, the characters section needs to be reorganized; it doesn't look too good or appealing, maybe an infobox?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely needs more references. :) Also, the introduction needs to be much longer; other FAs have intros that are sometimes three and four large paragraphs in length. Also, is all the information about publication in other countries necessary? « Amina . skywalker (¿Hábleme?) 13:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. (it should be 2-3 paragraphs, with more content than just a sentence each)
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 13:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest transferring Critical reaction section after not before Plot synopsis. - Tutmosis 15:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of chapters section seems unecessary.
  • Characters section should be converted into paragraph form if not removed. This a encyclopedic article about a book not a guide to it.
  • Publishers in other countries seems unecessary but if you must it should be one of the last things on the page.
  • Release versions should be expanded or merged into lead.
  • A section about book elements and/or themes would be nice.

Thanks - Tutmosis 15:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Henry College[edit]

We recently reached GA status and now we want to make it even better. All constructive criticism is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Professor Davies 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you had this, so I'll leave one or two quick thoughts I had. The introduction could be reorganized into three paragraphs. And more info can be included in the infobox. The history section mentions the number of founding students twice, which is awkward. Also there are many one sentence paragraphs under history which could be combined and shortened. Perhaps the history section could have a subsection on the founding and events leading up to it. Also the rest of the section should be chronological. Image captions could be much more informational, providing info about the place, and not just what it is, like the captions under Student life. The Student life section does need some citations. Is there a school paper yet that might describe more about it? Otherwise, just keep putting in more references when you can.--Patrick 00:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Peer Review Request: 10-4-07[edit]

It's been a few months since the last peer review and I think we've made most of the improvements suggested in that one. So I'd like to request a new peer review of the article in general with the goal of preparing it to be nominated for featured status. I think we've made some good improvements just since reaching good article status and are just about there. Thanks for any suggestions that could help give this article the quality needed for featured.--DebateLord 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Town[edit]

Many editors believe that this page is nearing FA status, though we will like some comment regarding the article as a whole, especially with regards to the content therein. There are plans to incorporate more images. -- Chris Lester talk 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice job, here are my comments:
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • There is a typo in footnote #5
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Suburbs is/are a bit short. (I suggest merging)
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Tourism".
  • I usually don't mind redlinks, but "Communications and media" is full of them! Perhaps at least stubs can be created for them?
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • Images need proper image copyright tags and source information. Specifically, Image:Cape Town city flag.gif need(s) proper image copyright tags.
  • Could Three years later, however, the war resumed and it ended in 1814 with a British victory be clarified? Who was the other combatant?
  • In some cases, the serial comma is used; in other cases, it isn't. This should be fixed for a consistency (for example, you have such as AIDS, tuberculosis and violent drug-related and economic, social, and health problems are )
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • During Summer, a thin strip of cloud often forms over the mountain Summer shouldn't be capitalized, and cloud should probably be clouds.
    • High school attendance rates and a superior higher education infrastructure has also helped Cape Town to compete globally when compared to other cities in South Africa that have less developed infrastructure and education has->have, plus I'm a bit confused overall with this sentence. Are you comparing Cape Town to other South African cities or are you comparing it globally?
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please leave a space between numbers and their units of measure, using the nbsp; as mentioned above.
  • For other suggestions that may be applicable to this article, take a look at the list of suggestions located at User:AndyZ/PR.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 14:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to AndyZ's second bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Make sure you follow the instructions in you monobook to clear the cache. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Dunne (writer)[edit]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesMadison (talk • contribs) . -- nomination fixed by AndyZ t 14:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]


  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
  • For other suggestions that may be applicable to this article, take a look at the list of suggestions located at User:AndyZ/PR.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International response to the Holocaust[edit]

I think that the laundry list style of this article needs to be done away with. Some editors who have edited this article have had clear problems with POV. I feel that wording needs special attention in this article and new ideas for content need to be established. --Strothra 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of POV, citations needed, and unnecessary adjs. --Osbus 21:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Osbus, much work needs to be done with this article.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.

Airbus A380[edit]

This article is extensively cited, stable and interesting, and the article has managed to reached featured status over on the French Wikipedia, and I'd like to try and get the English version to that level as well. So, what else could be worked upon? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. "Related content" should be renamed See also and moved upwards.
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all (for example, either In 1908, this happened or In 1908 this happened).
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 2[edit]

We've put a lot of work into this article as of late and are hoping to get it to featured article status such as Perfect Dark was. We'd like the whole thing reviewed and all comments and complaints to be listed so we may address them. Thanks a lot from the BF2 article editing team. Useless Fodder 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll look into this one more in depth later (if I forget, just drop a note on my talk page), but some obvious problems:
    • More references, inline citations need to be added to WP:CITE. Those inline external links should be converted to footnotes
    • The article is rather list-weighty at certain places, and should be converted to prose.
    • All of the images need fair use rationales, with the exception of Image:BF2-commo-rose.jpg.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the inline citations is crucial if we want the article to ever reach featured status. Pretty much every statement needs to be backed up with footnotes, in a similar way to Philosophy of mind (which recently made featured article). It will take a lot of hunting around but it will make the article much much more credible. Remy B 06:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random comments:

  • Define what "classes" are, in general, instead of going into the specifics of each class. Are these very specialized roles that all serve a very specific function, or are these different interchangable "flavors" of soldier?
  • Phrases like "when one right clicks the mouse, to get into zoom mode" should be replaced with simply "can zoom in"; instructions = not encyclopediac.
  • Other phrases, like "widely accepted amongst 1942 lovers" need to go entirely; It's weasely, and the fandom is not important.
  • Find some information on the real-world impact of the game: Sales, reviews, awards, etc. If you want to make a subjective statement about the game, quote a reviewer.
  • Define what a "booster pack" is, and how it is different from an "expansion pack".
  • The "Easter Egg" section should be removed entirely; it has no real relevance to anything.

Hope that helps a little: I may come back with more random comments as I see fit. Nifboy 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addressed Booster Packs; it could be written better IMO, but it's a start.--Hellogoodsir 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Classes are now linked to a descriptive page, "instructional" wording has been fixed, most of the lists have been rewritten, and the has been booster pack defined. The Easter Egg section is probably going to stay, but what's left to do is to find the impact of the game, quote reviewers, ect. Thanks for the feedback. We do apprieciate it. Useless Fodder 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to see that some effort has gone into supplying fair use rationale for the images (thanks to Zxcvbnm.) The following images are still missing rationale:
  • On a separate issue, five images are used to illustrate the (notable?) easter eggs, while only three images are used to describe the game itself. Are the easter eggs so notable that they need illustrations? I'd rather see illustrations (if any) being used to describe how the game works. ~ Flooch 05:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally like to see the Easter Eggs section removed altogether. Its really just a waste of space, and fancruft like that will certainly prevent the article from reaching featured status. Remy B 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I'd remove it before considering FAC, it's fancruft. Sorry Zxcvbnm :P ~ Flooch 05:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's sad, though, because I never knew of these easter eggs. I do agree with the removal, though. On another note, can we have those first reviewers run back through the article and see if all the problems have been fixed in a sufficient manner? Thanks. Useless Fodder 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are easter egg sections in other games, I believe. Anyway, if it is necessary to remove it, is it possible it could be moved to Wikibooks instead?--Zxcvbnm 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Camille[edit]

This has just been selected as the TCCOFT, and I thought the best thing to do was put it up for Peer review right away. The impact section is in need the most, and the main reason it is the TCCOFT. Icelandic Hurricane #12 23:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to have a death chart thing. But I'm not the best at making them (you can see User:Icelandic Hurricane/Sandbox if you don' believe me). Icelandic Hurricane #12 00:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where I can do it, but the damage total needs to be updated to 2005 USD. Can someone do it for me? Icelandic Hurricane #12 11:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
Done, I think. Is there more to it then what is now there? TimL 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
Done. TimL 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Impact is/are a bit short.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • Camille crossed the southeastern tip of Louisiana, then hit near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi on the night of August 17. the word "and" is missing after the comma.
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
I just did a good bit of copyediting on the intro and storm history section. TimL 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the references need the cite web format, but I really stink at that job. I need someone else to do it. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 21:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above, this is now done. TimL 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O-Bahn Busway[edit]

The article is about the O-Bahn Busway in Adelaide, South Australia. It is the longest, fastest and most heavily patronised guided busway in the world. I am looking for any feedback / comments in relation to this article before I nominate it for featured status. Will reply to any comment made and address any reasonable feedback. Feel free to actively copyedit the article if you wish.

Thank you to anyone that takes the time to offer feedback. michael talk 07:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read through it and did a quick grammar check. A couple of parts I find hard to comment on because of the obviously Australian English. For example, figures like 80c aren't used in legal documents, $0.80 is preferred. Maybe that's an Australian thing though.
You list a lot of references, but they are all linked from the end of paragraphs. I'm not sure if this is because you are referencing the entire paragraph (often thrice) or because the info you want to reference is included in the paragraph. If the latter, you should reference the immediate fact, and this would help to unclutter all your references.
Other than that, there's just one weird thing; you have a really long caption and even another reference inside an image frame. I'm not sure if that was intentional but it looks very strange.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here. (authors, dates of last update, ISBN #s if applicable, etc.)
  • Otherwise, great job! Thanks, AndyZ t 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the applicable issues - anything else? michael talk 06:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois[edit]

Second Review[edit]

Asking for a peer review, since it has been a year since the last one and during that time it was delisted from GA status. I would like to get it back to GA status, with the hope of making it FA sometime soon.--Kranar drogin 16:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See old review at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Illinois/archive1 --Dual Freq 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA personality theory[edit]

This article is being submitted for peer review on the suggestion of one of the editors, who thought it might be eventually suitable for submission as a featured article -- especially as very few articles in Psychology are so submitted. Any advice as to general further improvements would be appreciated. Many thanks. ABenis 15:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In-line citations are needed. --Osbus 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will work on it. ABenis 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. ABenis 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please incorporate "Historical note" into the rest of the article somewhere.
Done. ABenis 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
Thanks. Will work in it. ABenis 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image was imported from Wikipédia/France to Commons with the same file name and copyright tag. Will see what the problem is. ABenis 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care Bears[edit]

See also: March 2006 peer review

After over two months, the concerns surrounding the quality and layout of this article about my favourite cartoon of all time have finally been addressed. There are no lists, no informal talk, and no original research anymore; the content is as NPOV and multi-dimensional as possible; footnotes have been converted per Cite.php; and I have shown vandals no mercy when it comes to editing this page.

Finally, I am now resubmitting it after way too many a personal delay (for the past one to two weeks!).

Unfortunately, it's all been a one-man show for the most part, and I want to know how much better this page can get. More Wikipedia users should participate so that it will finally get the star it humbly deserves. Please tell me how far I've succeeded. (It's important it gets the featured treatment before this year's over; 2006 marks the 25th anniversary of the toy line.)

And I say once more (from last time):

Cheer Bear, kiss me--and kiss me good--when this finally succeeds as a featured article! When it does so, the Kingdom of Caring--and of God--will rejoice! --Slgrandson 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just quickly skimmed over the article for now, but I noticed quite a few one sentence paragraphs. These should be combined with other paragraphs if possible and, when they constitute an entire sub-section, be expanded if possible. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 13:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper[edit]

Tell me, is this ready to be featured? If not, Why? Bob5554545 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should start by reading Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Some issues that need to be addressed after a quick glance: 1) no references (and obviously no inline citations) 2) large lists make a good part of the article ('Applications', 'Types'). Those should be transformed into paras or moved to subarticles. 3) 'History' section usually goes first 4) see also is too long, incorporate links into main body and remove the duplicates from see also until preferably the entire section can be emptied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Piotrus has hit most of the points; emphasizing/adding more suggestions:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Replace Image:Mooreburster.jpg
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed some grammar and spelling issues in the History of Papermaking section. There may be more in the article, though.

Skjortonsdagen är en uråldrig tradition som hade sin höjdpunkt under renässansen. Människor har i alla tider avsätt onsdagen till att hedra ett av historiens mest populära plagg, skjortan. Det har inte varit helt ovanligt med skjortbål under dessa högtidsdagar då människor offrade skjortor till gudarna. Denna del av skjortonsdagen dog dock ut i slutet av 1880-talet. Att skjortonsdagen har haft en positiv påverkan råder det inga tvivel på då den t.ex var en starkt bidragande orsak till Italiens enande 1848 och satte stopp för folkmordet i Rwanda.

Grass[edit]

Grass, an important topic, could become Featured. To do so, it needs to be improved. Please share ideas about how to do so. Chipka 15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a disambiguation page, the chances of this article become featured anytime soon is very unlikely - perhaps you might want to work on Poaceae instead? Anyway,
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • For Poaceae:
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. For an article of this length, the lead should contain 1-2 paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion[edit]

A lot of work has been done recently on this article, to remove POV and bring it to FAC status. Feedback is welcome on the following point:

  • does it cover all what a "regular reader" might want to know about cold fusion. Is there any unanswered question ?
  • quality of the prose, typos

Additional review of the content by experts in related subjects is also welcome Pcarbonn 10:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy over the credibility of the experimental data and which paper is peer reviewed and is OK and if a expert says he wants further research he believes cold fusion is real or not, makes everything complicated. The article it self is OK, but without the controversy it would be much better.--Stone 09:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do no get your first sentence. Pls clarify. Pcarbonn 10:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole first paragraph is awkward and leaves out a basic definition of cold fusion.
Thanks. Most of it is done now. Reducing the lead section is a big challenge though. Pcarbonn 11:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A nice article about an important an interesting subject. Looks good, but I have a few comments:
    • "The special ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized in the nineteenth century." By who? Maybe a reference or footnote.
    • "In 1926, two German scientists, F. Paneth and K. Peters, reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen is absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature." From the next sentence it sounds like hydrogen wasn't transformed into helium, but this first sentence makes it sound like it was.
    • Three paragraphs in the history section begin with "In 19xx" could a few sentences be reworded to be less repititious?
    • "This was due not only to the competing results and counterclaims, but also to the limited attention span of modern media." Is this sentence necessary? It seems like a cheap shot.
    • "and was held out as a prime example of pseudoscience." Really? I'll believe it, but it seems to me like there is a difference between pseudoscience and fraud/error. Is there a cite for this?
    • "In March 2006, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in Baltimore" This sentence seems out of place. Can more be said about what occured at that meeting? Could it be removed? Maybe a better transition...
    • "In 1995, Clean Energy Technology, Inc (CETI) demonstrated a 1-kilowatt cold fusion reactor at the Power-Gen '95 Americas power industry trade show in Anaheim, CA. They obtained several patents from the USPTO." Demonstrated? What exactly did they do?
    • "and a skeptic who knows little about them may wonder whether they are being used correctly" I don't know, but this has the ring of conspiracy theory to it. Can't someone who knows a lot wonder this too? Could this sentence be reworded?
    • "Yet, the 1989 DOE panel said: "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. (...) Any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons" " What? As I read this it says "anyone who fails to reproduce a controversial result must have screwed up". Is that really what they intended?
    • "Hal Plotkin hypothesizes that the mainstream physics community and the fossil fuel industry had no interest in accepting the possibility of cold fusion." ... as I'm sure do many other people. Why is Plotkin's opinion particularly relevant? Does he present unique arguments or evidence? Is he qualified in any way?
    • Footnotes and punctuation are used inconsistently. Sometimes the footnote is inside the punctuation other times outside.
  • I know that's a lot, but most of it is simple. I enjoyed reading the article and learned some more about this important moment in the history of science. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice to see all these details on the topic. I only really had negative impressions of the first sentence. I have the strong impression that it is misleading to a nonscientific reader. It makes the categorical statement that "Cold fusion IS a nuclear fusion reaction that takes place at or near room temperature..." (my emphasis) This give the implicit but strong impression that it is real, confirmed, and uderstood to actually be nuclear fusion. Not just an interesting topic to investigate. It's like writing "Planet X is a planet beyond Pluto", "UFOs are alien spacecraft", "Tachyons are particles that travel faster than light", "Fortune telling is predicting the future", etc. After the first two paragraphs, it becomes clear what the deal is, but first impresions last.... Deuar 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The first sentence is really a definition only. Cold fusion has been achieved in muon-catalyzed fusion, so the definition holds. I think the problem comes later when we present condensed matter nuclear science as (real) cold fusion. How to rewrite this is debated on Talk:cold fusion Pcarbonn 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [I also inserted this in the talk page earlier today, before realizing that peer review comments belong here] I have reviewed this article, and, I agree with Deuar: the introduction to this article fails badly. It does not spell out the reason why the hypothesis that fusion reactions explain the reported measurements of excess heat generations remains unaccepted as an explanation by most physicists. According to our theoretical understanding of fusion, release of excess heat should be accompanied by release of well-determined quantities of energetic particles including fast neutrons and gamma rays. None of the experiments reported to release excess heat have also released energetic particles in the quantities predicted. In the absence of a convincing theoretical argument why the purported fusion reactions should not behave like all others that we have measured, the clear conclusion is that something else, most likely measurement error or poor experimental design, yields the reported results. (These opinions concur with the DOE review panel 2004 that is extensively discussed in the article; as well as the Physics Today article covering that report, both of which represent the mainstream of physics opinion). Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Draft[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/NFL Draft/archive1

If no one objects here, I'll go ahead and re-nominate this as a GA. False Prophet 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only see one list, and it is listing events in the Combine. Please clarify your comment about how it is list weighty. False Prophet 15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note "a bit". Thanks, AndyZ t 21:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you suggest I merge the event articles into this article, and add info about the events without an article, making this extremely long. Or, could re create the article on the combine and leave the list. Which do you prefer? False Prophet 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Sebastian Bach[edit]

It has been noted that this article is well written and informative. It was nominated last year as a Featured Article, and the concerns raised then appear to have been addressed. It has twice been nominated recently as a Good Article, failing originally on very minor grounds. It was felt at the time that the rejection of the original Good Article nomination was rather harsh. I have passed it through as a Good Article as it appears that concerns about the article are minor in comparison to its overwhelming achievements. It would appear to me that with some assistance that this article could be put forward again for nomination as a Featured Article. SilkTork 14:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the second Weimar section hasn't been written, a sound clip hasn't been inserted, and the Works and Legacies sections could do with some fixing. I've just written the style section, and it's bound to cause controversy. Tony 14:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See the FAC.
  • I find that putting the media file directly in the text is a bit disruptive to the lead, perhaps consider moving the file into a table on the side like is done in Music of the United States.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. It should be between 3-4 paragraphs long.
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Other keyboard works".

The link you provide says that the lead should be 'up to four paragraphs long'. There's no prescribed number beyond that statement. Tony 01:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See WP:LEAD#Be appropriate length. Thanks, AndyZ t 13:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's what I looked at and quoted from above. There's no strict prescription for the number of paragraphs in the lead, and nor should there be. Every text is different, and provided that the lead fulfills its basic functions, there is rightly a flexibility about the number of paragraphs (although not more than four). Tony 14:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow the Hedgehog[edit]

Okay, it's been rewritten, cleaned up, verified, citations were added, and I think it's just about done. You may notice occasional run ons, grammer issues, and sometimes sentances that seem to have no point-remember that this is about a popular video game character, and therefore is edited very often by people too young to know Wikipedia's layout. Any comments, good or bad, are greatly appreciated. --Meteshjj 22:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks pretty good. You may want to expand some of the smaller Appearances sections, although I know that could be a bit hard. You will probably need more references, and there are way too many images - for example, one image would be enough for the Super section. You should add fair-use rationales to all of them as well. Cvene64 23:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can do.--69.145.123.171 23:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random comments:

  • There are 10 images of Shadow, 9 of which are more or less identical (the offbeat one is Super Shadow). You can probably cut that down to 4 or 5 without a problem.
  • The paragraph about Shadow in Sonic X is contextless; Minimally you should link to Tails, Cosmo, and Sonic X, and rephrase it in more general terms.
  • Again, no context is a problem for his relations: I don't know who, or what, Black Doom is.
  • On the other hand, there are some random details scattered about that should simply be removed: "He saves her life in Sonic Adventure 2 in Security Hall, when she is locked inside a safe while stealing three of the Chaos Emeralds from GUN to use in the Doctor's Eclipse Cannon." Except for the first eight words, none of that has anything to do with Shadow, and contain a lot of contextless items that an unfamiliar reader would have no clue about ("Security Hall", "GUN", "Eclipse Cannon", and arguably "Doctor").
  • The list of game-specific abilities probably could be removed; by virtue of being game-specific they hold little importance.
  • (edit) You need more sources, and I don't like the ones you have. The character homes one is broken for me (it just displays a nearly-blank page, broken images, etc) while SonicHQ appears to be a fansite that's bypassing my popup blocker.
    • If you're going to cite the manual, or the strategy guide (which is what it looks like you're doing), cite the manual or strategy guide. Don't point to transcripts thereof because fansites are not particularly reliable sources.

So there are a few cruft problems, but they aren't extensive. Nifboy 04:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I just removed billions of excess links that were there and we're still in the process of making it much clearer to a third person. As for sources, that's a bit tougher... But we'll get it. --69.145.123.171 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update Okay, I'm working on the references right now. It's tough because most of the information on him nowadays in cruft, but I think I've found some legitimate sites. I.E., IGN, Sega, etc. Anyway, we're up to 9 references at this point-which, while pitiful compared to some articles, is not bad when you realize we had 3 earlier today.--69.145.123.171 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Later update) You're using not-really-reliable sources (Angelfire will get you laughed out of FAC) for statements that don't need citing. For comparison, consider Link (Legend of Zelda), a FA. It cites sales numbers, the official website(s) (for flavor, mostly), two news stories on Twilight Princess, and:
    • "In addition to information taken from the Legend of Zelda games themselves, the instruction booklets of the US versions of the Zelda games were also used as references for this article. So were the official Nintendo Player’s Guides by Nintendo Power."
  • You don't need to cite anything that the game itself tells you by citing "the Sonic the Hedgehog games themselves". If the game tells you Shadow was created 50 years ago, it's covered. The Shadow video game has 10 endings, that's covered. Shadow has nearly identical abilities to Sonic, that's covered. Just make sure the information is directly from the game and not fan speculation.
  • However, if you can find some interviews with Sega staff about Shadow, and integrate the info into the article, that would be superb. Nifboy 23:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yep, I'm having serious trouble with sources. Anglefire was a desperation shot for sure. I've used every bit of info-searching I know of, but progress is agonizingly slow. Problem is, when you look for information on "Shadow the Hedgehog", you end up getting things on the game, as opposed to the character. That's why there's so much in that section. Also, very few literate people dedicate a whole artice to a single video game character. In short, things are somewhat moving along... Slowly and painfuly, but they are moving. I like the idea about interviews-those are surprisingly easy to find. I'll try to incorporate some into it.--69.145.123.171 00:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double bass[edit]

General cleanup of the article in terms of style and other FA criteria, copyediting, etc. — ßottesiηi (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Take care of the huge amount of {{Citation needed}}s.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we added all the citation neededs generously as an effort for the overall improvement in the future. — ßottesiηi (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak technique[edit]

This is a very technical subject. However the Dvorak technique is widely used in meteorology and I think it deserves a great article. Is the article easy to understand? Is anything unclear? Any suggestions to make this technical subject easier to understand? Is it too short? Thanks. TimL 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the pictures of the storms at the bottom, i think there should be atleast one NW Pacific storm. And plus, they don't all have to be at the beginnings of their life. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 11:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many pictures would be approriate. This article, theoretically could have dozens of pictures to illustrate how storms of a particular intensity have similarities. I think if they are sufficiently small, this will be OK. TimL 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
now that my scanners up and running again I can try and draw copy of the reference images that were in Dvorak's original paper...I have some quick sketches of them that I made when I was taking notes while I was reading it...[5] (top 4 sketches) tell me if you want me to go ahead and draw themDr Denim 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tihnk I found them here in this presentation. TimL 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
I'm confused by this comment. Isn't that already in the article? Or is there something I'm missing? Thanks TimL 14:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is now; when I peer reviewed it it did not however. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Why is Technique capitalized in the first sentence?
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 12:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Torso Murderer[edit]

I would like feedback before nominating this to be a feature article candidate. It's already tagged as a good article, but I need outside opinions on how to make it better and whether it is a good feature article candidate. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 00:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was well written as far as I can see and very informative. Good work!

  • Thanks. I started it, but we've had many excellent contributions since. Catbar (Brian Rock) 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Poetry[edit]

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

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

Sikhism[edit]

Hi all - let's make this a great featured article. I request everyone's help. Rama's Arrow 02:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some initial issues to work on:
    • Obviously, the lack of references needs to be fixed. Also, inline citations are needed.
    • The external link section is way too large; please shortern it.
    • It is a bit list-weighty; see Religious philosophy.
    • Per WP:MOS#Headings, heading should avoid using the word "The" at the beginning whenever possible.
    • Generally, years without full dates and decades are not linked - see WP:CONTEXT, WP:MOSDATE.
    • Please alphabetize the categories and interwiki links
    • I'm just curious, but is there a particular reason for the inclusion of Image:Sikh wearing turban.jpg? The cell phone is rather unencyclopediac...

Thanks, AndyZ t 22:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've fixed some of your points as suggested (I've struck them out). Please check them out. In regards to 'the' in headings, I've changed 'The Ten Gurus' to 'Ten Gurus' but I personally think this would be better as it originally was. What's your view? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in kickstarting this process. I've some points I want to put forth before the revisions begin:

  1. External links are there any commercial links? these are not acceptable and must be removed immediately.
  2. Verification the Ten Gurus table needs verification.

Rama's Arrow 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll verify the Gurus table - I've flagged it for quite some time now and it really does need to be double checked. This may require a bit of reading though because I'm not sure we can trust some of the dates on the web at the moment.
The links pretty much all need to go. It has literally turned into a link farm. Some are useful; most are not. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, dates verified. See notes on Template:List of Sikh Gurus. 90% of links removed. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History I think the Khalistan section must be incorporated within the history section and not separately - the latter implies that Khalistan somehow defines Sikhism, which is not true. Also, the history section must include significant notes regarding Mughal pogroms against Sikhs, Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom and the displacement of Sikhs during partition of India. Rama's Arrow 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic review[edit]

  • Copyedit needed
  • Summary needed to lowe page size
  • remove bold text
  • SVG image needed of the khanda is needed
  • Why are characters marked like this: nirākārā?
These are standard transliterations of Indic (in this case Punjabi/Sanskrit words) following ISO 15919 (very similar to IAST). This is a standard convention is both encyclopedias and scholarly work and prevents the need for DIY transliterations. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it would be useful. For a causal reader it is difficult to read the non Roman alphabet. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having left and right aligned images that squeeze the text between them is bad style
  • Table of the gurus conflicts with the image. rem img, table too colourful
  • Remv. "Dr."
Nope, it's not removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. I removed the one just under the picture before. Didn't realise there was one in the body of the text. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remnid me to review later. Ensure that 1 and 2 are taken care of first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your input. What do you mean by "Summary needed to lowe page size"? Do you mean that the current page is too big? Or that the introduction is too big? I'll strike things off as I do them.
I know you said do 1 and 2 first, but they're bigger jobs ;) I want to make sure we've got all the information down before we do a final copyedit and page size reduction. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2[edit]

  1. ... trace their ancestries to the Punjab' -- Indian Punjab or the region. Must be clarified.
    Punjab region. Before partition, millions of Sikhs used to live in what is now Pakistan. Incidentally, "the Punjab" tends to refer to the region as a whole. Punjab used without the prefix 'the' is more ambiguous. I've cleared this up now. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avoid starting a section with left-aligned images. (x3)
  3. =Sikhs today= needs to document Sikhs all around the world, not just India.
    Moved to article Sikh. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pictures of the pañj kakār would be a good addition
    Yes, I'll see what I can do. I tried looking for some using CC search engines but couldn't find anything. I've asked User:Harisingh and I'll see what I can come up with. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A picture of three of them has been added. Kes is a bit difficult to demonstrate all in the same picture. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Infobox of the worldwide distribution of Sikhs?
    Moved to article Sikh. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. What about Sikhs being targeted in the US, Kashmir?
    Moved to article Sikh. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The table on the 10 Gurus need only list the years of their reign
    I've removed the father/mother column. I'd prefer to keep the rest if that's okay? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. What about divorce, Sikhs emigrating, Sikhs outside India?
  9. History needs to be summarised and subsections removed
  10. Sikh celebrations, festivals?
  11. Though the Harimandir Sāhib is mentioned, also mention the common name (Golden Temple) alongside.
    Add this in the history section and the first picture. It's mentioned alongside three times now in the article. Hopefully this should be sufficient. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Are Sikhs cremated or buried?
    Added - cremated usually. Although doctrinally it's of no relevance how the body is disposed. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved all the stuff relating to Sikhs as people to Sikh because this article was already getting a bit big. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important-Request from -Ambuj Saxena (talk)[edit]

  • Before taking it for FAC, please take care of the image issues. I am pointing the possible criticisms:
    • Image:Guru nanak.jpg needs source information to ascertain its PD status.
      • Removed. This is a painting by Sobha Singh I think, and it's not in the PD as far as I am aware. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:GuruTeghBahadurJi FreedomOfReligion2.jpg too needs source information. Just stating that something is free is not sufficient. GFDL requires attribution to original author. So the name of the charitable institution is necessary. Check for all images.
    • Image:Diwali goldentemple.jpg is a fair-use image with improper rationale. Refering to point 2 in the FU template used in the image description page, "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Clearly this doesn't apply to this image as it is definitely possible for anyone else to take this picture. Also, the FU rationale for the image is limited to "Diwali" and hence it cannot be used in the article. Ironically, Diwali no longer uses the image.
      • Removed. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Manmohan Singh 1 1 2005.jpg is lacking a Fair Use Rationale. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest/archive1

This article has improved alot since it last had a peer review. It has gone from a long choppy list to a detailed and well referanced article(it has 59 seperate sources). It details the background to the event and the effects as well as details of day itself.

I believe the artile is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable and would like to know how it can improved further so that it could achive featured article status.--JK the unwise 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Terms in bold in the lead should not be linked (at least that's what I remember the last time I checked, I can't seem to verify that now)
De-linked.--JK the unwise 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
Changed "Other Areas in Asia" to "Other areas in Asia" which was the only one that I could find. I am assuming that "Western Europe" is a proper noun.--JK the unwise 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
I have moved all the fullstops that occured before the ref's to after the ref's.--JK the unwise 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh!, I have just reolised that I misread this comment and I have changed all the fullstops in the wroung direction! I'll have to fix this tommorrow.--JK the unwise 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--JK the unwise 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Polar is/are a bit short.
Now its a bit longer.--JK the unwise 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Captions shortend.--JK the unwise 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
Added km coversion of distance of Glasglow march and °F conversion for tempreture of Canada protests and mi/h conversion for windspeed on a Canada demo.--JK the unwise 10:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
Done.--JK the unwise 10:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Voldemort[edit]

With the series over now this seems like a good time to try and get at leaste one Harry Potter article to featured status and IMO this is the best one. At a glance I can see a major problem with a lack of refs and the way some of the one that are there are set out. Also is the book's own content a good enough ref? Buc 08:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Wali Khan[edit]

ok guys I've been struggling with this article for awhile now..getting help and getting time to sort it out..has been a pain to say the least. But all in all a good learning experience. Still I realllly wanna get it up to FAC status..so criticise without abandon..but be detailed because I don't have the time to go through it myself..I am also slightly blind to it's imperfections.

Thanks --Zak 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of images used in the article (such as Image:WaliKhan4.jpg) that we apparantly know nothing about. They're sourced to a webpage that doesn't contain the image. There's no information on the photographer or copyright holder. They are tagged as being public domain, but we cannot demonstrate that. Can some research be done on these images? They shouldn't have been uploaded without more information. Jkelly 22:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the information on the link to the site. What proof do I have to give? Can you post an example of a pic I coud use as a template? What about the rest of the article? Thanks --Zak 17:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys this is my third request for peer review on this article, it's gone through some huge changes since i started working on it early last year. So what do you guys think? --Zak 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that there are many paragraphs with significant claims but no citations. For example, "Wali Khan accused Zulfiqar Bhutto of attempting to arrange his assassination" is uncited, yet it's a powerful accusation. The citations that are there aren't consistently formated. So I'd recommend using the appropriate cite templates as much as possible. Also, can you get any more images for the article? I only see the two near the top. The text "...chose not even participate..." seems improper. — RJH (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the comments, I think additional pictures are difficult to get because of copyright issues. but i'll see what improvemets I can make to teh rest as you suggested. check your page.. --Zak 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-ana[edit]

I believe this article is a good NPOV one and it like it promoted to FAC status. PLease review. ~Chris (e) 09:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede sentence, describe "Pro-ana" as a social movement promoting a view of anorexia nervosa as a lifestyle choice rather than a disorder. The Pro-ana movement was most visible on the Internet between 2001 and 2003 and has subsequently faded in popularity... Kaisershatner 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~Chris (e) 00:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Thanks, Andy t 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Andy's point about dates: This task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Lancaster[edit]

The 'Lanc' is one of the most significant British aircraft ever made, and the article seems to be reasonably sound. I'd be interested in knowing what it would take to make it a Featured Article candidate. Cheers --RichardH 06:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this article is a long way off from FA but here are a few things to get the ball rolling:

  1. Intro needs to be considerably longer per WP:LEAD.
  2. In-line citations, preferrably using Cite.php, as outlined in WP:FOOT. The article currently cites zero references.
  3. Development needs to address key design decisions like omission of a ventral turret.
  4. Operational history section needs to be expanded to cover entry into service, attempts at daytime bombing, the history/description of night-time roaming tactics, and the tactics/losses resulting from encounters with Luftwaffe nightfighters. As it stands now, the article immediately jumps to late-war Lancasters and I find it rather lacking in the comprehensiveness department.
  5. Famous missions like the Dambusters, the Ruhr Dam attack, and the Tirpitz raid need to be outlined in greater detail, perhaps each as a separate subsection.
  6. Consider sub-sections within Operational History for foreign service, electronics, etc.
  7. General copyedit per WP:MOS
  8. Shrink external links -- Wikipedia is not a link farm
  9. Consider moving Survivors to a separate page or expand the rest of the article, it should not be one of the largest sections in the article.
  10. Per WP:Air MoS, specs need to be for a specific variant, not just "Lancaster", and with a cited reference(s).
  11. Expand all units in text, i.e. pounds not lb, feet not ft. There should be an nbsp rather than a space between the number and the units to prevent line breaks.

I'll help out where I can. Good luck! - Emt147 Burninate! 06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that advice. I'll start working on it. --RichardH 07:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Emt147's point about units: This task is easier with the aid of a 'units' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'dates' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Macbeth[edit]

I just reorganized this article trying to make it as verifiable, neutral, and easy to read as possible. But as I'm only an occasional wikipedia editor, I'd like input from other wikipedians. (I used so many citations because the article is about a living person, and I want to avoid libel issues.)

I am also curious about the use of blogs as references or exernal links. In many cases, much of the information used to refute Macbeth soon after his video was posted. Mainstream reports followed later.

The version of the discharge papers I (and most others) believe to be authentic is posted at a blog. The U.S. government does not post the information online anywhere, but anyone is free to request it. Bugmuncher 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
AndyZ - I uploaded two of the images; they are derivative works of a work not protected by copyright - Should I have marked them differently? Thanks... will work on the rest of the suggestions now.. Bugmuncher 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed some of the issues, but I am running out of steam and need to sleep. Will get to the rest tomorrow. Bugmuncher 05:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Hoaxes is no longer linked at all - "impostors" is a subcat of "hoaxes" so there's no reason to link both, AFAIK.
* The lede has been expanded to cover the scope of the entire article.
* Years with full dates are now linked.
* I don't have enough information to fill the biography infobox. But I am using Persondata.
* Images don't use fair use tags anymore (as copyright on source material was never claimed)
* Footnotes now appear after punctuation (unless they're in the middle of a sentence).
* Categories are alphabetized. There are no interlanguage links.
* Thanks! Bugmuncher 01:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AndyZ also said do not link non-full dates. You can delink these easily using the monobook tool described above. bobblewik 19:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Special[edit]

Seeking further areas for improvement on the way to WP:FAC. I've got a few other references to go through in my personal library, but I'd like to hear what other editors think could/should be added as well. Slambo (Speak) 13:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: How about starting by addressing your own pending task for it? Circeus 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently researching the items that are listed on the todolist. I'd like to know what others think should also be included. Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See suggestions at User:AndyZ/Suggestions.
    • Much of what is mentioned there is already incorporated into the text of the article. After writing four other featured articles myself, I'm familiar with the process. If there's something more specific, like what you mention below, please point it out so we can correct any problems. Slambo (Speak) 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Several images are missing fair use rationales.
    • The two fair use images now have rationales listed on the image description pages. The other three images are public domain. Slambo (Speak) 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text. (note that weights should be converted also)
    • Only one measurement was missing a metric conversion; done. Slambo (Speak) 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Thanks, Andy t 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. Do you have any suggestions on the content of the article versus the context? Slambo (Speak) 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic peace theory[edit]

Archive 1

This controversial theory has caused a long conflict. Peer-review has been suggested as part of dispute resolution.Ultramarine 12:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine has jusat added in the text of a deleted article, a lengthy polemic in favor of the extreme view that two democracies have never ever fought a war.
Septentrionalis 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was the deleting administrator who suggested that the contents should be added to the Democratic peace theory article and that it should be listed for peer review to help dispute resolution: [6] Ultramarine 16:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I trust peer review will find any shreds of worthwhile material in this advocacy of an extreme and minority position. Septentrionalis 01:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Libertines[edit]

I've been working quite hard on extending and improving this article. Any comments or improvements would be very welcome. Thanks Trebor 10:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. All the pictures (except for the free ones) need to have a rationale of fair use written for them.
  2. In the Up the Bracket section there are many two sentence paragraphs. Maybe some of these could be merged?
--Underneath-it-All 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader[edit]

Already a good article, but is it good enough to be featured? If not, Why? 11kowrom 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a userbox may make it better.--Andeh 07:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you mean an infobox? As for the article, there are too many lists and short sections. Talk about his involvement in the most important organizations, mention his involvement in a few others, and ditch the rest. Combine 1972, 1990, 1992 and 1996. Do general cleanup. Add more citations. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Freeh[edit]

Freeh is a highly controversial (and, I think, interesting) figure that is hailed by some and considered a loathsome criminal by others. With the ongoing investigations into 9/11 and controversy over government surveillence (issues that Freeh is, in several ways, connected to), this would make an excellent featured article. I have added lots of info about his background and involvement with various cases and investigations; some more detail, photos, cleanup, etc will render this a terrific article. Paul 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits for flow and to the laed-in. Generally it looks OK to me. Also, User:Fergananim noted on the discussion page today that he was a member of Opus Dei. I added this info, but you should probably check it. Verne Equinox 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Columbus[edit]

I've done a lot of work on this article. The reason it failed was that it only had 2 references, so there are now more than 30 from two books, a number of resolutions and the Supreme Knight's annual report. When he gives his next one in August I will update it. I'd like to see this article become featured and would appreciate any help.Briancua 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • People may wish to edit articles with the assistance of a 'Dates' tab and a 'Units' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 15:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be "paragraphized", too many very small paragraphs.
    • Done
  • Intro should be 3 paragraphs.
    • Done
  • all images need fair use rationales and sources
    • Done
  • create those red links for the article or cut them
    • Done
  • 13 fair use images? will get killed in FA, reduce down to maybe 4 fair use, and then add any free images you can. Judgesurreal777 15:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5 fair use, out of a total of 12

Thanks for all your help! Briancua 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli apartheid[edit]

I feel that this article has POV issues and because of the highly controversial nature of this topic it would be best to bring in the wides part of the Wiki community possible in order to weigh in on this article. This topic is embraced by certain groups and condemned as fictional by others. It would be great to find a way to build and expand this article in a way in which, at least, minimized POV. --Strothra 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes instead of the inline links. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here. Also consider merging Apartheid wall into this article as they repeat many of the same ideas. Jon513 15:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the intro, I would suggest you rewrite the intro, just to make it smaller bites. Explain in one sentence what it is, use a second to say who uses it, and a third to give more detail.
I would second the request for actual references <ref>[website here]</ref> would be much preferred, as would hardcopy citations.
As for the bias, I do know that it does not mention Palestinians not being able to get to a town to give birth because of the hours long waits where they are often randomly denied access to pass... I have seen documentaries on that, and I'm sure someone could find information on that. I also think that it is biased to have a link to Anti-semitism, seeing as it is completely POV to suggest that any criticism of Israel is anti-semetic....... for one, there were many more semetic peoples than the Jews, and second, Israel is a political state, not all Jewish people. I know of a rabbi who speaks against Israel's actions. Other than that, it seems balanced and just needs more citations and perhaps more reputable citations.
KV 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Iqbal[edit]

Hi all - I've done a lot of expanding and formatting, and I hope that with the help of all, this article can become an FA. Please give your advice and comments. Rama's Arrow 12:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have not the article in totality yet. Some observations:
  • The first paragraph of "Iqbal's poetic and writing career" describes just his family life. This para should not be there under that section.
  • IMO, the artilce is in general short in inline citations. Large volume of texts discussing Allama's works go uncited. Also lines like "Although it is not believed that there was an affair, Iqbal was very fond of her and grew to love her." "Despite having a large family, Iqbal and his wife were unhappy in their marriage." "Iqbal married his second wife, Sardar Begum in 1908, but soon separated from her as he developed doubts about her based on anonymous letters." may warrant inline citations.
  • a short intro on Mawlana Rumi (within brackets, like, a thirteenth century Persian poet and theologian) would be good.
  • All publications (not all individual poems/proses, of course!) mentioned should be wikilinked at least (probably the rule is only once) in the body of the article, besides links in the template of Iqbal's works.
  • "Pas Cheh Bay ed Kard ai Aqwam-i Sharq includes the poem Musafir. Iqbal's Rumi, the master, utters this glad tiding "East awakes from its slumbers" "Khwab-i ghaflat"" : difficult to understand line.
  • voluntary poverty: meaning?

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I'm a little strapped for references - no books are available on G-Scholar, plus most data comes from Pakistan govt and Iqbal Academy sites. Let's see what we can do. Rama's Arrow 22:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
=Nichalp «Talk»=
  1. Lahore, England, and Germany - Lahore at the same level as countries, all need to be at the same.
  2. ' Indian Muslim poet, -- why Muslim?
  3. Sialkot, Punjab -- dab: Sialkot, now in Punjab in Pakistan.
  4. born in 1895; a son Aftab,.. -- replace ; by and
  5. Friedrich Hommel -- who was he?
  6. Although it is not believed that ... grew to love her -- ref?
  7. Iqbal Day -- unbold
  8. Iqbal died in Lahore in 1938. -- choppy. How did he die?
  9. Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar -- B. R. Ambedkar is the commonly used name.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't read the article completely, but just skimmed through it. IMO, it's comprehensive (well, how do I know? ;) But, the tone needs to be improved and a copyedit is required. For exmple, phrases like and though he did not live to see the creation of Pakistan, have an apologetic tone. See if more subsections can be added to sections with just two of them. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope[edit]

84.249.10.81 (talk · contribs) tried to put this up for peer review. I've fixed the formatting rather than delisting. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 12:23 UTC

  • Some references would be a good start. Right now there's just three external links. savidan(talk) (e@) 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cosby[edit]

Could this be a featured article? RomeoVoid 22:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good start with this. A few things, however:
  • Eliminate year linking (only link years that are part of a complete date).
  • Get more critical opinion for Cosby's work, and cite the sources. "The Cosby Show" subsection quotes two magazines but fails to properly cite either one.
  • A fair number of statements that should be supported by a citation: "The Cosby Show was unprecedented in its portrayal of an intelligent, affluent, nonstereotypical African American family", etc.
  • The political views section needs to be turned into prose, and the controversy section does as well. Eliminate "Honors" and incorporate the most important ones into the biography section.
  • Move Cosby's work out of Biography and into a separate level 2 section, and put "Personal life" in the biography section as a level 3 subsection.
  • The Pound Cake Speech gets too much attention here; summarize it and incorporate other speeches by Cosby
  • Eliminate "Cosby and jazz"; stick the information somewhere else if it's that important.
Hope this helps! --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Spangineer's point about dates: This task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Phi[edit]

Looking for direction and help on this article, eventually going for Good or Featured Article. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction[edit]

Hello! There have been many improvements to this page, but I think the Legal Issues section in particular might still need some help, even if the information is accurate, it's still so very... LONG.

I was hoping to get this article up to snuff enough to nom it and maybe win it Featured Article status, and was wondering whether or not the clean up tag should be removed, so I decided to nominate it for a peer review.

Please take a look and chime in! :) Runa27 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random comments:
  • WP:LEAD needs expanded.
  • Needs lots of citations. See what research you can do on the topic, and let that determine the content.
  • A ton of weasel words; in the first section alone, "Many believe that", "Some people have sought", and "Some point to works". The easiest way is simply to get rid of these sentences; the best way is to find out who believes, who has sought, and who points to works.
    • Also, try to avoid speculation. You suggest that "out of character" originates from online roleplay, but there are much earlier uses of the phrase: Basil Rathbone's autobiography is titled "In and out of character".
  • After that it's a somewhat disorganized list of sub-types and terms. You might divide the genres into those dealing with relationships, those dealing with universes, and those that have a particular style.
    • Is there any real reason the items in each list are in the order they are? If not, they should be in alphabetical order.
That is a good point; I'll go alphabetize them right now. :) Runa27 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note some of the terms also have their own articles; e.g. Canon (fiction).
  • Basically all the legal stuff needs references badly. Wikipedia is not a lawyer, so pointing to a lawyer who knows and has written about fanfiction as a legal concept is almost required.

That's all I can think of for now. Basically, do some research, find some good sources. Hope that helps. Nifboy 07:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried to repair the legal section, but so far all I've been able to do it make some of the language here and there less redundant or superfluous, and correct some information on Japanese copyright law (fanfiction is not "totally legal" there, it's just generally tolerated and often encouraged). Somebody with legal sources and knowledge really needs to take a crack at it. I especially liked your suggestion to sub-divide the Subgenres section, because that would I think definitely organize it a bit better, which this page probably desperately needs! Runa27 23:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some reorganizing, at least. What do you think about it now? I have also put out a call for more sources and citations in the articles's Talk page. Runa27 01:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lack of references is the article's biggest problem at the moment. I just read the Legal Issues In The U.S. and Abroad section and almost nothing is referenced there. Have a look at WP:CITE. There's also original research ("J. K. Rowling (or, perhaps more likely, from her attorneys)." for example) which should be avoided and all the weasel words Nifboy already mentioned. And you should remove capitalisations in headings as well as correct some other style issues (titles aren't always in italics in the article). And certain words are overlinked (Star Trek, for example, is linked 6 times in the article). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Legal Issues section has some, er, issues. I'm thinking of going through the "Wikipedian Lawyers" category and inviting as many as possible to take a look at that section. I also noticed Star Trek was linked a lot - seeing as the series' fandom was the first to use the term "fan fiction", it's hardly surprising, but switching a few titles out might not be a bad idea. Runa27 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm searching out refs now. As for "pictures" - the phenomenon is almost purely textual. Exactly what kind of "picture" could we add? If you have any ideas, do please let me know, though.Runa27 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An additional suggestion: Aside from the legal section, the majority of the article is a summary of its various sub-articles. While it would take longer to get to FA, you may try a bottom-up approach: Research and bring up the various sub-articles, and references et al can naturally be re-used in the main fanfiction article. Nifboy 23:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good point! I've already been trying to polish up the Mary Sue page. Runa27 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Further update) The added attributes of Mary Sues is completely unsourced. My suggestion would be to leave it out until you can source it. Nifboy 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those were, I think, mostly already mentioned in the article on Mary Sue (I think a combination of common observation and common complaints about "Mary Sues" and many fan essays on the phenomenon were the main sources for those traits, but they ARE verifiably traits - at least, in the Mary Sue article they were, last I looked - that are VERY frequently associated with the concept of "Mary Sue". It's actually quite likely that by now, there's better sources for it, if there weren't already, that could be added in. I'll look in on it in coming weeks). They were unnecesary details that seemed to be addequetely covered in the term's main article, so I removed them from this one. Also have been trimming a few other things, such as fanon (the massive "Ni Var" reference, while interesting, was a bit much and also had the possibility of confusing the reader as to what fanon is or is not; I changed it to a much shorter example of a common fanon cliche from Harry Potter fanfic).
I still am scared to even touch the Legal Issues section. :P I was thinking - is there already a WikiProject for legal citation/research/verifications or for improving explanations of legal matters? Because no way can fan fiction be the only article needing help regarding related legal issues! Off the top of my head, fan art, derivitive work, public domain, various authors' pages fan film, and machinema probably all have complex legal issues to cover or at least refer to. Hmmm... if there isn't one already, I smell a WikiProject suggestion! ;) Runa27 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Law. Nifboy 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Thank you, Nifboy! :D That's just the kind of Wikiproject I was looking for! I don't have the time to look at those sources just yet, but thank you very much for digging them up; I'll check them out as soon as I can. Runa27 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda Galaxy[edit]

This is closest large galaxy to our own, and one of the best studied. I've tried to expand it out to a decent length and put in up-to-date information of a general nature. What else do you think needs to be done to bring this up to FA quality? Any ideas? Is it too technical now? Thank you. — RJH 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:MOSNUM, numbers should have conversions from SI units to US customary units, and source units should be spelled out in text ("km/sec" -> "kilometres per second"). Converted numbers should use standard abbreviations and use the &nbsp; (no-break space). There are a couple of weasel words like Andromeda was believed to be the, which honestly isn't a big issue and can probably be taken care of by providing a single citation. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the "was believed to be the" was already covered by a citation at the end of the paragraph. — RJH 16:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What does "unbarred" mean in the first sentence. It isn't even wikilinks so I can't find out what it means even if I wanted to. (Though I have noticed it is used a lot with other galaxy articles).
  2. Is the word "dominant" correct in the second paragraph. All it is trying to say is biggest - why the fancy word. Or is this more technically correct?
  3. The second paragraph doesn't flow well. "Due to recent findings based on improved measurements and data, scientists believe that the Milky Way contains more dark matter and may be the most massive in the grouping" should be changed to "However, due to recent...and data, scientist now believe..."
  4. "...by Simon Marius (1612), who is often wrongly credited as the discoverer of the Andromeda Galaxy. Simon himself did not actually claim discovery of this object; that was instead ascribed to Simon Marius by Charles Messier in 1764, who catalogued it as object M-31." would read better as "...by Simon Marius (1612). In 1764, Charles Messier catalogued it as object M-31 and incorrectly credited Simon Marius as the discoverer unaware of Al Sufi earlier work." (or should it be unawares not unaware, I don't know but I remember that they are different words somehow). You can also add (if it is true), "The assertion that Simon Marius discovered the Andromeda Galaxy continued until Wikipedia came along and correct this horrible error" or something less POV.
  5. General information second paragraph "The measured distance to the Andromeda Galaxy was doubled in 1953 when it was discovered that there is in fact another, dimmer type of Cepheid." I don't even know what that is supposed to mean! In any even, the words “in fact” are never appropriate in an encyclopedia. If it wasn't a fact you wouldn't be saying it!

I have to go to sleep now, but I hope that helped.Jon513 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these were helpful. Thank you. — RJH 16:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed a few things in the article. I hope these improve the quality of the article on it's way to a FA:
  1. "structure" - M31 does have a central bar, according to recent research
  2. "structure" - the distorted spiral pattern is probaly the result of close interaction with M32, which can be seen by the displacement of the neutral hydrogen clouds.
  3. "features" - Globular Cluster One (or G1) has several stellar populations and a structure too massive for an ordinary globular. As a result, most astronomers consider G1 to be the remnant core of a dwarf galaxy that was consumed by M31 in the distant past.
  4. "satellites" - M32 may once have been a larger galaxy that had its stellar disk removed by M31, and underwent a sharp increase of star formation at the core, which lasted until the relative recent past.
  5. "satellites" - M110 does contain a dusty lane, which is a hint for recent or ongoing star formation. This is unusual for a galaxy this type.

I hope your approve these changes? Please check them for correct spelling/punctiation, since English is not my native language. DaMatriX 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those are good changes. I had one question regarding your sentence "This is unusual for a galaxy this type." Did you mean elliptical galaxies in general? Satellite galaxies? Or dwarf ellipticals? I just assumed you mean ellipticals. Thank you! — RJH 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant elliptical galaxies in general ;) Is the article good enough to be a FA candidate? And if not, what remains to be done? I'd like to help you where I can, I have a more than general knowledge of galaxies and I read quite some astronomical papers (although I'm not able to understand more then half of them, since I'm just an self-educated amateur). I have improved some more galaxy articles, e.g. M32 and M110. DaMatriX 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it's good enough to be a "good article". I'm not sure whether it'll pass muster on the FA candidate page since they tend to be quite rigorous in their criteria. The only way to find out for sure will be to push it onto the FA candidates page. — RJH 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence

"Robin Barnard of the Open University has detected 10 X-ray sources in the Andromeda Galaxy, published April 5 2004, using observations from the European Space Agency XMM-Newton orbiting observatory. "

is problematice. Were the X-ray sources published? That is what it is saying. In any event, the sentence is needlessly complex. Jon513 17:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added a reference.

The proper cite template must be used for this to be a FA. see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations. I have started you off but you have to do the rest. Jon513 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. — RJH 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a somewhat stupid question ;). Is it: at the core or in the core (as in "recent star formation in/at the core)? English not being my native language, as you already know.DaMatriX 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a stupid question. Since it's a distributed phenomenon it should probably read "in the core region". Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is the galaxy visible in the northen hemisphere, southern hemispher or both. This should be mentioned in the third intro paragraph. Jon513 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified the location of the Andromeda constellation in the first paragraph, although this is redundant with the information on the Andromeda (constellation) page. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a suggestion considering the fact that almost everyone on wikipedia thinks that radius and diameter are the same. Isn't it possible to change the galaxy template, changing "mean radius" to "mean diameter"? That would solve quite some problems at once. DaMatriX 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's probably something that is best taken up in the talk section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. But personally I wouldn't have a problem with your proposal, as long as somebody is willing to go through all the pages and revise the value. :-) — RJH (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this realy mean that in every single galaxy article the value has to be changed? Isn't there a general template for galaxy properties, so in changing the template we will change the value in any article that is containing this template? Thus, changing the value "radius" into "diameter" will change the same values automatically in every galaxy article, instantanously? Or does it realy takes some hard work to get the change done as it should?DaMatriX 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the sentence: "However, recent observations by the Spitzer Space Telescope revealed that M31 contains one trillion stars, much more than the number of stars in our own galaxy."DaMatriX 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that the long scale trillion or the short scale trillion? I usually prefer to say a million millions, for example, so it is clear. (Or else put a 1012 in parentheses.) :-) — RJH (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one million million I think. 1000 million is 1 billion, 1000 billion is one trillion. Note this not the case in all languages! In Dutch 1000 million is 1 miljard and 1000 miljard is one billion. But if we use the English defenition, one trillion is 1012?DaMatriX 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, I've run across that issue while chatting with somebody from Germany. The trillion page says most English-speaking countries use 1012, but the reader may be English fluent and living in a country where that is not the case. I just prefer that the intended use is unambiguous. — RJH (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I did some final fix-ups; addressed the GA-failure issues, and submitted for GA. Thank you for the valuable, in-depth reviews everybody! — RJH (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Pacific typhoon season[edit]

I have been improving this article a lot, and I believe there is still more that can be added. Particularly in the damage and impact area. I'd also like to get track maps and radar images (if possible). This definetly has potential to become an A-class. I hope putting it up for peer review will be worth it. Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Dates should be written like January 30, not 30th, as per WP:MOSDATE
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cyclone season article, yet it has no images of any storm. Could you find a couple? NSLE (T+C) at 09:57 UTC (2006-05-29)

I've tried a lot, but no luck. Do you think that you look in the NOAA gallery or something like that a little and I will too? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 12:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As this is pre-satellite I suspect it will be tricky to find pics of the storms themselves (maybe a few radars ones if you are lucky; the Pacific isn't as good as the Atlantic for those). It should be possible to find a few impact pictures though.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found a damage photo for Gloria, but I don't know what copyright laws Japan has for their pictures. So I put a link to it in Gloria's section. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 11:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided I'm crazy enough to put this up for GA. It's gonna fail. But, whatever. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about metrification? I'm not good at doing that though, but is there anybody else that is? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 inch = 2.54 cm
1 ft = 30.48cm (or 2.54 X 12)
1 mile = 1.6 km
1 nm/kt = 1.852 km/kph...
NSLE (T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-06-06)
thanks. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal)

Opus Dei[edit]

Previous PR are at Wikipedia:Peer review/Opus Dei/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Opus Dei/archive2.

Two previous peer reviews have suggested changes for this article. A recent rewrite has tried to implement those suggestions, but it has been controversial. Does the rewrite improve the article? If so, how can the article be improved further? --Alecmconroy 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments and questions.

  • There's some repetition: "personal prelature" is explained three or more times; once is enough.
  • Activities: Does Opus Dei run its own churches, or do members attend Mass and receive other sacraments in parish churches? Does Opus Dei organize non-religious activities (for example, social, business, education, and networking) as, for example, Soka Gakkai does?
  • Membership: In addition to categories, interesting questions that readers might want to see answered in this article are (1) What is the process of becoming a member (e.g. is there a rite, or is it a paperwork procedure)? (2) What is the process of leaving Opus Dei, whether to resume being a Catholic in a diocese or to leave Catholicism? (3) Do members tend to come from specific groups (such as urban poor or suburban middle-class or migrants from other countries) or are they representative of the spectrum of Catholics? Also, the links to Supernumerary and Numerary lead to articles that are not about Opus Dei and should be removed.
  • Finances: The assets amount to over $30,000 per member. What do they do with those assets? Are the residential centers the main holdings, or are there other uses?

Some of these are quite open-ended and research may not be available; please do not feel obliged to answer all of them! Fg2 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Saga[edit]

I've really whipped this article into shape over the past few days, and especially the past twenty-four hours. Nevertheless, I'm concerned that I might have too many images, and that either the quantity or quality of my secondary sources are lacking. What I know is a problem, however, is the lack of explicit and substantial information on production and Rikudou's and Nabeshin's sources of inspiration--I'm working on these. If you can come up with any other suggestions, I would be much obliged.--Monocrat 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added production notes.--Monocrat 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand on the comment "The twenty-sixth, "Going Too Far," was intentionally made to be too controversial for public broadcast." - It seems interesting, and since your source isn't a website cannot be immediately researched further. Perhaps add a Controversy section for that.
  • Expand on the comment "Both versions recount, but in different ways" - I would like to see a specific section dealing with the main differences between the anime and the manga. Perhaps keep the basic plot that both follow in the "Plot" section, while having two additional subsections to show how the mediums differ in the story telling. "Anime to Manga comparisons" are something that the vast majority of our articles are lacking, and it would be nice for you to be one of the few to remedy that.
  • Needs some pictures from the manga. - The manga came first, and yet the entire article only shows pictures for the anime.
  • Get rid of superficial references. - Don't add more references that you actually need. For example, "...published in the United States by VIZ Media.[5]" does not need to be referenced as it is common obtainable knowledge. Go through and ask yourself if people are really going to doubt some of your referenced comments. Don't need to clutter it with numbers any more than you have to.
  • Add a picture of the logo for the infobox - This is just personal preference really, but I like for the infoboxes to contain a logo or a manga/anime cover instead of a screenshot.
  • Make sure all Japanese words are in italics - It's just a standard rule for foreign words. I noticed hanami wasn't and I fixed that but there may be others.
  • while Aliens, Gundam, Rose of Versailles, Dragon Ball, and Sailor Moon all are notable references - That list of references is mentioned twice. Fix that.
  • Avoid such terms such as "one reviewer" - Just say who the reviewer is. People don't want to have to dig through the references to see who it is you're quoting.
Side notes for related articles
  • I believe you should remove the quotation marks「」around the kanji for List of Excel Saga episodes. I realize that you copied the style from the OMG list, but in OMG the quotation marks are actually part of the title. If you notice on List of Planetes episodes, the quotation marks are not used. However, I've never actually seen the series, so maybe the quotation marks are official after all.
  • Please try to add pictures for everyone at Characters of Excel Saga. One thing I use Wikipedia as a resource for is to figure out characters' names when I forget them, and without pictures that's really tough.
  • Hope all this helps. :) --SeizureDog 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll take care of the superficial reference, the Japanese quotation marks, and trim the first list of anime references (I think it's important to leave some in the lead). Regarding pictures: I have no scanner to capture the manga, so I'm stuck with the covers, I'll put in anyway--that's a really good point you raise. I previously had a screenshot (essentially the logo) from the Japanese opening of the show, but I took it down because I thought the Japanese would be user-unfriendly, and because I didn't think it (or the English equivalent) captured the essence of the show or its star as well does the current infobox photo. Plus I wanted one with more of Hyatt in it. It's a problem, though, I admit. RE "Going Too Far," I have thought of making a section or paragraph about it; I'll think on that. Anyway, I've long been concerned about putting into relief the differences between the media, but I'm just not sure how to do it without gutting other sections or being irredeemably redundant, and finding sources is another issue: the manga simply hasn't attracted the critical attention of the anime. Perhaps changing the phrasing you cite might be acceptable? :) I think I'm on the opposite end of the question of reviewer's names: unless the name (say, ANN) lends extra weight to the statement, or the statement is really sweeping, it seems to me that names just clutter the prose. Of course, my method my cause a different frustration. I'll see what I can do.--Monocrat 01:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of most of your suggestions, I think. I've expanded the discussion of "Going Too Far" and included a photo under "Anime development." I've replace the pictures in "Characters" with manga covers, in addition to your smaller concerns. Let me know what you think.
  • I was more interested in the logic of the creation of "Going Too Far". Was it just for the hell of it? Did he suffer any consequences for its creation? Wasting an entire episode's budget on something he knew wouldn't be aired seems like it might have brought him some flak.
File:ExcelSagaLogo.gif
  • What about using the logo in the infobox?
  • "I think I'm on the opposite end of the question of reviewer's names: unless the name (say, ANN) lends extra weight to the statement, or the statement is really sweeping, it seems to me that names just clutter the prose." I completely agree with you, but that's exactly the problem. If the review's source can't lend support to the statement then it probably shouldn't be cited at all.--SeizureDog 05:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't speak definitively to that: there's nothing to suggest that motivation or the motivation for the whole "experiments" idea in the English secondary sources, online or official, and I can't read Japanese well enough to bother going that route. :) RE sources, note that I said "extra weight." While they're not in the same league as ANN, I think they're the best available, but I'll do some more digging. On the logo, I don't think it goes well with the infobox. I don't mind the suggestion, but is there a particular reason for the preference for logos?--Monocrat 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE:LOGOS It's simple standardization. Currently, most anime pages use an image the includes the title in some fashion.
RE:BESTTHEREIS That link does not specifically apply to reviews though. It applies to using such sources for pop culture news, a major difference. Citing statistics (e.g. sales, score on ANN) is preferred to single unnoteworthy reviews. If you're going to quote someone who doesn't matter, make sure you're quoting a lot of people who don't matter. --SeizureDog 11:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points on both, though I think the cited policy is inclusive of reviews, with news being a prominent example--such are the perils of interpretation. I've changed the infobox photo and added the names of the websites/organizations the reviews came from. It seems to me that even in the case of ANN, who cares who wrote the thing? Fair compromise? Like I said, I'll see if I can find other well written reviews to cite.--Monocrat 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is impressive and has certainly come a long way. I'll just add a few notes before I go to bed:
    • First off, I only know the anime well, so disregard anything I say that makes no sense in regard to the manga.
    • The anime and manga are both treated quite well now, however, I find the parallel structure of the article sometimes confusing. Personally, I would have separated the two a bit more.
    • The "plot" section and the "characters" section still overlap significantly - not surprising, since what little plot there is is mostly character-driven. I don't know what can be done about that, though.
    • I think the "anime adaption" section is a bit short - but most of the info of the anime is spread out over the rest of the article, especially the lead. Maybe air dates, DVD release dates, etc. should be recounted there in greater detail, since the lead should only summarise the article and not contain info not found elsewhere.
    • "Critical reception" is good, and I know you've had a hard time finding really notable reviews - but more notable reviews would be better. A bit of authoritative analysis would be better still, but I don't think that even exists.
    • On a related note, some sales figures and/or tv ratings would be nice (I know that can be immensely difficult to locate, but keep it in mind).
    • You extensively cite the source material - I wouldn't go to such lengths citing each plot point from the anime directly with a footnote, which breaks up the reading flow somewhat. Maybe these can be used given as general references? The manga cites are worth it for the ISBN numbers alone, though. However, you might still leave these in since FAC reviewers seem to love inline cites.
  • That's it. Good work otherwise, and most of these points are stylistic anyway, making them largely personal preferences. Maybe I'll add more tomorrow. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! These are good suggestions. I think I've found some overlap and anime references I can trim. I'll try to drive home in the rest of the anime and manga references that I'm citing the ADV notes or Oubliette, not the source work itself. I'll also add more information I found today on manga sales figures.--Monocrat 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, yesterday I looked at the general structure, today I'm going into a bit more detail (Note: This is a refactoring zone, in which I add notes as I think of them, at least until someone replies).
    • Lead
      • "Excel Saga is a manga series by Rikudou Koushi[1] and a comedy anime based on it which is directed by Shinichi Watanabe." — maybe you should drop the "which is", and also note that is is an anime TV series (not a movie or OAV) right from the start.
      • "Although the manga and anime differ in subplots, minor characters and other details, both versions recount the attempts of ACROSS, including the title character, Excel, to conquer the city of Fukuoka, Fukuoka, as a first step towards world domination." — very long and complicated sentence, should be broken up. Also assumes the reader knows what an ACROSS is. Maybe something like "...attempts of a nefarious secret society called ACROSS, ..."?
      • "frequently breaking the fourth wall" — "breaking the fourth wall" most often means directly addressing the audience. I don't think that happens in Excel Saga, at least not "frequently" (it's done in a roundabout way in the first episode, with Excel realizing that Rikdo is her original creator, but even then it's not really that explicit). It's about the presentation: For someone who doesn't know that Nabeshin is the avatar of the director, he's simply another enigmatic character (Note: Puni Puni Poemy does break the 4th wall frequently, with Poemi calling Nabeshin "director" and the like). Note that I don't say that the statement "Excel Saga breaks the forth wall" is wrong, I just don't think the matter is clear enough for a brief statement in the lead, and I'd say that Excel Saga is very self-referential instead, which is beyond doubt.
      • "especially Fist of the North Star, Space Battleship Yamato, and Super Sentai." — while I understand that the whole list of parodies formerly at that position was excessive, the three mentioned now are not really all that special - FotN in particular has only one episode, making it no more special than Gundam or Aliens. The "especially" makes the three seem more important than they really are. Suggestion: Change "especially" to "among them".
      • "ADV Films produced the English-language version of the anime,..." — I noticed a significant omission - the anime was shown on MTV in Italy, dubbed in Italian, no less (at least, it:Excel Saga says so, but I don't read Italian well). It also ran on Canal Plus in France (fr:Excel Saga), which, knowing the French, implies to me that there is a French dub as well. Ep. 26 wasn't shown in France - did it air in Italy? Please find out. Add information on any dubs, translations, releases and showings (an aside: I don't known if it was shown on US TV - if it wasn't, note it is only available on DVD, if it was, note where and when) worldwide, and do the same for the manga. A new section called "worldwide releases" may be appropriate. Also, the "English version" obviously can't have extras - the DVD on which said version is sold has.
      • The lead no longer mentions Puni Puni Poemy. Maybe that isn't really necessary, but neither does the rest of the article, it's only in the series box at the very bottom. I think that the spinoff is worth a brief mention somewhere.
    • Plot
      • "athwart" — okay I guess, but the word seems really odd to me compared to the rest of the article, which is written in a more informal tone.
      • "what might be Ilpalazzo's for Hyatt" — Is there a word missing here? The rest of the semicolon'd list are complete sentences.
      • "Looming subplots include the mysteries surrounding Dr. Shiouji's parents" — Shiouji is not mentioned previously. He either needs to be introduced properly, or a more radical solution adopted: Maybe the characters section should come before the plot section, and the first two paragraphs of the plot sectioned trimmed accordingly. At least, that would take care of some of the overlap.
    • Characters
      • "sprawling array of secondary characters" — I don't consider the secondary cast of Excel Saga particularly large (The main cast, however, undoubtedly is). It's normal for an episodic series to introduce one or two one new one-off characters in each episode. That should be toned down.
      • "demonstrates a radically different persona" — the Il Palazzo article says that in the manga, his second persone isn't actually all that different.
      • "Elgâla causes Excel much frustration, chiefly for her seeming lack of an internal monologue" — It's not her lack of internal monologue that's frustrating, it's that she has a lot of monologue, but it's always external - at least, that's what I infer, not being familiar with the manga.
      • "suddenly dying and reviving in quick succession—another major running gag, but she is noticeably Ilpalazzo's favorite." — I think her being Ilpalazzo's favorite has little to do with her dying, at least not explicitly. The sentences should be separated.
      • "The Daitenzin are as follows:" — I have nothing against a brief listing, but neither the previous nor the following section are in list form.
      • The "other characters" section needs to distinguish more clearly between anime and manga. It does so for the Will, the Puchuus and Nabeshin, but not for Pedro, That Man or Key. Also, I would say that Pedro is in fact a more central character than, say, Shiouji or the Ropponmatsus, so I wouldn't start the section with "a wide array of minor characters", especially since you immediately go on to say "of varying importance" anyway. In short, you divide by affiliation initially, but continue to call all non-affiliated characters "minor", which isn't entirely correct. Also, noting that some characters in the manga are entirely unimportant is a bit superfluous, I think - every fictional work contains unimportant bit players, that needn't be specifically mentioned.
  • to be continued... -- grm_wnr Esc 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning on adding references to Puni Puni Poemy and other international versions in the main article, under Production. Perhaps you're right that "Characters" should come before plot--I'll think on this. Reading fourth wall makes me think it's appropriate (Excle on at least two occasions criticizes giving other characters better cuts, on several occasions talks about being a character and what the production staff are doing, and then there's Nabeshin per se), but I'll think more on it.--Monocrat 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll continue the list here for clarity. The fourth wall thing is debatable, I have no strong feelings against it either.
    • Production
      • "...neighborhood trash collection days. In addition to inserting Fukuokan sayings, ..." — The switch between generally Japanese issues and Fukuokan specialities is really abrupt. The two points need to lead into each other.
      • Anime adaption section — As I said, maybe a few basic facts from the lead need to be restated here.
      • "While perhaps the most notable parody of another work in the manga" - I'd switch the order of that sentence, starting the section about the anime with what is most important on the manga really threw me off track (I originally thought the anime section had ended after only one paragraph).
      • "authorization scenes" — I'd like to see more of an explanation of what that actually means. It is explained, but I don't think it's entirely clear to a reader without prior knowledge that an anime representation of Rikudo appears and gives the following episode his personal stamp of approval (more or less voluntarily).
      • "voice actors (声優, Sēyū?)" — Ah, the Seiyū thing. I'm not of the opinion that there's a real difference between "seiyū" and "voice actor", though I know that this is a permanent issue in fan circles. At the very least, I'd leave out the Kanji - this is not a name, only a technical term. The compromise solution I propose is "... prominent voice actors, including ..." (note the link target).
      • Speaking of names, isn't the really 100% super correct name for the band "Excel♥Girls", not "Excel Girls"?
      • "the twenty-sixth episode, "Going Too Far," never aired" — as said above, make sure that it never aired in any country, or change "never" to "in its original run on TV Tokyo".
      • The image caption "Excel's rage, gone too far." — I really like that caption, but be prepared for someone taking objection to it. Have a good explanation ready.
    • Critical reception
      • Generally, a feeling that I think I read in several reviews was that the show started out great, then became stale after the mid point (with two rehash episodes for only one season being an indication of running out of ideas), but returned to strength in the last few episodes. I'll try to find the reviews in question.
      • "Jessica Calvello was able to capture Mitsuishi's Excel perhaps too well, damaging her vocal cords" — should be noted earlier (under "production", if you add more on international versions there), it has more to do with the dubbing than with the critical reception.
      • A bit more on the manga would be good, but I think you're already working on that with sales figures etc.
  • I'm done for now, but maybe I notice a few more points. Stay tuned, I know I will ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 14:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed most of these points--and thanks for them! I've side-stepped the seiyuu thing altogether: the actors themselves are linked, so one can find it there. I moved the point about "Black Jack," expanded the description of the authorization scene, smoothed the transitions you note, and tweaked the "gone too far" caption. I'll try to add the sales and international version information.--Monocrat 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section on international editions. Let me know what you think.--Monocrat 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. However, I have given the section a rather heavy copyedit, most notably separating by anime and manga and not by English and all other languages. Have a look at it now, I think it just flows better that way. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to go through and change these things myself, but since there is a peer review running I might as well suggest changes here instead.
  1. "Although they differ in subplots and other details" could be "Although the manga and anime differ in subplots and other details" just because that is better prose.
  2. "Excel Saga the anime is very much an absurdist, gag-based comedy, and is very self-aware, relying on appearances from the original author, the director, and other members of the production crew." This sentences is almost personified, so I think it could be changed to something like "The anime adaption of Excel Saga is an absurdist, gag based comedy that has appearances from the original author, the director, and other members of the production crew."
  3. "its humor likened" does not make sense, how about "its humor which was likened" or "its humor which is likened"
  4. "Excel Saga the anime" is used twice in the lead. It isn't the name of the anime so it should be either "Excel Saga, the anime," (with commas) or "The anime adaption of Excel Saga" as I mentioned in point 2.
  5. What is an Oubliette? It is mentioned in the lead but not explained in detail. Then it is linked for the first time later in the article.
  6. "ACROSS is lead by Lord Ilpalazzo, who justifies his by saying that "[c]onquering one city is a reasonable plan that allows some leeway for setbacks,"" He justifies his what? I don't understand.
  7. Menchi is mentioned first as a pet. Many people think he is a cat, I think it should be mentioned that he is a dog straight away.
  8. "Ropponmatsu, their robotic colleague (colleagues in the anime)" The characters page uses : {{further|[[Gojyou Shiouji#Ropponmatsu|Ropponmatsu, Units 1 and 2]]}} to explain the Ropponmatsu Units 1 and 2 and something similar could be used such as linking "(colleagues in the anime)". The reader should be able to click something to find out why there are multiple Ropponmatsu instead of searching through the article(s) to find out why. The older one is called "Ropponmatsu 1" the first time she is mentioned but is called "Ropponmatsu Unit 1" later on the page and on the characters page. It is never stated that they are the same person.
  9. "Broadly speaking, most the characters in Excel Saga the anime" In my opinion I would only use "Broadly speaking" in informal writing. This is another instance of "Excel Saga the anime" remembering that the reader believes that the real title is "Quack Experimental Anime Excel Saga" and that it is referred to in short as Excel Saga. Commas or rewrite as in point 4.
  10. "the two storylines: the ACROSS-Daitenzin storyline and the Pedro-Nabeshin subplot" This is the first time the reader is informed of the subplot. That subplot spans the entire series but is yet to be mentioned. The reader is now thinking "who is Pedro? So there's a Pedro-Nabeshin subplot?" I think that the Pedro story should be mentioned under Plot especially since the Pedro family is again only touched on briefly under Other characters section.
  11. "Initially the sole minion of , Excel approaches her work with an excess of determination and enthusiasm but a lack of foresight and understanding, always trying to win the praise and affection of Ilpalazzo" The first part of that sentence was stalled with a comma and Ilpalazzo, the subject of that statement is not directly linked to a continuation of that statement. Needs rewording.
  12. "it is clear that he has from severe mental problems" should be "it is clear that he has formed severe mental problems" but I would rather "it is clear that he has developed severe mental problems" but either is fine.
  13. I would link the first instance of running gag though it is not necessary.
  14. "but seems both unaware of this and to hold her senior in high regard", I would say "but seems to be unaware of this and in contrast to Ilpalazzo, hold Excel in high regard" because it is a little more obvious about who likes/dislikes who.
  15. "ancient civilization of Solaria" Perhaps it could be mentioned that this civilization is fictional. Also, the article is using American English. Does the American English spelling of civilization use a z or an s? I looked it up on Wikitionary but it doesn't say. [7]
  16. "As noted earlier, " I think this statement is also informal. Personal preference though.
  17. "dei ex machina" I don't understand what this means. I wonder how many readers will.
  18. "In the this class too" Typo that should have been proofread and fixed before submitting this article to any kind of review process.
  19. "There are, of course, also the anime's Puchuus" I think this is informal language, see earlier points, etc.
  20. "with whom Nabeshin has unfinished business." Should the unfinished business be explained?
  21. Where do the spoilers end? I think that {{endspoiler}} should be used somewhere
  22. ”and he made Excel Saga as a way 'to laugh off that view." Three different sets of quotation marks? What is going on in this quote?
  23. "neighborhood trash days" Needs to be explained briefly or just changed to "neighborhood trash collection days"
  24. "called by Anime News Network" and "Anime News Network (ANN) puts it in the same class as" "ANN is of the opinion" Only the second instance is linked and has (ANN). A website is being personified this time. How about "It was written on the Anime News Network review that". Same goes for Gline, DO and any other websites.

--Squilibob 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll take care of the informal and unclear language, the latinism, the (sadly numerous) typos, and the other minor concerns, although I think some errors you flag are stylistic differences rather than grammatical problems ("its humor likend..." especially).
  • "Civilization" is indeed the American form.
  • To be frank I don't share your concerns about personification per se, but I see how some of the text you cite could at once be improved and address your points. I don't, however, see the problem in personifying the reviews' websites (see earlier discussion), especially since the review is written for and on behalf of the organization.
  • "Oubliette" is used in two different senses here: the hole down which Excle is dropped by Ilpalazzo, and the collection of notes appended by VIZ to the manga. The first usage warrants a wikilink, but occurs in the article after the second usage. "Oubliette," the hole, is more accurate than "hole" as a description of the device Ilpalazzo uses. Since it's wikilinked and in lower case in the text, I don't see the problem.
  • Good point about naming the anime in the lead.
Thanks for the thorough reading and suggestions! --Monocrat 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all of your points, though I'm holding off on dealing with the references as you suggest. I've also left "As noted ealier." I'm afraid, though, that I don't understand your point about the Pedro-Nabeshin subplot: it is addressed in the "Plot" section (third paragraph).--Monocrat 05:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I apologize, I skipped that paragraph and the one after it for some reason. Glad to help with the minor changes that were made though.--Squilibob 10:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Concerns about general readability
  • This article looks like it's come a long way, but I think there's still several major things that need to be done to improve the quality. First and foremost, the article uses an overabundance of long, complicated (and in some cases run-on) sentences. This is compounded by trying to explain the details of the anime and manga in parallel. I for one found the article rather confusing to read through. I would recommend writing plot summaries primarily oriented toward either the manga or anime, and then listing differences in a separate paragraph. There's also some poor grammar here and there. I will try to go through later and bring up specific examples. Basically, the writing style needs to be made more crisp and concise so that it's not a headache to read. Having said that, keep up the good work. ReMarkAble 04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And sorry for the late response: I was out of town this weekend. Clarity between the anime and the manga is a difficult matter, because the two are similar is most ways, differing only here in there. My worry about having a dedicated "Differences" section is that it would degenerate into a trivia paragraph: Hyatt's origins, Kabapu's eyes, Ilpalazzo's illness. But I'll reflect more on that. And my writing does have a tendency towards the long-winded and the odd typo, but I try to fix them whenever I find them--but I think I'm too close to the text. I look forward to your examples!--Monocrat 03:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using Firefox, use the find as you type feature to find "," and press the highlight button. So many commas! Looks like Christmas lights! --Squilibob 04:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to break large sentences apart and remove or shift parenthetic statements requiring commas (mostly in the lead and the Characters and Plot section). I'll give it another pass in a day or so.--Monocrat 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've made some good progress in improving the overall readability. I went ahead and made a number of small grammar and structure fixes in the latter half of the article. I think the character descriptions could still use some restructuring, but I don't feel like tackling it at the moment. ReMarkAble 00:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you cleaned up the line about Kabapu's name origin, which is a good improvement, however, I think this part right here should be included as it was: "the mascot of the 1989 Asia-Pacific Expo held in Fukuoka to celebrate the centennial of the city's official [Meiji era] charter." Otherwise, we don't know that it relates to Fukuoka, which is the whole point of having the reference. ReMarkAble 17:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but reworded a bit. Thanks for catching that!--Monocrat 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is there any particular reason why you chose to do character bios in paragraph format rather than the "bullet point list" style that's common in many other anime/manga articles? As I read over those three paragraphs it just seems like it doesn't flow well. It's also hard to pick out individual names from the jumble of text. Sorry if this issue has already been hashed over and I missed it, but what do you think of possibly reorganizing to use that kind of format? Example: Character Name (キャラクタの名前　Kyarakuta no Namae) - Bio info blah blah nani nani nantoka nantoka... ReMarkAble 02:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose it was principally 1) a revolt against the tyranny of the character list on anime articles, 2) a way to curb my tendency towards cruft. Plus, I simply love having the images of ACROSS and the Daitenzin on opposite corners of the screen and surrounded by text. Nevertheless, I somewhat share the concern about flow, especially in the "Department of City Security" section: it was previously in list form, but Grm_wnr thought it stuck out and did a good job rewriting it. But it's still a lot of names in quick succession. Would it perhaps help if I were to remove the Japanese names? I'm unsure as to how necessary they are in the main article, since they're in Characters of Excel Saga. --Monocrat 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the fact that the format sets this article apart from the slew of other cookie cutter anime/manga articles. After comparing the main Excel Saga article with the Characters article, I agree that it would probably improve the overall flow considerably to cut out some of the more unnecessary details and then link to the Characters article. Basically, anything that can streamline what's otherwise a rather cumbersome section would help justify the current format. I do think it would be nice if we could get it whipped into shape as it is now, since this article could then serve as a template for others who want to break out of the mold. ReMarkAble 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about cumbersome: It seems to be cutting close to the bone as it is. The only text I can identify as coming close to being trimmable fat in that section is some of the discussion of the Ropponmatsus, mention of the bit characters, and discussion of the "Owner" and Dr. Iwata. All of these, perhaps could go into a "Differences" section, which I increasingly think is necessary. Thoughts?--Monocrat 03:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say this is very impressive. I would like to see some mention of dojins, official and unofficial. It would be also useful to have a separate section on 'Excel Saga' manga. Is the manga named 'Excel Saga' or 'Municipal Force Daitenzin'? I find this confusing. I would also suggest adding a few more screenshots with some main characters, like Hyatt (Excel Saga), Kabapu or Shinichi Watanabe. Last but not least, the category could use cleanup: as a rule of thumb is category A is included in categories B,C, and so on, there is no need to mention those categories again in the article (thus the article should have only one cat: Excel Saga). Same goes for subarticles. Once those changes are done I anticipate supporting this article in FAC. Good job!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment! I'll try to clarify the relationship between Rikudou's earlier work, the manga and the anime a little more. It might not be possible to create a another section solely for the manga, but I'll see what I can do to address the concern. I'm afraid I don't understand your concern about categories: all of the categories there are meant to sort Excel Saga by genre and medium. Also, if the lead is to stand on its own as an article, mentioning the genres seems important. Regarding images: I would like to do so, but I'm not comfortable uploading many more fair-use images. Nevertheless, I plan to change the infobox's image to one with Excel, Hyatt and Elgala. I might add another featuring Nabeshin and That Man, but we'll see. Also, I've removed the Excel Saga image from the navigation template, per fair use policy (point nine).--Monocrat 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed some of your concerns. Regarding the categories: I've removed the coding for "Anime series" and "Manga series" per your suggestion, but they keep showing up on the page. I'm at a loss.--Monocrat 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories come with the infoboxes, {{infobox animanga/Manga}} and {{infobox animanga/Anime}}. Removing them would probably break a number of other articles. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for figuring that out! Any thoughts on alphabetizing the categories? Do you think I should remove the "Comedy anime" and "Comedy manga" tags to clean things up a bit? --Monocrat 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the raw number: I think eight categories are not excessive (though I wouldn't add any more). On the subcategories: I always thought Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories (specifically the "TOPIC ARTICLE RULE") was a good rule of thumb and applies here. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Will you add something on dojins? I think they are important - they are after all one of the biggest differences between comics market and fandom in Japan and elsewhere.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't anything about dojins working off of Excel Saga, nor much about the Daitenzin dojinshi Rikudou made, apart from its existence. In short, no, because I can't. :) --Monocrat 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a brief footnote about some of the Excel Saga-related dojinshi that Rikudou himself has published. To find dojinshi by others, I'd have to read Japanese better than I do! :) I hope that's satisfactory. --Monocrat 01:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy's[edit]

This page should eventually be a featured article. Until then, it needs improvement. I've got some ideas, but i'd like to see more 11kowrom 22:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed the wikilink 69.40.243.98 22:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by AndyZ:
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • As notable as the "Chili hoax" was, it probably doesn't deserve its own section; suggest merging it into history as a ===level 3 heading.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think the "chili hoax" is rather notable. The legal case kept the story in the news for quite a while and I expect it had some impact on their business. Some other things you might consider adding: (1) Charitable giving. Wendy's sponsors a number of events, especially in central Ohio. I would find a non-Wendy's source for these[8]. (2) Political contributions. I've read that Wendy's corporate contributions are at a rate nearly three times that of McDonalds. 94% goes to support the republican party. I would want to find another source for this[9]. Good luck. -MrFizyx 03:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that charitable giving/sponsorships/political contributions are important. -- Zanimum 13:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]

Review requested :). RN 04:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
Thanks -
  • Which headings offend? I took a look and didn't see any myself...
  • Footnotes fixed :).
  • Images are almost impossible for this article, especially free ones. I thought once about adding the logo for his company, but that is not free.
  • Infobox would be nice, but as of now there is no varafiable information to put there (i.e. no birth date etc.)

Thanks again - other comments welcome as well. RN 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Piłsudski[edit]

Józef Piłsudski was one of the most prominent Poles of the 20th century and arguably one of the most important European politicians of the first three decades of that century. I have now done a major copyedit of the article, and I think it is reasonably NPOVed, comprehensive and well-cited. There is still a number of citation requests which in most cases I have added myself to some statements which I could not verify but which looked important and were in the article either before my copyedit or which I imported from related wiki articles. Besides the existing citation requests, what other issues would you suggest need to be addressed before FAC? Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally 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==.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • There are still some odd date links. In response to Andy's point about dates in articles: this task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Mayer (musician)[edit]

This puppy is close to being ready for GA status, but still needs some work. It is well-referenced, but I think it needs to be copy-edited and the flow of the article is choppy. Even though it was written by almost a hundred people, it shouldn't read that way ;). Anyway, any suggestions and or help is welcome.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[ See previous peer review here ]

After a brief look, a few pointers. There is an incorrect citation format in the article in the "Personal life" section (needs to be converted in inline like the rest of the citations). Also, there are probably too many instances of "[[Citation needed]]" to be listed as a GA. Lastly, there are too many one sentence long paragraphs in the article. Those she be lengthened or combined with other paragraphs. Your citations look fine, but there are templates that can help as well. Check out WP:CITET.--NMajdan•talk 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bana[edit]

After finding a very short article about Bana, being a popular Australian film and television actor, I did a massive rewrite on the article and would like a peer review and any suggestion which would improve it. -- Underneath-it-All 05:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could easily get a GA (Good Article) status if you nominated it for that Mad Jack 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the article for GA status, but would still like some comments on the writing in the article such as style, grammer and so on. -- Underneath-it-All 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III[edit]

I have finished documenting what the Act actually says, but would like comment on what else needs to be done. Obviously criticism is important, and the history of the Act, but have a tough time finding info on this. Anyway, putting up for peer review. Not sure if I'm going to take this to FAC however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Expand the lead to 2-3 paragraphs, based on the length of this article. See WP:LEAD.
  2. Fix red links.
  3. Expand footnotes so that there are more sources other than U.S.C.
  4. Expand short subsections or merge several.
  5. There doesn't seem to be any information on how this has actually affected real life.
  6. Make sure you do a spell check and copy-edit.

— Wackymacs 06:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden[edit]

This article is currently a "good article" (wikipedia:Good articles). While it does change a lot and the quality of individual sections may vary greatly, I'm hoping that someone who knows about writing featured country article could give some feedback on what major work that needs to be done. For instance, is it important to adhere to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries ? More references? Important sections have major omissions? Lots of redundant information?

There have been no POV disputed, but oviously everyone have their own view of what should be mentioned in the lead or be put in prominent sections. So please don't just give opinions in the form of "I would like [hard rock / neutrality during world war II, etc] to be mentioned..."

Apart from that, any comments are welcome.

Fred-Chess 12:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A section about the Swedish Military would be good.
  • There's a red "Main article" link under the section Religion in Sweden.
  • Some data need references, e.g. the numbers under Largest cities and Politics.
  • The saturation-level of the "Gripsholms Castle" picture is way too high, the picture should be replaced with a better one.
  • I would like C.M. Bellman (and maybe E. Taube) to be mentioned in the music section… (sorry, just had to).

–Gustavb 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Thank you for your comments!
    • The issues you mention are rather minor. I know very well how they can be addressed so I don't except that to take very long to fix (tomorrow, June 6, would be appropriate, no?).
    • Evert Taube has a small article and is hardly known outside of Sweden (as far as I know), as a sort of reference, the article Evert Taube has six interwikilinks while, say, In Flames has thirteen. Do you still think that Evert should still be pointed out? I am asking -- because it is my impression that article should present that which might be of interest for the general English speaker.
    • There are many other questions I am not sure of, for instance what images should be on the article? There are quite a lot now, maybe it is too many, or maybe they are not specific enough? What is the ideal look of a country article?
    • Fred-Chess 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

332nd Engineer General Service Regiment[edit]

Want comment on how to improve the article to bring it to the best Wiki standards possible. Mfields1 14:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on requirements for joining engineer regiments[edit]

I've always been curious about the requirements for joining engineer regiments. Were all members required to have engineering degrees from civilian colleges/universities? This information could benefit the article. Cedars 07:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea. Actually only some of the personell had degrees. They looked for people with working experience in a lot of works of life - welders, crane operatores, bulldozer operators, iron workers, etc. To mobilize about 90-95% of the personell did not have former Army experience - to make them into an Army unit they took Army NCO's who did not have engineering / consturction experience and oput them into the unit to "militarize" the civilians. They went through their own type of boot camp at Camp Claiborne. Thanks for the idea Mfields1 09:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information. Good luck with the article. Cedars 08:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on expaning information about retrieval of V2 Rocket plans + eliminating trivial info[edit]

Consider what is important and what is trivia. I don't think that the specifics about the kind of truck the soldiers used to retrieve the plans is all that important (what is a 6x6, anyway?), but the retrieval of the rocket plans seems like a major accomplishment that could probably be lengthened. Also, what's going on with this unit now? Was it deactivated, merged into some other unit, etc? Bugmuncher 05:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback on lengthening the retrieval of the rocket plans. The regiment was deactivated, first in 1947; reactivated for the Korean War and deactivated again. There is a 332nd Engineering Company but it is not the same unit. A Regiment is a military unit size no longer used in the Army. For comparison a Regiment consists of about 6-7 Companies. Mfields1 09:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added header line to distinguish constructive comments

Actual Peer Review[edit]

Since an actual peer review has not been conducted to confirm whether the cited document supports the V-2 rocket claims by Mfields1, a request for the relevant pages has been made.[10]

Other helpful comments add below here[edit]

Dayton, Ohio[edit]

A decent article so far, what can be done to improve it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs) .

  • References for one. Also, there are a lot of lists that should be turned into prose where ever possible. PentawingTalk 04:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Convert lists to prose
  2.  Fix red links
  3. Expand lead
  4. Dayton Peace Accords - expand this section
  5. Add footnotes, references. See WP:FOOTNOTE
  6. Check spelling, grammar, prose

— Wackymacs 11:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate fixes have since been made.Texas141 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Dance[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. I would appreciate everyone's advice on this article about an obscure religious movement. Tuna027 02:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great article indeed, Tuna; I'm positive it will reach FA status very soon. A couple of suggestions:
  • General copyedit and proofreading. I've found a small number of typos and phrases that could use a little enhancement.
  • Perhaps we could add a bit more about the degree of acceptance and influence the movement had in different tribes, and dissension among Native American groups who refused to embrace it? The rejection of the Ghost Dance by several tribe leaders, most notably Quanah Parker and others who had converted to different branches of Christian beliefs is noteworthy, imho.
  • You have referenced the article extremely well; yet I can't help but to notice that you've based most of your research on a single source. Isn't there some way to diversify the references by consulting a few more sources?
I'll be happy to help, if you don't mind me tagging along. Great work! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you attention to the article! Mangled syntax seems to be my trademark so I cannot offer anything further in regard to that aspect, but I plan to have a hand in some of the other changes. We have active discoarse on the discussion page for anyone who is interested. My role furthering the article will be minor for the next few weeks due to heavy class loads. Everyone, please feel free to jump in. Tuna027 21:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mars[edit]

This article is progressing well, and could use some outside help, to possibly promote it to FA status. Tuvas 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. It's out of my fielf, so I'll give some aesthetic thoughts:
  • The article's name generally shouldn't be repeated in section headings, nor should such headings lead with "The," per WP:MOSHEAD.
  • The navigation box should go at the bottom, or be removed (I prefer removal since you link to the main article).
  • Arguably, you could simply remove the headings from 4.1 and 5.1, as the leads of those sections are very brief. Similarly, "Topography" and "Mountains and craters" are awfully brief; would it be possible to strip them of their headers, and put their links below the consolidated text?
  • Would it make sense to group "Orbital characteristics" and "Life on "Mars" under "Physical Characteristcs?"
  • Similarly, "Name," "Mars in human culture," "Mars in fiction," and possibly "Observing Mars" could all go under one heading, something like "Human observation and culture," including the discussion of the East Asian names currently in the lead.--Monocrat 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made some of the suggestions, alot of merging of sections. I'll continue to look for ways to merge the smaller sections. Tuvas 18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice, but... I have a few comments:
  • Could you add an in-line reference for the data in the info-box?
  • What is the latitude for the temperature range? Is that the mean for the entire surface? The mean at some latitude?
  • I'm pretty dubious about that "proposed flag" of Mars section. Unless it has been adopted by an international governing body, it seems to be taking up more space than it deserves. A link should suffice.
  • A sentence or two on co-orbital satellites (c.f. 5261 Eureka) would be nice. Also is there anything about Martian asteroid bombardment history?
  • Could you add some information about martian dust storms? That would seem like a significant topic. Also is there some information about surface radiation from space due to the thin atmosphere?
  • Sorry but I don't consider 0.093 to be a "fairly high eccentricity". It is relatively high compared to most planets, yes, but compare to 0.967 for Comet Halley or 0.927 for HD 80606 b.
Thanks! :-) —

I've added a climate section, which covers the dust storms, and the temporature range somewhat better. I've removed the flag section, it really doesn't belong in the article, I'll agree. I've made statements as to the eccentricity. I've added a link to HD 80606 b. I think I'll play with the wording a bit more on the eccentricity as well.

Still to be done could be some information on radiation, although I'm not too sure if that's needed. Tuvas 16:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the radiation topic is already covered on the Colonization of Mars page, where it's probably more appropriate. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other thought is that you could compare the Mars page to the already FA'd Mercury (planet) page and see how well it holds up. If nothing else I think the Mars page needs more in-line citations to back up the important elements. — RJH (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed;-) I've added about 20 or so in-line citations, with another 10 or so to be placed. The article is now fairly throughly referenced. Other than that, I'd say things are looking decent, but I would still like some more input. Tuvas 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is improved! I'll reiterate that I think you could dispense with separate headings for "Topography" and "Mountains and craters" and simply massage the text into one large "Geography" section. I'll also reiterate that you could also dispense with the headings for 2.6.1, 4.1, and 5.1: my personal taste is to use headings only when there's enough for two substantial sections. In any case, I'm unsure if you really need citations for all of those works referencing Mars. People can click on the wikilinks to find more details. Sorry to repeat myself so much! I'll give it a closer reading soon for writing suggestions.--Monocrat 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've combined the Geography aspects, they were pretty much the same. I've restructured the rest so that now if there is a subsection, there is at least two;-) As for references, well, the last time it was a FAC, it was rejected in part due to the lack of in-line references, so... Tuvas 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Again, sorry to be a pain about those headings. ;) As for in-line citations: I think they're only needed for controversial statements or really detailed claims, so I'm still ambivalent. But I sympathize with your concern. Just find something to plug up those nasty "citation needed" marks. ;) Something I forgot earlier was that the navigation box for the probes and missions really should go (so it seems to me). Most of them seem to be linked in the text, so the box just takes up space. Also, Mercury seems to have several other sections, perhaps you could find similar material? Venus is also undergoing FAC, so perhaps you should check that out, too?--Monocrat 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Venus and Mercury have more sections about the exploration of the planet than Mars, but Mars has a whole article dedicated to that, probably at least as large as the current one is. I almost hate to take the infobox away though, but, I suspect your right... Oh well... Thanks for the input! As to the sectional headers, well, I know that those types of little things really make a big difference. I'm working on plugging up the citations needed, just give me a day or two... It's not as easy as it looks... Tuvas 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to quantum mechanics[edit]

The best article of our Category:Introduction series, this article could do with some improvement. Your comments and help are welcome. Thank you. Loom91 06:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just skimmed so far. My first comment is that giant ugly illustration of how to do matrix multiplication really has to go. Is there a reason you can't wikilink matrix instead, then describe how matrix multiplication works in a sentence or two? -- SCZenz 06:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed that illustration. No need to explain matrix multiplication in detail in an article on QM, even that introductory. Loom91 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks really good, but isn't this the sort of things that fits better on wikibooks? It could still be linked to from the QM article. Zarniwoot 01:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been AfDs on this and it was generally agreed upon that these articles should stay at Wikipedia. Loom91 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% agree with the matrix note. No reason for that to be there. --0SpinBoson 12:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this is a good article, this is more about the history of quantum mechanics than about an introduction to quantum mechanics.Count Iblis 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you suggest how it can be made more as an introduction to QM? Any concepts left unexplained? Loom91 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not so much an article about the history of quantum mechanics. Rather, it's an article about quantum mechanics that takes the historical approach to the development of the subject. That's one reasonable organization. Even so, there are some historic tidbits that seem unnecessary: link to Heisenberg's speech, comment about the first use of "eigen." And much of the material on the old quantum mechanics may be unnecessary.
One question worth answering is this: Who are the intended readers of this article? What level of interest and tolerance do they have for physics, science, and math? What vocabulary do they have? Do they know what a function is? Do they understand expressions like "on the scale of"? Can they figure out what Image:Gallery SineWave Generation.jpg means, and how it relates to the article?
Another question worth answering is this: What information about quantum mechanics belongs in an introduction? Does an introduction include phase space, relativistic quantum mechanics, entanglement? Must an introduction include both the Heisenberg and the Schrodinger descriptions? Unlike articles for magazines such as Scientific American, an encyclopedia article doesn't have use hooks like modern hot topics to grab readers' attention; instead, just present introductory topics and stop there.
Next, what level of detail is necessary? The last paragraph in the section on the reduced Planck's constant seems to talk about preferences and calculations; do we expect readers to develop a preference or perform calculations? Are the equations of the Bohr model necessary, or can they be replaced with text? Do readers need to know about matrices, phase space, eigenvectors?
So, some suggestions. First, make a clear decision about the readership, and let that guide decisions about content, vocabulary and other matters. Second, analyze each fact, development, and illustration to determine whether it's necessary in an introduction. Get out the razor and trim everything that's unnecessary.
The result can be an article that engages the readers, speaks the same language as them, and efficiently introduces them to the subject.
Fg2 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, every historical fact should be scrutinized in light of the question of whether it helps readers understand quantum mechanics, as distinct from the question of whether it helps readers understand the historical development of quantum mechanics. If it contributes only to the historical perspective, then it belongs in a separate article, which might be named "History of the development of quantum mechanics." Fg2

Loom91, I forgot to check back here after I commented. I had another look at this article and the main quantum mechanics article. To me the main quantum mechanics article reads more like an introduction to quantum mechanics and this article is really an historic introduction to the topic. As such this article is ok.

I would suggest writing a new article on quantum mechanics that explains things in more detail. Articles on some specific topics, such as perturbation theory, WKB approximation etc. already exist, so one can write a "master article" that organizes all these smaller articles by referring to them.

Once that article is completed one can just rename the current main QM article--> Introduction to QM and this article --> Historic development of QM, or something similar. Count Iblis 21:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO, the target readership of this article should be those who have at least passed 12th standard or equivalent, who would already know about functions, differntial equations, matrices etc. It is a popular misconception that popular expositions on science should free from math. The reality is that science tends to get more convoluted and harder-to-understand if you try to ommit simple equaions even where they are needed. Relativistic quantum mechanics should be mentioned very briefly, including a mention of Dirac Sea which is just the sort of interesting concept for an introductory article. Entanglement is obviously a must. I agree that there is no need to give a description of Matrix mechanics. Loom91 07:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you've established that readers should know differential equations (ordinary or partial?) and matrices. What should readers be able to accomplish after reading the article? Should they be able to solve the Schrodinger equation in some circumstances? What facts should they learn? What techniques should they be able to apply? What problems should they be able to solve?
Also, the present organization of the article is historical. As I remarked, that's one reasonable way to present the material. Have you given consideration to other organizations? Do you consider the historical approach to be the best? Fg2 14:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solve Schroedinger equation??? Heck no!!! This is an encyclopedia article, not a textbook of quantum mechanics. I don't think any reader would expect to take home problem-solving skills from an encyclopedia article, let alone an introductory one. It's just something to satisfy curiosity. In any case, PDE or multivariate calculus are not covered anywhere before college. For the approach, do you think a historical approach would be best for understanding? Or something else? I don't know about this. Loom91 07:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, readers are not expected to learn to solve the Schrodinger equation. What do you want them to learn from the article? Can you list the facts, connections, and theories that they should be able to recite, infer, and manipulate? Should they be able to calculate frequencies of hydrogen lines? If so, the equation is useful; if not, delete it? Should they learn what the Zeeman effect is? If so, develop that topic; if not, should you delete it? Should they be able to put electrons into the Bohr model? Compute wavelengths, momenta, energies of photons emitted? If so, the equations serve a purpose; if not, should they be deleted from the introduction? How much of the topic of matrix mechanics is right for an introduction, and how much should be dismissed by a simple statement such as "One method for solving quantum-mechanics problems uses matrices and is due to Heisenberg."?
Regarding organization, a historical approach is acceptable and can work. Other approaches are topical (with headers like "Computing the energy of a photon in an atomic transition"), comparative (covering things like "Experimental evidence that Newtonian mechanics does not describe electron diffraction") etc. I'm not advocating switching approaches; I'm just asking whether you'd prefer the existing one or a different one. Wikipedia articles tend to grow organically, and organization can be the result of the initial author's stream-of-consciousness outline, or a succession of accretions by independent editors; peer review is a good time to assess whether the article should stay in this form or change. If this article gets to Featured Article Candidacy, I won't oppose it for being organized on a historical basis. If you decide to keep the present organizing principle, it's fine by me.
I do think, though, that some topics should be removed or radically abbreviated. A clear delineation is necessary to distinguish introductory topics (for coverage in this article) from intermediate and advanced topics (for other articles). The presentation, including selection of equations, derivations, and examples, should be uniformly introductory in an article with the word "introduction" in its title.
"Introductory" can have various interpretations, of course. An introduction for future students of physics and chemistry will be different from an introduction for students of other sciences (for example, biology or geology), and from an introduction for non-scientists. This Wikipedia article cannot, of course, be a textbook, but if you think of textbooks that are available for students, you can imagine the first of these introductions as a textbook with a title like "A first course in quantum mechanics," rife with equations, calculations, and theoretical derivations. The third would be a sketchier, more qualitative textbook, stressing ideas over manipulations; the second, somewhere between those extremes. Which of those models best describes your intent for the article? Making that choice can make subsequent decisions easier. Fg2 14:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think I'll keep the historical approach. It's a time tested approach for popular science books and I think it will work as good as any other if done properly. I think the article should stress description over analysis or manipulation since QM is such a vast topic. A few of the simpler math from old quantum mechanics can be taken, such as the Rydberg equation and its subsequent derivation from Bohr's energy formula. As for level of difficulty, a middle ground needs to be struck. Loom91 05:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poincaré conjecture[edit]

This is a mathematical problem that is considered quite important and has garnered much interest in major newspapers and scientific periodicals over the last several years, due to the recent work by Grigori Perelman. It appears to be somewhat back in the news. Since this page has mostly been edited by math-focused editors, I thought it would be good to get feedback from a wide cross-section of Wikipedians, particularly those not fluent with mathematics. I would also encourage those with some science background, but not strictly in mathematics, per se, to respond and make comments. --C S (Talk) 03:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think the explaination could be clearer. I think the Clay Mathematics Institute's description of the problem is a little easier to understand though I like that this article talks about 3-spheres where as the Clay article just talks about points (though I understand that the point and 3-sphere are homeomorphic).
I think the "loosely speaking" explaination is so vague when it talks about the 3-manifold being "sufficiently like" a sphere it would not help anyone to understand the problem. I think one of the ways to improve the explaination, is to explain homeomorphism as the article on homeomorphism explains it. That is, "intuitively, a homeomorphism maps points in the first object that are close together to points in the second object that are close together, and points in the first object that are not close together to points in the second object that are not close together." I think neither this article nor the Clay's article did that well.
I think more analogies would be helpful. The donut case in the Clay's article wasn't bad - though I think some people would fail to understand why a donut cannot be shrunk to a point but an apple can (hence the need to clearly explain homeomorphism).
I was really surprised to see that the conjecture was not actually stated in the lead especially since its standard form is so concise. I think doing so will benefit most readers — especially those who come to the article with an understanding of manifolds and homeomorphism.
Cedars 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea[edit]

Old PR

Summer of '42[edit]

Looking to get this oft neglected, quasi-cult film on the front page of Wiki. If anyone could offer any assistance in getting this article in tip-top shape for a Featured Article vote, I'd really appreciate it.Mistergrind 01:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

  • The lead is not general enough, there is too much music/box office info in here. Flesh it out into the article.
  • Use the theatrical poster if its not the same as the DVD cover.
  • Where is the plot summary? Is it supposed to be part of the factual basis section?
  • Ditch or merge the trivia.
  • All film titles in the text should be in italics.
  • Cast list is not good. See V for Vendetta (film) and other FAs for ideas to write about a cast. Should not be at the bottom either.
  • Awards section within cast is random. Try not to have lists, anywhere. Maybe merge this into reception, talk about the notable wins.
  • A screenshot would be useful.
  • Just checkout other FAs closey, compare it to the article to see how it can be improved.

Cheers. Cvene64 16:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helmer Swenholt[edit]

I would like constructive comments to improve the article. My long term goal will be for it to be a FA. Note: I recently discovered I had mispelled the article title, the name was supposed to be "Swenholt" not "Swenholdt". Feedback pays. Mfields1 23:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all (for example, either In 1908, this happened or In 1908 this happened).
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Andy's point about dates in articles: this task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic strips[edit]

This is the first time I ever tried to split a list. I hope I did it right, or at least acceptably well, but I rather doubt I actually did so. Please advise. Badbilltucker 00:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought we were discussing on the talk page to split per country lines? As it is you haven't done a bad job, although for future ref it's an idea to wikify the link to the original article in the edit summary. Hiding Talk 11:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the links, I suggest the same for webcomics also. -- Zanimum 17:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Byrd

Globular cluster[edit]

I've tried to expand this article to be, hopefully, fairly comprehensive. But it has now hit 32k in size, so I didn't want to keep adding more stuff that could be put on sub-pages. Please take a look and let me know how this article could be improved, or where it needs a fix-up. (Compare to open cluster for example.) Thank you! — RJH (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At a quick glance it looks good, but the comment in the opening picture seems a bit confusing: is located about 28,000 light years distant. Should that be is located about 28,000 light years from Earth or maybe is located at a distance of about 28,000 light years from Earth? --darkliight[πalk] 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay I clarified the text. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bumped up the PR stack—hoping to get more feedback. Sorry for the inconvenience. — RJH (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line "However globular clusters were not resolved as individual stars until Charles Messier observed M4" is confusing me a bit, the intro describes globular clusters as a collection of stars, so is the sentence I quoted correct?
  • The placement of the second picture (M75) creates a lot of whitespace (I'm viewing the page at 1280x1024). Can it be moved up a bit?
  • The table of the early discoveries is good, but does it have to be sitting there on its own (creating more whitespace) or could it be floating to the right with text wrapping around it?
  • Could some information about the way these objects were catalogued be introduced for the novices (like me)? A quick look around wikipedia and I found out NGC = New General Catalogue and M = Messier, but maybe that could be included in one sentence somewhere with a wikilink.
  • Some of the wikilinks are to redirect pages, e.g. Globular Cluster M15 redirects to Messier 15. --darkliight[πalk] 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I've tried to address your concerns as best I can. — RJH (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pando (Quaking Aspen)[edit]

I would like to see this become a featured article. Suggestions on layout, photo placement, and section headers would be most helpful. Globeism 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This won't get featured without an (ideally, several) actual picture of the place.
  • The "location" and "name" sections are way too short.
  • The lead contains too many refs compared to the body of the article. It also contains information not in the article, which contradict WP:LEAD
  • A location map/coordinates would be really nice
  • Thealternate claimant trivia bit and the name section should be cited
  • Too much direct quotations in regard to the lenght of the article.
  • Trivia could be easily reworked within the article
  • As a side comment, having an actual Quaking Aspen article would be a plus.
  • The images should be spread through the article instead of bunched at the bottom. if they can serve no purpose outside the gallery, they should go completely
  • Circeus 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with these issues. I've uploaded a Forest Service image of an aspen grove at Fishlake National Park, but the place is huge and it's probably filthy with them, so the image probably isn't of Pando. I've searched for coordinates, but they don't seem to be forthcoming; see the talk page. Melchoir 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Island[edit]

I largely wrote this article about two years ago, and I'd like to take it up to FA status. The biggest defecit it has at present is its lack of citations, but I'd be curious to know what other folks notice. - Seth Ilys 13:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without reading the article two things jump out. First, lack of references and lack of a picture which located the island geographically in the world. Will post more comments once I read the article. Joelito (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People may wish to use a 'Dates' tab and a 'Units' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 15:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs a little more info. Since it's such a small piece of land, it would be difficult to expand on it too much. I've reviewed it and here are some pointers:
  1. Remove the wikification of years
  2. Use non breaking spaces for units. Imperial equivalents should be added to reach out to a wider audience.
  3. History should not be divided into subsections. The start of the history should mention evidence of inhabitation by the Polynesians, then move on to the "discovery" of the island by western nations.
  4. Could you get a PNG version of the JPEG map?
  5. December 23 -- wikify
  6. have impacted the seabird population there -- how?
  7. Pic of a cocunut crab?
  8. use &ndash; instead of two --'s
  9. Caroline Island and its neighbor, Flint Island, are believed to host the world's largest populations – "are believed"? no confirmed sources that they are the largest?
  10. In the =Geography= section the island information would be better formatted by inserting in a table.
  11. Line Island Expedition? context needed. What is it?
  12. Copyedit required. Phrases such as It should be noted that etc.
  13. Format the references using standard templates available
  14. How old is the island estimated to be?
  15. The atoll achieved recent fame due to a 1995 – 1995 was 11 years back! No longer recent.
  16. crescent-shaped atoll the pic alongside does not show a very prominent crescent.
  17. 'been under consideration for designation as a World Heritage Site and as a Biosphere Reserve. why? for it's flora and fauna?
  18. A locator map like the one for Christmas Island would be a good addition.
  19. Climate? temperatures, seasons etc.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Makrygiannis[edit]

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

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

Fuck the Millennium[edit]

We (WikiProject The KLF) have recently improved The KLF to Featured Article status, and we are turning our attention now to our articles on the band's recordings. Our aim is to create readable, enjoyable, comprehensive and factually accurate articles, using inline citations and relevant quotations wherever possible. To "test the waters" I am asking for peers to review Fuck the Millennium, about The KLF's 1997 comeback campaign. Please bring up anything which could prevent this article being promoted to an FA or which would cause you to object to such a nomination. Thank you in advance. --kingboyk 12:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A minor point, but what the heck does "acid house oriented" mean? Gamaliel 13:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... sounds clumsy, doesn't it. We'll try to think of a better way of expressing that the song was acid-house based but a bit of a mixture of styles. --kingboyk 14:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded "acid house" as "electronic" and added part of a sentence to make it (hopefully) clearer. Is this better? --Vinoir 17:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Monkeys[edit]

previous PR

Halo 2[edit]

(Relisting because of lack of responses)--Zxcvbnm 14:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Like Halo, this is also a huge article & famous game which needs a peer review.--Zxcvbnm 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead definitely can be expanded, per WP:LEAD. AndyZ 00:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random comments:

  • Cite the "vista exclusive" thing, which I haven't heard of; Pointing at an official announcement by MS would be enough.
  • What's the point of the "versions" section?
  • Plot summaries should be written in summary style, not blow-by-blow accounts of each miniscule part of the cutscenes. That's what makes them summaries and not transcripts.
  • Campaign section looks good.
  • Multiplayer: "Live mode offers a unique and, some would say, innovative approach" - weasely. Cite it.
  • I wouldn't begin the multiplayer section with an explanation of "traditional" Client-server architecture. I might word it more closely to "Players do not set up the server; Live pools players together before choosing a host."
  • There's a three-line-long parenthetical comment explaining the benefits of being host. Take out the parenthesis.
  • I would merge the powerups into the weapons article, to get it out of the way.
  • "A common complaint" - cite it, if it's so common.
  • Rename "criticism" to something more general like "reception" and include both good and bad.
  • A copyedit would be useful. There's a fair bit of odd wordings, strange sentence order, etc, that should be fixed before going to FA.

Hope that helps. Nifboy 00:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda MX-5[edit]

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

Old Peer Review[edit]

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

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

— Wackymacs 06:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Doors[edit]

Great article, could be better.--GorillazFan Adam 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Expand lead, see WP:LEAD.
  2. Add footnotes, see WP:FOOTNOTE
  3. Check spelling, grammar, prose
  4. Convert lists into prose
  5. More pictures would be good.
  6. Cleanup 'Mid career controversy: 1969–1971' section.

— Wackymacs 11:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • To assist you with this: copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. This will give you a 'Dates' tab. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • 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.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 17:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darjeeling[edit]

A town is the eastern lower Himalaya, known for its tea, toy train and tourism. The article belongs to WikiProject Indian cities and has tried to follow the guidelines of the project. There is some issue regarding the images copyright, and you can see some images have been deleted. However, I have gathered necessary permission from authors of 3 out of 4 deleted images, and those would be re-inserted in two days. More good quality images will be great.

There are a few red links that will be taken care of in 3 to 4 days. A major reference article is no more available online, but is available in the Internet Archive. Please help building up the article, especially sections like History, Culture etc. Also the article needs copyedit. Regarding the map in the infobox, the common India locator map will be used after the issue regarding the map style (that is being discussed now in relevant pages) is fixed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • To assist you with this: copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. This will give you a 'Dates' tab. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 17:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review by thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK[edit]
  1. Darjeeling is famous for its tea industry, which produces blends considered among the world's finest. (similar expression comes again in Economy) Considered by whom? POV.
  2. Geographical corodinates may be added.
  3. Mount Kanchenjunga at 8,591 m (28,185 feet) the world's third tallest peak, is clearly visible from Darjeeling, and in clear days, Mount Everest (8,848 m) is also visible. — consider rewording to make it relavent to Darjeeling?
  4. There is inconsistency in the area noted in the infobox and the government and politics section.
  5. Unlike many other Indian cities, Darjeeling does not have its own police commissioner The lead says Darjeeling is a town, not a city.
  6. The women make a notable contribution as earning members of the family, which is higher than the national average Is the contribution of women higher than the national average? Might need rewording.
  7. Jorebungalow, Devil Dance, Maghe sankranti, Raj Bhawan, Planter's Club, — wikilink
  8. Schools attracting students from all over India and South Asia should go with a citation.
  9. traditions that are a part of any public school — wikilink to the traditions of public schools.
  10. that attract students who have completed their 12th standard exam from all over the region. — might be hard for non Indian readers to grasp. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne[edit]

I have no idea what I need to do to improve this article, and I need to know its major faults and I need an objective second opinion. Please, if there is a problem with fair use of images, please tell me what to do. I think that everything has been done correctly, but people still say that it is incorrect. HOW, exactly? also, if prose is bad, please inform me. If i'm wasting my time getting this peer review because the article is so bad, please tell me that as well. --Paaerduag 10:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need references, preferably inline. See Wikipedia:References for more info. I also think that the article, especially the latter sections, could use more ilinks (see W:BTW). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.


  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • 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.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.

Arecaceae[edit]

I've worked a long time on this article and it is currently a featured article candidate (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arecaceae/archive1). However, I haven't received much input about it, and I have responded to all the input that I have received. I would like to know if there is anything more I need to add. SCHZMO ✍ 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Is arecaceae the only family in arecales? The Taxobox implies it,but it isnever formally state din the article.
  • The "conservation" section is not summarized in the Lead. Maybe add slightly more specific details in the lead too.
  • Jargon to dal with, either by replacing it with simpler terms, by defining it or linkingit to a proper article:
    • The growth habit of Palms...
    • "radially symmetric"
    • All tribes have pinnate or bipinnate
    • "a central pistillate and two staminate flowers" - reword completely
    • using chloroplast DNA - should be linked
    • The relationships of Arecoideae - Within or outside it?
    • Chemical and molecular data from non-organelle DNA
    • "Date pits"
  • It might be pertinent to link terms such as sepal, petal and stamen.
  • I'd like to see a specific statement about the characteristics of Arecacea. I.e. What are the characteristics shared by all species in Arecaceae?
  • The second paragraph in "taxonomy" is highly confusing I think boldening the subfamilies' names would be a good idea. Duplicating that content at List of Arecaceae genera (which should be linked as the "main article" of this section, really) would also be a good idea.
  • The sentence "Chemical and molecular data from non-organelle DNA, for example, could be more effective for studying palm phylogeny." belongs in a paper, not an encyclopedic article.
  • It would be nice to expand the "evolution" section, as WP:FAC frowns on single paragraph sections:
    • How has the range evolved in time? There were certainly palms in the past in places where there nowadays are none.
    • Have there been extinct species having unique peculiarities?
  • The first paragraph of "Uses and cultivation" is repetitive in mentioning Date Palms
  • "Economically important genera" is, for all practical purpose, covered by "Uses and cultivation", and should probably be removed entirely.
  • Try to find a better way to link to Hardy palms. The current one breaks the article's flow.
  • "after the Cabbage Palmetto, logs from which were used to build the fort at Fort Moultrie." - this phrase is very poorly constructed.
  • "The palm branch was a symbol of triumph and victory in pre-Christian times." Is therea known reason for that? A particular myth or association of idea?
  • The latin motto should be in italics without quotes
  • Remove the footnote refering to the HMS Nelson article or replace it with an external citation. (you could have a look at the two book used to reference said article.)
  • "Unfortunately", under "Conservation", is POV
  • You first state "The greatest risk to palms is destruction of habitat", and then you say "Palms rarely reproduce after such great changes in the habitat". This is kind of contradictory:it,s not been changed, it's been destroyed, implying there are not even palms anymore!
  • "cannot truly imitate the natural setting." What makes imitating palms' (or more specifically endangered palms') natural setting so difficult?
  • It appear obvious to the casual readers that many species could be easily cultivated to conteract some of these problems. Are the specific species collected in the wild difficult to cultivate? It should be stated.
  • "Two projects on palm conservation..." could these two projects be briefly described?
  • Is Schultz-Schultzenstein actually used for references? If there is no content that specifically comes from it, it might be better to remove it. We do not like using foreign language references in generic articles.
  • I'd like to see the web references expanded a bit. {{cite web}} is a good place to start.
  • Suggested adition:
    • A general range map (maybe even showing concentration in species?)
    • A fossil image or phylogenic tree for "evolution"
  • Circeus 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coca-Cola Company[edit]

MSNBC just slammed the article. We need to quickly fix this to our normal standards. -- Zanimum 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • 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.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Started to stroke out things that didn't apply. How exactly can a javascript program judge copyediting? -- Zanimum 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh shoot- I forgot to change the wording for {{User:AndyZ/PR/copyedit}}. I'll fix that. By the way, about the first point, I was referring to the linking of years without full dates. While years can be linked (see WP:MOSDATE), they generally should be linked iff they provide context for the part in question. Andy t 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The History of the company is too short:
It needs to describe the foundation of the company, the origin of the company name and the original products. At present, the history section starts with World War II, some fifty years after the foundation of the company.
It needs to describe the company's development and global expansion after WWII.
It should describe the company's use of advertising to market its products around the world.
The information in the opening sentences of the Brands section could be more specific. According to the Coca Cola website, they 'offer nearly 400 brands in over 200 countries' - the number of brands gives an idea of scale as oppose to the vague 'other soft drink brands'.
Good luck with the article - Jazriel 08:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've changed the brands, is that of better relevance now? The history I'll have to leave to someone else. -- Zanimum 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some massive changes to the article (refactoring), the framework looks good, all that's needed rewording of the sentences, some added content etc 67.34.33.110 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: the problem is the article Criticism of Coca-Cola 67.34.33.110 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that is the most important battle ground. To brief everyone, that section was split off the main article, is being shaved down and fixed, and then will be rejoined with this article. However, I'm personally more concerned with the content of the article besides the primary troubled section, as I know the Criticism section is already in good hands. -- Zanimum 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, this article needs attention to dates. This can be done quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with Sesame Street, I see no errors in the dates. -- Zanimum 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, (boblewik) did ya steal Quarl's date javscript?

Sesame Street[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sesame Street/archive2
Wikipedia:Peer review/Sesame Street/archive3

What's the article need now? I think I've addressed the concerns from the previous PRs. -- Zanimum 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
See below. -- Zanimum 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
While I agree, concise captions don't allow me to prove enough supporting information to claim fair use. Ideas? -- Zanimum 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
I don't see any measurements. -- Zanimum 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Would look to odd with just "Humans" as a category. -- Zanimum 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
Done, painfully. -- Zanimum 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
This is already a summarised version. -- Zanimum 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
Fixed any that weren't cited. -- Zanimum 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
Thanks, Andy t 22:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, this article needs attention to dates. This can be done quickly, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly about dates? I'm not at a computer right now where I can modify my Monobook. The date links all seem fine. I don't link to any months or days of the week. -- Zanimum 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are unnecessary links to solitary years. If you update your monobook as described and press the 'Dates' tab, you will see the proposed edit. Feel free to try it and accept or reject the edit. bobblewik 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Alpert[edit]

Despite some personal bias (this is my namesake, after all), this seems like a pretty solid article on the whole. It feels thorough but not overly long or tangential. Images are relevant and properly licensed. The discography is complete and goes over the significance of Alpert and the Tijuana Brass's major works. The external links section is well-rounded. About the only possible points of correction I see here are quite minor — perhaps cutting down on a few wikilinks, tightening up the latter two sections on Alpert's later life, and expanding with some references. I'd like some outside advice on problems that I may not be seeing here. Thanks. Tijuana BrassE@ 17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Let's get a couple easy ones out of the way with first. A biography infobox could be used here, but after playing around with it and looking at some other biographical featured articles, it seems like it could work just as well without it (and from my standpoint, that seemed more aesthetically pleasing). Regarding the space between numbers and measurements, I looked through the article, but I'm not sure what triggered the script to mention that — couldn't find anything. Comments on either of these? I'll be looking for some references and trying to figure out how to expand the lead-in section in the meantime. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh- I think "72 million" triggered that (script was searching for abbreviation of mile, "mi", I'll fix that). Just to add onto your load :)
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • Andy t 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Associates[edit]

This is one of the first articles I've made from scratch. I tried to organize it as best as possible. I would specifically like feedback as to the organization of the page. i.e. Do you like how the sections are split up? Should the Obscenity Prosecution have gotten its own section? is it reasonable to have "History," "Meanstream Publicity," etc. under "History" or should they have their own sections, or should they not even have their own sections and just be explained somewhere in the article. Is the way I laied out the "former/current" employees section the best way it could be laid out? Would it be better in chart form? Any feedback would be appreciated in regards to this article. Thanks. JB196 00:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 22:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caterpillar[edit]

I just read this article and thought it was great, so I created this page so that maybe it can begin the process of turning into a featured article. I haven't had anything to do with writing it myself though. --spiralhighway 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs a longer intro - should summarize the whole article, not just define the term.
  • Much more substantial sourcing
  • Needs sections on the taxonomy of caterpillars, the metamorphosis process and life cycle, the caterpillar in culture and fiction.
    • The taxonomy goes with the Lepidoptera as a whole. This is just the larval stage. Satyrium 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anatomy section could do with a diagram of the interior of a caterpillar.--Pyroclastic 04:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology of the word 'caterpillar' could be included near the beginning of the article.
  • There are a number of pictures of unidentified caterpillars - for an encyclopedia article, it would help to identify them or to use other pictures of identified caterpillars --Jazriel 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armia Krajowa[edit]

The article about the second largest resistance organization during the WWII has recently been expanded and copyedit, now using a lot of inline citations. While I think it needs even more expantion before FAC, I wonder which sections you think should be expanded, what information may be missing and what other changes should be done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs not just expansion, but thorough NPOVing. Several edit wars has been recently looming and the article carries their consequences to this day with different pieces being POVed in different direction, as usually happends following the edit wars. Editors expect GA-ready articles when they browse peer-review request. This request is highly premature. --Irpen 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would seriously consider migrating the marginal questions to separate articles. I mean specifically "Relations with Lithuanians", but "Relations with Jews" could also better be explained in the text. Anyway, the part on Lithuania seems to be the most marginal and serve mostly pushing this or that POV. Currently the POV is skewed to the Lithuanian side, but the alternative would be to push it to the Polish side, which would not be a good option either. And the fact is that the Lithuanian question in AK's history was indeed marginal. Members of Armia Krajowa often terrorised, killed, beat Lithuanians and looted their property in Vilnius and Vilnius region in terms of sheer numbers mean... 27 casualties, not counting some Lithuanian collaborators killed in action. I know every death is a tragedy, but just compare the number to, say, 50,000 killed in Wola in 1944, or to the size of the AK altogether. Besides, the section is filled with quite controversial statements written in bad English - and presenting only one side of the story. I'd say migrate the section and mention that there was a conflict with Lithuanian collaborators in the text. //Halibutt 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • 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.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • Footnote #8 got messed up somewhere and isn't rendering correctly.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Peer Review 1 (25)

Sydney Roosters[edit]

This article had a peer review a few months ago, but was generally unfinished with respect to references. At the moment I think everything seems to be referenced quite well and sections have been tidied up to comply with the Manual of Style. Perhaps my only concern would be elements of bias in some sections and perhaps the need to move some of the latter sections to a separate subpage in order to just keep the "essential" information on the main page. Could anyone make any comments with regards to this article? Cheers, --mdmanser 00:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally pretty good. Some points, mostly fairly picky:

  • Ensure that rugby league jargon is explained or linked to the first time each term is mentioned. It is unclear what "the finals" are, and "minor premiership" is only linked further down.
  • "The years spanning from 1926 to 1942 were arguably the most successful period for the club in its history" should either be referenced or rewritten as "one of the most successful periods of the club's history" or similar.
  • Nicknames such as "Super Coach" Jack Gibson and "Transit Lounge" should be referenced.
  • Avoid euphemistic terms e.g use "lost" instead of "went down".
  • Are there any sources for membership numbers more specific than "healthy membership numbers"?
  • "The Kevin Hastings Stand is a designated area for families to watch the football in a safe alcohol-free zone." Are the other areas regarded as unsafe? If not reword this sentence.
  • Ditch the "Current transfers" section, that sort of thing is more Wikinews than Wikipedia.
  • I'm not convinced of the encyclopedic value of the lyrics to "Here come the Roosters".
  • The rivalries section strays into POV territory at times. Tone down the language, and perhaps consider merging with the Supporters section. Phrases such as "the 2004 Grand Final left a dirty taste of Roosters supporters who still hope to extract revenge upon the Canterbury-based club in the near future." should be removed completely.
  • The references should be formatted in a similar manner to the footnotes.
  • Are there any books about the club in print? Currently all the references are web based.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 12:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for those suggestions. I've gone through each one of those and made the neccessary ammendments. I'll keep this Peer Review on here for another week or two just in case anyone else wants to add any comments before I send it off for a featured article candidate. Thanks again, --mdmanser 13:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virus[edit]

I am submitting this article for Peer Review as I think it has what it takes to be a featured article. I, and other contributors, would be very grateful for any critique you could offer which could improve the article and help it on its way. Our thanks in advance -- Serephine ♠ talk - 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 1 (fixed)[edit]

It has unnecessary date links. This can be fixed quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Bobblewik, the dates have been fixed ☺ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. bobblewik 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions 2 (fixed)[edit]

It looks pretty decent overall. Unfortunately I didn't have time for a complete review, but here's a few comments:

  • When the text says, "In all four, a capsid of either helical, icosahedral, or a combination of both is present", this is presumably refering to a shape. So can that be clarified in the sentence?
  • First it says that a capsid can be spherical or helical, then it says a capsid can be helical or icosahedral. Which is it?
  • "unusual morphological structure" seems redundantly redundant to me. Wouldn't unusual morphology suffice? Also could morphological be linked?
  • In some cases the text uses terminology such as glycoprotein and pleiomorphic that may be unfamiliar to the casual reader. It would be good if these were either defined or linked.

Thanks! — RJH (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input RJH, they've all been fixed ☺ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions 3 (in progress)[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.

  • 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 WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
Does anyone find these a problem? Personally I find footnotes to be an ugly mess -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, footnotes are required by WP:WIAFA (nowadays, you won't be able to get an article past WP:FAC without a minimum of ~one footnote per section). And thanks about the taxobox tip. Andy t AndyZ 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cheers Andy, I'll get around to footnoting the article soon ☺ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A work in progress, I removed a pile earlier -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
Got me on that one, call it a work in progress or overzealous use of H3 tags! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
I'm pretty sure I've got them all, if anyone finds any please note it here -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, the pleasure is all mine ☺ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 4 (fixed)[edit]

Another Wikipedia style is to use sentence case i.e. 'Genetic Material' should be 'Genetic material'. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks again! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Mustang SSP[edit]

The article has a solid ammount of info, and with exception of the Law Enforcement users (Some states need to have their respective Law Enforcement agencies listed and concern that the excessive ammount of red links might be a detracting point) I feel that the article is more of a general overview than a proper encyclopedia page. --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the points are covered, with exception of "the" header remark and categories. --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond, I would probably have to make manual suggestions; I could probably force the javascript to give slightly more specific problems, but not much more than that. My original goal with this was to provide basic suggestions for articles that have a smaller notability and hence tend to receive less reviews, giving the submitters something to work on first while waiting for more in-depth responses. However, I appreciate your advice and will work to try to make it more focused on certain problems. Some more suggestions:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Thanks for the feedback- Andy t 00:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the lists, should I just redirect into another article?--293.xx.xxx.xx 01:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, second go around. Added somemore info. Come on, roast my editing skills!!--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back[edit]

The content of the article is good enough, however, it would be nice to get this to FA. So, any suggestions as to how? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • 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.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
The dates problem identified by AndyZ can be fixed quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab to press in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some recent film articles got hammered at the FAC for the number of fair-use images they were using, so may I suggest you cut down. I can suggest the following could be removed: The Rebels being fired upon on Hoth (the previous image is probably enough), and maybe the Bespin image, but see how it goes. But definantly ditch the novel cover and the 1997 poster, trust me, the images need to be kept to a low number. Change "Reaction" to "Reception", and ditch the subheadings, merge notable content into paragraphs, not lists or boxes. The radio drama section doesnt need subheadings and must be turned into paragraphs. The "Error" and "Trivia" lists need to go, though salvage what info is useful, trivia is almost always a cause for objection at the FAC, get it out in my opinon. The description of the films poster in the infobox could be inappropriate, how well known is that comparison? I havent checked this, but make sure all images have fair use rationales and you havent over-wikified things. Also, get rid of the cast table, see Revenge of the Sith/V for Vendetta and other film FAs for ideas. Good luck! Cvene64 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Allison[edit]

I've been working on this for the last month, and want to get some extra eyes to make sure I didn't do anything terribly stupid, which has happened in the past. In fact, if you see any stray ndash;'s, please change it to nbsp;'s, as I just made the idiotic mistake of mixing the two up. Any suggestions? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of things to say. In the intro, do you think you could include more of the storm history and a tad less of the aftermath, as the aftermath isn't normally included in the intro. Also, you don't really need to do this, but I would like to see a pic of Subtropical Storm Allison over the Gulf Stream. In addition, can the death toll chart have the deaths divided into the counties, or is there not enough info to do so? And if there's a damage photo for the southeast US (I'll try to look for one), then we could move the rainfall totals up to the top of the impact section, to the lect of the casualties chart. Plus, isn't the aftermath supposed to be separate from the impact with == ==, not === ===? Finally, can a retirement subsection be created under the aftermath? I know when I've done that, it has occasionally be reverted. I hope this helps a lot. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 11:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got the storm history. Normally the aftermath isn't included, but because the 2nd paragraph was getting redundant (really, how many times can you say the flooding caused damage), I made a third paragraph for the aftermath. I found a pic of Allison over the Gulf Stream, but it isn't particularly impressive of the storm, nor would there be a place for the pic. Ugh, I hate the death toll charts divided into counties. I just don't think it's that important. The main information is that it killed 23 in Texas, 1 in Louisiana, etc. A few times I mentioned the location, but it makes the table unnecessarily big. I couldn't find any damage pics from Mississippi through the Carolinas, but thanks for looking. If you do find one, then, the rainfall pic would be in a much better place. I got the Aftermath, thanks for the catch. There's no need for a small stub subsection that is only two sentences long. However, if someone expands that to include other information, then a sub-section could be warrented, but probably not. Thanks for the suggestions. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary date links in this article can be fixed quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab to press in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the dates? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.

Kentucky[edit]

I want comments on if it is an A-class, a B-class, etc. class article. And especially review the history section.-GangstaEB & friends 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. (please restore the lead to this version, User:Civil Engineer III and I have discussed this before)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • As for my rating, I would say B-class. The history section especially worries me because the assassination of Governor William J. Goebel is given way too much discussion as opposed to the history of the state; Suggest moving some of this information to History of Kentucky. “Transportation” is a section-stub and should be expanded. I also don’t see a need for “15 largest Kentucky cities, 2010 Projected” and the other table; it’s really listy and would better belong on another subpage. “Interesting facts about Kentucky” should be prosified and removed eventually, with all important facts merged with the rest of the article. Thanks, Andy t 01:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Hill[edit]

A bit of heavy editing and referencing has been done over the past few days and weeks to improve the standards of this article. A lot of attention has gone into referencing the article and removing POV statements. Something that I have found rare in Formula One driver articles is the lack of attention going into making the articles NPOV, such as Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso's articles. I'm hoping that this peer review gives me some better ideas on how to expand on the article, hopefully at the moment it is good standard :) Skully Collins 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please, for the love of all that is holy, get rid of those melodramatic and self-contradictory section headings! (e.g. "1994, Determination After Devastation...Then Disaster", "1996, Hill's Best Season...And Ironically His Worst") An encyclopedia article isn't supposed have the same tone as a VH1 Behind the Music special ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I would also reduce the number of headings, splitting them by team : so, 1992 - Brabham; 1993-96 - Williams; 1997 - Arrows and 1998-99 - Jordan should suffice. Seb Patrick 12:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They look like wonderful h2g2 headings. I think I'll stay there and only pop in here occasionally. TRiG 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment I'm not sure how NPOV it is; there are a number of statements such as "Many would agree that Hill spent a year too long in F1, but regardless of his unsuccessful final season, he ranks as one of the best drivers to have graced the sport and was a fully deserving world champion." that really need some kind of citation if they're not to sound like weasel words. In addition, I feel that in 1994 section too much weight is given to the suggestion that Schumacher deliberately collided with Hill. I'm not saying he definitely didn't - but this is not a Senna '90 or Schumi '97 situation; the truth of the matter has never really come out, no official action or even condemnation was ever taken against Schumacher, and there are in fact some who believe the accident was Hill's fault for going for a narrow gap when he could have held off and waited. A sentence or so suggesting that the nature of the accident was ambiguous would be useful, since at the moment the article appears to make out that it's universally accepted as an unsporting moment. Seb Patrick 12:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but think about the fact that Schumacher KNEW his car had been damaged, I mean you don't just crash into the wall and say, "Hmmm...the car seems fine..", do you? and in Hill's defense he didn't know that Schuamcher's car was damaged and he's driving at speeds you'll probably never reach in a normal road car...sure, I do admit that it is a very POV statement, and I apologise for that (and well as the tone of this reply)...but I just feel so strongly against Schumacher for that incident :( Skully Collins 12:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I totally understand the reasoning behind feeling it was deliberate; and, while I'm personally on the fence, I agree that circumstances seem to point more towards it being deliberate on Schumi's part than an out and out accident. But like I say, it really helps an article if both points of view on something controversial like that can be represented. Seems like you know enough about it that it shouldn't be a problem! Seb Patrick 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Had another play with it - I think the key is to stick to facts and not to ascribe motivations to the two drivers. The anti-Schumacher view comes from the BBC poll. The pro-Schumacher view can come, strangely enough, from Murray Walker. I think what follows the quote given is words to the effect of:"but Michael says that he did not do it on purpose and I believe him". Certainly Murray has recently said again on BBC Radio 5 Live that he did not believe Schumacher did it on purpose. Perhaps that quote could be extended or referenced to give the pro-Schumacher view. 4u1e
Heh, and YOU were more worried about the stig bit =P --Skully Collins 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon they just haven't got that far down the article yet, mate! We'll see.....4u1e
Heh. I thought the Stig bit was fine, actually. It mentions that it's speculation and not fact, cites examples of said speculation, and makes specific reference to the moment on Top Gear where they acknowledged the speculation. Personally, I don't think Damon is the Stig (I think the White Stig has been a number of people, such as when Heiki Kovalainen admitted to doing it once... maybe Damon did it once or twice, though), but the rumours are a worthwhile enough part of his post-racing career (in that he does talk about it rather than just ignoring it) that it's worth keeping in. Seb Patrick 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! I concede defeat then.....for now ;-) 4u1e
Heh, I think we're almost done now. Unless you guys have something else I need to do? --Skully Collins 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another little point I'd pick up on is at the end of the article, when discussing Hill's band. It says that 2002 has been a very busy year for the band, playing more than ever before., which sounds to me like it's either been copied from somewhere else, or was simply written a few years ago and not been updated since then. Either way, the tense is wrong - I'd change it to "2002 was a very busy year for the band", and then perhaps adding (if possible) a brief sentence outlining anything that's gone on since then (if they've pretty much disbanded, then simply say so). Seb Patrick 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed, I think it's better without that sentence :) --Skully Collins 12:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort out the article structure. The "Awards" section info might work better in the lead. The biography sections are fragmented, with information concerning his F1 career interspersed throughout the middle. Try formatting the article into three distinct sections: 1. Life, 2. Career, 3. Miscellany. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. Believe it now does so - three paragraphs & added mention of Schumi-Hill rivalry. 4u1e
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Can't see any use of units, so think this is OK. Cheers 4u1e
  • 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.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]

Roy of the Rovers[edit]

This article has been built from pretty much the ground up by myself and ChrisTheDude over a period of about three-four months. It now provides an almost complete overview of the many years of this successful and long-running British institution, and also makes use of just about every available resource on the comic out there (which, sadly, isn't a massive amount). It's got pretty comprehensive citations, and every image used now has a fair use rationale attached. I submitted it for Good Article status, and got a quick response, SeizureDog saying that not only was it worthy of the green plus, but that he felt it had a good shout of being a FAC. After a bit more tidying up, therefore, I thought I'd bring it to Peer Review to see if anyone has any further suggestions for ways it might be tweaked. Seb Patrick 08:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • 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.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
Obviously I understand that, as they're automatically generated, not all the points are necessarily applicable, but I'll address them all one by one so that it's clear they've been thoroughly taken into account :
  • Lead has been expanded to three paragraphs.
  • There are no linked days, months or years. One full date is linked.
  • I've looked at infoboxes in the past, but since the title refers to both a strip and a publication, I'm not sure if there's really an appropriate one to use.
  • I don't think there are any units of measurement, so I don't think this one applies.
  • Two headings begin with "The", but they refer to the titles of strips, so they're appropriate.
  • There's no trivia section.
  • Alphabetising of categories has been done per suggestion.
  • The ToC has been a cause for concern, and in an earlier version certainly was too long. I've since trimmed it by combining some of the sections, and I think it's just about manageable now.
  • I've tried to make the article as good as possible with regards to "weasel words" and the like. There are a few generalised statements referring to the strip's popularity and nostalgia value, but these are simply because they're reflecting a wide view rather than, say, one specific writer/critic. Wherever these phrases occur, I've made sure to cite an article that is representative of the view. If anyone spots such a phrase that has slipped through the net, please point out specifics to me and I'll address them.
  • Footnotes all conform to style, now, I think.
  • Again, I've worked hard on the writing style; I feel it's strong enough, now, but would appreciate any editorial comments that anyone has to make. Seb Patrick 09:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequerome[edit]

Sequerome is a web-based Sequence profiling tool that provides a unique and useful functionality of profiling the entire BLAST report by linking it to a panel of servers that perform advanced sequence manipulations. Since its inception about an year back, the tool has been well reviewed in the Science (journal) and officially linked and referenced in many Bioinformatics portals around the globe. The article primarily traces the development and implementation of the tool followed by an endnote on the future of such web based applications. While I can take care of the scientific part of it, I would greatly appreciate any help in cleanup and presentation

Nattu 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.

Super Smash Bros. Melee[edit]

Hello, everyone. I'd like to see what you guys think about the article SSBM and what we can do to bring it to featured status. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary date links in this article can be detected and fixed quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab to press in edit mode.
In addition, the word 'megabit' starts with a lower case 'm'. Hope that helps. bobblewik 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, megabit was easy enough to change. :P I think the date links should stay in the infobox, unless there's a policy against them. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The monobook tool is clever enough to ignore full dates (such as those in the infobox). It only deals with partial or incorrectly formatted dates (such as the two links to solitary years in the article). Regards bobblewik 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some stuff I found:
  • "It builds on that game's broad appeal and involved multiplayer mode, adding new features" Two games were mentioned in the previous sentence. Is there a way to make it a little clearer which one we're now talking about?
  • "A very popular title, it is considered the definitive killer game for the GameCube and is the GameCube's best-selling title with sales of nearly 7 million units sold worldwide" Not sure how much of that claim we can make, given the reference.
  • "As was the case in the original Super Smash Bros., Super Smash Bros. Melee does not have a true story behind it and merely features a scenario in which many of the most famous characters from the different universes of Nintendo converge in one dimension to do battle with each other for unexplained reasons." Phrasing is awkward, try something like "SSBM, like SSB, doesn't have a coherent plot and simply pits famous Nintendo characters against each other in battle."
  • The gameplay session could use some more linking, especially for character names.
  • "Because of special techniques only the most avid of players can perform (such as the wavedash that can allow a standing character to rapidly move forward or backwards while performing any standing move), large tournaments with cash prizes are held to honor players' moves (for more on tournaments, see below)." This can probably be omitted
  • The entire "tournaments" section needs references.
  • The "reaction" section could be expanded a little more, but the citations are nice. When submitting video games for FA, it seems that a lot of reviewers want more global impact/context information.
Themillofkeytone 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • some more information/citations invovling the Hoaxes. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been speculated that it may be due to
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narcotics Anonymous[edit]

This is an influencial 12-step organization that helps people recover from drug addiction. What does the article need? (There are a few short sections with {{expandsect}} in them, and I know those need more info.) Should it be reorganized? Is the tone encyclopedic? Are the images appropriate? Should the article be split up? Thanks, Sarah crane 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
    • Yeah, I'm waiting untill all sections are of proper length before taking on the lead (the hardest part!) Sarah crane 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
    • In this case, I think "The nature of addiction" is a better heading than "Nature of addiction". I'm more split on "The development of N.A. literature", but I think it reads better with "the". Any humans have opinions on this? Sarah crane 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
    • I'm considering it, but I'm not sure how. Any humans want to chime in with suggestions for this? Or is the TOC okay as it is? Sarah crane 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, thanks for the feedback. Andy t 15:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings; I'm new here and am sure to aggravate you as I stumble through the protocols of wikipedia. This is a post I posted to discussion(?): FORMATS

The last paragraph in the section "Formats" cites the Basic Text inaccurately with:

"The message of Narcotics Anonymous is hope: that there is another way to live. The one promise of N.A. is that "an addict, any addict, can stop using, lose the desire to use, and learn a new way of life" (Basic Text)."

More accurately it is: "The message of Narcotics Anonymous is that, "an addict, any addict, can stop using drugs, lose the desire to use, and find a new way to live. Our message is hope and the promise of freedom from active addiction." (Basic Text, Tradition Five) Pedantpedia (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC) pediapendant Pedantpedia (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadian League[edit]

I wrote this a while ago, not really intending to do anything but write it and leave it there, since the amount of information on the topic is quite limited, but recent discussions on the FAC talk page about short FAs have made me wonder if this might have a shot. What do people think it needs? --RobthTalkCleanup? 15:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.

Scheme programming language[edit]

I think this is an excellent article and would like to move towards making it a featured article. Ideogram 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the nomination, will be back in a couple of minutes with suggestions. AndyZ 23:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. For an article of this length, the lead should contain 2-3 paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
Done. Ideogram 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Done. Ideogram 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading. (mainly: Hello World)
Done. Ideogram 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
I have tagged the statements requiring citations. I hope other people will help me fill them out. Ideogram 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All quotations should have WP:FOOTNOTEs or other forms of inline citations.
Done. Ideogram 08:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ideogram 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
Done. Ideogram 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the source of this image. How might we establish a fair use rationale? Ideogram 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is considered a seal or emblem, and there is a fair use rationale attached to the image. Ideogram 06:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a stab at this. See what you think. Ideogram 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. — Wackymacs 10:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Down syndrome[edit]

This article has been relatively stable for the past few months. We are looking for ways to improve it, topics we may have left out, and any comments about the coverage and scope of the article. Thanks for the help. Ted 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
    • Done, Ted 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
    • Done with exception of those that will be modified with WP:CITE. Ted 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Finished all.Ted 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
    Comment. I'm having problems with this one. I have converted two lists into tables. While they are still lists, the table format actually works better for them. It also takes them out of the text, which is good. There are two lists remaining: One is set to emphasize the four different causes of Down syndrome. While it could be put in paragraph form, I worry that it will be hard to distinguish the four parts. The other is, well, a (shortened) list of possible physical effects. As a paragraph, it would stink. If need be, I guess we could delete it. Any comments about where to go with this would be very welcome. Ted 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, we left in one list (health), created two tables, and used another list for subdivisions. Ted 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
    • Done, Ted 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
    • Done, Ted 14:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check for typos like in footnote #7.
  • After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all (for example, either In 1908, this happened or In 1908 this happened).
    • Done, Ted 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
    • Done, Ted 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For other suggestions that may be applicable to this article, take a look at the list of suggestions located at User:AndyZ/PR.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 12:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your specific comments. I have moved them to Talk:Down syndrome and we'll start working on them. We've already done the alphabetization and worked on a couple other of the minor changes. We will work on any other comments reviewers might have. Ted 18:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things that might be nice. First of all, some thorough copyediting will be needed before FAC - there are several single sentence paragraphs, short sections, etc. The Robertsonian section should be rewritten for grammar and clarity. Some of the language, especially in the last paragraph of the lead, could use some work (on the one hand, etc.). I'd like to see data for the "nearly all will learn to read, write and do simple mathematics." Just the percentage with infantile spasms alone would lead me to doubt this statement, though I don't have any data at hand. I think that the list format of the medical section should be expanded and covered in more depth - these aspects of the disease are extremely important, especially when they are young. The screening section could use some updates (quad screen, etc) with some discussion about the large number of abortions (at least in America) based upon diagnosis of 21. If absolute numbers/percentages of abortions were available, it would be nice to include. The lead section sentence "perhaps a higher than average risk of incidence" is redundant, as are several other sentences which could be tightened. It might be nice to move the history section to the bottom and move up the symptoms, etc. to be more in line with the medical template. In any event, great job! If I don't respond to your efforts to improve, don't worry, I'll be on vacation, no ignoring you! InvictaHOG 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will put them in the To Do list. I'll also report back here as we work on it. Some comments right now are:
  • The vast majority of children with Down syndrome have mild to moderate mental retardation. Such children can typically read, write, and do simple math. There are some children with severe mental retardation (IQ 20-35), where this can be problematic. I'll try to find data and modify the statement. Update I couldn't find any references to confirm this. I've deleted it until such time as we can verify the claim. TedTalk/Contributions 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there are several screens that could be added, the NT-derived tests are, by far, the best (confirmed by NIH). For later testing, the AFP-Free Beta test outperforms Quad (although I don't have any reliable numbers). The ACOG (American College of Obstetrics and Gynocology) makes no recommendations for second trimester screens. If anyone has Quad rates, they can add them. As far as I can tell, these two tests (NT tests for first trimester/AFP-Free Beta for second trimester) are up to date. Update: I found a source and added the Quad test. As expected, it doesn't do as well, but it is now in the table. TedTalk/Contributions 04:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see if anyone has abortion numbers. However, abortion is a sensitive issue and I'd hate to saddle this article with all that baggage. Update I found several sources listing abortion rates of 85-90% for fetuses that have been identified as Down syndrome. I'm not really sure how to use that information. Any help would be appreciated. TedTalk/Contributions 23:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Update. I've found and put in the numbers into the prenatal testing section along with some comments about ethics. TedTalk/Contributions 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recently, an editor added the term "risk". We had avoided that earlier, and the editing left some awkward sentences. We are working on it.
Update. No comments from the peanut gallery, so I'll leave it as risk. I'm sure that at some time it will be changed, but we can deal with it when that happens. TedTalk/Contributions 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for the comments. Ted Talk 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the Translocation section. I'm letting it settle in a little before copyediting it. Ideally, the article on translocations could be referenced, but it isn't very good right now, so I'm doing it all here. TedTalk/Contributions 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EL, WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not a repository of links"), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Writing medical articles ("However, their number should be kept in check –Wikipedia is not a collection of links. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool for charities however worthy, nor is it trying to be resource for those seeking help."), I suggest deleting *all* of the External links, and replacing them with the DMOZ category for Down syndrome. Since there is an established repository, you can encourage anyone who wants to add a link to add it to DMOZ. Any reputable organization should already be listed there. Sandy 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I looked over the links in Wiki's article and the links at dmoz. There is very little overlap. I only did a quick check, so may have missed one or two, but I found only one link from the article's Association list (Down Syndrome Research Foundation). There were a couple in the Informational list. The list appears to be mainly local organizations. I'll work on trying to reduce the size of the list here, but it would seem that most of the DS organizations we use are not listed there. TedTalk/Contributions 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then they should be encouraged to list at DMOZ, and refrain from being listed at Wiki. It is not up to Wiki to promote charities, and lists of external links to support and informational groups often lead to revert wars and extensive editing and re-editing over which are "worthy" of inclusion. Let DMOZ do that for you :-)) Sandy 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I found two lists for Down syndrome that are much better than DMOZ. I have included those. I've been pruning down the list. My hope is to get all the informational material into the references section, then delete the entire section. TedTalk/Contributions 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the article doesn't seem to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Writing medical articles: is there any particular reason? Sandy 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revisit the problem. I looked at it earlier and rejected it as cumbersome for genetic syndromes. The only two genetic featured articles are Cystic fibrosis and Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. In both those cases, the cause is a single gene. None of the chromosomal abnormalities have made it to featured article status yet. The History section is earlier than normal so that we can deal with naming, particularly "Mongolian idiocy". Such sections as "Symptoms" are not really a concern with Down syndrome -- nearly all infants with Down syndrome are detected at birth (some mosaics are missed). In the same way, you don't "Treat" Down syndrome. You do treat the various health problems that arise. The thrust of the "Clinical medicine" project is: diagnosis, treatment, prognosis (hence, the "clinical" part). The way we have written it is not that.
We would be glad to see any suggestions you might have for this article to fit better into the clinical medical template. TedTalk/Contributions 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tourette syndrome is also genetic, and not a perfect fit for a traditional "medical disease", but I was able to make the suggested format work (although there are sections I'm still working on ... I know how I am going to make Prevention and Screening work, but haven't gotten to them yet.) Once I stopped resisting the medical format, and went with it, I found that it really helped to focus the article, keep the content more encyclopedic (as opposed to more support or advocacy-groupish) and showed where the article was lacking. Sandy 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how it will work. I have rearranged the order somewhat, to somewhat fit the order given. I have used normal genetic terms in place of clinical terms, such as using Characteristics instead of Symptoms.
In addition, for this article, we have to have some order based on the topic. For example, Prenatal Screening has to come after Incidence (when maternal age effect is discussed) and History (when eugenics is discussed). I start teaching later this week, so I'll give it a rest and hope that I can see it with fresh eyes. Thanks, again, for the comments. TedTalk/Contributions 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections are very short, don't correspond to the recommended headings for medical articles, and don't seem to warrant an entire section (e.g.; plastic surgery and World Down syndrome day). Sandy 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'll look to see where they can go. TedTalk/Contributions 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've moved most of such sections into the main body. I left them as subsections, and will evaluate if they should be simply merged into the main section body. TedTalk/Contributions 17:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to me that a lot of the "less than medical" content could be consolidated. I really dislike seeing "notable" lists in the actual medical article, and intensely dislike it when claims of notables are not referenced (as these sorts of lists can degenerate). Maybe you'd consider moving that out, as I did in Tourette syndrome, and referencing the notables as I did with Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. That type of content is of intense interest to families of the condition, but not particularly encyclopedic, so it can help to move it all to a daughter article. Very nice job so far !!! Hope this helps, Sandy 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't seen that problem with Down syndrome, which is more "physically obvious". The list has been quite stable since before the first of the year (other than obvious vandalism). I suspect it is much more a problem with Tourette syndrome or androgen insensitivity. I really hate lists, but maybe that is a way to go here. TedTalk/Contributions 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ah, yes, I see the difference, and strike that objection for your case. Anyone can allege someone had/has Tourette's, and it happens all the time, so I had a stronger need to reference the statements. Sandy 02:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks I guess this peer review is officially closed (although I still have it on watch). I wholeheartedly thank everyone who has contributed. I'm too close to the project, but I think it has improved based on your comments and criticisms. Thanks, again.

TedTalk/Contributions 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infiniti G20[edit]

I would like a bit of general cleanup as well as a review to help the Infiniti G20 entry to be considered a Good Article. Thanks. Zolielo 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
Need help, as I do not want to take away from others by over editing. Zoli Elo 19:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Done Zoli Elo 19:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
Done already, I believe this was a script error or bug.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
Done Zoli Elo 19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
Needs work; non-SI units with SI units. Zoli Elo 19:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Done Zoli Elo 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that this is best is there an altnerate format? Zoli Elo 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
Much of the information is homebrew in nature and will be dificult to ref. Zoli Elo 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such copy editing is beyond me, bit of help. Zoli Elo 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
Done, neat. Zoli Elo 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you. Zoli Elo 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's great to have somebody really involved and interest in the vehicle to develop an article like that, I also appreciate your reaching out for outside opinion! OK, so here I go:

  1. I have trimmed down the summary section - it was far too long and contained a hodgepodge of info better dealt with within dedicated sections of the article. Still, I don't think the optional packages belong there, but perhaps you know better where to put them.
  • Thanks, I think that I was too close to the article and did not want to break down the intro - you did a great job. I also moved the optional packages to a new section, specs and trim, which I will be adding to later. (Hopefully someone else will add too.) Zoli Elo 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the spec and trim, it just does not fit currently as a section. Zoli Elo 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am afraid the style of writing in this article is not to the best of WP's standards. There is a lot of info stuffed into the article within brackets and enormously elongated sentences, while in some other cases wording is quite ambigious and not easily understandable for a person not familiar with the topic (remember that most WP users are not that familiar with automotive matters as such in general)
  2. There is quite a lot of technical stuff without proper explanations or not wikilinked. For example "MY94 also saw the AC converted from R12 to R134a, a change to OBD-II" - I am really into cars, but I don't really know what the latter part of the sentence is about, and again remember that many Wikipedia users are pretty much laymen on the subjects they look into (which is why they look into them)
  • Took care of that line and just a few others - more work needed. Zoli Elo 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Watch out for weasel words and similar indefinitive terms, like when you say "Very often members of this community partake in a group buy". If you could provide some data like "76% of G20 tuners surveyed by Whatever Entity say they partake in group buys" or something, it would be OK. Otherwise, I'd leave such statements out completely.
Corrected that Zoli Elo 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Paint Codes do not really belong in an encyclopedia article at all. Sure this might be useful info, but if somebody wanted to delve that deep into G20s technicalities, they've got the external links.
  • People from the external link send people to the wiki entry just for that. I do not like it there but do feel that it is useful information that others might want included. Zoli Elo 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sales numbers could be presented in a neater way as a table.
  1. "Used car trouble spots" would better belong in a consumer magazine, especially that they are unsourced. I'd do away with this section.
  • People love it so I do not think that it should be removed. I will work on backing up its claims with Nissan trouble bulitins and whatnot. Zoli Elo 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. SOURCES are what WP is about, whether you like it or not. EVERY article should contain appropriate references to reliable sources, otherwise it is not worth much, as there is not assurance whether it's right or not. References also help distinguish between some musings put on Wikipedia by people who have no better things to do and (f)actual information.
    I understand you find it hard to think of references for this article, but this might not be that hard actually. First of all, all manufacturer material, websites (try the Wayback Machine to gain access historic web material), publicity stuff etc. are superb references for technical and marketing information. Car magazines and websites can also come in handy. There are sometimes even books devoted to certain models or brands, in case you don't know of any, check with the fan community. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources.
  • Found some ref sources. I would like to find direct sources in most cars but they are fairly old and a trick to easily find. Zoli Elo 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In general, look at Good and Featured Articles on cars to find out how they are stuctured, what kind of info they include and how it is presented. You can find them in the "Transportation" sections.

I also have some more detailed comments, but I guess that's a whole lot already. I'd be glad to discuss them with you later to give you more food for thought, after you further improve the article, which I see you are constantly working on. Have fun and keep on the good work!

Thanks for the help, Bravada. Those are great comments which I will try to work on point for point to bring this article to GA level. A few topics of contention that you have brought up, I also have. However, other wiki users or random people from G20.net the main online forum for this car adore sections such as color codes and used car trouble. I think that this is the case for it is a resource to send new and potential G20 owners - to get them up to speed. I have actually made additional wiki entries (mainly stubs) to try to counter some of the jargon, but I can see what you mean. Zoli Elo 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes my edits to reply are messing up your #s. Zoli Elo 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I use #s rather than *s to ease answering to my comments, but I guess it was counterproductive in this case ;) Anyway, concerning paint codes and "Used Car Trouble Spots", if you will nominate this article for GA and FA, you will be told to get rid of that over and over again. I am suprised the themed sites don't list that information, but if so, they should. WP is no place for that, and certainly not for EVERYTHING on a topic. Time for some people to get as serious about their sites as you are about your article, I guess.
Creating entries for topics you reference to in the article is the way to go, absolutely! This is one of the primary ways the WP is expanded! Bravada, talk - 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one that suprised me the most and worked out the best was Underdrive pulleys. I will work on the other problems you have noted. Thanks Zoli Elo 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III (1955 film)[edit]

Archive 1

Already had one peer review, and a Failed FAC. I need more ideas, however, there is a limited amount of information on the subject. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell)

Anybody? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, I wanna get this to FA. I just need more ideas! ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]

Well, how does it look now. It's got a bit more depth, due to the new plot summary. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts at a glance: smaller sections and subsections should be merged. The sub-sectioning of "Produciton" is really uneven. Prosify the "Cast" and "Awards" sections. Logically, shouldn't "Awards" come before "Influence?" Block-quotes are unnecessary and disruptive to they eye, even in scanning the page. The long introductory quote in the "Plot summary" has got to go, or be significantly condensed.--Monocrat 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell University[edit]

All of the changes since the last peer review have been fixed, so we're giving this another shot. I'd really like to shoot for FA. Let me know if you think it's ready. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • I still doubt the history section is properly summarizing the very long History of Cornell University.
    • It seems as though the land-grant act and Fixed. Willard Straight takeover are the only significant points which didn't make it into the main article. The land-grant status has already been covered elsewhere in the article, and the takeover is an isolated incident which doesn't really need a main article mention. What else ought we summarize? -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 02:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.You might want to revise the layout a bit as to avoit two headers directly following each other. This could also be corrected by adding a "buffer" summary. I would consider removing the "Examples of notable projects" header completely, though. These would be assumed to be some of the most notable examples anyway. Circeus 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made the research overview into a buffer and added a little segue, but I'm still working on improving the other headers. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 02:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now there are only 'double headers' on Campuses, Academics, and Student life... three areas which I don't think really need a buffer. They exist to organize the page a little more and keep something like International Programs as a second-priority header. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a first glance, it looks okay (I haven't read it in detail). However, I would suggest you look over the article closely and find instances of boosterism. No matter how many citations you use, if you only speak highly of Cornell (which seems difficult not to do so given the university's reputation) the article will fail FAC (at worst) or barely pass it (at best). If there are negatives concerning Cornell, list them as well. PentawingTalk 04:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editors have been very careful about boosterism, and as far as I can see, we're npov. Let me know if you find anything questionable. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 04:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Andy's point about dates: This task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice tool, it caught three decade links that I hadn't with a search for [[####]] links. Do you have any other advice for this article? Would you recommend going for FAC? -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 16:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, it's got a ways to go to get to NPOV. Pretty much the entire article focuses on highlighting positive points about the university. Sure it's a very well regarded university, but saying that should be confined to a small section supporting the reasons why it is highly regarded. The rest should just describe instead of highlighting positive aspects. I can't overemphasize how important that is, and must note it's not close so far. UM and MSU probably both still suffer from too much boosterism that is hard to excise, but this article goes much farther. Now that those two articles are out there, you'll have to do better instead of worse. As specific advice excise all "more than..." and just give the number. Also the lead isn't a proper summary of the article per WP:LEAD but don't worry about that until the rest is fixed. - Taxman Talk 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote another paragraph for the lead, but it could still use some work. Any help or advice is appreciated. Thanks. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just spent about an hour copyediting the entire page, and I did find tons of pov and bad prose, which I fixed. Please see my changes here. It's improving dramatically but could always use more input. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording changes are an improvement, but doesn't go far enough. There are still lots of superfluous "more than", "the most..", etc (I know those aren't all easy to fix quickly), and nothing's been done to address the fact that the whole structure is set up to highlight the university's positives. What about negatives? The sports section doesn't note how competitive (or not) Cornell is in most sports. My understanding is they don't win that much in general division 1 play, especially postseasons, championships, etc. Nothing in the article notes criticisms or shortcomings of the school. So in short, you're going in the right direction to reach FA, just keep going. - Taxman Talk 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation is still essentially the same. - Taxman Talk 15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many references to criticisms of the university throughout the article. There just aren't all that many negatives or controversies worth mentioning. The athletics article is fair- it lists achievements, and any reader would realize that if there are few achievements listed (as there are), then few things have been achieved. What do you expect, something like "aside from the aforementioned successes, Cornell's athletic programs are generally poor?" And I've already eliminated all instances of "more than" and the remaining instances of "the most" are used properly. Please cite specific examples if you find further problems. As a side note, we are currently a FAC, you may want to object there if you feel it is appropriate. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just re-read the article, and it still has substantially all the problems I originally pointed out in my comments on June 4. What do I expect? I expect the article to be NPOV. Not be a listing of achievements, but a description of the facts. Are the athletics programs really generally poor and fail to consistently compete for championships? Then yes, I expect that to be stated. That's neutrally describing the facts of the subject. If instead they are extremely good then you say that. The highlighting of achievements only really does still pervade the article. Just additionally adding in a couple negative facets doesn't fix it either, because that doesn't give the reader the right idea it just presents a polar picture. Just accurately describe the subject of the article. If you can't see the POV problems weaved throughout the article that might be a problem. You may need to recruit someone with the opposite POV to point them out individually for you. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do that, I just have to settle for pointing out the general problem. - Taxman Talk 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note the augmented first paragraph of the Athletics section. Thank you for your continued help. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about this, but there is something disturbing about the images. Perhaps there are too many, or perhaps they should all be on the same side. Or maybe it is because they seem to be different sizes. Just a thought. bobblewik 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cleaned it up a bit. There were a few images that didn't contribute much to the article. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is getting close to a FA status. However, I think it may get shot down dut to it's size of 71k. The article Germany was opposed for that very reason. I encourage to identify and remove redundent images or details that are not essential... either that or move material into daughter articles. That said, the main structure of this article is very good.--P-Chan 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/June_2006&oldid=882912490"