Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2006

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

---

Hurricane John (1994)

I've put significant effort into improving this article recently. There isn't any more information available to add, and everything there is well-sourced and exhaustive. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any other images of John, but that isn't too surprising given that it was a Pacific hurricane in 1994, before serious observations began. Just looking for some comments before a possible FAC run. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 02:26 UTC

• All the following are minor suggestions:

• 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 -   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.

• 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,
  • The United States' National Hurricane Center (NHC) later identified the precursor to Hurricane John was a tropical wave identified that the
  • sheared cleared away most of the clouds shear cleared away
  • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
• There are a couple of inconsistincies among dates:

• 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.
• Sometimes 22 August is used, other times August 22 is used; since this is mostly about a US topic it should probably be August 22.
• Link shear to Wind shear.

• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Lack of retirement is/are a bit short.

• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I've fixed most of these issues; I left the "lack of retirement" subsection as that has become fairly standard formatting for tropical cyclone articles in general. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 22:49 UTC

Regarding dates: That is totally incorrect; if you have a preference set in your preferences, the date will always show your pref. Changing it won't help. NSLE _(T+C) at 23:59 UTC (2006-05-30)

Oh, thank you for saying that. I was wondering why the August 22's looked exactly alike. I think the storm history is too long. Ways to cut down on that include removing all references to land impacts (that's what impact is for) and moving the records out (like the mention of Carmen and Skip). Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley

This article tries to bring together disparate bits of information about the people, places, buildings, geology etc. of the Chew Valley (just south of Bristol, England). I'm not sure that I've got the general structure right or the content of some of the sections (I'd also like to illustrate it with a map & some more pictures - but I'd value your comments. If you fancied commenting on any of the listed village articles that would also be great but I shall probably have to do them individually later. Rod 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Per your request on the PR talk page. The article is good and appears well researched. A few issues: 1) Too list heavy. That will be a very consistent objection if you take this to FAC. Move the lists out to daughter subarticles and/or replace them with prose about the ones that are important enough to cover. Keep in mind prioritizing, you should only cover material that is important enough to the subject and the space for each topic should be relative to it's importance. Check out what topics other FA's on geographic entities have for some guidance, though they may not be perfect either. 2) Too many short paragraphs break up the flow of the prose. They should either be merged with related material, expanded to a full idea worthy of a paragraph of it's own, or removed. 3) At least one of the images doesn't have copyright/license information. Make sure all of those are under free licenses or have proper fair use rationale. Some of the other images would seem much more appropriate for the lead than the satelite image. 4) Not enough about economic activity and demographics/population, especially relative to the amount of material on sport and leisure. That should be enough to get you going. If you would like another review let me know and I'll see if there's anything more that needs to be done before you have a FA on your hands. The writing seems quite good, though I didn't pick apart the grammar as some of the rest is higher priority and will change the text. - Taxman ^Talk 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm wondering why there are "Grade II* listed" and "Grade II listed" sections; they probably should be merged, as the former is simply a list and the latter is just a short paragraph. "The name Chew" should probably be renamed etymology. "People" is rather short; the famous people could probably be moved down to be similar to a "See also" section, while the section itself could be converted to an Industry section. There is only one image without a license, and that would be Image:Smriver chew.JPG; for some reason the uploading information doesn't show up, but since there are already so many images in this article, that one isn't particularily needed. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments - I've revamped the page taking on board the poiints you've made (removing or reducing lists, combining paragraphs & the image licensing) There isn't much to say about economic activity - it's largely rural & commuter vilages. If you (or anyone else) had further comments I would appreciate them. Rod 08:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

All very good changes, still needs the rest though. The famous people list still needs to go and be replaced by sourced text about them, there still needs to be economics/demographics/population information, even if it is fully rurul, there's still economic activity. What % is farming, commuting elsewhere, etc. And listed buildings is a concept not known to everyone so it could use a bit of added context even though we have an article on it. - Taxman ^Talk 13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I've had a further go at demographics etc & put the famous residents as narrative in that section - also done a bit on listed buildings. Rod 18:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks really good now. The only thing I can see left is the demographics never gives a number of people living in the area, nor the number of towns/villages. If that information is available it should be included. Also I didn't get a chance to survey the other FA's on geographic entities. Before FAC you should to see if there are any additional important missing topics. Other than that, great work. - Taxman ^Talk 19:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all comments- I've now added in some more population details & having looked at some geographic FAs have added in Natural History, climate & an info box. Further comments still appreciated. Rod 10:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. Looks ready for FAC to me. They may come up with a few more things, but you seem well suited to handling them. When you're ready, delist it here and list it there. - Taxman ^Talk 13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cholas

I have been working on this article and its children under Category:Cholas for the past fewmonths. I think the Chola dynasty has had a great influence for the Tamil culture and there isn't much authentic information available on the Net. This is my attempt at going directly to the academic sources for the information rather than relying on second hand information. I would like you to review this and together we can make this a Featured Article.

thanks

Parthi (Venu62) 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is rich in content. Following improvements should be made before it makes it to featured status.

1. The first five section names chould be changed or the sections themselves should be reorganised.
2. The lead should be summarised per WP:LEAD.
3. The article should be renamed as Chola empire if that's the subject.

We can look at Indo-Greek Kingdom, Sassanid Empire and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sassanid Empire/archive1 for improvements. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sundar for your suggestions/comments. I have spent some time editing the Cholas article to make your suggested changes. I have reduced the lise of the lead paragraphs, standardised the headings and restructured them. I feel it now flows better. The article now is divided into two logical parts: (a) History and (b) Chola's contribution to the society, art and literature.

I feel 'Cholas' is the appropriate title and not 'Chola Empire'. This is not an article about the empire, but the people and persons who built these empires (for there was not one chola empire, but several throughout their history).

Parthi (Venu62) 03:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Great work, Sir. I take your suggestion regarding the article title. Let's wait for other reviewers' views. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments

Hi - it is an excellent piece of work. You have done the needful as far in-line citations are concerned. Here are my observations:

1. Please read WP:MOS. You must write proper paras of prose, with summary style. Please eliminate all subdivisions of 2-3 liners.
2. In accordance with the above point, please reduce the contents box, as recommended by WP:WIAFA.
3. Please cross-check source and copyright info regarding all pictures.
4. Article name - you should name this article "Chola dynasty." By simply naming "Cholas," which might be alrite, you may mislead readers into believing Cholas were an ethnic group or something. As per your first line, the article's name should be Chola dynasty IMO. Also, the infobox says "Chola Empire." Please correct this as per your final decision.
5. Please eliminate all "red links" by creating stubs.
6. All Quotes should be cited.

Rama's Arrow 06:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

AreJay's comments

Wow, this was a very interesting read. My knowledge of the Cholas was cursory at best before I read the article. Here are some of my observations wrt the article:

• The article is very informative, however portions such as History, Government and Legacy need to confirm with the Wikipedia:Summary style format. This would entail summarizing the contents each section and eliminating sub-sections within the article. Specific detail should be moved to History of the Cholas, Government in the Chola Kingdom, etc.
• There should be no need for one/two sentence paragraphs in a Wikipedia article. Such paragraphs must be merged to promote continuity and flow.
• The History of the Indian subcontinent template must be moved to the top of the page.
• As suggested in the previous review, take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:MOS and how the guidelines contained therein affect the structure and format of your article.
• A Tamil translation of the word Cholas should be included in the first sentence of the article.
• Chola legacy may be too broad a topic. I feel that Chola art, Chola architecture and Chola literature are all topics that warrant independent discussion in this article. Grouping them in a category as broad as "legacy" would not, I feel, do justice to the contributions of that dynasty.
• Online references and Publications should fall under the same banner (References) without independent sub-headings. Also, you might want to standardize your formatting style for references. I typically use the MLA style manual though Wikipedia guidelines do not indicate a preference of one style over the other. Alternatively, you might want to explore the Chicago-style and APA style as well. It's not important what style you choose, however the consistant application of your style of choice will be looked at during FAC.
• Hope this helps, when a majority of the above mentioned comments are addressed, I'd like to come in to do any last minute house cleaning before you promote the article to WP:FAC. Thanks, and good luck! AreJay 00:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks gents for your help and input. I have taken all your suggestions and made appropriate changes to the article:

• I have changed the title to Chola dynasty as I agree this would be the most appropriate and helpful to a non-Tamil reader. However I haven't redirected the Chola article as I wasn't sure how to preserve the history and discussion pages. Appreciate if you can help.

• Oh, it had to be done differently, but that's fine. Let me see if I can merge the edit histories. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Fixed it by performing CUTPASTE operation for page histories. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have condensed the paragraphs and combined smaller ones into a summary style paragraphs. I have moved some of the omitted text to the notes area.
• I have standardised the citations
• I think the style throughout is consistent. I am however open for corrections. I couldn't spend too much time on this today as I have chores to run, but hopfully will try and have another go tomorrow.

Thanks once again for your help. Parthi (Venu62) 05:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazing work. I'm sure it'll have it's day on the main page. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, thanks for your help with the merging/renaming. I have made some further updates towards reducing the number of sections. It needs a good review and further suggestions for improvements.

Thanks Parthi (Venu62) 07:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments I wonder if you have had the opportunity to address my suggestion of summarizing History, Government and Culture per Wikipedia:Summary style? I think it is faily important that you do act on this. You will need to remove sub-headings and summarize content appropriately (you can retain the sub-headings in each of the main articles - History of the Chola Empire, Government under the Chola Empire and Culture of the Chola Empire). Also, I think Art, Religion and Literature should be independent topics and not sub-topics. Also, please simplify your ToC to read "History", "Government", "Art", "Religion", "Literature" etc. What does "Sources of the Chola" mean? Perhaps it would be more apt to refer to this section as "Origins"?

"Sources" section details the information sources available on the Chola dynasty. - Parthi (Venu62) 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now renamed this section "Origins" as the comment by AreJay is appropriate. The section talks about the origins and the information we currently on the orgins of Cholas. - Parthi (Venu62) 22:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you also clarify what you mean by the phrase "dynasty of unknown antiquity". By reading this phrase I get the impression that we do not know when and over what period of time the Chola empire existed. This is obviously not true since we've listed a series of rulers with approximate dates. Can you clarify? AreJay 23:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The statement : dynasty of unknown antiquity is meant to convey that when they originated is lost. Perhaps I should re-phrase : The Chola dynasty was a South Indian Tamil dynasty of ancient origins, antedating..."?

I have tried to combine the sub topics under the History, Government and Culture and renamed the Culture section into 'Contributions to culture' as per User: Rama's Arrow's comments. Do you have further suggestions to change?

Parthi (Venu62) 23:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean I have to further edit out copy under the subsection? If so I will need to look at it and do it so that we don't lose too much information from this article. - Parthi (Venu62) 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have been unable to follow the progress of this article the past few days. my concerns above seem to have been addressed. I will review the article first opportunity I get to see if I have any other suggestions to throw your way. Thanks AreJay 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To begin with the Toc is in a mess. Avoid using subsections as far as possible, it clutters things up. Consider promoting sections or merging sections together. Topics on Chola history should come in the =history= section. Move left-aligned images to the right. Some of them conflict with the headings below in lower resolutions. List of Chola Kings table needs a left margin. Remove lists. More maps would be useful to gauge the extent of the kingdom over the years. I'll review in depth later, after the above have been cleaned up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

Hi - one key concern: I believe this section is inappropriately organized. Consider re-titling it "Culture" or "Civilization": You should incorporate "Science" and "Religion" with "Art" and "Literature." This will make the article comprehensive. For discussing "Legacy," that should be a sub-section in civilization and discusses the impact of Chola culture on succeeding times in India. My congratulations to you on a splendid effort. This will really become a great FA. Rama's Arrow 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have renamed the "Culture" section and moved the subsection "Religion" under this. I couldn't find any info on contributions to Science as such, but I will be adding a paragraphy under "Education" under this section today.

Parthi (Venu62) 23:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Condensing

Ok, I think I'm getting closer to meeting the above suggestions:

• Government and Society sections summarised
• Images and info boxes all right aligned
• Will be adding a section on literacy under Cholas

Parthi (Venu62) 00:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have had some time to rethink the article and have made structural changes to make to more compliant with the WP standards. The TOC is less messy now and the sections have been condensed to make them read better. Please have anoth look and let me know. - Parthi (Venu62) 20:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, you are more than all set for FAC. Don't delay (or worry) - all relevant criticism will only be obtained there. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 05:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Review 2

I still have many issues with the article:

1. The Chola dynasty (சோழர் குலம்) (IPA:['ʧuʒə]) was a South Indian Tamil dynasty of ancient origins,[1]antedating the early Sangam literature (c. 150 CE).[ -- makes a very poor introduction. The first sentence should answer the how, when and why to a new reader.
   1. Tamil is South Indian
   2. Sangam literature --> why introduce Sangam at an early stage in the article?
   3. I would write it as: The Chola dynasty was a Tamil dynasty that ruled Southern India and parts of South East between..."
2. Remove சோழர் குலம in the infobox as well as other instances of Tamil in the text. (other than the lead)
3. Similarly remove the bold text in the article.
4. List of Chola kings table should bbe moved to the history section.
5. Light-Medium copyedit required.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nichalp for your comments:

1. I have changed the intro taking your suggestion.
2. I have moved the mention of the relation to the Sangam Literature to the origins section
3. Removed bolding from the body
4. Removed Tamil from the body and left them only inthe footnotes as they are ther to support the article
5. Moved the List of kings down to the History section
6. I have not removed the tamil சோழர் குலம from the infobox as I felt it was not unusual to do so (see Sassanid Empire, Byzantine Empire - both FAs).

I would appreciate if someone other than myself could do the copyedit as I am too close to the article.

Any more suggestions before we move this to the FAC stage would be most welcome and I will quickly respond.

Thanks and cheers Parthi (Venu62) 22:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I did a round of copyediting. We could still do well with fewer adjectives and the language should be less "flowery" and more neutral. (Well, I must admit that I like to read flowery language myself.) I'm not sure if we should use present tense while talking about ancient references. This article would benefit greatly from more copyediting. Perhaps we can request User:Tom Radulovich or some other editor to copyedit further although it can be done as it goes through FAC. I was amazed at the amount of information in the article on a sadly less-researched topic. Move on to FAC. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sundar for your edits. I think the article reads much better now. I have also changed the sentence claiming the Brihadisvara Temple being the tallest tower now. It certainly was at its time until more recent constructions such as the Srirangam temple and the Meenakshi Temle in Madurai.

Parthi (Venu62) 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. What about the broken sentence that I've commented out? By the way, I've requested Tom and Taxman to have a look at it. I think as the article goes through the FAC process, it'll improve with other editors jumping in. Can you please nominate it? I can do it for you if you want, but I'd prefer you to be the nominator. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sundar. I think I have fixed that sentence. I will nominate the article and start the FAC process tonight. Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 06:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to allocate time for a thorough review. Hopefully I'll be able to soon. The article is very good of course, so the only lacking things are cosmetic. The biggest thing it needs is to ease the uninitiated reader in more easily. For example, the first couple sentences needs to give an idea of how long the dynasty ruled for, even if you can't specifically say when they started. It could even stand to state right away the beginning time is unknown. But other places in the article also essentially require already knowing the subject to understand them. I'll try to point out specific examples if you want, but in general provide context for any terms that would require following a link to understand the sentence. - Taxman ^Talk 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Taxman. I've been trying to rephrase the lead section to meet your suggestion. It used to say Cholas were of unknown antiquity, but wsa felt to be too obscure by some reviewers (see above). I am lost a bit. If you can give me some specific suggestions, I can put those in. - Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 19:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How about something like, "though there is no consensus among scholars when the Chola Dynasty began, they ruled for about X yrs until ____". Or instead of about, put "from X to as many as X years...". Or use "Scholar's estimates of the beginning of the Chola Dynasty range from X to X, meaning they ruled for X yrs until X." Those are a little rough, but do they help? - Taxman ^Talk 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nauru

A tiny Pacific country, is there anything glaringly missing or that could be expanded on?--nixie 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Some of the images seem to have incomplete source information, though. Jkelly 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Large paragraphs of text are unsourced, images definetly need complete source information, and the image in the districts section currently breaks that section's formatting pretty signifigantly on some resolutions. Staxringold 13:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article. Really interesting. I have following minor suggestions—

1. World's smallest island nation - citation needed.
2. Only nation without capital, smallest independent republic - citation needed.
3. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, no section on "Tourism" is suggested. However, the guidelines are not hard and fast though.
4. Image source info, as noted by above two comments. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

I think the article is pretty much ready for FA status, but I think that it still has a few kinks to work out. So anyone can give me some suggestions? The Filmaker 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Way too much in the trivia section, very little of which is cited to reliable sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The trivia section has been heavily shortened and I've added a few references throughout it as well. The Filmaker 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The refs dont looks right being numbered to 18, then having a bullet point. That should be fixed. Tobyk777 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Some ideas

• There is not one reference in the cinematic/liter. references as far as I can see
• Though I see it is in chronological order, plot should be at the top
• All the images should have a fair-use rationale (the posters do not)
• Havent read through the trivia yet, but I'm guessing its not that important. Find out what is useful, discard the rest
• Avoid dot points/list [Triva]
• DVD section is a mess. See dot points/list. It is also debatable as to if it even desereves such a large section. Anyway, turn into paragraphs
• This article runs the risk of getting in trouble for having too many fair-use images (bonus disc DVD set...righteo?)
• You may want to shorten the plot, I understand it is Star Wars, but consider shortening it a little
• There should be a much larger section on the build up-->Pple sleeping outside theatre/general anticipation of seeing Darth Vader etc etc
• Awards sub-heading does not offer much. It should be merged into reception/reaction. it is debatable whether a Rasberry award is even worth mentioning...You could asdd Lucas' views on the PCA award (I believe he as pretty happy about it/was the only award that he cared about)
• You may want to expand the production section and split it into subheadings
• ..Gray & Christmas claimed before the premiere that it may have cost the US economy approximately US$627 million because.. need a citation
• The MPAA paragraph seems a tad USA-focused, even though Great Britain and Canada are tacked on at the end, may I suggest rewriting it into a paragraph about how it was meant to be the most dark/emotional out of the six..thus...got an X MPAA rating..no need to ramble on about the American rating
• The reaction section could do with a cleanup. Go easy on the romantic criticism/'wooden' stuff...at best, tone it down (it's a little POV)
• Turn box office section into paragraphs..not really sure how much that is important either...seems like a bunch of info pasted from boxofficemojo...remember its not a competition with LOTR/Spiderman/whatever..it reads a little fan-boyish
• Cast infobox is annoying..check out some other film FAs for ideas..
• Don't need sountrack cover in the article Cvene64 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, "Gray & Christmas claimed before the premiere that it may have cost the US economy approximately US$627 million because of employees who took a day off or reported in sick" doesn't even make sense -- did they make the claim before or after the event? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• A few thoughts. The Box Office Performance section is very US-focused for a film that was released in 115 countries. The wording in the DVD Release section implies that the DVD was only released in the US. The Bonus Discs subsection needs some clarification - does it only refer to bonus disc releases within the US? i.e. was the two-pack DVD with the bonus disc only available at Wal-Mart stores in the US? or was it available at Wal-Mart stores worldwide? or from other suppliers outside the US? Jazriel 11:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• My thoughts, from having viewed many evaluations and FAC nominations:
  • First of all, extremely good job, I am impressed by your efforts to make this happen. Jsut a few things:
  • You should strongly consider reducing down the number of fair use images by a few, see Tenenbrae for a recently approved FA.
  • Not all images that should have fair use rationales and sources have them.
  • trivia really should go, always first thing to get axed in an FA for film. If important, incorporate, if not, scrap it.
  • too many two sentence paragraphs.
  • Sources look excellent overall, just think about replacing the "Hitler +World War II" and "The Shape of Days" references do not inspire confidence in their reliability. Who are they?
  • Do a final sweep and check for any statements that may need references, and then find reliable ones like you have for virtually all of the things in the article.

Good job! Let me know if you put this up for FAC, I'll try to help you Judgesurreal777 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So far I've taken into consideration all of your suggestions, and I thank you all for them. For the purpose of this message though I'd like to say to Judgesurreal777 (thanks for the extremely kind words by the way), that the cast list is written to be in the same style as the articles Blade Runner, Casablanca and Arrested Development all of which are FAs. Not only that, it was re-written namely because of a complaint above over a Cast Box that he refered to as "annoying". At the moment I feel that the list is fine. The Filmaker 05:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's cool with FA standard, it's cool by me :) Judgesurreal777 05:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That was me, "annoying" was perhaps the wrong word choice, but it is generally (tables in general) frowned upon at the FAC. Cvene64 11:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm very impressed with what has been done in such a short time. Congrats. There is still a way to go though, may I offer thr following improvements.

* Statements that may need a source:

• Bai Ling's claim
• Lucas' denial of Ling's claim
• "It is often said the film contains a number of plot holes, although this claim is widely disputed and debated by fans"
• The Gay Oldman info as well as Wood's comments on it
• Die Hard references
• Tucker Torpedo
• Dr. Mabuse references

* Images:

• There is not an even distribution of images per characters
• There isnt really a good reason to exclude Padme
• Maybe an image of the scene between Anakin/Palp/Mace could solve the issue of Palp/Mace not having an image from the movie
• The cast image is cool, but I still think Padme/Palp/Mace should be featured in the plot..maybe even General Gre. as well

* Other:

• "including McDiarmid himself" Does this mean that people have made comparisons between Palp and Ian, or Ian himself made comparisons between Palp. and lago..
• Deleted Roles could flow a bit bitter
• The criticisms of the film, in my opion, still kind of mirror the views of a "Lucas Basher" as opposed to a general audience...

...More to come..but great work! Cvene64 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

• Before I begin: I realize this is not a particularly good article. It has a long way to go. Please focus on the writing of the article; no need to point out the obvious, saying "add citations" or "add references". That's stuff to be saved for later. This article needs to be attacked from the bottom up, and the writing is always the thing that should addressed first. Kindly leave comments. TheImpossibleMan 04:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• You perhaps have the wrong forum for this type of activity. Please read the first few paragraphs of this page. Thank you. — RJH 14:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The introduction alone is somewhat speculative and unconvincing, to use another editor's words. --Knucmo2 21:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A few more photos of the band in action perhaps? Or Album covers --Knucmo2 17:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

All the photos should have a rationale of fair use written for them. -- 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Enceladus (moon)

This article was peer reviewed in February 2006 (see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Enceladus (moon)/archive1). A number of the requests were answered and since then I have worked to bring the article further into compliance with the standards for a Featured Article. In addition recent results have further helped in filling the article out.

I would like to submit this article as a featured article, however I thought it was wise to have this article go through one more peer review, particularly after these recent major edits, before submitting. So suggestions for work needed to get this article to Featured Article status will be greatly appreciated.

There are two major issues that I would like to acknowledge. First, the article lead does not yet conform to WP:LEAD. Currently, the article lead is one paragraph in length when it should be 3-4. Second, I am a little lost in how best to cite and reference this article. I have both a notes section, containing the numbered citations from the article using the the <ref> element as well a References section, where full citations for journal articles and books used are listed. This does give the appearance that the references are being given twice in these two different sections, Notes and References. This was done after reading the comments of several FACs that failed because the inline citations looked cludgy after including the full citations inline using templates. So the citations inline, displayed in the notes section, are in shortened, Science-journal style, whereas in the references section, full citations using the Cite Journal and Cite Book templates. This reduces the cludge of templated inline citations, but increases article length. So advice on how citations and references should be arranged would be appreciated. --Volcanopele 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I responsed to Volcanopele's earlier peer review request and all my suggestions were met. I can't honestly think of any further improvements to this article. My only quibble is that the orbit diagram is cluttered with too many overlapping labels, but I'll see if I can fix that myself. Regarding the lead, I think the opening paragraph sums up everything pertinent with admirable brevity and I see no need to expand it into 3 or 4 paragraphs. I think it's time for Volanopele to move on to the next moon... :) The Singing Badger 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty good article. Nice work, but I have a few comments:

• Some of the text contains time-sensitive information, such as: "Features discovered by the Cassini mission have not yet received names". These are likely to become obsolete at some point, so could you include a date?
• The "Surface" section includes a brief description of the "title image". This should really be folded into the image caption, as the image may get changed at a later date rendering the text obsolete.
• I also have a minor issue with how some of the terminology is used. The term "viscous relaxation" is used to describe terrain before the meaning has been explained. The highly technical terms "subparallel grouping", "curvilinear groove", "high phase angles" and "solid-state greenhouse models" are never explained. This makes the article targeted for a well-educated scientific audience, rather than just anybody.
• On the first mention of the "E ring", you might briefly add that this is a component of the Saturnian ring system.
• Could you link lithosphere, mass spectrometry, plume, jet, sublimation and magnetospheric?

Thank you! — RJH 18:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. In my latest edit, I think I have addressed most of your comments though when I have more time later, I will look for more time sensitive information. In the time being, I have added a link to As of 2006 in the example you pointed out. For many of your other comments, I found a way to just use less technical terminology to get around have to add more text to explain the term. With viscous relaxation, I just deleted the first reference to it so that the new first utterence is right next to the explanation. I have added links to the requested terms, though there was already a mangetosphere link in the previous paragraphic to "magnetospheric". To Singing Badger, I don't have access to a machine that runs Celestia today, so if you can create a better graphic, by all means. I have relatively limited knowledge of the inner workings of that program, so help in improving that graphic would be appreciated.

Again thanks for the comments. --Volcanopele 18:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost in Translation (poem)

This page is certainly useful to students who study James Merrill in class, but I'm wondering what improvements might help this quirky article gain a wider audience. Does it have FA potential? If so, what improvements might help it in that direction? Sandover 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• First off, FAs (as shown in WP:WIAFA) require references and inline citations (see WP:FOOTNOTE). The article has a lot about the poem, but not its significance or the perspective of critics (there is a brief paragraph about praise in the lead, but that should be given its own section along with other praise and criticism). Thanks, AndyZ _t 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be an overview of interpretations and approaches to the poem, I see that now. The good news is that a fair bit of that criticism is available online. Also, I think some grounding in Proust is warranted; Merrill borrows the Proustian conceit that an object can evoke, unbidden, a sequence of childhood memories. Sandover 01:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I must say I just don't understand the "puzzle" of the poem. Tuf-Kat 03:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Either I haven't done my job right, or I'm relying too much on readers to look at the poem for themselves and to use the article as a kind of reader's guide. What to do? Let me give this some thought... Suggestions are welcome, of course, from others who are 'puzzled' by the article. Sandover 12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Trying to re-read it more closely... The first paragraph under "A puzzle within a puzzle..." seems out of place -- make that paragraph a summary that says in clear English what the "puzzle" is. What is the "solution to the puzzle of the poem (that is) hidden in plain sight"? Maybe I'm just dense, but, having still not read the actual poem, I can't make hide nor hair out of the last couple sections of the article. Tuf-Kat 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Music of the Lesser Antilles

Aside from sound samples, I'd like suggestions on this article. It's somewhat problematic because the "Lesser Antilles" isn't really a very good music area for a comprehensive encyclopedia, but it's definitely a common enough descriptor to warrant an article. Depending on the context, "Antillean music" most often means either zouk or calypso. More scholarly works do basically the same thing, considering "Antillean music" as distinct in the sense that French Antillean music is different from Haitian music, and the Anglophone islands' music is different from Jamaica. There are connections and similarities between the islands, but there's not really anything that is found throughout the area and not elsewhere. Anyway, I think this describes the topic about as thoroughly as could be useful. Tuf-Kat 07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Haven't made a thorough read, but did a few visual corrections in the last sections.

• Footnotes should be put consistently in the same place, some paragraphs have them before punctuation, other after, WP:FOOTNOTE favors after.
• No "main articles" given for British Antilles
• It'd be nice to have some ilustration for the "Indo-Caribean" and Dutch "Antilles" (although I do realize it'd be difficult.)
• It's a bit presumptuous to list a "main article" that doesn't exist yet.

Circeus 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Good points, all of them. I should be able to find a couple of sound samples for Indo-Carribean music - I'm not sure I can even do that for the Dutch Antilles. (I can't even find a book to put in Further reading) Tuf-Kat 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, now I remember why I didn't make main article for British Antillean section. They should probably be template:further instead, so I'll switch them. British Antillean music would be superfluous with Anglophone Caribbean music. Tuf-Kat 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Usually, I'm not against red-links, but this article seems inundated with them. Can at least stubs be created for them? AndyZ _t 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's on my to-do list. They will probably mostly be stubs, unfortunately. Tuf-Kat 01:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wabash Cannonball

I have significantly edited this article and I think it is well-written, neutral, and stable. I don't know whether it's comprehensive enough, though. I welcome all thoughts on this matter. Andrea Parton 23:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• More information should be added about its history and structure.
• The lead needs to be expanded.
• Tiny single-paragraph sections need to be merged or expanded.
• Implement inline citations (WP:V), probably using WP:FOOTNOTEs.

-- Underneath-it-All 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann

We are having a POV dispute going on at this page. Apparantly, someone believes this article is nothing but a left-wing shill for Olbermann, and does not focus on the downside of his career or his alleged liberal biases. Others think that the article is fine as it is. I just don't want this to be a personal attack against him, nor a fan page. We just want to see an outsider have a look and tell us what changes, if any, need to be made. Thanks. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 15:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For neutrality disputes, you can try Wikipedia:Requests for comment as mentioned above in the introduction. Thanks. — RJH 15:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking over it, I notice an abundance of favorable adjectives, especially in the beginning of the first section where it discusses his job, such as the "noticed for his quick wit" thing which really seems pretty subjective and even if it could be referenced, the words used in that area seem needlessy POV. if there's something an editor wants to put in about "alleged liberal biases", then citations would probably be needed to some degree. Homestarmy 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There was bias in this article, which I cleaned up to some degree(i.e. there were much more favorable adjectives). The editor in question has tried to put in favorable mention to Olbermann's opponents, such as OlbermannWatch, which we suspect is his website. But I will take yours and any other comments into question. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[User:rcox1963] (i.e., Robert Cox) D-Day wrote "The editor in question has tried to put in favorable mention to Olbermann's opponents, such as OlbermannWatch, which we suspect is his website." This is a knowingly false statement and I call on D-Day to admit this and issue a retraction.

I have been quite open about being the editor of OlbermannWatch both here and in the press including a quite public debate with Jimmy Wales about how this entry demonstrates the liberal bias that I believe defines Wikipedia. D-Day knows full-well and knows that I had absoutely nothing to do with listing OlbermannWatch in this Wikipedia entry (I have previously provided a link to a PRO-Olbermann fan board where one of the posters wrote about their efforts to edit the Keith Olbermann entry to their liking and, for whatever reason, including a link to Olbermann Watch).

So there is no "we suspect is his website" becuase (a) there is no "we" just D-Day (b) no "suspect" because I have been quite open about being the owner-operator of OlbermannWatch.com. My concern with this entry has been well-documented and made quite openly.

D-Day, on the other hand, has not been so honest and open as is the case here. This is the same D-Day who put up a blog about "Olbermann Watch Watch", making all sorts of threats and derogatory personal comments about me. When I "outed" him in the Wikipedia discussion for the Keith Olbermann entry he tried to hide what he had done and who he really was by deleting the blog and disavowing what he wrote (he also then asked me to accept his apology for what he had done all the while continuing to make false statements about me; needless to say I did not accept this policy in light of his continued attacks on me in a different venue (this one).

Let me add that I have no problem with OlbermannWatch not being linked on Keith Olbermann or Countdown with Keith Olbermann entries. My objection in this regard was the use of the wiki to promote Olbermann fan sites (blogs and forums). If any site/blog is going to be listed then Olbermann Watch shoudl be listed for a very simple reason. It is by far the largest "Olbermann" independent web site on the Internet. There are pages within sites such as MSNBC.com and Wikipedia that are larger but unlike those large sites which contain just a page about Olbermann, OlbermannWatch is a fully realized web site devoted to nothing other than the subject of Keith Olbermann. That Olbermann Watch would not be listed when other sites with a tiny fraction of the readership are listed is absurd - and a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for the purpose of driving traffic to those sites. For the Anti-Olbermann Watch crowd which seems to frequent this entry, the solution is simple, do not list ANY sites other than the MSNBC.com page for Coutndown with Keith Olbermann and Keith's own blog at bloggerman. com. Otherwise, not listing Olbermann Watch while listing smaller sites is a violation of Wikipedia promotion policy.

Out 1

Just today came out of an extremely rare screening of this film in its entirety and would like to work on it as much as possible immediately, while my memory (and access to external sources) is still very fresh! (It's 12+ hours long, btw...) Would love to see this really polished up nicely for a possible FA nom. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the "Plot and themes" section is too long, and should be broken up into a few separate paragraphs (doing more wiki-linking wouldn't hurt either!).
• The article should have inline citations (FA criteria 2(c)), generally done in the form of WP:FOOTNOTEs.
• More can be added to increase the comprehensiveness of this article, including reactions to the film, budget, etc. (examples of other film FAs can be found at WP:FA#Media)

Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to archive this PR at the moment. Unfortunately my outside work is building up and I feel that I am unable at the moment to give the article the attention it would need to be properly vetted for a successful peer review. Please accept my apologies and rest assured that I will both address the comments already given and re-list this for a proper review when time permits. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 22:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

BASICODE

This is a fresh translation of a German featured article, so it should be at least pretty good. A place on WP:DYK has ensured a first wave of typo-hunting, but I'd like to know if there's anything missing or wrong content-wise. Any suggestions? -- grm_wnr Esc 21:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've written the German version so the only thing that I can contribute right now to the review process is to confirm that the translation is complete, accurate and well adapted to the English language, so in other words - well done. Regarding comments from other reviewers on the content of the article I guess that it might be a problem that it seems that BASICODE had probably little if any significance in the US or the UK, the main English-speaking countries. The project had most of its userbase in the two countries which are specifically mentioned in the article, namely the Netherlands and the German Democratic Republic. --Uwe 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360

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

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Ida Crown Jewish Academy

I would appreciate comments on how to improve this page's efficiency -- to make it easier to read, better layout, etc. Also, does this article need expansion or a picture? I'm new here, so I'm hoping that the myriad more experienced will lend a hand. Thank you. --Catchthedream 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, an image is always nice. I also think that See also should be at the end of the article. --Osbus 20:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Diapensia

I thought it was about time I learnt my way around the WP peer review process as an author, after having been a reviewer a few times. I'd welcome comments on this article. Thanks SP-KP 23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be expanded. Maybe more on cultivation techniques, etc. Oh yeah, in-line citations are always good.--Osbus 20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

World of Music, Arts and Dance

This article is one i have edited quite a lot, and I want to put it up for a featured article, any advice. Or just tell me what you think of it. Cheers JimHxn 16:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Where's the article? All it is is a brief introduction and a set of pointless lists. This is not nearly ready for FAC. Start with overview, history and structure sections. It's an interesting event, and worthy of a decent Wikipedia article.--cj | talk 07:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, it looks like you've already nominated for FAC [1], which this article is clearly not ready for. For this stub to become an article, you'll need information on:
  • Why did Peter Gabriel start WOMAD? Did it effect his career? Is he still proactive with WOMAD?
  • Was it successful? (I know it initially wasn't, hense the Six of the Best concert, which is the only time EVER that Gabriel reunited with Genesis (band) for a live concert since leaving the band in 1974.
  • Was WOMAD successful? Have critics discussed WOMAD, or the acts, or its influence on others?

Once this and more has been added, then you should consider fixing this up for Featured Article. But right now, more research is needed. --Ataricodfish 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp

Long, long time ago I de-stubbed an article on the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp complex. It's been on my to-do list for over two years now yet I always had "more important things" to do. Recently me and my mother have gathered a collection of 90%+ of all the books on the camp ever published in the Polish language and I decided to make some use of them. Google Books was another useful tool.

I've spent the best part of last four days to expand the article as much as I could. I believe that the current version of the article touches most notable subjects. However, as I did pretty much of the work myself, there is a huge chance that there are things that I omitted or left unexplained, be it by accident or because they seemed obvious to me. Finally, I'm not a native speaker and, despite all the help from Mozzerati and Piotrus, there might still be a lot of simple mistakes there. Because of that I kindly request for a peer review in order to make that article better - and perhaps list it for FAC one day. //Halibutt 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks very comprehensive and thorough. A very ghastly piece of history, and something that is important to document. I had a few comments on the content:

• It might be helpful to have a map of some type showing where the 50+ camps were located.
• There are a few paragraphs that are inordinately long, which I would like to see broken up for ease of reading.
• The text could use a bit of editing polish. For example, "it were the Soviet prisoners of war" => "it was the Soviet prisoners of war"; "the camps started to receive also a large number" => "the camps also started to receive a large number", &c.
• There are a lot of red links in the text that should either be unlinked or directed to a legitimate article. The access dates in the notes and references don't need to be linked.
• In a number of places the text uses a dash rather than the HTML &mdash; tag. Please use the m-dash where appropriate.
• You include a list of extermination methods. Were these the predominant methods, or are they just a random sample?
• Finally there is a "citation needed" tag in the text that could use an inline citation.

Thank you for your work on this! — RJH 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Working on a map right now, should be ready tomorrow. Done (see below)
2. Could you do it?
3. I never claimed to be a native speaker... :) Fortunately Mozzerati is and he's doing all the corrections for me. edit: The two you mentioned are now corrected. Thanks!
4. I will work on the red links soon. As to the access dates - they need not to be linked, but it's the citation templates that do link them. There's little I can do about it.
5. And why should we use the HTML when there's no need to?
   • Whatever works. :) — RJH 15:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
6. I chose the most predominant ones. I have the list mentioned right below it and I could list all the methods listed by the survivor, but I simply saw no need to. Should I expand on it?
   • Could you then relate the fact that these were the most predominant methods, rather than a random sample? — RJH 15:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Working on it. Unfortunately, parts of the article were written by an anon user who added a piece or two on female guards to almost all Holocaust-related articles (all in one spree!) and then withdrew from Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to source the claims he added. There is also one "citation needed" tag I added myself near the end of the article, when mentioning the number of survivors. My problem with that number is that none of the books I have seems to mention an exact number of prisoners who survived the camp or the number of inmates the camps had at the moment of their liberation. I'm still looking though.

Thanks for your help! //Halibutt 15:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page (//Halibutt) I just thought to review the article:

1. The lead is too short. It should be at least twice the length.
2. Please add a location map, and a scheme of the camps (I know you are a map maker)
3. The article desperately needs some sort of table or scheme or timeline or something of the sub-camps. It is darn confusing to navigate through them: the intro says 50, later in the article I find number 101, and then another article, list of sub-camps, lists about 70.
4. Points need to separate. For example, don’t talk about arrival of new prisoners when talking about industrial production. Also there are many side-stories (eg about Edda Scheer) which distract from the main points.
5. “every conceivable horror was perpetrated on the inmates” is a pure 100% POV.

Good luck. Hope it’s useful. Renata 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I'll try to elaborate a bit. Any idea as to what's missing in the lead?
2. Done: Image:Austria_Mauthausen_sub-camps.png. Still in beta phase, but better than nothing.
3. The intro says "more than 50", as there were more than 50 at most times. Further down the number is 101 as this was the overall number of camps. The sub-camp article links 90 sub-camps, as I wasn't able to locate the remaining 11. It also says so in the header (The list is by no means complete as various sub-camps existed at various periods. In addition, the slave labour of the inmates was also used by a variety of companies and farms that accommodated a small number of inmates on their own.). However, I tried to clarify the matter a tad. Is it better now?
4. I am still puzzled by the problem of "women and children" thingie. Basically, that part was added by anonymous users who added it to the article and then left WP. Could you try to reword that part or move some parts around for better clarity?
5. It is, but at the same time it's an exact quote from one of the sources (and not the least radical; basically all sources use even stronger statements). Any idea as to how could we reword that? I'm afraid any way we'd turn the cat, the tail would always stick out. //Halibutt 17:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you will ever want me to see again, but here it is... Almost 30 kb of comments... Who's now a "proficient nitpicker"? :P Renata 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've adopted your list as my to-do list for the article's improvement process and replied there. I think fixing all the issues you raised would leave this article as close to FAC as it gets :) //Halibutt 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For all those who would reach this page through the FAC process, please note that the list mentioned by Renata is here. I'm making it more visible, as I believe it sets a new standard for the Peer Review :) //Halibutt 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bengali language

There has been a lot of improvement since the last peer review. A language spoken as a native tongue by 230 million or more people is significant. I hope this peer review will allow critical evaluation of the article, and enable us to upgrade this to Featured status. --Ragib 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Last peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Bengali language/archive1

• From the article's intro: "Bengali is the English word for the name of the language and for its speakers.... From this point forward, Bangla will be used to refer to the language." Wha? The article should use the English word throughout. --NormanEinstein 13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't relist an article for peer review when there are plenty of issues pointed out in the article talkpage that haven't been addressed. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Very good overal, so I'll just focus on what it needs to improve of course, and I figure I owe you. :). Basically I would agree with what is mentioned in the to do list on the talk page, except I'm not sure what "complete tabulation of word lists" means.

1. Needs more citations. The top 15-20 most important facts should be cited directly to the most reliable source available. The number of speakers is particularly important because of the number of variables involved there. Mention what the different sources claim and why they vary. Other places that could use it are the diglossia discussion, dialects, phonology (what dialect is the given information based on?), the facts in the vocabulary section,

   Taxman's demands and views on verifiability are problematic, if not bad per se. The idea that footnotes should fulfill an arbtirary quota is not constructive. They should be inserted where needed, not because someone has decided that there simply aren't enough of them. The final figure could be anything from a handful to the high 30s, depending on the individual article. I also don't agree in the least with the heavy focus on turning most of the article into an academic treatise by discussing sources in prose. The responsibility of which sources to include (mainly in the reference section) lies primarily on the editors, not on the reader, or we'll just reduce ourselves to glorified copyeditors. Citations can be nice additions, but they should be used sparingly. We're still an encyclopedia intended for everyone, not an academic caveat for the academia and their ilk, i.e. the (upper) middle class. Accesibility and readability to a large audience should as much as possible outweigh the needs of a tiny minority of highly source-critical and demanding readers. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

2. There should be a discussion of the language history, not just modern history. It's only mentioned in the lead. An explanation of where the Apabramshas fit in and when Bengali became a distinct language would be good. 1000-1200 AD is what many sources say for Hindi, and I think it's the same as Hindi in that respect, but I don't know. A mention of the important sound shifts and other language changes should be covered. The Modern history section focuses on the publication of descritptions of the language and movements, some of which is good, but covering the history of the actual language is more important I think. Were any other scripts ever used for Bangla?
3. I'm not sure either that there's enough backing for using the term Bangla for the language throughout the article. "Bengali" is so much more common in English that you'd need a really strong reason to not use that name throughout especially given what the article title is.
4. Some short paragraphs in various places cause poor flow and should be merged, expanded, or removed.
5. The beginning of the grammar section seems to imply that morphology is inflection of adjectives.
   

- Taxman ^Talk 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for thorough feedback. I addressed some the address (really, the only ones I could). I took out the implication that morphology is only the changing of vowels and addeded what I think are the linguistically correct terms, but please feel free to correct me.

Tabluation refered to taking the long word lists that plagued the article and making them into graphics. User:SameerKhan placed that wonderful pie chart in the vocabulary section that took out basically the entire reason we had that task. There's still another big list o' words in the lexical variations of dialect section, but I think we'll be able to take care of that soon.

And we're figuring out the Bangla/Bengali thing ever so slowly.

--Ttownfeen 21:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Vector Supercars

This article has come together very well, and I am hoping that it can become featured. I just want to getideas on how I can improve this article. --Karrmann

multiple references to the same footnoote are currently broken. WP:FOOTNOTE describes how to reference a single footnote multiple times. - The Catfish 00:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

The article has been hotly debated for nearly a year and I recently rewrote it. There are only a few contributors to the talk page, and much of what is written there is not relevant to improving the article. I think the article needs a fresh perspective. Alun 13:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Needs expanding in a number of areas, especially re background and personal life (for example, the article fails to mention the fairly salient fact that she died in 1958). Controversies section is useful and should remain, but could do with a substantial rewrite. There are a few additional minor mistakes throughout the piece. I notice that the preponderance of the refs are to a single biography- I don't personally have a problem with that, but some others may. In terms of the frequency of refs however, this article is very good. Why is she consistently referred to as 'Rosalind Franklin'? Unless there is some other Franklin with whom she may be confused, it is perfectly acceptable to just identify by her surname, which may improve the flow of the text a little. Not a bad article by any means, but there is room for substantial improvement. Badgerpatrol 14:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I mainly used Brenda Maddox's book because as far as I know it is the only comprehensive biography of Rosalind Franklin. I used Maurice Wilkins's book as much as I could for the King's parts of the article because he was actually there, and I tried to used both as references for the same information as much as possible. Anne Sayer's book may have some additional things to offer. Francis Crick and James Watson were not at King's and I don't know how much of the information they can offer for this period is just second hand. I think the article gives her date of birth and date of death at the very beginning, it can also be added at the end of the article, I wasn't sure about adding it or not. Alun 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wilkins was obviously there, but that doesn't mean he was impartial- in fact, I think everyone accepts that he didn't like her and she didn't like him, at least at the time. Nonetheless, I can't see any obvious POV anywhere. As for the death issue- the article does mention that she died in '58, but the last statement on her working life is She returned to work in January 1958 and was given a promotion to Research Associate in Biophysics.[53]. I'm all for upbeat endings, but I think it might be relevant to mention that she was dead within months! Badgerpatrol 16:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, the final paragraph should make reference to her death shortly after, I suppose I was struggling with a way to phrase it and waiting for inspiration. Wilkins and Franklin didn't get on at all well, there has been some comment on the talk page about trying to keep personalities out of the article, so the article tries to reflect the events that happened without too much speculation, I'm not sure how effective this is as a strategy. There has certainly been a big divide on the talk page between a pro-Franklin point of view and a pro-Crick, Wilkins, Watson point of view, one of the purposes of the rewrite was to try to balance the competing views as evenly as possible. It's the reason for the request for a peer review really. Your comments are appreciated. Alun 17:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it a bit jarring when reading the article, as things are sectioned off and compartmentalized to an extreme degree. As an example, when reading about the race to discover the structure of DNA (in the section on Franklin's work at King's), we read that Watson and Crick had "...similar data to that available to the team at King's". Nary a word about photograph 51. Now I realize it's mentioned much later in the controversies section, but as Watson-Crick's use of this and the info from her talk is not disputed by anyone AFAIK, it's extremely misleading not to make even a barest mention it in the most relevant passage. It's also poor writing style IMHO.

Speaking of writing, this might be symptomatic of a larger problem. There are a lot of citations, and that's well and good, but it's very distracting. In fact, I suspect it is over-cited. I found at least one place that was definitely overdone: "Articles by Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin [48] illuminating their x-ray diffraction data published in the same issue of Nature supported the Crick and Watson model for the B form of DNA.[49]". The first cite is to the Franklin-Gosling paper and the second cite is to the primary book source. Why are they both necessary? Does the book not make it clear that there is in fact a paper by Franklin in the same issue? I suspect it does. So why the first cite? Or, why even the second, if you have the first? The article by Franklin-Gosling (I believe) says it supports the Crick-Watson model. --C S (Talk) 08:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also poor writing style IMHO. It's a fair point, I'm not a professional writer, just an amateur trying to do my best, like most wikipedians. The article is highly referenced, this is mainly to show that everything is properly verified. There has been some debate on the talk page of published material that is biased so I have tried to use both Wilkins's and Maddox's books to produce multiple citations for certain points. There is much more controversy surrounding her life than I could ever have imagined when I first started working on the article about a year ago, when I made my first ever major edit of a wikipedia article, and I admit it is very difficult to maintain a neutral point of view, which is another reason for so many citations, to show that this is not just the opinion of an editor, but from a cited published source. My rationale for omiting the use of King's material in the discovery of DNA section was so the section only dealt with what happened and when, the idea being to concentrate on the controversies in a seperate section where they could be more freely dealt with, and would not affect the flow of the biographical narative. It is also true that none of this information had come to light in 1953, the controversies started some 10 years after Franklin's death (on the publication of Watson's book, I have not used this as I think it does not constitute a reliable source), so I wanted to include them in the correct chronological order. This may have been a mistake, but there were reasons for doing it this way. Was there nothing you liked about it? Thanks for the comments. Alun 10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty I liked about it, so don't take my criticisms as meaning the article is worthless. Anyway, I hope you take my comments into consideration in your revisions. --C S (Talk) 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun, its nice to see the improvements made in the article since I last looked at it. My two quick observations (I'm just popping in because I saw your note again and realized I hadn't stopped by, and figured a quick comment is better than no comment): I can see both sides above re-the references, and I think that for the "see also" section there shouldn't be anything (or at least a much leaner list) that was linked above in the article. I usually prefer See Alsos to be related topics that may not have been referenced in the text, but I don't know how that agrees with the WP:MOS. Syrthiss 18:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am a professional writer about biology and occasional wikipedian. I wrote a very detailed profile of Franklin many years ago for a textbook (pre Maddox, but similar in approach). I just read your entry and these comments very quickly. I think the article generally looks excellent. I would probably make much less of the Nobel Prize, which is moot, and the defense of Wilkins as being moderately off topic. But in any case, I would be happy to contribute another time if you would like. Like some of your critics, I consider Wilkins a not reliable source based on his animosity towards Franklin when she was a alive as well as the heavy criticism he's received over the last 50 years. He's got to be defensive by now. I actually think Watson is more reliable (when he's not talking about her fashion sense!) and I did use his book when I wrote my piece. Anyway, Alun, nice article. Cheers, Eperotao 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

History of the Portuguese Communist Party

The articles includes the info present on the main article, I now want to start developing it. Please say something about structure, lack of references, pictures, anything. I haven't found any quality similar articles, so, it is a bit difficult to compare. Thanks. Afonso Silva 12:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You need some citations in the lead. --Osbus 20:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What sentences are lacking references in the lead? Afonso Silva 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

After being one of the most influential parties in the years that followed the Carnation Revolution, mainly among the working class, it became less influential after the fall of the Socialist bloc in eastern Europe. This sentence needs a reference. --Osbus 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a problem. It's just like saying "Einstein was a very influent scientist". In 1987, the PCP had about 50 mayors, now it has 32 and in 2001 had 28. The electoral results show that, in 1985 it had 15.6%, in 1987 it dropped to 12.2% and in 1991 it gathered only 8.8% and stablilized its voting around that value during the 1990s and early 2000s. Also, the Theses from the Congresses held since the early 1990s recognize that trend and, obviously, the right-wing, the Socialist Party and the remaining political enemies of the Party claim that all the time. This happened with the majority of the Western communist parties. How can I manage to support that with references? I can't remove it, the post-soviet period is very important to the PCP.

Hurricane Mitch

Yes, another article from the tropical cyclone Wikiproject. I have been working on it a lot over the last two months, and I think it is potentially FA worthy. Any comments on how to better the article? Hurricanehink 15:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vacuum

After months of arduous work, we have nothing to show for it. Seriously folks, I think we've done a good job on this page, it's quite stable, and nearly ready to go for FAC. Your constructive criticism would be appreciated.--Yannick 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead can be safely doubled or tripled in size, at the moment it's pretty light. MoS is rather strict when it comes to bolding: unbold things like 'perfect vacumm' and turn them into ilinks. I'd recommend moving 'Historical interpretation' section to the begining - history often goes first and the current 'Vacuum Quality' section is rather to technical and can scare away people. I'd recommend expanding 'Uses' section - it is quite short now. Keep up the good work :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:) Yes, I think, the lead section should be expanded and probably reworded, e.g. a reference in it seems to be inappropriate to me. Some of the sections should not just list characteristics with numerical values, but rather be description-style, in particular "Properties" section doesn't look good for me. But as concerns comprehensiveness, I see the article to be very good and helpful. Cmapm 13:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Techy stuff should go down the bottom, move Vacuum Quality / Measurement / Properties to the end, just before notes. --PopUpPirate 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, all of you. I've working up close with this article for a few months, and had lost track of some of the wider perspective.

• I agree with your general comments to expand the lead and move technical details to the end, but I disagree on some of the specifics. I don't really want to move 'Historical interpretation' to the begining because I have concerns about its completeness and accuracy in its current form. The philosophical debates about vacuum were much more complicated than is currently represented. However, maybe 'Uses' and 'Vacuum pumping' would be suitable first sections? I had placed 'Vacuum quality' and 'Measurement' at the top to explain the quantification of partial vacuum early on, but this can probably be done in the expanded lead section.
• A minor edit war and arguments on the discussion page indicate that many users have trouble understanding the physical impossibility of perfect vacuum, despite explanations in the article. That's why I put a reference in the lead section. I'm not sure how best to deal with that. Your suggestions are appreciated.
• I reviewed the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and did not find it so strict regarding bolding. In fact, it seems to require bolding of alternate article titles such as "perfect vacuum". The legibility section says "Make judicious use of devices such as bulleted lists and bolding," but then it points to an outside article that seems to recommend bolding of the kind used in the Vacuum article.

--Yannick 02:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just tripled the size of the lead section per your suggestions, and I think this should allow the restructuring you have recommended.--Yannick 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I reordered the sections to try to meet suggestions. Please comment.--Yannick 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Ivan

Another article from WikiProject Tropical cyclones for review. This article had a previous FAC almost a year ago, but has been completely overhauled since then. It overall conforms to the guidelines set by the WikiProject, but still needs outside review for a second FAC run. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It needs a recovery section. The information is out there we just need to stick it up there. Also the storm history section could be trimmed a tad. I'll get to work on the recovery section. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. An aftermath section in general would be useful. The storm history should only be one section, not broken up like it is. Hurricanehink 12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a rough draft done, but I need to find some specific numbers, if they're out there. If they're not, then my draft could probably go in with minimal changes. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea, another is that you have the damage totals, but you don't have it state by state. Hurricanehink 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Where, on the page? I was talking about my recovery section, which I don't think you've seen. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were referring to problems in general. Nah, I haven't seen it yet. Do you have a link for it? Hurricanehink 01:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, references need to be found for all those {{fact}}s around the article; also, the table has to be shrunk or truncated, a la Hurricane Katrina. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The table has been shrunk, which is good, but also important is to restructure it to give more emphasis on direct deaths. In the current table you can find out how many total deaths there were in florida, but the (more important) number of direct deaths in florida is not shown anywhere. — jdorje (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, it is there. Total deaths in Florida = 19, direct deaths in Florida = 14. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say you cannot find out how many direct deaths there are in the United States (except by adding each entry). — jdorje (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find much in the way of numbers for my recovery section and I'm now just trying to make it more neutral. I should be able to post it tomorrow or Friday. I've been kind of busy with homework and stuff. However, I see no reason to delay the posting of the section much longer while we look for numbers that may not be there. So, if anyone has better luck with those numbers, hats off to them. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn school work! :) Personally, I don't think the Ivan article is close enough. Ivan still has too many organization problems and still doesn't have an aftermath. If it were to go to FAC, I would have to vote no based on how it is. The storm history should only be 1 section, not 4 subsections. Information there should be condensed and moved elsewhere to flow better. For example, move anything about rain to the impact section- that's why it's there. Possibly remove one of the pictures from the storm history, and maybe move it elsewhere. Maybe there should be a records section. That could include it being the lowest latitude Category 4, Cat. 5 information, and Hydrological Records. More citations are needed, like in the preparations section. How do we know that 500,000 Jamaicans were told to evacuate? Also, should the speculation about Katrina be there? The death table needs to be redone. Like Jdorje said, it should focus on the direct deaths. The table, in my opinion, should go in order of where Ivan struck, not alphabetically. It would go Barbados, Grenada, Tobago, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, then the U.S. states. Eric, you can use some of the Grenada impact section for the aftermath section if you want; there's info about international aid that shouldn't be in the impact. Like I said about the death table, the impact section should go in geographical order. Perhaps start with a Leewards Island section, followed by a Grenada subsection? More info should be found on meteorological information on the islands... I'm sure you can find more on Jamaica. You should add some damage figures as well. The TCR has a lot of information not in the article yet, including damage figures ($1.85 billion in Caymans, $815 million in Grenada) or actual damage (47,000 damaged homes in Jamaica, for example). The USA section should be broken up by state, if possible. There's simply too much to do for Ivan right now. I think we should make Ivan a Tropical Cyclone Collaboration of the Fortnight, or even restart the article on a user page. That way, we can find all of the sources, and it should be easier in general. We should withdraw the peer review, given that no one's seen it other than us, and I think, in my own biased opinion, that we should focus on Mitch. That article has sources for everything, impact broken up by area, and only needs an aftermath section. What does everyone think? Hurricanehink 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It has an aftermath section, just not a recovery section. Also, the changes aren't as simple as you describe. Let's be storm specific here: Ivan last 24 days so there's going to be a helluva lot of storm history to it. Also, Ivan's incredible regeneration deserves its own sub-section. Therefore, we just need to go through it and remove the unnessesary facts. It flows really well the way it is now. We might want to try a copyedit to review the entire article. I really like Ivan article and will work to improve it. I personally think that it's quite ready to be an FA but apparently other people don't. Since it's just a lot of little things, I don't think anything drastic or time-consuming needs to be done. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see why Ivan's storm history should be different from every other's. It can be 4-5 paragraphs, maybe more, but, IMO, it doesn't flow at all and is too long. You are right, there's a lot of unnecessary facts, but if you trim it down, it could flow really well with, say, 4 paragraphs. The first could be formation to Category 4 status, then its track through the Caribbean, then GOM to landfall to becoming extratropical, then Ivan's return. The changes I suggested are just things that need to be done. Compare Ivan to Floyd, an existing FA. That is what I think Ivan should be like. The impact section should be doubled, if not tripled in size, because that is the most important part of a typical hurricane article. Some sections are too short, and would require a lot of work. Hurricanehink 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked the way the storm section was divided, as all the sections in the article are long, and trimming it would disrupt the balance. If there's any section I would get rid of is the Hydrological records section, which can be merged in the storm history. I'd say that the Impact does need a bit more information, but I'm not really able to help much, as I'm beginning final exams now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good luck! The hydrological records, as I said above, should be part of a records section. Hurricanehink 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The storms section shouldn't include information that's not related to the synoptic history of the storm, but ivan might still have enough to justify subsections here if the section becomes too long (I think it was probably me who added the subsections). One example of an article that has unrelated information however is Hurricane Wilma - that storm history does need to be trimmed/reorganized. — jdorje (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Pakistan

I wrote this article. I just want to see what more needs to be done and what else is missing, any flaws, mistakes, etc...

Mercenary2k April 18, 2006 7:56 PM

• Small issue, but per WP:MoS there should be no wiki-links in headings (like Six-Day War). Thanks, AndyZ _t 00:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed that. Anything else?? Mercenary2k April 18, 2006 9:44 PM

• I made some wikilinks, most of which came out blue. 2 citation needed templates were added. One major grammatical fault fixed. The article reads comprehensive. However, some more references would perhaps be better. I shall try to put some citation needed templates if I point out some potential areas. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 08:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of Adygea

It is often said that any article that merits Wikipedia's standard for inclusion can be turned into a featured article. It is my intent to test this theory with this particular article, which is an overview of the administrative divisions structure of the Russian Republic of Adygea. Technically, the article meets most of the points outlined in WP:PERFECT (but it would be a great learning experience for me to be proved wrong), and, as such, it can theoretically become a featured article one day. Some of the drawbacks that I know about and am yet to fix is the abundance of red links and lack of English-language references, but other than that I would welcome any suggestions as to how this article can be further improved, what else is missing, what is redundant, and what it would take for this article to become featured.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- What I see is a long list with red links. --Osbus 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, that's not the kind of peer review I was hoping for. First, there is an intro. Second, I already mentioned the red links in the list. If you have nothing to add, please don't.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry if I offended you, but what I meant by long list was you needed to expand it, put it into paragraph form. --Osbus 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  No, I wasn't at all offended; it's just that your comment didn't sound constructive. As for the paragraph form, I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you could illustrate your suggestion with an example, that'd be much appreciated. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, since I don't know anything about this topic, I can't give an example. But you can expand on the characteristics of each division, that would be interesting. --Osbus 20:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, by "division" do you mean the terminology (districts, urban-type settlements, khutors, etc.) or the districts from the list (Koshekhablsky, Teuchezhsky, etc.)? I could write more about the former, but the latter will eventually have their own articles.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  I meant the districts from the list. Without some expansion, well, it would be one big list! (but a good, comprehensive one). --Osbus 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The article needs an expanded intro and maybe more infomation on the division itself. -- Underneath-it-All 20:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  Is there any specific information you were hoping to find in the intro but were not able to? I've been working on this article for quite a while, so it's very easy for me to overlook something important, seeing it as self-evident. Would you have any specific suggestions? As for the division itself, we have a whole article about it, and it is linked to. Is that insufficient? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, though just a small one - IMHO red links are not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the article does not integrally rely on their content and they point to correctly worded targets, they can even be extremely helpful (e.g. links to raions). However, I perceive a red link like microdistrict as a much greater problem - it tells me that the article builds upon a concept that is unexplained. --Nikai 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  I am currently in the process of collecting information for the article about the microdistrict concept; I can write a stub any day. Microdistrict is no longer a red link. Is there anything else of that nature that caught your eye?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 02:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  No - I'd just like to say that I see the primary usefulness of an article on administrative divisions in "drawing a grid" across a part of a country. Such a grid enables to create (or, even better, spot already created) articles on smaller entities. The article already does that, as far as I can see. --Nikai 08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• The lead is too long; information found in the lead should be discussed later on in the article. Putting it on WP:FAC might be a stretch here- perhaps try featured lists? The article as of now contains near no prose, but WP:WIAFA suggests that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. Perhaps some more history could be included, more information like passed by the State Council—Khase on April 26, 2000 with subsequent amendments. AndyZ _t 00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  On the rare occasion when I write an article :), I strive it to be more than a list. One of the reasons of this peer review is to help me find venues to make the article more of an actual article rather than a mindless list. As for the history, I avoided including it on purpose, because:

  1. the article is supposed to tell the reader about the current state of affairs (I update it every time there is a change);
  2. history of administrative divisions of Russia from the 18th century to present will be covered elsewhere. Once that's accomplished, it'll probably benefit this article to provide an overview and backlinks.

• I also realize that the prose is far from brilliant (it's too dry, for one thing), but I really am not sure how to cover it in such a way as to make it sound compelling. Any ideas?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• The map is necessary for articles of such kind. The historical analysis is also desirable. Kmorozov 06:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  See above regarding the historical analysis. As for the map, you are absolutely right. Unfortunately, I do not have access to such maps and lack the skills to make one.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think the article will be durable. Several days ago, President of Adygeia was forced to resign, after it has become clear that the Kremlin wants the Republic to be absorbed into the Krasnodar Krai over next few years. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, that's a part of the overall trend in Russia. Although I personally doubt that this particular republic will be absorbed, even if that happens the article will remain as a historical record (see Administrative divisions of Perm Oblast, for an example of an article which did not go away when the oblast did).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• As mentioned above I think this article is best headed for featured lists. Far from being 'mindless lists' they can contain quite a lot of information. See Provinces of the Philippines, Provinces of Thailand and List of municipalities of Portugal as examples. CheekyMonkey 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  I see your point. Once cleaned up and improved this article would probably indeed fit better with other similar lists. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what can/should be improved to bring this list to a featured status? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, apart from a map and a brief historical section (again mentioned above) I think the districts could possibly be put into a table format along relavant data (for example it's capital city, population numbers etc). CheekyMonkey 13:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  With this approach, once the articles about the districts are created, there will be a duplication of information (i.e., stats will be mentioned once in the article about the district, and once—in this overview). The main problems is the updates—from my experience people tend to update the first article on the subject they can find, without looking around to see if there are any summaries/overviews. I am not against formatting the list as a table in general, but would not want it to contain too much redundant information.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Humayun

I have expanded this article a fair bit, but I not sure that it reads well, or would make to to become a GA. I would like help here! - Irishpunktom\^talk 15:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Good article. I would definitely recommend adding citations throughout the body of the article, so that it's clear where various pieces of information came from. Also, some of the articles reads more like a legend, or a fictionalized truth. In those instances, you could say 'accroding to XYZ, ..." to make the article appear more encyclopedic.

Good luck!

--CommonGround 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Like, inline citations? - I'm still not how to do them, but, I shall try! thanks. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Surprisingly good article. All credit must go to User: Irishpunktom. Congrats!!

Sisodia 06:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

---

William Cosby

It´s not an extense article. Despite of that, it´s cute and complete. I like it really. --AndresArce 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Andres Arce

Some comments:

• Sorry but the page is in need of a good, thorough editing to give it a suitable polish.
• The external links in the text need to be converted into inline citations. The pafe is in need of additional references, also using inline citations.
• All double-dashes in the text "--" should be replaced by the &mdash; HTML tag.
• Inconsistent use of parentheses for ages and dates. In some places the year is in parentheses and in others it is not. Could you just get rid of the parentheses, as appropriate? Also it usually isn't necessary to give both his age and the date. It seems like the date should be sufficient unless the age is also important for some reason. (Having both age and the year in parentheses is potentially confusing.)

Thanks. — RJH 14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments

• Most of this article is very difficult to understand, some of it doesn't make any sense at all, for example I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean Also, Cosby only pledging would have been to get own wealth only, disregarding both public function and social improving of the Royal Governance. Much of the article reads like this, it really needs someone to thoroughly check the language.
• The article claims he had six sons, but goes on to list three sons and three daughters, later the article talks of both male children. The article needs to be more consistent and needs a fact and reference check.
• In 1711, Sir William Cosby (21) married Grace Montagu, British lady (sic) with connections at Buckingham Palace, as sister of George Montagu --Earl of Halifax--. I am unsure what her connections at Buckingham Palace means, the Royal Family bought the Palace in 1762 according to the Buckingham Palace article, so if it is a reference to Royal connections it is an anachronism. Also the link to Geroge Montagu seems to direct to the wrong person, it should be to George Montague, 1st Earl of Halifax rather than George Montagu.
• This article needs a lot of work IMHO. The English needs to be thoroughly checked, it needs to be properly verified and it needs a fact and reference check. The internal wikipedia links need to be checked to ensure they point to the correct articles. Alun 06:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Leslie Nielsen

Hey all, this has been a small side project for me over the last few months. It started as a very disorganized page and I decided to play around with it for fun. You can see how cluttered the page looked here [2] to see how greatly it has changed. I realize that the sections "recent work" and "achievements" need to be expanded or mixed into the article itself; I'm only hoping for suggestions as to how to continue to approve the article. Personally, I don't think it's ready or capable of becoming, at this time, a Featured Article as its been rather difficult to find any outside, published references for him. However, in the very least, I would like to get this qualified for Good Article and then consider its future growth from there. Thanks in advance for your reviews. --Ataricodfish 22:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks quite good so far. Could the footnotes be numbered rather than just bullet points as it makes it easier to work out which is which? Also isn't he deaf? Surely this should be in the article, unless it's just a myth. RicDod 11:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RicDod, Thanks for the review. The footnotes are a good point, so I've changed the format to numbering. You are right that he's deaf, too, as I remember an interview with him discussing how it effected his work on Scary Movie 4. I will look into this while I'm working on the close of the article, which admittingly still needs work. Thanks again!--Ataricodfish 13:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

F.C. United of Manchester

Article about a semi-professional English football (soccer if you're American or pedantic :-D) club. We don't have many long articles about such clubs so it's been fairly unchartered territory and I've done things slightly differently from other football club articles. For example, information about semi-professional players is hard to come by and it would hard to write more than a stub for some of them, so I've merged the player info into the club article. I'd like to hear what people think of this - should it be in a separate article? a table?

Any suggestions about what else should be in the article or which bits could be longer/shorter would be welcome. I'd like to get this featured one day (might have to wait until the club's been around a bit longer to have a bit more history to put in) so pointing out anything you see that is keeping it below that standard would be welcome. Also some comments on the prose would be useful - we tend to not to emphasise that on WP for some reason. Too formal? Too informal? Thanks in advance, CTOAGN (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think the players should go on a subpage, like Players on the FCUM or something along those lines. Otherwise, the fragments in the player section should be made into regular sentences. AndyZ _t 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the article, while comparatively good for a football club article, is a little unwieldy. Some thoughts:

• It is not uncommon for overseas supporters to travel to the UK... - reference needed
• FC United's first season has been a resounding success. - too POV, needs rewording
• they had the season's second-highest average attendance in English non-league football - ref needed.
• It is perhaps worth stressing more the fact that AFC Wimbledon had been a previous successful example of a breakaway fans' club, and the (partial) inspiration they brought.
• ...it was claimed that a supporter had assaulted a steward... - who claimed it? Any arrests made? Was this later found to be true or untrue?
• An important milestone... This was due to... sounds awkward and needs rewording
• Player bios and details need to be much, much shorter. WP:BIO makes it clear that non-professional sportspersons are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia at length; some of those bios are as long enough to be good-sized stubs. I would leave bios to the FCUM official site and just list the players' names in standard template; if you really think it is necessary, then keep the descriptions but have them down to a sentence or two.
• Former players, unless they really have made a significant contribution to the club's history, should be left out altogether.
• While length is not a major issue right now, if the 2006-07, 2007-08, etc. seasons are going to be covered in similar detail to the 2005-06 season, it will become unreadable. The season history reads like a list of results strung together with a little extra prose. I would reduce coverage of the current season down to two, three paragraphs at best, in line with other articles. Qwghlm 22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I don't agree with shortening the player bios, but I'll have a look at the other stuff. CTOAGN (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto III

Notable video game title that was the best selling game in 2001 due to its (inherited) gameplay and new 3D graphics engine, popularized and defined the GTA series to date, and (once again) highlighted violence in video games.

The article has potential to be a featured article, but I'm a little concerned with the balance of information, espcially since the Gameplay section has swelled dramitacally as I have included plenty of information regarding the games and differences from previous GTA games. Additionally, non-standard referencing methods are used in the article.

Comments, recommendations and directions on both the article's content and formatting are welcomed. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 08:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

The Darkel section still sounds rather bad. Even what little is now there still isn't all necessarily able to be accurately referenced. Also the usage of long and short names is irregular. I'll have a better look at it later. Garrett^Talk 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Darkel's appearance in an early publication and retained contents can be verified. GOURANGA! has collected clues regarding Darkel and one of the planned missions (an IGN article, dated February 21, 2001 also verifies this claim):

"Another mission source is a street urchin named Darkel (according to Game Informer, he will be replacing the Kill Frenzies that were in GTA and GTA2). Darkel is a rather odd addition who asks you to commit various random acts of violence. One such act mentioned in the IGN preview is to steal an ice cream truck, load it with dynamite, and then set off the bomb after attracting a large enough crowd. Sounds pretty dark but I'd imagine that its just the tip of the iceberg."

In addition, his voice actor (Bill Fiore) was featured in the game's IMDB entry, while his character skin may actually be found in GTA III's game files (with the character model absent). Speculation regarding the motive of removing Darkel and Rockstar's ability to conduct some or all changes can be found in forums. However, I've taken the liberty to comment out a large chunk of the section's final paragraph, as this phrase was based solely off opinion. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006

This article grew very significantly during the three months or so of the contest and has been pretty stable since. As it was stitched together over time and changed frequently, a review would help check how it works as a whole article. Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some initial comments.

1. The opening needs to take an overall view of the whole leadership election process. At the moment it starts by naming the winner and giving his winning margin, then leaps back two months to give the reason it was called. This flows very badly and doesn't give much context. A better way would be like this "The Liberal Democrats leadership election of 2006 saw Menzies Campbell elected to follow Charles Kennedy as Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the centrist British political party. Kennedy was forced to resign (etc.) There were four candidates (etc). The eventual winning margin was (etc.)".
2. Likewise the article's sections are out of sequence with the vote results given first, then the candidates and their supporters, the withdrawn candidates, the rules, then the opinion polls, and finally a narrative of the campaign. The circumstances in which Charles Kennedy was forced to resign, which happened first in the chronology, are the last section. I think a more chronological order would be better.
3. Parts of the article are written as though the election is still ongoing: the candidates' list and their supporters, for instance.
4. The abbreviation 'Ming Campbell' is used a few times. It needs to be either explained, or preferably, ditched and Menzies Campbell used throughout. David | Talk 20:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I've reordered it as suggested, changed the tenses that I spotted and restructured the lead. —Whouk (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Thanks for reading. --PopUpPirate 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In the intro, I would say what it is before where it is. Also if it is often referred to as "Britain" then put that in the parens along with UK, United Kingdom. No sense in having two sentences of the lede deal with this. Kaisershatner 14:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. So I modified it, and it went down like a crock of shit! Ah well. --PopUpPirate 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it not true that the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury is at Westminster Abbery and not at Canterbury Cathedral? 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not true; his official residence, however, is Lambeth Palace. Septentrionalis 23:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images are kindf of in akward positions, such as the history section.Cvene64 06:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Goldfish

Besides more citations and less weasel words, what can I do to make this article better? QuizQuick 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The language is a little informal; it reads like a how-to guide on keeping goldfish. "Goldfish make great pond-fish." "Goldfish need only be fed as much food as they can consume in three to four minutes, and no more than twice a day." "It is a better idea to introduce blanched greens to the tank than it is to use live plants as a food source." "Terms like "dropsy" and "swim bladder disease" are thrown around carelessly, with little consideration for the cause." etc. The external links section need formatting and perhaps shrinking. Otherwise, it's pretty good, and really comprehensive. --Iorek85 09:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking good in terms of factual content (though as you have recognised, more citations would be helpful), but the article would benefit from heavy copyediting. A few suggestions:

• References should be in the m:Cite format. Currently there is a mix of formats.
• Some of the external links look rather spammy ("amazing goldfish training"?). See WP:EL for guidance on what type of links are suitable.
• There is quite a bit of redundancy in the prose, e.g. "While it is true that goldfish can survive in a fairly wide temperature range" could be written as "Goldfish can survive in a fairly wide temperature range" without changing the meaning. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a is useful advice for improving readability, including avoiding redundancy.
• I agree with lorek85 that several parts read like a how-to. These parts should be rewritten in a more encycopedic tone. Looking at some of the featured articles about animals, such as Cat or Frog may help in showing how this can be done.
• Where possible, try to convert bulleted lists into prose.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 23:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions. Can you give me a letter grade for FA articles? Like B+? A? Etc. QuizQuick 02:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I would say it's C+, mostly because there seem to be a lot of statements unsupported by any sources. With sources, it would probably be a B+. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• You may want to consider putting the online references in inline format, e.g. <ref>{{cite web | url=... | title=... | accessdate=2006-07-14}}</ref>. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ten-pin bowling

This article failed an admittedly premature FAC. User:Fjorn, myself, and others have worked hard to expand it since then. The purpose of this peer review is to get ideas and imput on how to get the article over the last hurdles needed to become featured. In particular, please look over the play and scoring sections, as they seem a bit clunky right now. I'm also not sure if some of the images are properly tagged. Anything else is, of course, also very welcome. Thank you! --Danaman5 03:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Try to rid the article of red links by removing the links or creating stubs (at least) for the articles.

MyNameIsNotBob 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I have removed the red links for now. I suspect that some of them may exist and were linked incorrectly, or should be created as stubs. As they are discovered or created, I will re-add them. --Danaman5 06:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Quick comment: Generally, do not put links in the bolded article title (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). I realize the word bowling isn't used again in the first paragraph, so maybe you can slightly modify the beginning of the second to read: "Since being brought to the United States from Europe, bowling has...", which I think actually sounds better because according to your history it was bowling in general that was brought from Europe, not 10-pin specifically. --NormanEinstein 18:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have implemented your changes in the lead. --Danaman5 20:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're quick. Here's a few other things to think about. ;-) I'd kill the Trivia section and merge the salient info into the appropriate sections in the main body of the article. For instance, the part about the popularity of bowling could be listed in the most recent History section. The See also section is pretty huge with that list of famous bowlers. You might consider spinning that off into a "List of famous Ten-pin bowlers", then that list can get as big as needed. If there are one or two really important people that helped develop the game keep them listed here. I'd also remove bowling ball, bowling pin, and pinsetter from the See alsos because they should already be wikilinked in the body. (Bowling ball and bowling pin actually aren't wikilinked anywhere, so maybe link the first occurrence of them in the opening paragraph.) Personally, I'm not a fan of lists of quotes in articles and I think they should be integrated into the text or not used at all. Those quotes seem to be more for flavour than anything else, so maybe remove them (or move to the talk page for safe keeping if you decide to make a list of quotes article ;-) --NormanEinstein 21:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have wikilinked bowling ball and bowling pin in the lead as you mentioned. The other changes are more major, and I do not feel comfortable doing them unilaterally, especially since the quotes section was just recently added. I have brought them up on the talk page, however, and most if not all should be implemented shortly. --Danaman5 03:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree with making the list of famous bowlers a separate page. Budgiekiller 11:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

All of your suggestions have now been implemented. Thank you for your attention to this article. --Danaman5 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of good information here. I have made a number of stylistic changes, but I do think the article needs a lot of rewriting: there is much awkward language; paragraphs that list series of facts without any obvious connection between them; use of "this" and "it" when specificity is required; historical tidbits without providing context, etc. To illustrate, analyzing the text under the first section heading, ==Origins==:

• First ¶: The "first written record"—what record? The following two sentences have no segue, and list facts without context; "In Germany the game of Kegal (Kegelspiel) expanded." It's a non sequitur. What is Kegal? is it a bowling-like game? We are eventually told at the end of the paragraph that it is a nine pin game, but it's too late, and its introduction is not connected at all to the preceding sentence. The next stand alone paragraph tells us—still under the Origins section mind you—that kegal is now a major modern sporting company along with Brunswick and AMC. We just got abruptly uprooted from history of the sport from hundreds of years ago to a present day parenthetical aside about modern sports distributors set off in its own paragraph. This is followed in the next paragraph by the introduction of the sport to America during colonial times. The shift is incongruous. The next paragraph's first sentence in full is: "Ninepin bowling was introduced to America from Europe during the colonial era, similar to the game of skittles." Similar to what in the game of Skittles? the way it was introduced via Europe to the US? Or is bowling similar to Skittles? What is trying to be said? --Fuhghettaboutit 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Zilant

Please, list your reviews, if possible :) --Untifler 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

An interesting article. Some comments:

• The page needs plenty of in-line citations to back up the various facts. (Particularly if you could give sources for the legends.) Otherwise the reader has no idea how much is true, or pure hoax.
• Tatar and Turkic need to be linked.
• Please fix the multiple errors in the sentence: "It should be noted, that another peoples, that live arround Kazan, such as Chuvashes and Mari also have legends, related to Kazan's foundation, but no one refers to Kazan dragon."
• "After 16th century Russians loaned this legend from Tatars." Did you mean "acquired" this legend?
• "Sceptics": Which skeptics are they? Is there a reference?

Thanks. — RJH 15:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be expanded, maybe fix the red links while you're at it. --Osbus 18:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

InuYasha

I'd like to see this a featured article. If I could have some pointers on its shortcomings; that'd be great. I think all the information is there, and it just needs to be assembled in the most user-friendly way. -Litefantastic 23:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Sure:

• No references.
• Various images used with no/incorrect licencing information.
• All kinds of problems with the factual accuracy of the article: "Inuyasha is a popular shōnen manga and anime series... Inuyasha is a shōjo action adventure romantic comedy"... .... (hint, first sentence was right).
• No meaningful critical commentary, western general-purpose-anime sites don't count.
• Far too much of the article is silly meaningless stuff like the "Title dispute" section, that's maybe relevant to some really anal western fans, but not an encyclopedia article. 'Popularity' refers only to US tv stations.
• Nothing really about the style of the manga, or the anime, or about the process of creation, Takahashi, Sunrise, or any of its staff.

So, lots of work to be getting on with, if you're up for it. --zippedmartin 09:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Manila Light Rail Transit System

Well, this article has been one of my earliest projects, and I think it has come a very long way from nearly a year ago, although I would like to get opinions on the article. It looks pretty comprehensive, but as always, there's plenty of room for improvement. --Akira123323 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not really fond of the many blank wikipedia links (red in color). --Noypi380 06:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So am I. I'm starting on the stations (which are mostly blank) first, then probably on some of the other articles, like the LRTA and the SRTS. --Akira123323 09:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have trimmed the number of blank Wikipedia links, although station articles continue to be a problem. --Akira123323 11:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've lost that MTV Ink magazine that featured the LRT-1 and MRT stations. That could have helped. Btw, I'm thinking of having a List of Manila LRT and MRT stations. --Howard the Duck | talk, 10:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I did a preliminary table in the past, but with the integration of the LRT and MRT into the SRTS, when it's complete, I might make a List of Strong Republic Transit System stations. But for the time being, I might make a list under that name. --Akira123323 10:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Even the PNR ones? That'll be better. How about changing "Notes" into "References"? --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I could. I made the LRT-MRT list, and I have a feeling MRT-5 in the MRT page is actually Southrail. If it is, I'll change the list title to the SRTS one and add in the so-called MRT-5. And I changed "Notes" to "References". --Akira123323 10:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that I can conclude that MRT-5 is supposedly Northrail, and I can get Southrail stations through other resources, I might start making the SRTS list. --Akira123323 03:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The SRTS list has been made out of the LRT/MRT list and has been subsequently moved. --Akira123323 04:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The stations list has been removed and replaced with info on the station facilities, amenities and what not, while I added a link to the list of stations. --Akira123323 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another bit: the capitalization of station names might be wrong. As I've seen on Jordanhill railway station, only the station name per se should be capitalized. So Monumento LRT Station should be Monumento LRT station. 210.1.86.198 15:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiki keeps on signing me out, bummer).

The thing is that I followed Singapore MRT naming conventions, where they capitalize the entire name (examples include Jurong East MRT Station and Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station), although when I first wikilinked the station names, I left station in small caps. --Akira123323 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure of this. Either "LRT station" is a part of the name, or it is a modifier. Actually, the little question here is "station" since LRT has to be capitalized. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The naming convention states that second and subsequent words should not be capitalized unless you're making an article that incorporates a proper name. I checked with other lists, and the station lists of the Singapore MRT, the Vancouver Skytrain and BART in San Francisco capitalize the word "station", while metro station names in other parts of North America and in Hong Kong and Paris don't implement the word at all (instead, the format <station name>(<system>) is used). Mexico City uses a different system, while others just use the station name without "station", leave station in small caps, or don't wikilink station names at all. It's dependent on whether it's part of the name or not, but I'm presuming it is because since LRT stations are named after streets or other landmarks, the station names need to be distinct. --Akira123323 16:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then since the naming conventions are chaotic (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations)), lets just abide by the ones that we have. Another little thing: whenever I ride the Megatren, the voiceover says Araneta Center-Cubao terminal station. Would it be possible to rename Araneta Center-Cubao LRT Station to Araneta Center-Cubao Terminal LRT Station? (For me it sounds stupid, lol) But I guess since Central Terminal LRT Station is named as such I guess it shouldn't be a problem. --Howard the Duck | talk, 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the LRTA named Central Terminal station for some reason because it's at the center of the line (and because it is a terminal station, although Yehey in its LRT guide called it "Central Terminal Arroceros"). Some websites name Monumento and Baclaran stations as the "North Terminal" and the "South Terminal" respectively, but I know Araneta Center-Cubao, as named by the LRTA (as Cubao on their map), does not incorporate the word "terminal", as is the case with Baclaran and Monumento. --Akira123323 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that the voiceover says Paparating na sa Araneta Center-Cubao terminal station, although perhaps the voiceover was just reading a badly-constructed sentence. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Last thing: Is MRT-2 (Megatren/Purple line) really MRT? Or is it LRT-2? If it's MRT-2 then it should be at Manila Metro Rail Transit System. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The LRTA calls it MRT-2, but it's generally considered part of the LRT. It's even on the official LRT system map (which is the map shown in the main article), unlike MRT-3, which it isn't. --Akira123323 15:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably some readers will be confused. Really last: Can you incorporate the info on "Other information" section on other sections? That may seem as trivia. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I actually noticed that most of the information was redundant with previous sections, while others were removed because they didn't fit in any of the existing sections, and one didn't even involve the LRT (rather, it mostly involved the MRT). I also took the time to reorganize, changing the positions of the future expansion (formerly the planned extensions section) and incidents and accidents sections. I also rewrote the lead section of the future expansion section and switched the positions of some of the references to reflect the reorganization of the article. --Akira123323 17:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I also added a safety section to merge the incidents and accidents section with safety and security. I also removed the old lines and system network section since it's on the station list. --Akira123323 15:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

This article is was nominated to be a featured article and has undergone extensive changes. It has been nominated to have its structure, grammar, and content reviewed as well as to eliminate any inconsistancies and redundancies. JamesOttawa 13:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence should contain the article title in bold, or some approximation of it, as the article title should reflect the subject of the article.

Generally English quotations are not italicized (the Queen's title, for example), but foreign languages are (her title in French should remain italicized). Kaisershatner 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Concerning structure/organization:
  • At 80kb this is rather long and may benefit from splitting off sections into sub-articles using Wikipedia:Summary style. Since the "History" section of this article is 34 kb, this is the best candidate. The section "Debate on the Canadian monarchy" could be a summary style of Monarchism in Canada as the two are (currently) about the same topic and repeat some info.
  • The size can also be reduced by using more concise and relevant writing. For example, the first two paragraphs in "Constitutional role" are not relevant to this section but should be in the "History" section.
  • Why is that sub-section called "International vs. domestic role" opposed to "International and domestic role"? The "vs." implies that there is some competition between the two but I don't see what that might be.
  • The one-sentence paragraph "Usually the Queen's Canadian governments pay only for the costs..." should be attached to the previous paragraph as they both discuss financial costs of the monarchy.
  • Currently, the "The Crown and the First Nations" section use a series of small paragraphs the describe individual events. This could be better organized as a few larger paragraphs that combine these events by a common theme. For example, the "portraits of the "Four Indian Kings" and the "bicentennial gift" paragraphs could be combined or the "Treaty No. 7" and "Bay of Quinte" paragraphs.
  • That last one-sentence paragraph in "The Crown and the Canadian Forces" could be merged into the first paragraph of that section.
  • I don't think "Organizations under Royal Charter" requires sub-sections - they could probably be better presented as a paragraph or two (and the sub-section "Canadian Organizations with Royal Patronage" has useful explanations that go into the introduction of this section.

• Concerning the prose:
  • Avoid having sentences starting with numbers, like "16 of these countries are specifically..."
  • Is it possible to simplify this sentence in "International vs. domestic role": "Although, aside from being Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II is also separately Monarch of each of the other Commonwealth Realms, each nation – including Canada – is sovereign and independent of the others." (it seems to run on or be talking about two different things.)
  • "Contrary to common misconception, Canadians do not pay any monies..." probably best just to leave out that first phrase.

• Concerning the references:
  • The ext.link in "International vs. domestic role" is supposed to be a reference for the 2004 figure of $49 million. Create a footnote out of it.
  • "It has been correctly said since the death of Queen Anne..." may require a footnote unless it can be rewritten so that it isn't a quote or attributing the phrase to somebody.
  • "Recently activists opposed to Bill C-38 lobbied Queen Elizabeth II..." should probably get a footnote to confirm this.
  • The Louis St. Laurent quote in "Cultural role" will require a reference.

• Other comments:
  • If the sentences at the end of paragraphs in "Constitutional role" (and elsewhere) like "(For more explanation of the Monarch's role, see Governor General of Canada.)" are necessary then format it like that suggested at Wikipedia:Summary style. --maclean25 05:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Binary star

I nominated this article as binaries are of the highly ,most blah blah blah

importance in astrophysics and some related articles are already at FA status. I already tried to improve it by adding references, and after this review I plan to nominate it as featured article. Nick Mks 18:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a decent page but I think it could be made a little better. Some comments:

• I have to disagree with the statement "it would be impossible to compute the mass of any star". There is the gravitational microlensing technique, for example.
• The binary star examples section could be readily expanded into brief statements that describe the systems and explains why they are interesting examples. Also there are multi-star examples in the list; is that appropriate? Maybe the reason they are included could be explained?
• I'd like to see Beta Lyrae included in the examples, as it is one of the most studied star systems in astronomy.
• I'd like to see a discussion of widely-separated binaries and the likelihood that they will become non-gravitationally bound as they move through the galaxy.
• You could potentially also include a discussion of runaway star as it applies to a binary star system.

Thanks. — RJH 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I've implemented the easy changes right away, the rest will follow soon. Nick Mks 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song)

This article requires a major rewrite. It is loaded with fancruft galore and needs to be trimmed excessively. Myself and Journalist plan on promoting it to the same status we were able to bring We Belong Together to. I will be conducting several edits within the next few days and would appreciate any suggestions and comments. Note: the "chart performance" section is going to be reduced, so I'd appreciate it if everyone leaving a message did not ask for it to be shortened. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Lead needs to be a bit longer per WP:LEAD to start. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears

Previous Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Chicago Bears/archive1

I would like the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians to see how far along this article has come and if it is near feature status and if not what can be done to improve it so it can reach feature status. --Happyman22 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Carrier

I saw this article, and think it definitely has potential to become featured. It's well written and is already listed as a good article, but before I put it up for FAC I wanted to see if anyone has any suggestions. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 08:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please fix the image copyright tags (WP:IMAGE)- Image:Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.jpg , Image:HIJMS Taiho 02.jpg, Image:Buqueproyeccionestrategica.jpg, and Image:HIJMS Taiho 02.jpg have obsolete tags, Image:Viraat lengthy.jpg should be replaced by a free use image if possible, and since there are already more than enough images on this article, Image:HMS Hermes (R12) (Royal Navy aircraft carrier.jpg should probably be replaced also if possible.

Also, references should be cited properly (see WP:CITE and WP:CITE/ES). {{Cite web}} may come in useful here. More inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs) should be added to cite the facts and figures of this 38kb article- 3 is not sufficient. Ideally, there should be at least 1 per section.

Please also expand the lead to a couple of paragraphs- see WP:LEAD. AndyZ _t 17:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have started work, but thats a lot to fix. Citing should be possible, but I have started on the Images. By the way, you mentioned the same image twice. Lead paragraph I'm drawing a blank with so far, references I can try to fix. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops :). I think it was used twice, so I just put it down twice by an accident. AndyZ _t 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As always, I must point out that there is no such thing as an insufficient notes/citations to article size-ratio. Please specify what you feel needs citation or footnoting and why. Most references tend to be entirely intuitive even if they're only inserted under "References" and without page references.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• The "Flight deck configuration" section could use a better image associated with it. The current image shows a control tower but does not illustrate the take-off and landing area or the layout/orientation of the flight deck. Try to get at least one references in every sub-section within the "Future aircraft carriers" section. The "See also" shouldn't repeat wikilinks that are already in the body, so VSTOL, etc. can be removed. The organization of the article can be improved (always be considering and re-considering the organization). The article begins and ends logically with layout/purpose and the future of aircraft carriers but I don't see a logical flow or pattern to the middle sections. The middle sections (from "Common types" to "U.S. Carrier Operations in Southeast Asia") seem to be telling a history but are not organized as such. The sub-heading "Modern carriers" could be removed (I don't see why that section is separated from the section above it). --maclean25 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The introduction should include some history; although WWII is mentioned, the intro should state something like "First conceived of by XX, aircraft carriers were first built in 19XX as experimental prototypes. The first combat-ready aircraft carriers went into service in 19XX and by WWII they were a major focus of naval warfare." Currently, the intro gives little historical overview/context. Kaisershatner 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• None too shabby at a first glance. The only concern I have right now is the tendency for rather over-specific sub-sections. "Future aircraft carriers" could probably be joined into just one big section and one section per national carrier fleet should really be avoided. "UN Carrier Operations in the Korean War" and "U.S. Carrier Operations in Southeast Asia" seem rather out of place. They belong under "History" one way or the other. / Peter ^Isotalo 07:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

Just now read this article and found it amazingly NPOV for such a controversial subject. I think the editors have been admirable in presenting a fair, well detailed, well sourced picture of Saddam, without special pleading. I find current objections to the article in the Talk page to be without merit. It has been almost two years since Saddam Hussein was nominated and failed as a Featured article. I think the time has come to recognize the good work of the editors and renominate, bur wanted to vet it with Peer Review beforehand. — J M Rice 10:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be shortened- 75kb is really a lot of bloat. I don't think you'll have any success getting it featured while the trial is still a current event (that section needs to be rewritten too btw). Borisblue 14:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of what the norm is for biographies, but I'm worried about referencing. There isn't even a section called references. References (preferably in-line) are especially important with controversial topics. Andjam 11:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Chew Magna

This article has recently undergone major additions and restructuring - I would appreciate your comments about it, especially if anyone has expertise in describing the architecture of listed buildings. I hope to submit it as an FA before long Rod 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe expand The Beeches. --Osbus 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a bit on this but don't have any further information. Rod 08:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Here goes:
  • I suggest that history is expanded. As of now, the history only reaches up to 1600, which IMO isn't very comprehensive (perhaps add recent events?)
  • The rest of the article is simply a list of buildings. More can certainly be added: culture, demographics, government structure, etc. For an example of a featured town, see Chetwynd, British Columbia (other FA cities can be found in Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places). I suggest that this article follow a similar format to those found in the above category (same goes with Chew Stoke).

Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at improving the history section and adding government and demographics sections - I will have a think about other possible addtions. Rod 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Chew Stoke

I'd appreciate comments on this article about the village of Chew Stoke - it has been extensively reworked recently & I'd like to suggest it as an FA in the future. Rod 20:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some issues I found with this article:
• I suggest a citation be found for tributory of the River Chew, possibly called Strode Brook,
• Chew Valley School for secondary pupils and its associated leisure centre is less than a mile away What is it less that a mile away from?
• Is there other information about the history outside of just the temple and single family? For example, the founding, recent events, etc. (this might be difficult because it is a small village, but perhaps other information can be found)
• Is a bridge a building?
• Prose should be added to Grade II listed buildings (I'm assuming that you'll do that soon).

Hope these are helpful, I don't have time to immediately finish this peer review, but I'll finish it later. Thanks, AndyZ _t 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here it continues:

• Chew Stoke Church Primary School has approximately 170 pupils between 4 and 11 years old should have a citation. And plus, what happens after a pupil goes beyond the age of 11?
• and is said to be waterworks marker. I think it should be changed to and is said to be a waterwork marker.
• Industry should be expanded, and trivia removed and possibly incorporated into history.
• Preferably, over 4 WP:FOOTNOTEs should exist in the article- nearer to ten would be better.
• There are several 1-sentence paragraphs in the article- preferably these should be expanded/merged.
• Overall, I think comprehensiveness should be worked on most out of the FA criteria. There is plenty about the buildings, but what about any government structure?

Again thanks, AndyZ _t 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments - I've tried to take most of them into account in the latest edit - what other areas do you think should be included to aid comprehensiveness? Why are more footnotes required? (I think I've consulted just about everything which has been written about the village) Rod 07:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• They aren't required, but if you're looking to bring this article up to featured article status, readers should be able to determine that the article is verifiable. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Impossible Princess

previous PR

Fritz the Cat

I think that this article needs a great deal of improvement in some areas, but I don't know what to do. Any suggestions? (Ibaranoff24 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

The Character section needs to be expanded. I'd also change Publication history into just History and merge the sections about the films and his death into that, dropping the films' plots (there are seperate articles for those). A list of comic stories would also be nice. Maybe you could also add some more about the reception, how did the comics sell, what makes them so important in comics' history, how are they seen today? And were there any incidents where the publishers actually got into trouble (it mentions Kurtzman was afraid to publish it)? The article also needs to better quote its sources, and some POV things like "the tomcat we all know and love" need to go. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I cleaned the article up a bit. I don't really like the list of stories as it stands, and I'm not quite sure what you feel a list of stories would accomplish. The stories are all from the book The Life & Death of Fritz the Cat (printed in 1993), and the publication and creation dates are from the same source. (Ibaranoff24 22:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

Such a list gives the reader an overview over how many stories with the character where published, and over what time. As such they are quite noteworthy. Having such a section in articles about comic characters is also recomended by the WikiProject Comics. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 22:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I have requested a peer review due to this article being greater than the 20kb suggested by the GA nominations process. This article has become mostly stable as of late and, although details are being added and some minor alterations occur, is well written, contains a multihood of referenced information, and could honestly benefit from this process. Kyaa the Catlord 16:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I note that an RfC has been open on the article — regarding the issue of images and image-placement — since 03 February, 2006. The issue remains, and has recently led to a dispute over the article's GA nomination. &#0151; JEREMY 17:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I further note that this RFC had precisely 0 responses. Sigh. Kyaa the Catlord 17:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu

I've spent the past six months working on this article and I think it's nearing featured level. It's way long, and some quotes may be redundant, so feel free to be bold and cut whatever appears irrelevant or extraneous. I'm still mulling over using summary style, because I can't see how this would work, except possibly through article titles like Ketuanan Melayu 1963-1965 (or something like that). I think the article is still quite readable anyhow, but then I've spent the past six months getting to know every nook and cranny of the topic well in depth, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to readability. I know there are some roughs spots language- and formatting-wise, so feel free to point them out or better still, fix them. I know the article could use more images, but I think the two existing fair use images are stretching it a bit, and it's hard getting hold of free images that are at least tangentially related. Johnleemk | Talk 19:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I gave this a copyedit; here's some stuff I spotted while editing that you should probably look at:
  • At certain points it seems ambiguous as to whether you're speaking of the Malayan Union and the Federation of Malaya as entities or events. From their respective articles, it seems that the both names refer to the state, not to the act of unification, and I've edited accordingly in a few places, but this could probably take a little more scrutiny.
  • Subsections would be in order for some of the larger sections (e.g. Pre-independence).
  • Explain in more depth what the Banishment Ordinance is if you're going to call it by name.
  • I'm not sure what "definitive people" means--that might bear explanation.
  • The "May 13" section presents its facts in a confusing order--maybe make it more chronological?
  • Use of terms should be standardized. For each Malay term used, it should be formatted the same way for each use after the first. I've tried to do this to some extent, but it could use more scrutiny (this is almost always an issue with an article that's written over a period of time).
  • Narrative flow between sections is a little weak at several points.
  • The section on the NDP is actually composed mostly of criticism of the NEP. This criticism should be broken off into a separate section at least, and seems to be focused on more than its importance to the article would dictate, and should probably be balanced by more discussion of what NEP proponents said in response to these critiques.
• Here's my overall assessment. This is very good stuff, and I had a great time reading it. It's a very detailed article, which I enjoyed, but it may be a little too in depth on certain points, and it has a few problems with cohesiveness. I don't think it should be broken up into subarticles, but I did come up with two suggestions for how to deal with this. First, I would suggest shifting the focus a little away from blow-by-blow accounts of the various occasions on which this issue has cropped up, and towards more overt discussion of the themes and historical trends that link them. (The information is in the article, but I think it should be more central to the overall structure.) Second, I would rely a little less on quotations. I like articles with a lot of quotations in them, but I think this one goes a little too far at times. Leave enough in to keep the feel that the article currently has, but consider removing any that could be replaced with a shorter section of text with and still get the same information across. I think that doing those two things should result in a slightly trimmer and more unified article. Great work so far, though. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Robth^Talk 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I did some of the minor stuff already. I'm not sure which of the Malay terms you're referring to, since IIRC I placed everything in italics. The NEP criticism is sort of related to the NDP because there was a lot of discussion at this time about whether the NEP should be continued. I hope I made it clear in the article. The NEP, NDP, etc. are closely related and often equated with ketuanan Melayu, as can be seen from the recent events in Malaysia, but I'm not how to make this clear, as this is based mostly on my own research (and is thus inadmissible). I tried to find more counter-criticisms of the NEP, but basically they all boil down to either a restatement of ketuanan Melayu, or a claim that the Malays have not achieved full economy parity -- both of which are adequately covered by the article, IMO. I'm going to find some quotes to trim tomorrow. I'm not sure which sections don't flow very well, though -- could you give a couple of examples? (I was actually considered that I was providing too much context in some cases, such as the Razaleigh vs Mahathir issue and the sacking of Salleh Abas.) The only one I can think of is the break between reformasi and Abdullah's premiership, and I'm not sure how to bridge this. Maybe I'll go dig up some stuff about the 1999 election and see if ketuanan Melayu was used as an issue there. Johnleemk | Talk 19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I like the changes you've made so far. Clarifications, responses, etc., follow:
      • Terms: Italicization is consistent; what wasn't was the use of quotes, wikilinking, and appositive definitions. In general, I tried to place the definition of a term with its first use, and then from then on make the use of wikilinking and quotes consistent, but since I was going section by section there may still be inconsistencies.
      • NEP/NDP etc. Sounds like you've been thinking about this, and it looks like a tricky spot. It would be great if there was a source that made the connection more overt, but failing that, the way you've reordered it to demonstrate how the NDP grew out of the debate over the NEP looks good. I think you're right about the explanation of the pro-NEP position being adeguately dealt with in the rest of the article.
      • Other places to improve flow:
        1. If possible, it would nice to discuss Mahathir's rise to power right before moving into the section on his administration, to smooth the transition.
        2. An explanation of how the 1990 election led into the NEP/NDP debate would be nice.
        3. The transition from "Meritocracy" to "Racial politics" is a bit sharp.

      If all of these can't be ironed out, its not that big of a deal. Narrative structure of articles is sort of my "thing," so I bring it up whenever I see room for improvement, but these aren't huge issues.

    • This is coming along quite well; I'll keep an eye on it and help out if I can. Robth^Talk 01:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I dug up some sources and tried to make the connection between the affirmative action policies and ketuanan Melayu more clear, but it might only have muddied the waters further. I've also added some defense of the NEP to the appropriate subsection, although it may not be fully integrated into the flow of the text. I'm having trouble finding quotes to take out; I took out a couple that were never really solid in the first place, but a lot of the rest seems good. I was thinking maybe we could cut down on the quotes from historians, but most of them seem to help the article quite a bit. Sigh...maybe I can get this done tomorrow when I'm not so sleepy. Johnleemk | Talk 17:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah... looking through it, I like all of the quotations, and I don't see anything calling out to be removed; at the same time, it is a big article (94 kb! Eep!). It's a difficult balance to strike. I wish I had some sort of insight, but I'm coming up empty. Robth^Talk 16:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I made some modifications to the article based on your suggestions. I couldn't find anything related to the NEP or NDP about the general election, and I couldn't think of a way to better segue "Meritocracy" into "Racial politics", however. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• I simplified the introduction to just say what the concept is, as well as a brief mention of who uses the term and who opposes it. Also removed reference to the "probable cause for rise of MCA" block from pre-independence section, as I think it is not very relevant to the rest of the section, which discusses the rise of the "Malay rights" movement (if I may call it that way). Kimchi.sg | talk 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is relevant, since the MCA was the first to challenge the idea that only the Malays could be sovereign over Malaya. I also restored Malaya to the lead, since Malaysia and Malaya are two different geopolitical entities, and some proponents of ketuanan Melayu explicitly claim only Malaya (since technically the natives of East Malaysia aren't Malays) for the Malays. I also spruced up the lead to act as an overview of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• My concern is cosmestic but I feel the article could use larger photos i.e. wider width. The article is fairly long and readers might want to see some illustrations. (heh, two of the photos are mine, so, the ulterior motive is greater publicity for my pix but hey, my argument is still valid, isn't it? =) ) __earth ^(Talk) 11:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hm...larger photos? One (the real estate ad) needs to be viewed in close-up for full effect. I suppose the image sizes could be tweaked, but I'm concerned that those with smaller resolutions will be bothered. I'm trying to find more images that can be used, but it's difficult because they have to be relevant to the section in question. It's therefore a bit difficult to track down free images (fair use has rather stringent applications) for most of the article. Photos of the 1955 elections and of Mahathir explaining bangsa Malaysia would probably be fair use, though. The main problem is tracking them down -- there's nothing about them online. Systemic bias...*sigh*. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hurrah, I found free photos to use! I also got a fair use picture of opposition to the Malayan Union from my history textbook. My main concern at present is whether the article is too long. Should we use summary style, or would that just disrupt the flow of an otherwise fine article? I'm leaning in favour of the latter, but obviously I'm biased. Johnleemk | Talk 11:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Gottlieb Daimler

Again. It´s the most complete article in the Internet. It could have some problems with the spelling though. But it could be a great Featured article.--AndresArce 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)AndresArce

Wilhelm Maybach

I noticed that this is the most complete article in the Internet. Maybe, It could have some spell problems though. It´s worth to be featured anyway.--AndresArce 17:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)AndresArce

The KLF

article is about an early-1990s british electronica band. aim is to make this article featured quality. please give any pointers about what can be done to achieve that, and list anything at all that could prevent it becoming a featured article. Zzzzz 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• The list in the second paragraph beginning They also gained notoriety for... is very long. Try making two or more sentences out of it by changing it into direct prose.

done Zzzzz 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about your use of semi-colons. They seem to be used far too liberally and for what I believe are the wrong reasons, such as, as "tastefully understated"[2]; a "touching if idiosyncratic biographical statement".

fixed the example given, didnt check for others yet Zzzzz 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree that they were used too often and sometimes inappropriately. I've removed some, but left those which serve to highlight the relationship between what would otherwise be two sentences. Does this seem better? --Vinoir 13:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Probably my doing. I would say that in most cases I was conjoining statements which could stand alone as two sentences, or where merging reviews from two publications into one overview. I trust Vinoir to have fixed it as I don't feel well enough to trawl through diffs today :) --kingboyk 13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• You will need to find citations for the parts where there are {{fact}} tags, or justify their removal before submitting to WP:FAC.

• I think without exception any {{fact}} tags were added by me (one of the principle authors), either to statements I added from memory (for which I know there is a source but I hadn't located it at the time), or to rather dubious material which was in the article when I first arrived. We'll ensure that all such occurences are replaced with a citation, removed, or left without {{fact}} in any instance where the attached statement is not controversial. (OK, let's see: "Recalling the moment in a radio interview" - that was me, I don't have a transcript to hand, however he said much the same on numerous occasions, so we can fix that; "banned from the airwaves of BBC Radio 1", that's your's Vinoir but I tagged it (do you have a source?); "leading some people to have compared Drummond and Cauty's incarnations to The Residents", I think that's a very old line, it might have to go; I do believe all others have now been dealt with). --kingboyk 13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed "banned from the airwaves of BBC Radio 1" statement because I was going by Drummond's word for that, and I have not found a source to back him up, from the BBC or elsewhere. --Vinoir 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There's one more: "When the play moved to London it was seen by a young Jimmy Cauty". Again, I tagged this. I don't know if we need a citation specifically for that assertion, but some quotations from Cauty and Drummond about Illuminatus, and perhaps a music press or broadsheet article about their appropriation of Illuminatus symbology (is that a word? :)), would be nice. The "When the play moved to London it was seen by a young Jimmy Cauty" thing is something of a KLF legend but is that good enough? Possibly not. --kingboyk 04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just that one left now I think. I've fixed 2 others. --kingboyk 08:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

the source for that is this: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~stuey/klf/23.htm Zzzzz 10:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The author of that article User:Drstuey most probably inserted it into our article too, as he was an early contributor to it. I knew of him already because is a member of the KLF mailing list; as far as I know he's not a published author or an acknowledged expert in the field (any more than - say - I am; not that I doubt he knows what he's talking about!). Thinking about it, though, it might be mentioned in Peter Robinson's "Justified & Ancient History". Robinson went on to work as a music journalist for one of the weeklies, so we could possibly get away with using him. I'd still prefer some hard evidence or a direct quote, however. --kingboyk 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I got that fact" from Peter Robinson's "Justified & Ancient History" fanzine. Drstuey 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove the red link in "Legacy" by creating the article or removing the link.

MyNameIsNotBob 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have no objection to doing that, none at all as it's not an important link. However, why should that be necessary? It's not a KLF-related article (so not one we have any immediate intention of creating, I think), and redlinks used in moderation do have some value. --kingboyk 13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. It's like the "Bagpuss" shop window: if anyone passing sees something that they'd like to partake in, then they can, and we might gain a new Wikipedian. --Vinoir 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But what do the FAC rules say? I know all our links should be blue for FAC, but I don't know about links that couldn't reasonably be expected to be part of our project (the Oberheim OB-8 is a similar red link). --kingboyk 04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

there is no rule.... redlinks are ok, but turning them into stub articles will help anon users as they can't create articles. Zzzzz 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course. Good rationale, I shall see what I can do about the Oberheim OB-8 and Sound on Sound then. --Vinoir 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Well there ya go, learn something new every day. Cue the cliched but genuine "I hadn't thought of that!" :) --kingboyk 00:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have voiced an opinion; any more feedback, good or bad, is most welcome. Cheers. --kingboyk 13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Supreme Court

(Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/New Jersey Supreme Court/archive1)

This underwent a previous peer review (See above) and most of the suggestions were implemented, and then a FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey Supreme Court/archive1), which failed disasterously. I've attempted to address most of the issues from the FAC but would like another inspection of this articel by other sets of eyes, especially concerning the list of cases (How should they be presented? by case?/by sbject?, how much detail, etc). Finally, is there anything missing, or something that would drastically improve the articel or make it more interesting? 68.39.174.238 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I am responding to concerns raised by the peerreviewer.js on the page linked to above. Other comments (placed here), will be answered here.

Note! I've hacked together an infobox for this court to summarize some highlights of current operation. I'd definately like to see what people have to say about IT, as it significantly changes the look of the intro. 68.39.174.238 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Denmark

This article is currently chosen as the article improvement drive article of the week. Inspiration for what needs to be done in order for the article to become a featured article would be helpful. --Maitch 20:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparing to featured articles such as Australia, Belgium, India, and People's Republic of China, I think something about the climate and foreign relations would be good. Topics such as culture, demographics, and government/politics seem underdeveloped. The introduction could also be expanded, and all but the most relevant templates at the end culled. — RJH 14:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My initial comments:

The article should follow the basic article template design set forth in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries.

Etymology definitely needs a source, especially with the experts have two interpretations of the name (WP:AWT).

the Kalmar Union with Norway and Sweden, Finland. and and comma need to be switched around

WP:CITE should be used with the external link footnotes- {{Cite web}} might be useful here.

Transnational Issues I in Issues should be decapitalized per WP:MOS, and would be better off in prose and probably could be moved into a politics section.

The unneccesary bolding of terms under Education should be removed.

fulfil -> fulfill

Scandinavian welfare model is too long, relative to the size of the other sections that should be expanded. Please use WP:SS for this section.

The note under Economy should be converted to a WP:FOOTNOTE

Miscellaneous topics should be incorporated into See also- see no reason why they should be separate.

Categories should be alphabetized

Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Woodstock Festival

Alas, I was too little to attend Woodstock back in 1969, and needed to rely on secondary sources for my copious recent edits to the article. Any Woodstock alumni/alumnae out here — or other folks around here — who could check this article for accuracy's sake and otherwise? Anyone up to the groovy challenge here, go for it! —Peace, Catdude 00:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• CITE the references used per WP:CITE. PDXblazers 01:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Much merit in that, PDXblazers. Due to what's on my plate right now, it will regrettably take me a little time to tackle your suggestion, but I'm game to it as soon as I have more available time :) (It would have been better as well if I had kept a log of where I found information :-) ) Thanks!! —Catdude 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• ALSO Get rid of the short trivia section, such a section is unencyclopedic. PDXblazers 04:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some quick notes:

• The word "The" should not appear in the beginning of a heading per WP:MOS (example: The festival -> Festival)
• Please expand the WP:LEAD to conform to guidelines (at least 2 paragraphs)
• References and inline citations would be helpful. Ideally each section should have at least one footnote.
• Please use the &nbsp; (no-break space) between numbers and their units of measure, per WP:MOSNUM.
• Years without full dates generally aren't linked, per WP:CONTEXT.
• The last couple of prose sections could use expansion
• Trivia needs to go; incorporate or remove it.
• The rest of the article is too list-weighty, and more of the lists should be prose-ified (converted to paragraph form). Thanks, AndyZ _t 23:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fermi Paradox

This article is a delisted FA. One of the concerns was citations, which has been partially addressed; there are 18 now and I'd suggest we need about 40. Any help in that regard would be great.

The other concern was structure: TOC length, bloat, at times a lack of focus. I've undertaken some fairly massive changes but there isn't a lot of feedback on the talk page so for all I know I'm disimproving. The page has dropped from close to 60(!) headlines to about 30 and from 66 to 57K. If you've got some time you can compare this from when I started there to the present page. Thanks all, Marskell 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting subject; if I have time I may have lots of comments. The article is too long. In the lead, "The age of the universe and the vast number of stars in the universe suggest that extraterrestrial life should be common." is an assertion. For example, if I were a religious fundamentalist I might have the POV that ET life should not be common. Maybe something more like, "Given the estimated age of and number of stars in the universe, if ET life existed on even 1 in 10(9) planets it would still be abundant." or something in that vein. I guess I'm saying the statement as written contains assumptions that aren't explicitly spelled out. Also, who coined the term "Fermi paradox"; I understand the story may be apocryphal but someone had to use the term first. Kaisershatner 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I partially restored some of the changes which if you don't like we can talk about. Note I added "seem to suggest" per your concern. I actually think it's the last sections, rather than the first ones, that need looking at (though naturally people edit near the top of the page when they first arrive).

Regarding, who said it first, I really don't know. I'm hoping someone who has read the Stephen Webb book, If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens... Where Is Everybody?, at the end of the references to come along here. I'm handicapped in terms of looking things up, unfortunately. Marskell 08:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Glacier National Park (US)

This article has been substantially upgraded in both the level of information and the quality of information since mid-April. Any thoughts that may help us improve the article are most appreciated. As a side note, over thirty stubs were created including a Category to link them all together, in an effort to eliminate redlined links, as shown in the Category:Glacier National Park (US) at the bottom of the article.--MONGO 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead is a bit jam-packed with images, otherwise it looks and reads quite well. Try and get someone who hasn't worked on the article to copy edit it. Also, I'm curious as to why you didn't follow the same article layout as your previous Shoshone National Forest?--nixie 00:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the article to a few folks, but haven't been able to get anyone to proofread it. Do you think the format for Shoshone was better? It's longer and uses the somewhat outdated Ref|note style of citing. I created Shoshone from scratch, while this article already existed and I didn't want to make major changes to some of the existing wording out of respect for others hard work. I really appreciate the time you have taken to look this over...I'll relook Shoshone over and see how I can adapt some of that style here.--MONGO 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the organisation of this one is probably better; something it lacks which the Shoshone article has is a section on management. If this park has something interesting about its management, it might be worth adding. Sorry I can't be more help on the copyediting, I'm only good at it when the English is really bad; I tend to miss more subtle grammatical things.--nixie 03:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I see your point and there are management documents I can sift through to see if I can add that....I did overlook this and there are definite differences in regards to how the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service manage their areas. Thanks again, and it's good to hear there aren't a lot of typos and what not.--MONGO 04:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a management section and I think that makes a difference, thanks again for pointing that out.--MONGO 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Collaboratory

I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions to help improve this article, which I hope to submit as FA soon. Thanks! C22an 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My immediate impression is that the page is in need of serious wiki linking. It looks like you are using Harvard referencing, so the {{ref_harvard}} templates can be used. Also could you add it to one or more appropriate categories? Thank you. :) — RJH 16:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Thanks for your comments! I have added internal and external links, a See Also, and External Links sections. The citation style I'm using is APA (similar to Harvard), which seems to be in line with the Wikipedia citation guidelines. I would change the style, but since I don't know Harvard I'd rather not. After all, the important part is to cite the sources... Thanks again!C22an 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• Just as a suggestion, it would be helpful if the introduction was a gentle overview, rather than an extended discussion of the word definition. The current intro might tend to put off some readers, and could probably be moved into its own section. You could just state at the start something along the lines of: "collaboratory" is a portmanteau that combines the words collaboration and laboratory; then briefly delve into a reader-friendly description of the potential benefits and issues. Food for thought, anyway.

• Hmmm, good point! WIP.

• There are many words in the text that can be enhanced with links, which is useful for those who want to delve into a subject further (or just want to understand what the word means.) For example: digital libraries, behavioral scientists, workflow management, databases, data transmission, hierarchical tree, node, task management, electronic notebooks, combustion, model and asynchronous collaborations.

• Excellent catch! I fixed all and added a couple more. Though I have to be careful not to go over the allowed 10% :)

• I think "globally distributed" should have a hyphen.

• Corrected. How about "globally disarticulated"?

• The folks who do the FA evaluation are likely to object to the use of bold-fonts for definitions such as "Collaboration readiness".

• Reversed the font to regular. Although it seems a bit unusual to me. How would one highlight the important parts? Underlined fonts I guess are not good because they can be confused with links. How about italics? Or maybe colors... :))

• The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics section suggests using italics when writing about words as words. — RJH 16:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• The first use of a $ should be linked to US$, since other nations use the same symbol for their currency.

• Corrected.

• Here's some suggested categories: Category:Information technology, Category:Collaboration and Category:Laboratories.

• Done.

Thank you for your work on this. :) — RJH 21:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you for all your help! If there's more please let me know :) C22an 06:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Indian independence movement

previous PR

Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity

I've done a lot of work on this obscure (but interesting) subject. I'd like an outside view, as I feel I'm too close to the subject, done too much research and written too much to really assess what I've got so far. I'd like you guys to look at this with an especial eye towards FA; it would be pretty awesome if I could get such an obscure subject to FA status. --maru (talk) contribs 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. I've been hoping someone would tackle this for a long time now. Though, I've never heard it being referred to as an "Encyclopedia" before. This is an amazing topic, and I wish I had more to add, but you have added all I know! --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm curious, though. What did you hear it referred to as? The Epistles, or as the Rasa'il ikhwan al-safa? --maru (talk) contribs 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• "was transmitted as far abroad as Spain" this sentence reads like it should contain more information. Such as "was transmitted as far abroad as Spain in the West and xxxx in the East." or "was transmitted as far abroad as Spain from xxxx". --Mcginnly 15:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this put paid to your concerns? --maru (talk) contribs 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Inline references! The folks over at FAC and PR lurv those. Change your external link list into footnotes, and I have a feeling more and more people will like it. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do they wuv them? But seriously, I'm not all that concerned about the footnotes not being inline, since there seem to be some nice bots who will do that for me. As for external links... this may surprise you, but I've drawn very little information from them. The dead-wood resources have provided me pretty with all the content I needed so far- but I'll see what I can do. --maru (talk) contribs 04:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Headings generally shouldn't use the world "The" in the beginning (like "The encyclopedia" -> "Encyclopedia") and also shouldn't generally repeat the title of an article ("Encyclopedia" -> "Overview" or something along those lines). The inline external links have to be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs- I suggest converting the current footnotes to the cite.php format, which is pretty convenient to use. (note that you can use the <ref name=theName> property) As of now, the article is pretty heavy on lists, which is a big source of objections on WP:FAC. I would suggest either prose-ifiying the lists (converting them to paragraph form), which would be pretty difficult to do, or adding them to a separate subpage like "Contents of blah blah" and linking to it in the See also section. AndyZ _t 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I've fixed the header. I've left the references alone because I don't feel like learning a new system or wasting time changing between two system which work equally well for me, especially when other will do it for me (as I mention above to Messed Rocker); and I think I will split out the list of rasa'il into a new page, called List of rasa'il in the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity- subpages are apparently rather deprecated these days. --maru (talk) contribs 23:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Dog Day Afternoon

A film from my "Best All Time" list that I've worked up pretty heavily over the past week to grow past a messy, unsourced, unorganized, stubby article. I've added whatever I can find that I have felt the article needs, and I'd love to know if anyone sees something that could be added/changed! Thanks in advance. Staxringold 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Expand the lead per WP:LEAD. --darkliight^[πalk] 16:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Staxringold 22:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

University of Chicago

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

An archived peer review is available at: Archive 1

Could the infoboxes at the bottom of the page be reduced, to make it appear less cluttered? I don't mean deletion, I mean giving them a "hide" or "show" option in their respective top corners. Seegoon 14:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The four infoboxes do take up more than an entire page. I will try to find out how to apply a hide/show option onto them. Otherwise, I think it will be best to eliminate the "Chicago" infobox and possibly modify the "University of Chicago" one in order to make it appear smaller. Thanks for your input. -- mcshadypl ^TC 16:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Johantheghost

Nominate for peer review! It may seem weird to nominate a user page for peer review, but I feel that this one was well written enough to make it qualify for such!--Timorrison 19:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Um.. Wikipedia:Featured content doesn't have any place for featured userpages, so what exactly is the goal of listing this userpage here? Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops!- But why must this be?--216.7.248.254 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please refer to Wikipedia:Editor review if you wish for the community to rate this user. - Tutmosis 22:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ford Taurus

see also: Wikipedia:Peer review/Ford Taurus/archive1

I tried to get it to featured status, but it failed again. I fixed many of the people's objections, mostly by removing a section that was all POV. Now I am hoping I gould get this article to featured status, but I want your openions before I resubmit it. --Karrmann

(Here is the prior FA review: Ford_Taurus.) I think this article has serious PoV issues, beginning with the second paragraph. Sections reads like they were copied out of an advertizing brocure. Any sentence that has a non-neutral flavor needs to have a citation from a neutral source to back it up, or suitable neutral wording. In its current form I don't think I would seriously consider this an encyclopedic article. Sorry. What is the "Five Hundred" and why isn't it linked? — RJH 15:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Woodruff

I'm hoping to bring this article up to featured article status. I know it still needs some copy-editing and I'd appreciate any feedback there. Also, while I think I've covered most of the facts, I'd like suggestions about anything that you feel has been left out. Really though, any kind of comments about anything would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Cool3 01:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A few points, which should be reasonably straightforward to deal with:

• If you intend taking this article to FAC, you will need to use inline citations (see m:Cite).
• A lot of the sections are short and read choppily. Merge the subsections to alleviate this (e.g. World War II should all be one section).
• The Legacy section describes events which happened in his lifetime, which seems odd.
• When did he retire, and is there any record of anything he did subsequently? What was the cause of his death?
• Woodruff published The Transplantation of Tissues and Organs, a comprehensive survey of transplant biology, and only one of the many books he wrote. If known, stating the total number of books he wrote would be useful.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 09:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Oldelpaso! Woodruff retired in 1976 (which I stated in the beginning of the Edinburgh section). I suppose I should move that to a more logical place at the end of that section. You're right about the WW2 sub-sections, they should be combined. As for the Legacy section, I tried to group together his most important recognitions, perhaps I should rename it Importance or merge those in (More input requested here from any one possible, merge into article or rename?). I'll add more on his post-retirement and try to find out why he died and how many books he published. Again, thank you very much. Cool3 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding a book count for Woodruff. Amazon.com lists seven of his books for sale, perhaps I could say that he published at least seven, any suggestions? Cool3 13:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I found this bibliography (pdf) which looks comprehensive and lists seven books. I've made a change accordingly. Oldelpaso 13:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You! Cool3 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have input? It would be greatly appreciated! Cool3 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

1. The lead could be a little bit longer, ideally it should be a short version of the article.
2. Unless the sections are expanded on, I would get rid of the ===h3s=== in the early career section of the article, since at the moment they just serve to separate single paragraphs
3. An image would be good, both of him and what he did - there is a pic in the kidney transplant that you could use - accompanied by a very basic outline of the procedure. Mabye an image of one of the universities he worked at would also be good - I can probably get one of the Dunedin med school if you'd like it.
4. Is there anything named after him that could be included in the importance section?
5. Do include a list of his books (not papers - they get too long) if you can piece on together.

--Peta 11:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input!! I'll try to expand the lead section and short subsections (or look into combining them). As for images, a picture of the Dunedin med school would be fabulous. I'm working on getting an image of Woodruff and have a couple of possiblities in the works. I'll put in a book list, no problem and see if anything was named for him (I can't think of anything off hand). Thanks again! Cool3 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Response from a medical viewpoint

Very well done, nice referencing, well-written! One of the things that I find difficult in medical articles is remembering to explain things which the reader might not be familiar with. In this case, some brief explanation of some of the medical terms like in utero is probably warranted. Although the immunologic work is deemed important, kidney transplantation is probably one of the few medical concepts in the article that the lay reader is instantly knowledgeable about. There doesn't have to be great detail, but some explanation of what rejection, tolerance, immunosuppression, etc. are and why understanding them is important to his surgical goal of transplantation would be nice! Also, any description that you have as to why a twin donor was chosen first would help shed light on an interesting topic (ie less rejection with shared genetics). Great job! InvictaHOG 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input! I've tried to briefly explain the more important medical terminology in the article without excessive detail, trying to provide the minimum necessary for comprehension as a reader can click on the links to find out more about any of the topics mentioned. I may have erred on the side of providing too little information, what do you think? Again thanks! Cool3 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Great article. A photo of the man would be nice for the lead section. --WS 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input Wouterstomp! I'm working on getting a photo. If any one else has access to one or sees one that we could probably get under Fair Use that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Cool3 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Everyone

To every one who participated, thank you very much. I feel that this peer review has been a real success and I have now decided to nominate the article for featured article status. Cool3 16:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago

• What separates this article from FA status? As there are no articles of this nature currently Featured, and this is one of the most complete, go through it with a fine tooth comb! Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 17:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll need some in-line citations. --Osbus 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Going through with a fine tooth and comb (you asked for it!):

• Use the &nbsp; (no-break space) between numbers and their units of measurements (as stated in WP:MOSNUM)
• was created on November 28, 1842 and needs a comma after 1842
• It also has three - what is it referring to here?
• Years and decades without full dates generally should not be linked, as per WP:CONTEXT
• recouperate should be recuperate
• new territories and soon, more French missionaries I prefer the comma before the word and here.
• link Treaty of Greenville
• One of Quarter's most important achievements - please clarify here if Quarter came up with the law, helped to allow the law to pass, etc.
• =Archbishop of Chicago= is slightly list-weighty
• designed by James H. Willett were the chimneys designed by Willett, or was the entire residence?
• by the Vicar General who serves comma
• Each are should be changed to Each is ([3])
• Please alphabetize the categories
• Image:Holynamecathedralexteriorfront.jpg needs a proper image tag; the current tag is obsolete and unacceptable
• Image:Franciscardinalgeorge.jpg is a fair use image, but doesn't have a fair use rationale and hence fails WP:FUC; please provide a fair use rationale (suggest also that you change the tag to {{fair use in|Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago}} )
• As above, inline citations are required; generally, WP:FOOTNOTEs are used, and Cite.php is strongly recommended.

Thanks, AndyZ _t 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, I think I have corrected all of those problems, and added some things in the process...what else separates this from being given featured article status? Judgesurreal777 06:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Lots of good info, but you asked what separates it so: 1) There aren't really any of what I would consider reliable sources, so a trip to a local research library would be highly recommended. 2) The structure is strange. The article needs to be prioritized by all the most important major topics about the subject. The section headings aren't very helpful to someone that doesn't know the subject very well already, so that needs to be reversed. 2) I expected to see information about how many churches and members are under the diocese. 3) I don't get an idea of what they do because everything is presented with technical terms as if I already know what they are. Wikipedia is an intro to a topic and should be accessible to the greatest extent possible. Add context to give a clear idea of what the subject is, what they do, what impact and importance they have or the lack thereof. 4) Diocesan heads is too much list. Either create prose about them if they are important enough to warrant coverage, or move the lists out to a list article of their own that is linked in See also. - Taxman ^Talk 07:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • Ok, other than replacing some of the references, and explaining the directory section, anything else? All others have been addressed. :) Judgesurreal777 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

.NET Framework

I want to improve this article to get it to Featured Article status. Any and all suggestions are most welcome, as I am knowledgeable in the topic area. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 14:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article needs references. (Please note that External links, by definition, are not references; if they are references please change the section to be named References).
• Inline citations are also required. Generally, these come in the WP:FOOTNOTE format - see the Cite.php format suggested on WP:WIAFA.
• Section stubs have to be fixed
• As of now, the article has too many lists, and at least some have to be converted to prose (paragraph) form.
• Image:Microsoft .NET Logo.png will need a fair use rationale- see WP:FUC.
• The ToC is too lengthy, and should be shorterned (see WP:WIAFA)
• Non-proper nouns should not be capitalized in headings, with the exception of the first letter of the heading (see WP:MOS)

Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Police Camera Action!

The article has potential to become a featured article on the Main Page, but needs more work done and some video stills. A good article, with potential for expansion. --Sunfazer | Talk 12:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Trivia should generally be removed, as objections often appear for such sections. Besides, it is list-weighty and should be converted to prose. As of now, the article consists of a lead and a few incomplete lists- you'll need more prose than that to ensure that it is both "brilliant" and "comprehensive" (see WP:WIAFA). Thanks, AndyZ _t 22:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dodge Neon

This car is popular internationally, and should be the featured article! It's a good article, no doubt about that, maybe a bit more info to get it to featured article status. --Sunfazer | Talk 11:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• You'll have to expand the lead and add references and inline citations (generally WP:FOOTNOTEs) if you wish to make this article a FA. AndyZ _t 22:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nerima Daikon Brothers

I've been working on this page off and on for about two weeks. Rather than make a stub-article out of the requests for translation I thought I'd try to give it the full treatment. This is my first major article. I'd like to bring it up to good-status. I'd like to get comments and suggestions for improvement. Thanks! --Kunzite 02:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions:

• include Reception section summarizing (possible) show & manga criticism and ratings.

>Is it acceptable to use criticism from blogs and other types of ephemerial sites? I've searched for published data, but the one print magazine that I did found is not availale to me.

• "Broadcast and release information" time slot information do not specify between A.M. and P.M..

>Ah, yes. I forgot to include that. In Japanese they were written as 26:30 and so forth. So I didn't see the need at the time.

• Call me stupid but I dont understand the Rating Data column in the table under Episode Titles and Ratings section. Maybe expand the legend below the table...?

>It's confusing. I'm still looking for confirmation. I think it's residences per million.

• Is the manga available in other languages, has the show been dubbed in other languages? has the show been aired in other countries?

>No and no. It may be scanlated when it comes out in tankoubon but references to those things are swiftly deleted because they're copyright violations. The anti-fan translation people delete the smallest references to such things.

• is the manga (or) show no longer in production?

if not whats going on with it?

if it stopped, why?

>The manga has concluded its run. It's not atypical for series to only have short runs. The anime/manga request section is full of them. A digest version of the manga should come out soon.

Note: Comments added to bullet points by. --Kunzite 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Except for this the article looks great, if possible (although I suspect information isnt too widely available about this) more expansion would help since alot of the article is technical data. Thank you. - Tutmosis 01:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input. There are one or two things that I can expand on, but I do more research. And perhaps see if I can find some relevent information in an actor interview or in a copy of the print magazine referenced above. --Kunzite 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for aknowledging my suggestions, looking for more information would be great although I'm sure it must be very hard since I dont think there is alot about this manga/show. Also, Characters section can be improved since it gets confusing sometimes for a person who never read the manga or watched the show. Example would be "Madonna Diet Members". To your reply above, I dont think blogs are a reliable source. One last thing, I would also recommend informing the reader if there any changes between the show and the manga. Is it a pure conversion and the show is 100% same as the manga? Is each episode based on a manga issue? Also there is no information who produces the show, only the manga. - Tutmosis 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Ooh, quite a shiny article for a current anime. Some points to improve:

• There's a lot of [too literal/confused/clumsy] translation, or just bad statements. A selection:
  • "Until recently with TV anime didn't make jokes about the current news topics like homosexual love, consumer credit, or the success of Korean artists in Japan such as Bae Yong-Joon." <- "homosexual love" and "consumer credit" are current affairs? Anime hasn't made jokes about homosexual love? "or the success" is an ambiguous, is it something they didn't make jokes about, a cuurent affair, or both?
  • "The comic was drawn by Takamitsu Kondou and conceived by Aniplex and Studio Hibari." Too literal credits-on-the-cover-of-the-manga sentence, it just means the manga is based on the concept from the anime (c) Aniplex/Studio Hibari.
  • "Because the 30-minute show contains risqué humor it was broadcast at the 1:30 time slot in Tokyo." There's plenty of 'risqué' in daytime anime (Crayon Shin-chan, anyone?); and lots of entirely harmless anime is broadcast after midnight because that's how the scheduals work.
• Also, the problem with ja.wikip is that they're rather listy, and haven't found the joy of giving sources - most of the things you cite from there could really do with backing up.
• You probably want to mention Excel Saga. I know, I know, just force yourself.
• English title translations are lackluster. Not easy to do well, sure, but I'd try and preserve the 俺の... gimick.
• Ratings are from a *blog*? Can't you just dig up the Newtypes, probably where he got the numbers from anyway. Likewise, where's the rank from, and what's it meant to mean? It's certainly not 'anime with top viewing figures'.
• Some inconsistant romanisation. Shoutarou/Shōtarō etc.
• Some of the images have dodgy/incorrect licencing info, and no source/copyright holder info, required for fair use claims.
• You're overusing that darn help:japanese template, if people don't get the idea the first time the funny squiggles appear, they're beyond help anyway.

As for value judgements on the article in its current state... It's too much lists-of-data (a ja.wikip translation affliction), the lead isn't very good, the references are pretty patchy - lots of tabloids/blogs, no useful value judgements or commentary on the actual subject, and there aren't enough panda pictures. In short, it's probably the best anime article I've seen on wikipedia. And I wish some beggers 'd sub it... --zippedmartin 05:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Deconstructivism

A few of us wikipedians have been editing the hell out of this perviously quite under-represented article that's an important new movement/style in contemporary architecture - you've all seen the Guggenheim in Bilbao by Frank Gehry - Did you know Brad Pitt wanted to be an architect and now frequently 'hangs out' in Gehry's studio?[4] - Well this article is nothing to do with Brad Pitt, but your scrutiny would be very much appreciated. Thanks. --Mcginnly 11:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not big enough. General Eisenhower 01:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Where do you see room for expansion? DVD+ R/W 01:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Some comments:

• Web references should be cited in accordance with WP:CITE (see also WP:CITE/ES); {{Cite web}} can be useful here.
• Categories should be alphabetized.
• Per WP:MOS, headings should not have capitalized words unless it is either the first word of the heading or is a proper noun; for example, "See Also" should become "See also". In addition, the title should not be repeated in a heading (for example, "Deconstructivism and Constructivism" to Constructivism)
• The first sentence is too long and should be broken up; also, a comma belongs before the word which
• The (see below) note is unnecessary, since everything in the WP:LEAD should be a summary of content found later in the article.
• Shortern the lead so that it fits into guidelines brought out by WP:LEAD.
• Some of the architects involved, have been influenced remove the comma
• Modern Architecture should not be capitalized
• eachother -> each other
• published theories alongside eachother in the journal, Oppositions, this journal is the beginning of a decisive -this reads awkwardly, please remove the first comma
• alligns -> aligns
• Peter Eisenman draws some draws->drew
• Is there a reason why unbuilt should be italicized?
• Bernard Tschumi eventually won the competition What competition? A competition was never mentioned in the section before.
• Please link or provide a designation for Jacques Derrida.
• was through Jacques Derrida to Peter Eisenman. I'm sort of confused with this statement; was Derrida the one who explained the philosophy to Eisenman, were both involved in this, etc.?
• that the locus, or place of presence was architecture, comma missing after presence (suggest also that locus be linked)
• Though Gehry is mentioned in the lead, I would suggest giving his first name and a short description under the Derrida section, where he appears unexpectedly. In fact, Derrida doesn't seem like the best way to name the section...
• of sculptors El Lissitzky, Naum Gabo and painters Kazimir Malevich and Alexander Rodchenko the first comma should be an and, following what is done in the second half of the sentence.
• Define or link purism.
• Minimalism, and cubism no comma needed; minimalism should also be decapitalized
• Analytical cubism, with its multiplicity of views had missing comma before had
• Analytical cubism, with its multiplicity of views had a sure effect on deconstructivism, as forms and content are dissected and viewed from different perspectives simultaneously, in both cubism and deconstructivism. This sentence is very confusing- is it about analytical cubism or cubism and deconstructivism?
• Frank Gehry, and Bernard Tschumi extraneous comma
• Maya Lin's 1982 project for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial with its granite slabs severing the ground plane is one. missing commas before with and after plane
• Its shard-like form and reduction of content to a text influenced deconstructivism with its sense of fragmentation and emphasis on reading the monument, or reading architecture. A long fragment; and defining "reading the monument" as "reading architecture" isn't very helpful here, as it fails to provide an inexperienced reader with an accurate definition.
• Ghost (1990) an entire living space cast in plaster, another comma missing after 1990, other comma unnecessary
• Gordon Matta-Clark's Building cuts were deconstructed sections of buildings exhibited in art galleries, or they were buildings and art galleries themselves deconstructed. What is the difference between the two? Please clarify.
• The word "the" should not appear in headings (per WP:MOS), as in "The 1988 MOMA exhibition" to "1988 MOMA exhibition"
• architecture which again comma needed
• many early deconstructivist work, appear work should be plural, and the comma is unnecessary
• Also Gehry is comma needed after also
• Zaha Hadid's sketches for instance. fragment
• Image:Vitra002a.jpg needs a proper image tag; the current tag used is obsolete
• Elitist and detached period needed at end of sentence
• increase the costs of design and final on site assembly please link or explain final
• For an example of a featured article to follow, see Sicilian Baroque.
• As stated above, the article could use some expansion to become comprehensive. The beginnings of Deconstructivism can be explained more, the legacy, etc.

I hope you find the above helpful. Regards, AndyZ _t 14:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• A couple of other notes: As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, there generally isn't a space between a character and then the footnote (for example, like Deconstruction. [2] to like Deconstruction.[2] Ideally, there should be at least one footnote per section. AndyZ _t 14:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Very thoughtful and thorough comments, thank you. I am a collaborator on this article but have been away since the beginning of peer review. I will try to implement as much of this as I can, now that I am back. Thanks again. DVD+ R/W 04:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like Mcginnley got most of it, I have put in a request at the commons about Image:Vitra002a.jpg. I will try to do some expansion tomorrow. DVD+ R/W 05:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Caribbean Sea

Current Collaboration of the week, I would like to know what information this article needs, and how the page should be organized. Thank you! - Tutmosis 01:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This may be obvious, but I just suggest looking at the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Arctic Ocean and Southern Ocean articles. They all have similar components (although none of them currently appear to be featured status) and the article should at least cover all the relevant subject areas from those pages. Also, possibly something along the line of a "Unique flora and fauna" section. Thanks! — RJH 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Attila the Hun

I nominate this article for peer review, because of its great detail.--Timorrison 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand why you request a peer review when the article is featured... because of its "great detail"??? If you think the article is no longer featured article material and should be improved, Wikipedia:Featured article review would be a good place for such an article review. - Tutmosis 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup

Hi, I was hoping to get some feed back on this article. There was an attempt to structure it in a similar way as the football article, which is an FA. Any comments/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. Cvene64 15:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Overall, good in places, in need of significant expansion in others. The current content seems well referenced.

• The attempt to use a similar structure as FIFA World Cup is a little overdone - some of the subarticles look to have been split off prematurely, as they either contain little extra information or leave stubby sections in the parent article. Consider merging some of them for now, subarticles and summary style can wait until the article is considerably larger.
• In a similar vein, one paragraph sections should be expanded where possible.
• A little background on international rugby prior to the introduction of the World Cup could be included.
• I can see a few bits which could do with copyediting and spellchecking, but it might be simpler if I do that myself.
• Other than the table of finals, I see no mention of Australia being the most successful team with two World Cups. Domination of the event by teams from the Southern Hemisphere is alluded to in the History section, this deserves a fuller explanation.
• Qualification - how many teams typically attempt to qualify? Has this number grown over the history of the competition? What structure do the qualifying stages take? How do first time qualifiers usually fare?
• Miscellaneous things - Are any teams seeded in the final tournament? Is the vote for the host "one member, one vote"? Where is the event most/least popular?

Thanks. Oldelpaso 18:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok cool. I will def. try and de-FIFA WC the article as much as possible, and I know that some of the sub-articles, in particular the hosts section are a little short/redundant, I'll see if more info can be added (votes etc), or I'll merge it back in. As for pre-WC tournaments, I will add a paragraph in history, quickly mentioning Six Nations/Rugby at the Olympics. As for the Australian success/Southern domination, maybe some text can be added to the results section. And I'm trying to get the voting info/number of qualifying teams (I think they might be in the individ. WC articles). Anyway, thank you once again, you have been very helpful. Cheers. Cvene64 03:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

This is a new peer review. We've attempted to respond to problems with the article, and this has in itself brought out a new list of problems. Please take a look at the article and say what you think.--Manboobies 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

the section titles are pretty long- how about "Early Career" instead of "Jackson's Early Career etc." Obviously it's Jackson's career, the article is about him.

you might consider separating his musical achievements and personal life. It can be difficult but might make the article flow easier, something like (1) music (a) early (b) solo (c) recent; (2) personal life (a) marriage (b) lawsuits - that kind of thing. Kaisershatner 16:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see this article as TFA.. please let me know how it can be improved.. Σαι ( Talk ) 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 747

I had some time over this long weekend, and started working on it for the past two days. The revamp's not complete yet, but I'd greatly appreciate some comments for more improvements before it actually goes for WP:FAC. - Mailer Diablo 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Boeing 747-400LCF 2.jpg and Image:Boeing 747-8I Large.jpg will need a proper fair use rationale (see WP:FUC). Facts and trivia is too list-weighty and as trivial should probably be removed anyhow, with any important facts incorporated directly into the text. Thanks, AndyZ _t 00:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. A few comments:

• The first image caption mentions a "Boeing 747-412". I don't think this is explained in the text, so could you clarify whether this is an airline identifier with a note?
• Could you link the first use of US$?
• A few of the sentences, replete with commas, seem to run on a little too long, and could readily be broken up, at least into two smaller sentences.
• Do you have a reference for the sentence, "Initially, many airlines regarded the 747 with skepticism"?
• You could get rid of the "see also" section as the current entries are already linked in the main article.
• Please correct the word "borrown".
• I agree with AndyZ's comment regarding the trivia. FA reviewers seem not to like bulleted lists where prose would suffice.

Thanks! :) — RJH 14:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks guys! I've ressolved the fair-use issue, the typo is fixed, and the very specific make made generalised (bordering on cruft?). Anyway, more feedback is welcomed greatly, and I'll be working on the rest of the issues. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• The 747SP section mentions the previous 747SB designation twice, with two slightly different reasons why 747SB was changed to 747SP. Also, I'm not sure there needs to be a Google search link for 747-200 seat diagrams -- in fact, I suspect they might vary from airline to airline anyway. Northwest has two different seat configurations for the 747-200: international and beach market. Maybe instead of seat maps, you could list the current notable operators of each type, if the lists don't get too long. Or, you could break the lists of operators into separate sub-articles. All things considered, though, the article looks good and informative. --Elkman - ^(talk) 15:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking of binning seat configurations altogether, with the exception of noting the most number of passengers and/or particularly un-usual high profile configurations noted by news media. - Mailer Diablo 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Airliners.net has typical seat configurations for various versions of the 747. Here are the statistics for the 747-400, for example. I think listing these typical capacities would be sufficient to identify the relative number of passengers that can be carried by the different versions of the 747. --Elkman - ^(talk) 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Further feedback from AndyZ's peer review script, as of follows that was on my talkpage. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• 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 -   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.<ref name="nbsp">See footnote</ref>
• 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.<ref name="spellnum">See footnote</ref>
• 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.<ref name="linkdate">See footnote</ref>
• As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.<ref name="alpha">See footnote</ref>
• 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
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).<ref name="awt">See footnote</ref>
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• 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 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. <ref name="copyedit">See footnote</ref>

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ _t 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Eye (cyclone)

Looking for comments from someone less familiar with tropical cyclones...which sections need expanding, what is unclear, etc. Runningonbrains 09:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

For a start, provide metric units as well. Expand on the type of storm, and while you link terms like mesoscale, it would be useful to have small explanation of what that means. Furthermore, it has a North Hemisphere bias, such as talking about Nor'easters. Where I come from (New Zealand), a nor'easter is a hot wind, especially in Christchurch. Given that we're used to northern hemisphere centrist, we tend to just reverse things 180 degrees, but I don't think in that case thats right. --Midnighttonight 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Storms are often tropical cyclones in New Zealand, or more usually, failed ones. I'll get someone on this from the Met Service as I think one of them is an editor --Midnighttonight 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the barometric pressure so low in the eye? I recall an article explaining the causes of some strong winds by stating that as the sun heats up a hill, the hill in turn heats up the air immediately above it; the air at the altitude of the hill rises, while the lower (sea level) air remains cool and rushes over the hill to fill in the area of lesser density, creating mid-day and afternoon windy systems. Or something like that. Xaxafrad 03:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Little Shop of Horrors

Article about a famous and important cult film. What can I do to improve the article's quality? (Ibaranoff24 23:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

add references, and take a look at Tenebrae (film) to see the kind of info you should cover, and how you should cover it. trivia sections are a bad idea. Zzzzz 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

List of members of the ASEAN

I'd like other Wikipedians to see what are the flaws of this list before it goes to WP:FLC. --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead needs expanding to include a summary of what the ASEAN is and definitions of terms used in the list - not knowing what the ASEAN does I had to read Association of Southeast Asian Nations in order to make sense of the list. Oldelpaso 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Included a short explanation at the lead. If it's not enough, I'd add some more. --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

HD 217107

this article about a newly discovered star is short, but FA criteria states "of appropriate length". As almost nothing is known about this stellar object, it is the appropriate length. is there anything else that could prevent this article becoming featured? cheers. Zzzzz 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• no information about who discovered it and when.
• very technical article maybe simplify a bit.
• it's not a smooth read with some unencyclopedic statements such as "HD 217107 is not very distant from the Sun"
• to expand it maybe compare its statistics to neighbouring stars
• explain why little information is known about... is it too far away?
• An article mentions a study - to expand the article elaborate on who performed the study, when and why. Also it be good to know from who'm all the statistics in the article came from.

Thanks. - Tutmosis 02:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The age listed in the table is 77 billion years, which is much older than the current age estimates for the universe. What are the units for the metallicity? It isn't given. A lookup on the SIMBAD site gives an error estimate for the parallax. Please include that in the table, as it is important to know the accuracy of the distance estimate. The SIMBAD site also gives a number of other identifiers for the star. Please include the FK5 and SAO identifiers. Also the identifier prefixes can be linked to the appropriate catalogue descriptions, as is done, for example, on the Sirius page. Finally the ARICNS site gives a U-B value of 0.42. Thanks. — RJH 14:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck

I've rewritten the opening paragraph and will try and redo the page over time, but I'd like to get a sense of what other people think needs to be done. I understand that we need footnotes for one thing. It has potential for FA... some day. Cheers -- Wikipedical 23:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• references needed
• any infomation on who'm the character was based on?
• has the creator commented on what he thinks of this character and where the character has gone since creation?
• has Scrooge's drawn appearance change over the years?
• Is Carl Barks the only man to ever draw scrooge or has the films, comics and shows featuring him had their own artist?
  • who handles the character development? were the creators of each show/movie/comic given a free choice of taking character development anywhere they wanted?
• how are the rights of the character handled. Is disney the sole owner of the character and all films and movies of their production? if not, how is giving the rights handled?
• any criticism of this character, like him not wearing any pants? Wasn't he banned for that in some country or was that Duffy Duck?

^ The above arent necessarily things to include but I suggest taking some of them into consideration while your rewriting the article. Thanks. - Tutmosis 02:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dawson's Field hijackings

I noticed this on the bounty board, and have been expanding it, but I'm really the only active editor. Any suggestions would be welcome regarding layout, content, references, pictures, categories, etc. Kaisershatner 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I corrected one typo and removed one word that was doubled over...there is one or two fact tags that either need to be removed or find facts for. Looks like a pretty big improvement over what was here when you started working on it.--MONGO 11:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Baldness

Previously, this article lacked sources and was fairly biased towards a 'bald is beautiful' POV as opposed to being informational. Citations have been added and the page has been made more informative. I'm hoping to get the notice at the top of the page saying that the information is questionable removed and any other advice that can be given. Thanks!

--Ryan Wise 18:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicely-developed page, but I have a few comments:

• The page in general is in need of more references. Where, for example, is it documented that "Stress reduction can be helpful in slowing hair loss"?

I just added some references on stress and hair loss. Let me know if more are needed.

--Ryan Wise 16:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• The introduction needs to be shortened to give a summary of the subject. Right now it delves into too much detail. Most of the introduction can be moved down into the main article body.
• The etymology section fails to explain the origin of the word "bald" as derived from the old English "balde", which is instead covered down in the trivia section.
• Please resolve the DHT link to the actual article, rather than a disambiguation page. Actually it is normal practice for the first use of an abbreviation such as DHT to be fully expanded to display the meaning.
• In the references section, when there is just a numbered link to an external site, I'd appreciate it if there were also a brief description of the site.
• Rather than bolding terms such as Male pattern baldness, the style guide suggests using italics.
• The "Concealing hair loss" and "Embracing baldness" sections should be combined into a section on cultural attitudes towards baldness. Also please cover in more detail the recent styles favoring a shaved head; the "Michael Jordan"/"Slick Watts" look.

Thanks! :) — RJH 15:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Wikipedia:Peer review/Pope Pius XII/archive1

Ultimately, I'd like to see this article featured. The first peer review didn't get a lot of turnout, but the article has improved substantially since then. For such an important and controversial historial figure, the more eyes the better. If you know something about Pius, great; if not, you can still bring a pair of neutral eyes to the article. All comments would be much appreciated.

Also, a lot of non-english wikis have articles about him and if someone who could speak those languages could check for discrepancies or omissions that would be much appreciated as well. The foreign language articles also seem to have more rigorous copyright defenses of their images. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd make a few improvements:

• extend the early life section
• in Election and Coronation get rid of the 1 sentance paragraph
• why did he consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
• the photo with the bird is nce, but can a better spot be found for it?
• the address to the the Pontifical Academy of Sciences isnt an encylical.
• what was the state of Japan with respect to WWII in 1942. Can you put the establishing of ties in a little more context?
• when bombs fell on Rome, he gathered up all the money he could find in the vatican and went out into the crowds of people to distribute it. ive seen video of it, but theres nothing on it here.
• a rabbi recently wrote a book in respoce to "hitlers pope" defending pius, i believe. theres no mention of it here.

good luck! Briancua 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One more - his coat of arms shouldnt be in the references section. Briancua 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I started addressing these and will get back to you. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Priapism

This article has two items discussed in the Talk page that should be clarified. One problem is the suggestion of procedure for the ailment without any source to back that up. The other problem is that there is some confusion over a time frame for when a medical practitioner should be consulted. :: Colin Keigher 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Previous request archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/Megatokyo/archive1

Megatokyo

I feel that the criticisms and suggestion from the previous peer review and the FA nom have been adressed and dealt with and this article will soon be ready to be go up for featured article status. I am hoping that this will act as a good step to get some suggestions on how the article can be improved and made better so that it will meet the quality requirements for a featured article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a very odd article, I'll give it that. I'm not entirely convinced it's FA material just yet, despite (in spite of?) working on the article on and off at times. Some comments:

• The lead should actually talk about, y'know, the comic. Currently it's simply a lot of short, factual statements that look like they're pulled right from the infobox they're next to. The only statement about the comic in the lead is that it uses l33t speak; is that really the kind of comic Megatokyo is? It uses l33t speak?
• I would not be opposed to merging the characters and plot together into one section; the characters section drew fire in FAC last time, and it's definitely not much improved since. Bulleted lists definitely won't earn you points in FAC, since it's not "brilliant prose".
• I'm gonna sound really stupid, but the plot actually needs some fleshing out: it says next to nothing about the direction the comic took after Caston left, merely that it has "changed somewhat". Currently the only real plotline given its own paragraph is the "Piro and Largo need jobs" plot, which is resolved (relatively) early on as other plots move on. The rest of the section mainly talks about the setting at large.
• I gave Image:Megatokyo - 0619.png some fair use rationale. I don't know if the manga covers also need it, but it couldn't hurt.
• Again, there is more MT after Caston leaves, but the History section doesn't go past it. Use the space to say some things about how Piro sees the comic; in particular, I believe on several occassions he's said he sees the website as a working journal of sorts for the book versions. Also go over how the comic has been funded over the years (has it always been merch?)
• Not sure if the forums deserve their own section or not. One of my rules of thumb for pop culture is "The fandom doesn't matter", particularly since it's not exactly the most citable thing in the world.
• Merge the MegaGear section into the History. It's too short by itself and can't be expanded much.

That's about all I can think of. No comment on the Reception section yet. Nifboy 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions I'll get right on them. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Megagear is now merged thanks to one of the editor.--Kiba 02:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Was going to say "see my objection from FAC", but I note there's actually some discussion of the style of the comic now. However the content is still pretty patchy, and there's no real cross references still. The NYT quote is pretty cute though. The lead needs work, as does the format and layout of the artilce, which is really... odd at the moment. Like, why is 'History' at the bottom? Also, pet peeve:

• "It is written and drawn in a manga-influenced style." - this just isn't helpful, either needs another way of phrasing what's trying to be said, or you need to narrow down what 'manga' is meant to be, or you're just saying "this comic is drawn in a comic-influenced style".
• "the comic changed into a manga-styled free-form layout" - what's this even meant to mean?

Are there any featured webcomic articles atm? Dunno if there's anything that could serve as a useful template for improvement. --zippedmartin 09:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I checked and I couldn't find any. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This is the only webcomic that even has references (Correction: Penny Arcade now has references thanks to me, but the article is a raging mess.). Nifboy 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Does this mean that Megatokyo is the best webcomic article ever?

--Kiba 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Yes. Nifboy 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Japanese names need to follow WP:MOS-JA and should be written in western order. i.e. Yuki Sonoda (園田由紀) not Sonoda Yuki (園田由紀). You can always use template:nihongo for quick formatting i.e. {{nihongo|Yuki Sonoda|園田由紀|Sonoda Yuki}} → Yuki Sonoda (園田由紀, Sonoda Yuki). --Kunzite 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• There are four {{citation needed}} templates. These statements needs sourcing, or removal.
• Notes should not be preceded by space, and should be placed after punctuation, per WP:FN style.
• Multiple links to the same article should be reduced.
• No "characters" section
  • There is a serious issue in the related articles: There is Main characters of Megatokyo, Minor characters of Megatokyo AND a Characters of Megatokyo. Since the last is the only linked from the article, but the other two are in {{Megatokyo}}, this issue needs to be resolved.
• Non-comic elements are not discussed: "Dead piro days" are mentionned without saying what they actually are, Shirt Guy Dom is not mentionned.
• One paragraph sections should be expanded or merged.
• This has lead to a section of former fans feeling that Megatokyo was better when Caston was writing it. This statement should also be sourced.

These are what I see if yur aim is FA status. Circeus 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a couple more:

• Some characters in the main characters section are gone into depth way beyond summary style - I'd recommend keeping it to a 2 paragraph limit on each one
• "Chapters" needs some more prose.... maybe you could explain what the chapters are

Anyway, it has been a long time and I think several FACs for this and I'd like to see it featured, but there is still a bit of work to be done.... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde

This article has the potential to be a featured article, but I think, as it stands today, it needs to reviewed with fresh eyes. I think the article is too long and is decidely slanted to a pro-Bonnie and Clyde perspective. It needs more wikicompliant citationing, copyediting and a strict standard of NPOV applied to it. Mytwocents 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some initial issues:

1. Image:Bc10.jpg and Image:Bonnie and Clyde.jpg have obsolete image tags and need proper licensing
2. Image:Bonnie and Clyde.JPG needs a fair use rationale (see WP:FUC)
3. Decades and years without full dates generally aren't linked- see WP:CONTEXT. On the other hand, if they do have full dates, they should be linked.
4. Quotes need WP:FOOTNOTEs
5. References generally aren't numbered, just bulleted (*)
6. The lead should be expanded to fit WP:LEAD (2-4 paragraphs)
7. Per WP:MOS, the repetition of the article title in headings is generally avoided.

Thanks, AndyZ _t 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick input AndyZ. If you have the time, perhaps you could deal with isues 3 through 5, dealing with the wikifing of the dates and footnotes. Mytwocents 17:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, I can fix issues 3 and 5 pretty easily; I'll look into 4 if I have time. AndyZ _t 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there are too many sections - there are several that are just a few lines long. Can you maybe combine some sections? You can always use subsections if you really want to. --Cherry blossom tree 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Cherry blossom tree, if you can see a straightfoward way to combine sections, I would encourage you to do so. Thanks for you input. Mytwocents 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cherry blossom tree Sure, that is a good suggestion. I am in the process of sourcing the article this week, and have suggested combining many of the sections on the talk page, to achieve consensus. I have done a word template, if anyone wants to see what the revised article would look like after her excellent idea, email me for a copy. Good idea, and thanks.old windy bear 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to note that this isn't the place to dispute whether or not users are trying to push forward POVs. I don't see how it would be a Wikipedia violation to rewrite an article, and I disagree that the only reason Mytwocents came here was for pushing forward any POVs; it would be good now to go through the article and use verifying resources to back-up the more controversial of the contents (using footnotes: simply add <ref>The footnote</ref>). It does indeed need more copyediting, as there are numerous mistakes present in the article in terms of grammar, etc. Regards, AndyZ _t 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AndyZI removed any question of POV. I agree that there are grammer issues, and it needs to be linked better. That has already begun, for instance, every suggestion you made on language I have gone to orginal sources, used quotes, and source directly. The language is far stronger actually with the quotes,so thank you, and it is unquestinably accurate and completely sourced. I disagree on the motives of the person, but bowed to my own promise: that if one person came here and thought them improper, I would remove those references, and have. I keep my word. I do respectfully point out that no one, absolutely no one, has come forward with a fact in error. (except your correcting pointing that there is disagreemnt on how many wounds Buck Barrow had when he died) --Cherry blossom tree has made a good suggestion - I am going to post some ideas - my point is, I will post some suggestions on combinng some sections, and see what input I get before attempting a wholesale restructuring, which is wikipedia policy. If anyone has factual issues, they need to so the same, as I am sure you would agree. Yes, the article needs work, but it is factually correct. I have already begun really massive sourcing - for instance, you thought it weasal to say Bonnie appealled to the disenfranchised, actually, noted historians and experts(every one on Bonnie and Clyde outside the ambush party!) say it a lot stronger than that, and I simply quoted them, and linked the quotes. I have to admit I had laugh on that one, since the quotes are far more powerful language - I had toned them down to avoid appearing pro Bonnie and Clyde, which I am not, THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS, but you are right to insist on the direct quotes.

On the photos, they are not properly cited as free for public use, but they are, so your help in updating would be appreciated. I found them online listed for public use, but again, had linking issues.

old windy bear 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I also respectfully request that before anyone undertake any major rewrite,(as I am proposing to do by combining sections, for instance), that you discuss it on the talk page. I have posted my idea, and will wait a week to see if it achieves consensus. With all respect, no one person should unilateraly rewrite this article, which a half dozen have worked on rewriting for a year, and which two wikipedia editors just examined for POV, one of which cleared it after a few language changes. It would be deeply violative of wikipedia rules for any single person to do a major rewrite without discussion, especially since the current article had achieved consensus for on the talk page. However, as you pointed out, there were things to be corrected, and as Cherry has suggested, the article is too disjointed, which I am attempting to address. But other issues which have been raised simply are not so:

• For instance, it has been questioned Clyde's virtually decade long quest to avenge himself on the Texas Department of Corrections as being the motivating factor behind his crime spree -- that comes directly from one of the most respected writers to research a book on the duo, JOHN PHILLIPS, at http://historynet.com/ah/bleastham/
• It has also been questioned the horrific aftermath of the ambush, and the actions of Frank Hamer in it, that also is directly sourced from Milner's book on the duo, at page 147;
• the extent of Bonnie's involvement has also been questioned, that comes directly from Phillips, Treherne, and Milner's books, ALL found no warrants except one preserved in the FBI data base - which is online to confirm, no proof she ever fired a weapon or was more than logistical support, in addition to Dallas Observer Jimmy Fowler's rather pithy observation on the government's turning her into a demon, when they finally had to admit there was not one warrant on her for a major crime!;
• the appeal to the disenfranchised of Bonnie and Clyde: my personal favorite! I simply went to the direct quotes, which I had toned down because they are quite powerful, but hey, we want the best facts, and these are direct quotes from EVERY major historian and expert to write on the duo.

Our obligation at wikipedia is to write the best articles we can, with the most facts possible without making them a 14 page article, as Geringer has done online with BONNIE AND CLYDE: ROMEO AND JULIET IN A GETAWAY CAR. The truth is in this well writen and fair article, but the article did need more sourcing, and restructuring, which I have proposed on the talk page, which will then make it the best on the net except for Geringer's article at http://www.crimelibrary.com/americana/bonnie/main.htm

The article as is is not meant, to be slanted - it simply tells the truth - and another good wikipedia editor just went over it and removed any trace of POV -- see the talk page -- to be slanted, but it is meant to TELL THE TRUTH, NO major rewrite should occur without consensus, which I am working to achieve. old windy bear 10:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

rewrite finished for now, consensus achieved, more sourcing will be done however

AndyZFor consensus: following Andy's suggestion, and Cherry blossom tree's suggestions on the peer review page, I removed one section, the role of Bonnie Parker, and used part of that paragraph, plus part of a wonderful quote from noted B & C expert J. Geringer, and created the three paragraph opening that AndyZ suggested, while beginning to tighten the article as Cherry blossom tree suggested. I believe the opening paragraphs flow into each other, introduce the couple, define their role in american history and the times AS THE EXPERTS HAVE DEFINED IT, and lead into the rest of the article:

• who exactly were these people,
• and what did they do, and why do the experts think they did it,
• what victims occurred because of it,
• how were they stopped,
• what is the controversy surrounding the ambush, and the horrible aftermath,
• and why their legend lingers even today, according to the best historians and experts alive.

I also, following Cherry blossom tree suggestion, combined the sections of Bonnie meeting Clyde with their relationship during prison, and the early days of what would be called, the Barrow Gang. I also combined 3 other sections, without deleting fact one. It tightens the flow of the article, without deleting any facts which are not in dispute, and virtually every person who has participated in this discussion wants the facts in, not out, they just want the article better structured, sourced, and written, which, with AndyZ's invaluable help, Cherry blossom tree's excellent suggestions on combining sections without eliminating facts, it is being.

Not one fact is wrong, the weasal words are gone, I agree absolutely with AndyZ when dealing with controversial material, direct quotes from expert sources are the best way to resolve language disagreements. I believe this article is now 100% improved, and flows excellently to the issues involved. THANKS especially to AndyZ for finding the weasal words - which I immediately removed, then his doing what I could not, and linking the quotes and facts to the relevant sources, completely reworking the references, and generally being a great help, thanks to Cherry for a suggestion that remarkably tightened and improved the article.!old windy bear 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

AndyZ I suggest anyone wanting to see a thoroughly sourced article go look at AndyZ's articles. I am now doing the same to Bonnie and Clyde as AndyZ finally managed to teach an old man how to make a link! All weasal words are gone, the introduction has been expanded to 3 paragraphs as Andy suggested; where controversial subjects are discussed, direct quotes by the most respected experts and historians have replaced subjective language, and I am gradually approaching (not there yet, but getting there!) the level of sourcing Andy has. Cherry blossom tree's excellent suggestions on combining sections without eliminating facts, has been done, reducing the number of sections by 7 without eliminating fact one. I thank everyone for their assistance, especially Andy, whose patience taught me how to link, and what a truly well sourced article requires - and we are closing there.old windy bear 11:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who participated in this review, AndyZ in particular, and I think the article, with true direct quotes and actual historial facts, all cited, and sourced, eliminated all the weasal words, and the article is immeasurably improved. THANKS! old windy bear 01:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I would encourage all to review the page for neutral and balanced treatement of the issues. Neutrality in the tone of the language, and the balance of pro B&C statemets to pro 'civilised society' and pro law-enforcement statements. As of now the tilt is decidely pro-Bonnie, anti-Hamer. Mytwocents 17:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Current article has achieved NPOV by consensus, but help from anyone is always welcome!

I am not going to deal with the vicious personal attacks and name calling by Mytwocents when he did not get his way. Anyone wishing to see this contributor as he really is, need merely read the talk page. I will talk about the article, the good article, we wrote with all of your help. The vast majority don't see the language in the article as pro anything, nor is it. Nor do most people see it so - but a vital and moving massively sourced introduction that lists the three salient encyclopedic issues to be addressed in this article:

• who were these two people that have held such an enduring hold in the public and especially american mythos, which led into;
• what was the real - as opposed to perceived - role of Bonnie Parker, (VERY controversial, thus needing 4 separate sources}, with quotes, leading into:
• why the presenece of a beautiful woman led a veneer of daring do to their antics, and appealled especially to the disenfranchised during the depression, and afterwards, also very controversial, and again, better off with direct quotes and historical facts from noted historians.

AndyZ has been invaluable in teaching me several things, first to link, (how to teach an old contributor, new tricks!),and

• that when dealing with controversial subjects, which lend to subjective interpretation, use direct quotes to avoid weasal words;
• Cherry blossom tree is thanked for her brilliant suggestion to shorten the article, combine sections, which we did so without losing ONE SINGLE FACT.

No one wrote a pro anyone article - I went, as a trained historian and member of the law endorcement community, where the truth took me. I stressed in the article,

• that Clyde's psychotic obsession with revenge against the Texas prison system directly resulted in at least 18 deaths, 11 of them totally innocent people.
• But the truth also shows that Bonnie Parker was essentially a lovestruck girl who followed a charming, but deadly, psychopath to her death. That is not my wording either, it is almost a word for word conclusion from John Treherne, John Phillips, and E.L. Milner, the three best Bonnie and Clyde historians, plus Jonathan Davis, the great depression era historian.
• The horrific aftermath of the ambush has to be told, again, another historian wrote "today he and the posse would be tried for murder, and at the least, imprisoned for life." I left that out, because I feft it, though historically correct, it did not help us achieve NPOV, which the current article has. It is nuanced, balanced, sourced, and fair. The difference now, which AndyZ in particular taught, is that all this is MASSIVELY sourced, and going to be more so.

I welcome anyone's help in adding facts or further finding of weasal words, as Andy did for me, or facts that require additional sourcing - though we have come far in that regard. If anyone feels further sections can be consolidated, again, all help is welcome. But it is clear most people see that the writing is from a historian, in the law enforcement community, who had no agenda but to present the truth about this duo, whose lasting hold in the public mythos has endured 3/4 of a century!old windy bear 22:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom

Any comments appreciated! Currently reasonably quality and length, comparing well with similar articles outside Wikipedia. Wanted to get a feel for how this should progress before it could be submitted for a FA. TreveX^talk 16:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• A couple of minor issues: as done in WP:FOOTNOTE, the footnote generally appears without a space after the full stop. (ex. blah blah blah [1]. to blah blah blah.[1]). The remaining section stubs should be expanded, and the inline external links should also be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs with WP:CITE information. AndyZ _t 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments and also for your edits to the article! Aside from formatting or references and wikilinks etc, what do you think of the sections which are more fully developed, quality of prose and referencing etc? TreveX^talk 18:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Its definitely looking good, a few suggestions:

1. Either expand the stub sections or remove the stub notices — they make reading harder, and its kind of obvious the sections are stubs if they don't have much in them ;)
2. Personally I don't like the timeline, it looks odd in relation to the rest of the article. Could there be a better way of presenting the information?
3. Stub any red links in the article.
4. Improve the positioning of the images, preferably subheadings/headings should not be indented from the left due to image placement.
5. "it seems that the current Labour government will decide to replace Trident" — this kind of thing should really be removed or the speculation attributed to someone. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ;)
6. "The United Kingdom was the third country to test an independently developed nuclear weapon in October 1952." — this is kind of confusing, does it mean three countries tested nuclear weapons in Oct 1952?
7. "The UK is currently thought to retain a weapons stockpile of around 200 nuclear warheads." — reference or according to who or both.
8. Fix up the remainder of the links — see Trident section.

- FrancisTyers 01:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks, can I join in?

A few days ago I looked at the article and thought there was quite a lot wrong with it. The principal reason I felt uneasy about it was that it seems to be much too politicised. I wouldn't want to get into a political battle about the content, but feel strongly that the article should be written in a less contentious style. Wilipedia is after all an encyclopaedia, not a political pamphlet. I'd resolved to have a go at it myself, but will need a little time, perhaps until end June to get it together. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to put a draft re-write into a sandbox. Contributions made in this field recently are WE.177, Yellow Sun, Blue Danube, Vulcan V-bomber, Ivy King(Talk pages). Regards. Brian.Burnell 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

North Korean abductions of Japanese

I discovered the existence of this page a few days ago, and was appalled at its incompleteness, even though the subject it deals with is fairly important and high-profile. I've gone through the article, adding various facts from news sources and from other reliable websites and citing sources, but the article still needs expansion and citing. I would appreciate any comments or edits that might help improve this article. Thanks, Tangotango 07:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are just looking for help fixing up the page, you could try Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Yes it needs the "citation needed" tags to be addressed. Even a solid newspaper reference would be sufficient, I think. It could also use an image or two; perhaps of some of the victims. Japan, Japanese government, Osaka, Chief Cabinet Secretary and United States could be linked. Otherwise it is starting to look pretty decent. Thanks. — RJH 15:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, RJHall. I was wondering if fellow Wikipedians could provide some insight into this article as a whole to improve it, maybe it was a little early for that. Nevertheless, I'll be looking for images and sources per your suggestion. Cheers, Tangotango 03:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Belgian French

This is a relatively new, short article. I would welcome any comments; for example, are there any major sections that seem to need coverage? Thanks. Lesgles (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas:

• Include how, when, why french was introduced into Belgium. Probably create a "History" section for this.
• Find source reliable information on demographics of the french speakers and where they located in Belgium.
• Is it consided an official language in Belgium? Is the french speakers in any way a concern for the government or do they try to request anything from the government?
• Any racial tension between the french speakers and other groups?

Other than that, expand "Influences" section, get sources and references and expand WP:LEAD. Thanks. - Tutmosis 19:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I will get to work on those. Lesgles (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

There is a bounty on this page becoming a featured article candidate (see Talk:Jimmy Wales), but having looked at the article myself it seems fairly good at the moment. General feedback wanted, paticulalrly on whether we should be so self-referential in the controversy over Wikipedia founding section. --Robdurbar 08:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• glazes over his involvement in porn. his ego problem. WP:OFFICE controversies. furthermore, I think having a featured article on the founder of the site will be damaging to Wikipedia, and make it look like a website dedicated to him for a day. --Midnighttonight 09:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a procedure for having a featured article that is not to be put on the Main Page. Wikipedia is Featured but has not been (and will not be) on the Main Page. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 @ 15:30 UTC
• A few quick issues—source 16 is blatant original research. Too many random pictures of Jimbo; all we need is one basic one and then ones of him actually doing stuff (i.e. keep the one in the lead, the one of him on CNN and the one of him at Wikimania; kill the rest). Plus all those images in the Wikipedia section break the formatting for 800x600. First two subsections of career are extremely short. "Other activities" needs some serious fleshing out. Citation needed for the quote in the prep school section. Lead needs to be expanded (see WP:LEAD). --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• The date of his birth would be nice. --Banana04131 23:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear testing

Not too long ago I gave this article an overhaul and tried to really make it is a concise, to-the-point summary article about nuclear testing. I'm not sure what else to add, though. I've tried to avoid either long lists or overly technical discussions of nuclear tests effects which more properly belong at effects of nuclear explosions. The "History" section gives a pretty broad overview of the many subtopics one could talk about (health effects, political aspects, etc.), but I'm not sure if it would really help the article to turn them into individual sub-sections. Anyway, any thoughts on what could be added to this article would be much appreciated. --Fastfission 15:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, the lead is probably too long, and the History section should probably be subdivided a bit. Also, I think a summary style section on effects would be appropriate. Circeus 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The is too long and covers details not mentioned elsewhere in the article - it is supposed to be a summary of the article. Otherwise I think you have done a good job of summarising the information.--nixie 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Great comments, both of them! I think much of the intro could be moved into a "types of nuclear tests" subsection, and I agree completely about breaking the history up a bit. --Fastfission 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I'd agree that the lead needs to be a lot more focused. It's a great article. Adding inline references would take it a step closer to FA status. Creating a section on subcritical testing would be good too: what does it mean to have 'no yield'? what is the point of testing with no yield? TreveX 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Great suggestions! I was thinking that we should probably have an entire article on subcritical testing but had not gotten around to writing it up yet. --Fastfission 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to some info on the test detection techniques/technologies that progressed alongside the nuclear tests: the roles of seismology, atmospheric science and oceanography, and how the feasibility of detecting tests was crucial to the treaties. That graph is fantastic.--ragesoss 22:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another great angle to pursue! Thanks. --Fastfission 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sparks (band)

Past review(s): Archive1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My impressions:

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

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

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks everyone for the great response, all very contructive and helpfull, much appreciated.

• First off, the POV problem has to be addressed, I could try but I think at this stage it would be better for someone else to cp-ed the suckers out
• Fair use images is a big issue, any suggestions gladly accepted
• I'll try to address the layout, duplicate detail, MOS, ref format and sample issues raised as ongoing tasks

Thanks again for the fantastic response--KaptKos 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Rugby union at the Summer Olympics

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Rugby union at the Summer Olympics/archive1
• Previously failed FAC. Any suggestions that could improve would be great. Thanks. Cvene64 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rugby union

Hi there, this article was worked on as a COTF a while ago, so I just want to get ideas of where it should be going. Any comments would be very helpful. Some concerns are;

• If someone were to read it, not knowing much about the sport, would it make sense?
• The tournaments section - what should happen here?
• The nations section?..?
• Very important: What specific things need a reference in this article?
• Are the headings/layout right?
• I suspect that some things trail off rugby union and more into general sport, such as referees, cheerleaders/support, jerseys (home/away)...that kind of stuff...What do you think
• Are there any sections that would benefit from being represented by an image?
• Should there be a governing body(s) heading?

... Any comments would be very appreciated. Thank-you. Cvene64 10:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Overall, a good article with no major flaws. Can't really help with the first point as I have some knowledge of the sport, but as for the others:

• Tournaments - I suspect that this section has been cut down due to concerns over article size. The Six Nations seems to dominate the section, with very little about the Rugby World Cup. At present it is unclear who contests the Rugby World Cup. A reader might think it is a competition similar to the World Series. Something similar to the lead from the Rugby World Cup article could be beneficial. For the Six Nations, either cut out the trivia or convert it to prose.
• Nations - Again, consider converting this into prose instead of a list format. Giving the team nicknames is probably unnecessary for an article providing an overview of the sport as a whole.
• References - lots of things need references. Lack of references is probably the biggest weakness of this article. A look at some of the more recent sports FAs may give some idea as to what sort of thing to reference. The rules of the game shouldn't need much referencing as they are all included in one place (the one existing reference), but sections such as the History section will need several. The use of the new(ish) m:Cite style of referencing is recommended.
• The layout seems fine, though the structure "Game laws and methods" section could be simplified as it currently goes to a fourth level of subheading. Cricket gives a good example of how to structure such a section.
• Referees/umpires/judges have varying roles in different sports, so no problem there. Mentioning cheerleaders is unnecessary, as is mentioning that the coin toss may be performed by a dignitary. No need for that level of detail about jerseys, but expanding on protective equipment would be useful as it is one of the major differences from American football.
• Ideally, an image of a player attempting a conversion or attempting to score from a penalty would be good, but I know that copyright-free sports pictures are hard to come by.
• Governing body - Depends on whether it would duplicate the material from the History and Nations sections or not. If it would, then the information would be better placed in those sections.
• One other thing I noticed - the lead says Rugby union was founded in 1823, presumably referring to the Webb Ellis story, but this is contradicted in the History section.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 18:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, your comments were exactly what I was looking for. I will get onto it soon. Thanks again.Cvene64 04:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A few of the points I had when the article was up for FA are still not answered in the article. Those points are:

• You should include something about strategy in the article. If you get 5 points for a try and only 3 for a penalty or drop goal, why do teams ever kick penalty or drop goals? And why do they kick the ball out of bounds so much?
• Is the 22-meter drop-out a drop kick? And who kicks the 22-meter drop out: the team that grounded the ball in the in-goal area or the team that kicked it there?
• Shouldn't the "sin bin" be mentioned?
• Do rugby teams have set plays in which they plan who's going to pass the ball to whom and where, like in American football, or is it all spontaneous? (This was answered on the talk page but not put in the article).

In addition, I think you need to make it clearer what a rugby match actually looks like. You have good information on rucks, mauls, scrums, restart kicks, etc., but you don't make clear that most or much of rugby consists of running down the field with the ball and tossing it backwards to your teammates. You should high up in the article better discuss how the ball is advanced down the field. -- Mwalcoff 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

This has undergone some improvements as the United States Collaboration of the Week. I'd like to see it become a featured article. What does it need to get there? PDXblazers 18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• To start, the logos need to have fair use rationales- see WP:FUC. The article will probably also need more references, preferably paper sources. Also, the long ToC has to be shorterned - especially sections like Media, where subsections like "Television" and "Television shows" exist. AndyZ _t 17:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreigner Belt

I would like constructive criticism on the Foreigner Belt article. I hope to one day make it a featured article or at least a good article. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Blackoutbill 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Someday someone in a sourer mood than myself is going to come along and nominate this article for deletion, saying it is a non-notable item from a single episode of an American TV show. They may well be right. I shall confine my comments to helping you avoid that. First, you would probably stand a better chance if you moved the article to Revenge Of The Mooninites, that is, the episode name, and covered the entire episode. Wikipedia has plenty of precedent, for better or worse, for articles on individual TV episodes, though there are also many editors who take issue with that. Second, and more fundamentally, you absolutely need to find some secondary sources with mentions of the Foreigner Belt. For it to be notable, the fictional object should have a demonstrable impact on the real world, some pop-culture-mention, anything. If the only source the article has is the episode itself, well, Wikipedia articles ideally aren't just plot summaries. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I deleted this article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreigner Belt. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Music of Philadelphia

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

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

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

Circeus 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard III (1955 film)

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)

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)

• 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]

• 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 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I've spent the last two weeks expanding, rewriting, and citing this article. I've also turned 14 red links into blue ones so that there are no red links on the page. I want to get this article listed as a good article. -ArcTheLad 03:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good overall. The statistics in first paragraph should be accompanied by a date: I expect he won't be number one forever, and might not remain undefeated. The page is mixing units: in the olympics the featherweight division is listed in kg, but the remainder of the page uses lb. (You could, for example, also list lbs. in parentheses next to the kg rating.) KOs should be linked. I'm somewhat surprised that there isn't a page to link for world boxing championship, although there is the Category:World boxing champions. Thanks. — RJH 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've slightly altered the first paragraph, and it now has the dates. I added a footnote for the Olympic metric usage. KOs is linked. I linked 'world boxing championships' to List of current world boxing champions. Thanks. ArcTheLad 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed (You motivated me do the same with Marvin Hagler, now, if I have the time) Although other good articles contain more pictures, but overall a vast improvement from before. Maya Levy 06:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gracias mi amiga. ArcTheLad 07:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

I found this article the way it is right now in the search for an article to improve. Does anyone have a suggestion on how it may be improved? Tarret 22:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Move the commemorative picture into the conclusions section; it looks incongruous.

Change the opening to "Operation Market Garden (September 17-25, 1944) was an Allied..."

The first section could use a picture. Perhaps one from Siegfried Line or one showing the strategic situation following the D-Day campaign, to set up the section discussing the various plans? Kaisershatner 11:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It mentions next to nothing about the air operations that landed, resupplied, and supported the airborne forces. Until then it falls short of FA.--Buckboard 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems all of these suggestions have been implemented, with the possible exception of the "air missions" issue, although I'm not entirely sure what you would like to see here. In the meantime, is this article in limbo? Maury 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did that myself, and if I read it correctly, with the only citations in the article.--Buckboard 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings

Second Peer Review: Since the last PR four months ago this article has gone through numerous changes. All suggestions from that PR have been made myself and other articles. In addition I have made many other other changes to the article to make it closer to a FA article. I have added more references as well as removing unessasary fair-use images and adding fair-use rationale for those that remain. I have also made changes to the order of the sections for better flow and copyeditted the parts of the article than need it. More suggestions on how to improve this article in order to work it up to FA suggest are appricated. SorryGuy 00:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I see a lot of problems with the article, but I'm going to make just my more broad critical comments right now.
  • {{Infobox Book}} should be used for a summary of information at the beginning of the article.
    • I would disagree with this. That infobox would make sense for use with each of the books themshelves however the job of this article is to cover the whole topic, not just the books. That includes the movies, plays, video games, and CCGS. This is for articles only about books from my point of view. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead is insufficient and covers the wrong information; it briefly covers the book itself, then discusses the movie adaptations in greater detail than the book. Much of the lead is seems to be a "See Also" section, directing the reader to numerous other related articles rather than summarising the book.
    • I would reference you to the above. The lead maybe needs one more book sentence but this is not an article just for the books but the whole topic. When working on the synopis I found an easy way to expand the opening. It still needs a few changes and adjustments but it now covers the books much better. Comments would be nice.SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The One Ring is an important plot point, but it does not illustrate the book itself very well. A scanned image of a book would fit much better at the top of the article.
    • Personally I sort of like it as the lead image. If we do move it where would you suggest moving it to? SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Much of the "Synopsis" covers events from The Silmarillion, The Akallabeth and other works; very little actually summarises the book itself. Previous events can be mentioned, but a summary of the plot of The Lord of the Rings, the book at hand, should be far longer. Also, don't be afraid to "give away the ending" by summarising; that's what the spoiler tags are for.
    • Agreed. It seems that the earlier editors of the article agreed to divide it up but it is indeed time to combine them once more. I found what I think is a much better division method. Let me know what you think. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Books and volumes" covers in great detail the writing of the books; this is interesting from a Tolkienite perspective, but would be extremely boring to someone unfamiliar with the subject. It should be included, but reduced in size and moved much farther down the article.
    • Some of it can also be added to the Tolkien article. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Publication history" can probably be merged with the section above it.
    • Agreed. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The opening section of "The Books" deals broadly with many subjects but covers some in too much detail (such as the books not being allegory) while relegating important aspects such as the influence of Saxon mythology to single sentences. (Christian themes are also heavily overplayed in this section, at least when compared to other influences on Tolkien.)
    • I would defer this to an expert tag or something similiar. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "The storyline" - too short, and should be included with "Synopsis". (They mean the same thing.)
    • Agreed above. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Verse of the One Ring" probably shouldn't be in this article but in a sub-article. It also may be a copyright violation to reproduce the poem in its entirety.
    • I would also agree here and will get to work on it. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Praise" is far shorter than "Criticism" despite the book being widely acclaimed and rarely criticised. The section lengths give the impression that the book is unpopular.
    • I think this is because of the short paragraphs and the like in Criticism. Seems to be an easy fix. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Adaptations" is far too long, particularly in its summaries of the films, and, moreso, games (which could be made into a list without losing much).
    • Why do you feel they are too long? Do you feel that they are less important than the books? SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The section on "early efforts" is just fine. However, there's far too much on the trilogy. It makes it seem like the live-action film trilogy was the most important adaptation of the book. (Ibaranoff24 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC))
  • "Lord of the Rings Derivates" is a bit POV, and would be better titled as "Influence on the Fantasy Genre". It should also be longer, as The Lord of the Rings is the defining moment in all of fantasy literature.
    • Changed. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Some significant pop culture references should actually appear on the page.
    • I will see what I can do. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Referencing is extremely incomplete with entire sections unreferenced.
    • Some of the sections have nothing to reference though. Summaries and the like can only reference the books themshelves. SorryGuy 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, done with my quick critique. I'll try to work on some of this when I get a chance (which won't be until Tuesday), but I don't think more in-depth critiquing can occur until the article imprroves significantly. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 23 April 2006 @ 01:18 UTC

Some minor things from a quick glance: Years are overlinked (see date formatting) and capitalisations in headings should be removed. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed with Fritz Saalfeld; being a member of WikiProject Middle-earth, I did go ahead and fixed the capitalisations in headings. Just from quick skimming: with the subheadings in the Adaptations section, I suggest removing 'The Lord of the Rings on...' as stated by MoS here: "Avoid repeating the article title in headings; use 'Voyage' instead of 'Voyage of the Mayflower' in an article titled 'Mayflower'.". Just simply put 'Film', 'Music', etc. As for the books section, perhaps you should rename 'The Books' section simply 'Books' or 'Series'. Also by MoS, I feel like there is an overuse of subheadings. Subheadings are used when there is an overflow of information that splits into different subtopics, but perhaps to limit the number of subheadings, you should cut down on some of the information. On the other hand, it looks great despite its problems. :) (I'll look more closer at the article later, so expect a more indepth constructive critcism to follow up). —Mirlen 17:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the Adaptations to reflect the MoS. I have also found the following ways to reduce the number of sub-headings:
    • Removed the One Ring verse due to copyright issues and the fact that it already has its own article. I added the link to that article in See Also
    • Changed Art so that it did not have an empty heading with a sentence more of prose.
    • With a little work Publication and Publication history can also be merged.
    • Once more with a little work Praise and Criticism can be merged together under a new heading Critical response. If I were to make these changes do you feel that I would not need to remove information from the article?
  • I am also working on finding someone to improve the Sysnopis part as it has been a while since I have read the books. SorryGuy 20:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• I propose removing Image:Tolkien ring.jpg. Article would look much cleaner without it. Its also not directly related to the article but is only part of the plot in the books. This article is about the books. If you guys want to keep it then I would suggest moving it atleast to "Synopsis". &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 23:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I also did a couple of other tweaks in the first two sections (including the intro). But there is overload of wikilinking in the rest of the sections, especially the book titles. Also, regular words like 'fairy tales' do not need to be wikilinked. Also, I feel like the adaptations section is rather long, since the focus of the article is on the books, not the adaptations. —Mirlen 13:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the article looks much better than it did when I first looked at it. I still have a few major gripes and some minor ones.

• Much of the beginning of the "The Books" section consist of randomly assorted trivia, most about influences on the writing (which should be summarised and put in their own section), but in a rather rambling and uncohesive pattern. It is currently by far the worst section of the article.
• I still have an objection to "Criticism" being longer than "Praise" as the Lord of the Rings is widely praised and rarely criticised, yet the relative section lengths make it seem the other way around. Praise should be made longer and/or Criticism better summarised. (Most of the criticisms are quite similar and could be merged together.)
• Some sections, notably "Games", remain largely unsourced. If this article is to become featured, sources must be found and assertions about fans' opinions verified.
• Art is hopelessly stubby. I've tagged it with {{expandsection}}
• Influences on the fantasy genre is also very short and lacking in citations. As The Lord of the Rings was the defining moment in the fantasy genre, certainly more can be said about its influence.
• Inline links should be converted to footnotes.

That's it, I think. Probably also needs a thorough copyedit, but that can come after the article is otherwise high quality. A few images (maybe a screenshot from the movies, one from one of the games, etc.) wouldn't go amiss, either. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 13 May 2006 @ 01:38 UTC

Operation Auca

I created this article a few months ago, and after appearing on the main page as a DYK, another user put a NPOV tag on it because of wording and unbalanced coverage. I believe I've resolved his concerns, but I need more opinions on that. I've attempted to use a wide variety of sources, but unfortunately I've been primarily limited to missionary sources for the description of the operation itself. Also, getting images for the article has been extremely difficult—while numerous pictures exist, all are copyrighted and any fair-use claims would be rather dubious. I may soon have success in getting some general images of the Huaorani people, but getting images of the people involved and the events might not be possible (though I will continue to work on it). All that said, I would still like this to become an FA, so I appreciate any comments. Thanks! --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I agree about the lack of images being an issue, but you could probably request a map of the territory occupied by the Huaorani. Thanks. — RJH

Inter-Services Intelligence

This is a self-nomination. I wrote this article. I just want to see what more needs to be done before this article is ready for FAC status. --Mercenary2k May 5, 2006 (UTC)

• References: Just three references to support a sensitive topic? I would like to see more.
• Is it Inter-Services or Inter Services (hyphen)? I've always read it as the latter.
• ==Missions== needs to be prosified and written in a more neutral manner. It appears to belittle India.
• ISI has alleged links with terrorist groups. This needs to be mentioned.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• In regards to missions. Care to give me examples where neutrality is violated and where India is be-littled?

  Also in regards to ISI with terrorist groups. Those are just alleged with no concrete proof. The one area where there is some proof I have mentioned it in the alleged section because the D-company bombings have been denied by Pakistan, accused by India but there is solid evidence that ISI was involved and thats why I have posted it in the allged section. If you can find any ISI terrorism links from neutral sources. Give them to me.

  As for references. There isnt a whole lot of literature written exclusively on Pakistan's ISI missions. The one is which I use extensively, "Profiles of Intelligence", which mentions specific ISI missions in details. I don't think it does matter on the number of references as to the quality of references. --Mercenary2k 1:47pm May 5, 2006 (UTC)

1. Sure: ISI made aware to the world, (made aware? how about "uncovered") (Perhaps the most spectacular success... -- weasel term
2. ISI is alleged to be linked to terrorists groups. I did not say that the ISI is hand-in-glove with terrorists. They are two different things. We have to strive to achieve the neutral point of view in wikipedia. If India, the CIA, Russian or Israeli intelligence agencies accuse the ISI of terrorist links it has to be mentioned and cited. It may not be necessarily true, but the "alleged" word is. I hope you get what I mean.
3. More References are needed. As I mentioned this is a sensitive topic, and one source can easily gloat over an "achivement". How about looking through newspapers and magazines?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added various new citations. I created a new controversy section, where I expand upon the ISI role in Kashmir, Assam, meddling in Pakistani politics, al-Qaeda and taliban. I also changed the two items you mentioned to make it more neutral. Is there anything else which needs to be done? --Mercenary2k 12:57AM May 8, 2006 (UTC)

My comments

Hi M2K - this is a very difficult topic to make FA, so I congratulate you on your hard work. There are some serious issues to address:

1. The "De-classified operations" section is poorly written. First off, you cannot classify operations as "Successes" and "failures," becoz of POV, insufficient and conflicting evidence and different analysis. Wikipedia should not appear as making a judgment on the ISI. Anybody can dispute the success or failure of ISI's work.
2. Citations as per Nichalp. You need a lot of citations from different sources, Pakistani and non-Pakistan.
3. Images you need images, which I'm sure are available.
4. You need to create whole sections on Involvement in Pakistani politics, Role in the Afghan War, Kashmir and against al-Qaeda. These topics are vast, and the present coverage cannot be assumed to be comprehensive. So I suggest a complete revamp of "declassified operations" along these lines.
5. Unencyclopedic language - no words like "liberation," "lost glory" must be used. No sentences like "Pakistan's version of the NOC's of CIA" - what does that mean?? You should explain with clarity and concise details.
6. Data - there needs to be more information on the work/history/personnel of specific branches, the command structure, the covert operations, technology, communications intelligence. I would also like to see something on the role of Islam on officers and personnel, and in the training and working culture. I know for a fact that with Zia ul Haq, the role of Islam in Pakistan's military increased dramatically. While association with Taliban and al-Qaeda is ok, there is a basic influence/effect on the ISI that needs to be documented.
7. Wars - Pakistan has fought wars in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971. I'd like war-specific information on what the ISI did and how it was affected during this time. In 1971, the eastern wing of Pakistan became independent - what impact did this have on the ISI's role, future, capabilities, mission?

You'll have to do a lot of re-writing and re-organization to achieve comprehensiveness and encyclopedic content. But I'm sure you can do it. Expect further help from me and please keep up your good work with Pakistan military subjects. Rama's Arrow 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The tone seems to fluctuate from a present tense to past tense and somewhere in between. That should be corrected.

There is no citation for the 83,000 afghan mujahideen trained. Such a precise figure surely needs one among the many others both Nichalp and Rama's Arrow have mentioned. another example is the "experts estimate" of 25,000. According to BBC there are 10,000 in the ISI. sources need to be provided for these figures.

If any other things pops up to my mind I'll include it here. That's it for now. Idleguy 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, quite an achievement. Comments:

1. Citations: not bad. For views of the ISI's involvement in Afghanistan and elsewhere which focus on the disruption caused to local interests, I suggest you go to Human Rights Watch, or to archive searches on the Boston Globe and the Christian Science Monitor, both of which are reputable newspapers with a large group of reporters in Kandahar and elsewhere. This should satisfy those who worry about the reliance on official sources above.
2. NPOV: Needs a spot of work. This is the hardest thing to get right for an article like this, (mainly because its the easiest for other readers to check). So be very careful about the words used; 'liberation' is NPOV, but 'lost glory' should pass as a stylistic flourish, for example.
3. Presentation: Here's the trouble. I dont like the Successes-Failures in one big go thing. I think you should try to categorise the ISI's history; Pre 1971; 1971-Afghanistan; Afghan insurrection; Post 1991; Post 9/11 etc. Point out what the Pakistan state's goals were, and how the ISI's institutional goals overlapped or differed. Finally, in each stage, talk about the declassified operations, and let people decide on their own the success or lack thereof. It would read much better, and people would understand the evolution of the ISI better.

Hornplease 12:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian cricket team

Plan to make this a FAC. Best to give it a PR first. Buc 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Use commonwealth English spellings. Send for copyedit review
• Governing body needs to come much before =fans=
• red links should be ideally populated
• venue table should be centered
• What about the number of people who have played for India, sponsors?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

I would like to nominate this page for peer review, it was recently dropped from being a "good article". I believe with a collaboration of editors we can make this a featured. All facts have to re-checked and sources should be provided.

I have put $20-40 USD (shared) reward for improving this and making this a FA (Please see Wikipedia:Reward_board#Zoroastrianism).

All help and suggestions will be appreciated, Much thanks. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I expanded the lead. You should find some images, at the very least a map of the area where the religion flourished. Kaisershatner 12:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. Yeah hmm that would be interesting -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Matt Gonzalez

This article is in dire need of peer review. One user seems unclear on the NPOV philosophy, and reverts most attempts to make the article more informative and more neutral. The writing could also be vastly improved and the chronology straightened out and clarified. Also, the "Works cited" section is very unusual for Wikipedia and difficult to navigate. Thoughts about that? Any help is most appreciated! Moncrief 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Generally on Wikipedia, I find that the "Works cited" section is named "References", and that external links in the references work like: Last, First. [the link] etc., with the hyperlink only linking the article name itself. The inline external links should be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs (if you would like, I can quickly convert them to footnotes), and be given WP:CITE information. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• On the Discussion Page at this article is an alternative Matt Gonzalez article that I believe is very good and could take the place of the current article. I would like your thoughts on replacing the current article with the alternative article on the Discussion Page. The current article is a real mess and replacing it with the alternative article would be a good start in fixing the problem. Griot 05:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed that no one came over to help us out at this article. We can really use your help! Please come and help if you can. Moncrief 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There's lots to say. According to the WP:PR instructions, content and POV disputes are handled by WP:RFC. From an editing standpoint, right off the top the intro states "he put a familiar face on the Green Party." What does that mean? Also, there's a typo "he believe...machine politics." Kaisershatner 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, agree with converting the references per WP:CITE. That long list of external links would be much clearer as footnotes. Kaisershatner 15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis

This article has just finished being the NZ collaboration. The article needs a general peer review. Also, if it could be looked at for POV-pushing in particular due to the controversial nature of the case. Cheers --Midnighttonight 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance at more than a cursory look so far, but the short third paragraph bothers me. If he was not homosexual, would that paragraph be there saying he is heterosexual. No, of course not. Is it able to be interpreted as saying hey, he is homosexual and a lot of the complainants were girls, so........? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs)

A lot of the article seems to deny that the children were abused. It seems to be pushing a POV that Ellis didn't do it. There is little focus on the evidence that convicted him without it being a focus on why that evidence is wrong. The evidence for the defence is, however, given no qualifications and treated as fact. There is a POV being pushed in that article. --210.86.75.96 03:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

also needs to have more internal links. --210.86.75.96 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put more in, but its not exactly the sort of article that lends itself to this. PageantUpdater 04:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree a lot of the article seems to deny that children were abused. That opinion is widely held throughout NZ, but that point is not developed enough in the article, so it comes across as being the opinion of Wikipedi (which I don't think was the intention). Moriori 03:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the paragraph on his sexuality down into "Early life" and expanded it. I think any biographical article should deal with the subject's acknowledged sexuality. No implication or connection of this paragraph with the Civic Creche case is intended. It's quite possible that some people will have been prejudiced against Ellis due to his sexuality, but this is unprovable.-gadfium 04:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a potentially controversial article and uses a lot of primary source information, direct quotes should be explicitly referenced. The lead is a bit short, it really should summarise the content of the article, and I don't think that it is necessary to state he is a homosexual in the lead, unless it is placed within some sort of context. Using some ===h3=== to better group together content may be a good idea. And I agree, the article does seem to be skewed toward the innocence POV.--nixie 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"A lot of the article seems to deny that the children were abused". Really? Please show where. As a matter of fact, nobody except Peter Ellis and God knows if children were abused. The case is ongoing. At the bottom of the article, there is reference to a Privy Council appeal. What if Ellis wins that appeal? Will the whole article need to be re-written? I should hope not. 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

OK, fair enough about "deny", but how about "infers innocence/unfair trial" rather that denial. Here's one example -- "Karen Zelas, testified at trial that there are behavioural factors, which the crèche complainants allegedly exhibited". Allegedly?. I'll eat my hat if Zelas didn't say the children exhibited certain behaviour instead of they allegedly exhibited certain behaviour. There's a subtle distinction. Moriori 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)>

I think you misinterpret that sentence. I'm saying that Zelas testified that there are certain behaviours that are consistent with sexual abuse. I also say that these behaviours were allegedly exhibited by the complainants. I cannot say (and I don't think Zelas did either) that they were exhibited because I (and Zelas) weren't there. None of us were present when these behaviours were allegedly displayed. Only the children and their parents can address this issue and the parents alleged that the behaviours were displayed. We don't know that they were actually exhibited.

I think we'd be better off focusing on the facts rather than getting caught up in inferring innocence or guilt. If there are facts that anyone is unhappy with or simply think are wrong, then say what they are. 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

I concede to meet you half way on the misinterpret bit. But, in the context of that whole paragraph it could most definitely be interpreted to mean Zelas said the complainants exhibited symptoms. It is difficult to see exactly who is making statements. For instance, look at the following -- "Le Page said that in his experience, children and adults who had been abused usually expressed distress when they recounted their experiences of abuse. Apparently the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews. Who said the complainants apparently showed little or no distress? Le Page or Wikipedia? If Wikipedia is saying this, how is the word apparently justified? Moriori 23:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that apparently shouldn't be used by wikipedia. Are there any other words that you don't think are appropriate? I don't see any problem with apparently. I don't think Le Page said that the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews (if he had, I would've tried to quote him). But from my reading of some of the transcripts, and from my reading of Le Page's testimony, I think it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress. BTW, I don't recall Karen Zelas saying that the kids were distressed. Seeing as she was the prosecution's expert witness, I imagine she would have highlighted any distress from the kids. 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)~ User:NZ researcher

The crux. You say you think "it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress". That is blatant POV opinion. Also, I don't say certain words shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, but that we should not attribute a word to someone who never used it, or use any word to support a POV. Moriori 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the use of 'apparently' either. The observation is nevertheless correct, thank you (Moriori) for pointing it out, I shall try to find time to find a cite in Eichelbaum's report or trial record. then it can be categorically said "the children showed little or no distress" I recall Louise Sas tried to expailn away the Bander child's lack of emotion while he detailed horrific satanic abuse, perhaps that will do? Richard 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:NZ researcher has done a lot of edits in the article I see. S/he clearly has a POV and is pushing it. The article is, at the moment, still showing this POV. Neutral language and equal weighting is needed. At the moment, it doesn't have it. Furthermore, these peer reviews are for editors unrelated to the article's creation to discuss it and to recommend changes. User:NZ researcher, people are trying to help the article, don't throw it back into their faces.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.22.18.241 (talk • contribs) .

The above comment is unsigned. The last time another writer made similar comments they went on to vandalise the article. There is a fundamental problem with reporting on the case. Those unfamiliar with its history seem to be asking why was he convicted, implying that sort of evidence isn't highlighted. In reality the conviction wasn't a result of any credible evidence, it was a result of a myriad of social and circumstantial factors that many analysts have since recognised as a describing a witch hunt. So, what was he convicted upon? Good examples have already been supplied - they are in essence children's stories, digging up Jesus, killing all the boys with axes etc. Mingled within were credible allegations 'he did poos in the bath' (scatological content featured prominently) and others that the adult interpreters coaxed out and then sifted (through arguable means) in order to create a case. Allied with that were parental anxieties about behaviours falling within perfectly ordinary range of childhood behaviours, behaviours that would be remarkable if they didn't occur in such a sample size. That's basically it. Let me repeat, the so called 'toddler testimonies' are IT in terms of evidence. The article just records the resultant fall out. Some of the language may be tweaked but the facts are facts. Those who feel something has been left out are welcome to research such and include it. That doesn't make the existent fact POV. Richard 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

An unsigned user wants neutral language and equal weighting. Well, who is stopping that person from doing just that if they feel offended by the article? I have tried to use neutral language and to give plenty of weight to both sides. A claim has been made but no evidence is provided to support it. If anyone has a problem with the language used, feel free to say what it is. Vagueness is not helpful. 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Moriori, yes, I do think "it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress". That is not POV at all. I have explained why it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress, an explanation which you haven't contested. If it is not apparent to you that the kids showed little or no distress, please explain why. But as it currently stands, you seem to want to ban apparently from Wikipedia and I find that truly astonishing. 21:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Once again, YOU say that YOU think something is apparent. That is clearly your POV. Had it been stated in evidence or summing up that it was apparent the children showed little or no distress then of course we could use it, by quoting the person/s who said so. Until we can do that your personal opinion has no place in Wiki. I'm beginning to suspect you are a politician, because they are known to express astonishment at things that exist only in their minds. Like you. For the second time, "I don't say certain words shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, but that we should not attribute a word to someone who never used it, or use any word to support a POV". But you already knew that, because it is the exact information you were given a few pars above this one. Moriori 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already quoted Le Page who said that in his experience children would show distress when describing being sexually abused. He implied that the complainansts didn't exhibit any distress. Have you read any of the transcripts? It is apparent to me and probably others, that from reading those transcripts, the children are not distressed. It has got nothing to do with my personal opinion and everything to do with facts. If you can refute these facts, please do so. And where exactly do I attribute apparent to anyone? If Le Page had said apparent, I would've quoted him. He didn't, so I haven't. By all means remove apparent if it bothers you so much, but I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by doing this. 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Goodness gracious me! Le Page implied the complainants didn't exhibit distress? What? Here's a quote from the article, attributed to LePage -- ".........there was no evident stress from any child in relation to any of these things until they were questioned. Got that? LePage says they showed distress when questioned. But then, only four sentences further down, Wikipedia states - "apparently the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews." Has the penny dropped yet? Wikipedia is contradicting a statement made by the defence expert. That whole sentence needs the axe. Moriori 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good gracious is right, you're like a dog with a bone! You haven't even read Le Page's testimony, yet you claim to know what he said and what he meant. Le Page was talking about when the children were being interviewed by their parents. Some parents said their children were uptight or had behavioural problems, but these alleged problems occurred when the kids were questioned by their parents, not before. Despite the fact that children were allegedly being urinated and defecated on, they showed no "evident stress". Le Page said that if the children's behaviour was out of the ordinary (and we don't know that it was), that could be due to a whole lot of reasons. When the children were formally interviewed, which is the only factual record of what the children were asked, they apparently showed no signs of distress when describing horrific acts of abuse. That's why we should use apparently, because although it seems there was no distress, we cannot say it as a matter of fact. 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Please don't debate the issues on this page. Commnents on the article should be directed towards improvement which can be made to it. If you feel a comment is unjustified, then add a very brief reply suggesting the discussion be pursued at Talk:Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis.-gadfium 06:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. This should be debated elsewhere and I should be ashamed of myself. However, as this is the peer review page where editors will come to review the article, I must point out something they should know about the content of this article. Following my last post above (at 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)), User:NZ researcher removed from the article "there was no evident stress from any child in relation to any of these things until they were questioned". That was a quote of evidence given by Le Page, the defence expert, saying the children were distressed when questioned. It was chopped because it is contradicted by the POV opinion of an editor/s in the article which says "apparently the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews." The expert's verbatim quoted testimony gets chopped, an editor's POV rules. Sheesh. You gotta fear for Wikipedia. Moriori 09:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no ojection to the wording Moriori added. In fact I think it highly relevant. Put it back in. Richard 11:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Avenue 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Moriori, you are wrong. Le Page didn't say the children were distressed when questioned. If you can show that the complainants showed distress during their formal interviews or at trial, please do so but so far you haven't been able to. You haven't even read Le Page's testimony, so I suggest you don't comment until you've read it. BTW, who was the person who originally inserted the quote that was chopped? Me!!! So much for POV. 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Pericles

This article has previously failed an FA nomination and a GA nomination (also had a peer review). A lot of work has been done on the article since then and I think all the issues have been taken care of. I think it deserves a shot at FA again, so a thorough critical review will be apreciated.--Konstable 14:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Detroit, Michigan

This article has gone through a lot of cleanup and modification, both before and after Super Bowl XL. At the moment, the article seems ready for FA, though I am placing it here first to see what more is needed. Pentawing^Talk 04:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA states that the images should have acceptable copyright status. However, Image:Detroit flag.png's license is not compatible with the GFDL, and deletion of that image is imminent. Find a way to replace that image. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 16:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jtmichcock 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I created another flag image and reinserted back into the article. Pentawing^Talk 01:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, I somehow managed to miss all the work that has been going on with this article. Great work to rescue such a mess. I take it you've already checked against other city FA's to make sure it covers broadly the right topics. But each subsection needs to be prioritized in what it covers too. The economy section gives a relatively very large amount of space to green autos when the big 3 have pretty much dragged their heels with that and have done little to none of the work. Most (all?) hybrid tech is licensed from foreign manufacturers and they have steadily opposed higher mpg standards and closing the loophole allowing SUVs to get the more lax truck emmissions standards. More space should be given to the decline of manufacturing and the woes of the auto industry. GM has been steadily losing market share and both Ford and GM's bond ratings have been plunging, Delphi and Visteon's problems, etc. The economy section could also stand to cover the state of the neighborhoods where most are in very poor shape but there are still pockets of fancy areas like Indian village, etc. The gov section could note the very high rate of property taxes but the consistent city budget problems and mismanagement. Along with covering how much of a mess the city is, you could cover some on the rebirth along the waterfront and the casinos. Also the high number of derelict buildings and large number of properties that owe back taxes because they can't keep track of them. Illich owes property taxes he still hasn't bothered to pay. The sports could note how bad the Lions have always been and a little bit about Hocketown and the prominence of the Wings. The schools section fails to note that just how bad the public schools are considered, and that I think all of the Catholic high schools have now moved out of the city. Wayne State's med school is among the largest by number of students in the country if not the largest (oops it does say that later). You could cut the formula one racing out of the sports since it's not there anymore unless it was a really big deal at the time and is worth mentioning for that. The Free Press marathon is billed as the only marathon to cross international borders, because I believe other smaller races do. And it's kind of a marketing gimmick anyway. The part in Windsor is very short. Could be worth noting the DMC is a level one regional trauma center and expanding the hospital bit some. So each section needs a little polishing like that. Finally once everything else is balanced, the lead needs a little work for POV balance, and you could even stand to note how bad the city's reputation is, it usually gets ranked among the worst. So that's a lot, but there's obviously been so much good work so far, it might as well be great. I'll follow this, but also let me know if you want another final review before FAC. - Taxman ^Talk 13:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A search of the Archdiocese website finds U of D Jesuit High School and Loyola High School still listed as in Detroit (along with 15 other schools from elementary level to colleges). Rmhermen 06:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it the article I read was about plans to close the last Catholic HS's, so that could either change, have changed, or be in the works. You should be able to find it in Free Press covg. - Taxman ^Talk 07:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Basic review: 1) The article needs to be summarised as per summary style. Sections in the article reads more like a list converted to prose. The entire list of schools/radio stations etc. can be moved to a dedicated list article. 2) the temperature table looks ugly. Please remove/move =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and taken care of your immediate suggestions (removing the climate table, tackling the "list to prose" in the schools and radio sections). However, can you please be more specific as to which sections need to be summarized further, and if there are other "list to prose" areas that have yet to be addressed? Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 19:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Economy and Crime sections. Also in lower resolutions the images look all bunched up. Please reduce the images. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I went over the economy and crime sections and did some copyediting. Is there anything more that needs to be done? Pentawing^Talk 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A few things.

1. Is the TIME cover essential? It shouldn't be there unless its linked into the text in a meaningful way.
2. There doesn't seem much point breaking education into two sections, it just increases the length of the TOC and the two things are clearly related. The order of information seems a bit odd in the primary school section.
3. Again, the break up of demographics into overview and population seems superfilious as both sections are clearly discussing the same thing. Historical information should probably be reduced, or made apparent in the history section.
4. Economy seems to be lacking information on unemployment rates, and information on economic activites in the city outside the automotive industry.
5. I'm not sure about inclusion of the crime stats in the current form, they really don't mean much unless they are compared to a national average.
6. Historic population information would be more informative as a graph.

--nixie 05:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestions:

1. TIME cover removed.
2. Education section merged and rearranged.
3. The two demographics sections are fairly long, each with a different emphasis (the overview focuses on general population descriptions while the population section focuses on statistics). Currently, I can't really see a reason to completely merge the two sections.
4. Done.
5. Comparison to U.S. averages included.
6. I am not sure about making the historic population information a graph. Not only has the table become a standard fixture in U.S. city articles, but a graph makes it more difficult to update information as they change (unless someone comes up with a better idea such as creating a Javascript/PHP script that translates statistical information to graph form without having someone try to find hard statistical data before creating the graph).

Pentawing^Talk 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on the necessity of the population list, it is very hard for the reader to take in the information in that format. A graph - which is immediately informative, would be good for at least another 4 years. I have had a go at merging the two sections. The demographics section says that more than 1 million black people live in the area, but there are less than 1 million people in the city - something here needs to be clarified.--nixie 04:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the population statistics. The article does mention that while there are more than 1 million blacks in the region, about 80% of them live within Detroit (which would make sense, since 81% of 951,000 is about 770,000, which is close to 800,000). Hence, I don't see a problem with population statistics. As for the graphs, there might be a possibility of creating one, though I have to look into it further (perhaps using a hybrid statistics table combined with a graph produced in Excel?). This would at least provide some hard numbers to work with for the next iteration. Pentawing^Talk 04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It should proably say which region the statistic is refering to - it's a bit confusing.--nixie 04:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the wording a bit. Does that work? Pentawing^Talk 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Much more clear, thanks.--nixie 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok good improvements. 1) I still really think the auto racing should be removed from the sports section unless it is seriously important. That would make room for more mention of the Lions awful streak (didn't they just set a record for the worst win-loss?), and the Pistons doing very well. I think those impact the city enough to warrant inclusion, though the Pistons are outside the city of course. 2) In the history paragraph starting "Detroit has endured..." there is an unfortunate proximity of race with the decline, almost implying that caused it. The text doesn't say that, but the placement in the same paragraph seems to. I don't have a handy solution, but that reads poorly. 3) The fiscal mismanagement of the city still needs a little more space I think. You'd have to do some more digging, but last I read they still don't even have a handle on all the properties owe taxes, but of the ones they do know there is a large amount owed. I can't think of the other important metrics, but the financial scandals and the general innefectuallness of the city council should appear in some good sources. 4) It looks quite good with some of these last fixes especially, though I couldn't offer enthusiastic support at FAC without some additional higher quality sources. Books, government studies, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 15:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. In terms of the Grand Prix, Detroit is one of the few US cities that has had a sanctioned race. From a historical perspective, that's notable. I would just as soon not discuss the Lions misfortune nor the Piston's success - the reason being the roller coaster rides that has been the Tigers (84 World Champs) and Red Wings (aka "Dead Wings" in the same year). We need to have a measure of stability to the article to get past the FAC process. The Tigers are "not sucking" so far this year - who knows? Such is sports.

The proximity of racial tensions with the overall decline in the city exists. I think you agree we are not implying the two are directly linked, but we realistically can't disengage the two elements. There's an NPOV problem that we are constantly trying to avoid and present a "just the facts" synopsis.

As to fiscal management of the City, this was discussed a bit when the decision was made to do a daughter article to the Government section. Public financing, including property taxes, bond issues, sinking fund, et cetera, can get a little complex. Instead, there was a deliberate decision to move those matters to the subarticle and spend a little more time on the city vs. suburbs problems that have bogged down development (e.g., two separate bus systems).

I think the studies we have are quite good. I know I have done inserts from various Federal agencies. The majority, however, are press reports that translate the many data sources into English and are much more likely to be read.

Thanks for reviewing. I do hope you you can give some feedback to the above. Jtmichcock 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you've checked and considered all those, then it's probably about right. Just be careful that when you move material to daughter articles what is left is a proper summary of the material. I think those things you've mentioned are at least as important as the city vs suburbs. It doesn't need much, just a little more. I know book sources are a pain to get and I don't mean to discount the work you guys have done on this, it is really much much better, but I do think they are important. - Taxman ^Talk 01:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pentawing had asked me for more comments, so I'm responding to that and what else I see. The fiscal mismanagement I'm referring to has been in the last 5-10 years so it may not be in any books yet. The receivorship bit almost covers it, it would just be nice for a bit more. One or two sentences or so. The only sources for that may be news articles and or government reports if there are any. And yes keeping the article from being too long while covering so much info is hard, just keep working on prioritizing. If you're looking for places to cut, the sports and transportation sections are probably the best ones to work on. One thing I see is the economy section focuses too much on environmental issues almost stating that as the reason for the auto industry's decline. There's not much evidence Americans cared much about fuel economy until very recently and the big three's market shares have been dropping for decades. GM's used to be 50% and it's less than 22% now I think. It's probably they just can't get their costs down as fast and make less profit on many vehicles. So a lot of (but not all) the part focusing on their fuel economy etc, could be excised to shorten that section and be replaced with a couple sentences on market share/costs. Last, the IPA pronunciation seems off. I can't see where an open-mid back rounded vowel is in there, but then again, I'm not a linguist. The language ref desk would be a good place to ask. Also instead of /ɪ/ many people pronounce the first vowel as /i/ or /i:/. Think Deeeetroit basketball, but less stressed. :). - Taxman ^Talk 01:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some revisions per your suggestions. In terms of the pronounciation, I don't hear the strong E in casual conversations. It's only when people are emphasising the name that you get the long "Deee," As in "I'm going to Dee-troit!" Midwesterners often omit or soften a lot of vowels (such as "T'rono," that big city in Can-da), so this is in line with what's expected. Jtmichcock 23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Center for Talented Youth

General review please, with some focus on format and quality. Any help from former/current students is appreciated. Typer525 ^Contact 21:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD should be expanded to become a brief summary of the article. Of card games, Texas hold'em Poker, Palace, Scum, and Chinese poker were pretty popular; chess and other variations of risk (like Future risk) are also pretty popular at CTY (having been there before). AndyZ _t 22:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already expressed some concerns on the talk page of the article. It looks as if this article is written specifically for former CTY students rather than a general audience. It's heavy on student rituals and light on actual information about what is supposed to be an academic program. I taught there, years ago, so I know how intense the experience can be for students. "The Passionfruit" may be very important to students, but what is the casual reader going to think about an entire section of the article being devoted to students sitting around drinking juice and making ritualistic toasts on Saturday morning? I submit that they may be tempted to dismiss CTY as a "nerd camp" and miss the fact that it is the most successful summer gifted program for secondary school students in the country. Brian G. Crawford 17:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have interacted with CTY students in the past, but have had no direct participation in the program. I would echo Brian G.C.'s concerns. The culture section is not written to a general audience. The tastes in music and film presented there are not unique to CTY students nor are they interesting. The "sources" for this section are either dead links or another unreferenced wiki. The article would read better without all the fluff. I'd focus on the program's successes, academic opportunities, etc. It would also be good if references were handled with a consistient style (there are at least three styles currrently). -MrFizyx 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghost

• This article is in great need of help. What keeps it from being fully comprehensive and a Featured Article? Time to whip out that fine tooth comb. :) Judgesurreal777 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll return with the "fine tooth comb" sometime later, but first off it needs inline citations, probably WP:FOOTNOTEs. Thanks, AndyZ _t 23:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph of the "Beliefs" section immediately makes claims and assertions regarding ghosts. For those of us who do not give much credit to such phenomenon, this has the appearance of bias. I agree with AnyZ regarding the need for citations throughout, especially wherever it makes an assertion of some type, including reported hauntings. I think I'd also like to see an expansion on the topic of ghost researchers. Thanks. :-) — RJH 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ace Books

I'd appreciate any feedback. I do have two particular questions: 1. Have I overdone the footnotes and references? Seems to me I had a lot of information to source, and I wanted to source it all. But it's led to a lot of footnotes, particularly in the list of editors. 2. Is the history unbalanced? I know more about the 1950-1972 period, and so there's more data about that. Do I need to get or request some more information about Ace's later history?

Thanks for any comments. Mike Christie 03:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• You've done a good job collecting all that information on such a specialised topic. First of all the lead is a bit short, see WP:LEAD for some suggestions. I don't think it'd hurt to flesh out all the sections a bit more, I was pretty curious about what Ace is still publishing, what are some recent popular Ace releases? Have you found any information on the corporate side of things, was the publisher financially successful, how many books did they sell a year, what were the biggest selling titles?--Peta 10:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments; I will follow up and post a note here when I've made the updates.Mike Christie 11:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

iPod

Please review this article and advise on any problems or issues that need fixing. Please comment on the Industry impact section since it has just recently been added. Also, are there any problems with prose or article length? --IE 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You may want to review this version here, from 30 December 2006.

Previous peer review from May 2006 is here.

Got a Nano for xmas and it's awesome so I'll comment here

1. Lots of short paragraphs, esp the lead, remove, merge or expand
2. There are whole sections that are unreferenced. I'm not saying they might need references but if this goes for FA. people are more likely to vote no, so try add some more if you can.
3. Alphabetize categories, only one needs moving
4. Apple iPod - Sound and Hearing - Apple - Sound and Hearing, remove the black text as this is redundant and on the first link name it 'Official Apple website' or something similar
5. Knowledge Base website., external link in the middle of text
6. Another external link, Pat-rights
7. Industry impact is full of external links O.O
8. try and make that timeline smaller so there is no horizontal scroll, as it will go off some peoples browsers. - I'm not sure about this one. The page fits on a 1024*768 display even when the browser window is about 900 pixels wide horizontally. Isn't this sufficient?
9. There are 4GB Ipod nanos - These are already mentioned in the article, I think
10. The cite web template should be used so all references are kept constant and contain the same information, {{cite web}} - We're using Harvard referencing, since the article size is quite large already. The article refs can still be cleaned up though and made more consistent.

comments were rearranged by User:IE.

And thats about it. M3tal H3ad 03:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, M3tal H3ad. A few more questions:

• What's wrong with using external links? I thought they were allowed? Is it incorrect to mix <ref>...</ref> with external links? Some of the sentences with external links are not really citing anything, they are just guiding the reader to an external web page. That's why those external links exist (they also help to reduce article size if they are kept as external links).
• Any comments on article content? Are all the important topics covered? Are the criticisms fair and balanced? Any vague sections? --IE 23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, external links are okay, but it's better if they are integrated with the text. (Google, not [5]). But now that I've seen how {{cite}} disrupts the flow of the text when editing, please, get them out of there!--HereToHelp 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

External links are ok at the end of the article, but not in the middle of the text. With Industry impact you can easily convert the links to references after each comma, when mentioning the award. Article size isn't a big issue when it comes to references, Megadeth was recently promoted to FA and is 75KB, because of references.

• More information about all released iPods is available on Apple's Knowledge Base website. This sentence should be removed, it's not reading like a encyclopedia and is just tagged on the end.
• ,available for a short time. change short to 'limited' and that might need a reference. M3tal H3ad 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Macintosh has about half the footnotes that this one has, and it's featured...but it also has book sources that cover the entire article. iPods are too new to have book sources, so instead we have a million footnotes. The real test of length is whether or not it feels long.--HereToHelp 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also: You said that the categories need to be alphabetized. I think they already are, with the numbers before the letters. The only thing is that since this is the main article for the iPod category, it should be first.--HereToHelp 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

• 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.^[?]
• 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:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), cosy (B) (American: cozy), program (A) (British: programme).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 28 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Avoid using contractions like: isn't.
• 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, Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008

FAC nomination

Isn't the article ready yet?--Timorrison 20:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for what? In my opinion, an event that has yet to take place cannot reach FA status. PDXblazers 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay to have a page like this for a major upcoming election, although it's obviously going to change a lot so I don't think it will even meet the criteria for a "good article". Otherwise overall it looks pretty decent right now. I'm wondering what is the authoritative criteria for "Likely potential candidates"? Thanks. — RJH 14:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The objections on the FAC stated that because the article will soon be unstable, it cannot be a featured article anytime soon. Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Toronto Sun

Is this article NPOV enough? There's phrases that might not be too objective. -- Zanimum 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions:

1. Find a different cover to use, that one seems pretty racy.
2. Merge TorontoSun.com in with another part of the article or remove it.
3. "Controversy and use of sensationalism" - retitle this.

Ardenn 19:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, here's one vote in favour of keeping the cover. That's the Sun to a tee. The Tom 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jethro Tull

A very well written article, but just too bad to candidate it for a featured status. What to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.168.38 (talk • contribs) 21:40, May 12, 2006 (UTC)

• Some suggestions:
  • The article needs references and WP:FOOTNOTEs. See WP:CITE and WP:V.
  • Image:Jt3.jpg, Image:Jt5.jpg, and Image:Jt2.jpg need fair use rationales (see WP:FUC)
  • Per WP:MOS, headings should avoid repeating the article title.
  • The lead could use expansion. See WP:LEAD.
  • Decades, centuries, and years without full dates generally are not linked (see WP:DATE, WP:CONTEXT)
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interwiki links.

Thanks, AndyZ _t 14:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Right, it has been on peer review once before, and needs a bit of attention by other users. Needs a couple of referencing, but may contain other problerms, so please make comments, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

SUPAERO

I believe I have finally finished to bring my contribution to this article, and think that the peer reviewing process might be a profitable thing so as to:

• remove any remaining bias --yes, I /am/ a proud former student of that school ;-)
• help to position this article, which concerns a typical French grande école, relatively to foreign universities and maybe clarify things which are typically franco-centric in this article;
• and finally, it might encourage people to complete similar articles, particularly concerning research in France, and other French universities/grandes écoles.

Thank you for your time. Flambe 03:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

London 2

The previous peer review is found at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive3

Much work has been put into this article in the last few weeks and it is now much more concise and focussed that previously. References have been filled in since the last review, and several POV disputes have been succesfully resolved. Before applying for GA again, a review seems like the sensible option, in order to get an outside look on exactly how it can be improved. DJR (Talk) 20:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning of the article is not as per the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. However, those are not hard and fasr rules. Srill, those are somewhat tested as many articles following those guidelines have become FA.

History: Sebsections should be removed. Should be summarised, with a link to History of London, which it already has anyway.

"Demographics" may be made into a new section.

"Education" may be made into a new section.

"Sports" also may comprise a new section.

Rest of the present subsections under "Society and culture" should be summarised, rather than having sub-sub-headings.

In "films" subsection, is there any need to mention London appeared in whivh films? A city as London will of course appear in a lot of movies. Rather the focus should have been on the cinema production of London, with mention of notable directors/actors may be. Amd also cinematic movements that started from London, if any. And cinema schools. Almost similar comment apply to Literature. You cant stop counting if you think of the number of works on the backdrop of London. These sections should have discussed the Londoners who are famous writers ets. and their very famous works (ehich might be based on London). Also many literary institutions of London may ve discussed. In gist, not "London in cinema" or "London in literature", rather "Cinema of London" and "Literature of London".

In "Education" one may wish to see what pattern is followed in London.

"Major new construction" should be removed.

If possible, try to shorten "Tourism". It would have been even better to re-structure/relocate the content of the this section intelligently to other sections eg monyments. museaums etc under culture. However, it is quite difficult to do, due to the information overload.

As a whole, the impression is the editors could not decide what to leave sp that they congested as much info as possible to this article, despite there being so many nice daughter articles.

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• An infobox would be nice. It's not to hard to do, and Template:Infobox_City is a good start. I could work on it.--Enano275 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated - I started trying to sort out an infobox, but it got a bit messy. London's political system seems to differ somewhat from many other cities. --Dave A 10:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was going to start working on it, but I got very confused about the current division of London. I want to make sure I don't confuse any facts of London with facts of Greater London. If you could give me a source with summarized information of the city I could do it quickly. --Enano275 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha! I mentioned this earlier at Talk:London#Good/featured article? - the whole infobox idea is based around the existence of simple answers to simple fields. Unfortunately, just like so much else in the UK, this is not possible. The fields set up in infoboxes are far to ambiguous with relation to the structure of London, and London has no official means of calculating anything. The only information you can take is that of Greater London, but that already has its own infobox and is not the same thing as London. I would also hasten to add that the creation of an infobox would also result in edit wars in extremis, as random people decide that they disagree with the generalisation that enabled a certain result for a certain field. It's not going to be easy. Especially given that all the real information has already been covered in Greater London. DJR (Talk) 23:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I had actually added an infobox, but after reading your reply I think it could be removed. The thing is that a city such as important as London looks very strange without and infobox. Since Greater London is the political representation of London, have you thought about merging Greater London into the government section of London? I don't know about the UK enough to put my vote on something like this, but it should be discussed. --Enano275 23:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed, but just a quick read of London#Defining London will illustrate that this in itself is incorrect - Greater London's boroughs do not include the City of London, which is sui generis. To put it simply (and highly controversially), London verges on not being a city - merely a concept of a city that contains a two individual cities and forms that metropolitan basis for a city. The whole thing's a disaster! DJR (Talk) 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Adelle Davis

The article may or may not be complete. A peer review would be appreciated.--RogerK 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger, I would have edited it myself, but since you asked...also, this is my first time doing a formal peer review, so here you go:

1. I would move the first pic to the right; I'm all for going against the grain, but this is fundamental—and it makes some of the formatting on my browser look weird. -- done.
2. Blockquotes don't get quotation marks. -- there aren't any blockquotes
3. Decrease the use of passive voice (were criticized and discredited by; was published by; etc.) -- There are still some, this is just a pet peeve of mine, my English teacher used to beat me whenever I used passive. No, not really.
4. Background and education section is short and ends rather abruptly. Split the last sentence at the very least (what does appearing on the Johnny Carson show have to do with death from cancer?) -- done but it still needs expanding it would seem.
5. Move the picture of the healthy baby book out of the blockquote in the controversy section. done, although it seems that the whole "blockquote" has been just been made an inline quote.
6. I'd find a different title for the "tributes" section. Don't have any good ideas right now, but it just sounds weird.
7. Change the section title "Adele Davis today" to something else. -- looks better now

--Easter Monkey 01:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I've addressed most of them, with the exception of "Tributes" (but I'll look for an alternative), and passive voice. --RogerK 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A follow-up: "In the spring of 2006, the president of the foundation stated that they would like to re-publish Davis's books in the near future" Is there a citation for that statement?

--Easter Monkey 16:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Addressed passive voice --RogerK 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement corroborating re-publishing is made on the website "Adelle Davis Revisited", which is referenced in the article. I also had a personal phone conversation with the foundation's president, Eloise Dilling, last month, and she made that statement to me. --RogerK 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, I'd put that as a citation/footnote then. I would think though that your phone conversation would be original research though. --Easter Monkey 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Nevertheless, it is verification, a second source, from the horse's mouth. Therefore the statement is valid. --RogerK 07:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no blockquotes. As to passive voice, an article does not have to be phrased in active voice all the time, passive is still acceptable, and I feel that the few remaining instances are. --RogerK 01:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So many teachers and supervisors and whatnot have drilled into my head that passive is bad. It's my PTSD that kicks in whenever I see it. I try not to use it and prefer active voice, but everybody has their own style. --Easter Monkey 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your objection to inline quotes? --RogerK 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection per se, my only point was that blockquotes don't get set off by any punctuation, just by indentations. --Easter Monkey 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger, I made three minor changes and one that isn't major, but might not be considered minor. In the "Background" section, I moved the "In New York" clause to the middle of the sentence (after the names of the hospitals). It's basically just a matter of style-choice, but it seems to me to flow better there. I alphabetized the "External links" and the "References". I changed a wikilink from the more general "pseudonym" to the more specific "pen name". I have to admit, I am not familiar with the subject but it is a very informative and well-researched article. The only other possible improvements I would suggest echo two of EasterMonkey's observations. Namely, the picture/block quote combo in the "Controversy" section still looks a little funky for some reason (maybe it's just my browser?) and the title of the "Tribute" section, although I, too, am unable to think of a better term at the moment.--WilliamThweatt 01:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, Will. I agree with the New York move, nice flow. And the pen name (although she never used it again, so "pseudonym" is not necessarily inferior). Expansion of "Background and education" is difficult; there are no resources that I'm aware of, other than her children whom I've tried to contact with no success. I've thoroughly researched her history, in what little time I've had, and apart from the fact that one source said she was known as "Vitamin Davis" in college, I can find nothing else to add (and I wouldn't add that; I could not find a second reliable source which would verify it). Davis also received an award from a Brazilian entity, but I could not find any reliable documentation, so that also was not added. --RogerK 03:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack White (musician)

The article is well documented, but doesn't read well, and needs some encyclopedic cleanup (like sentences that began with "Currently" or weasle words and phrases, like "It is generally considered...")--Esprit15d 18:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

• The lead is very short. See WP:LEAD. It should summarize the article.
• The article has several short paragraphs, some of which could be blended together.
• Certain sections are written as if the article is a fan page. Sections should be void of bias and rumors as much as possible.
• The photograph is too large and dominates the first part of the article.

-- Underneath-it-All 03:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• You should change the pic to actually show his face. --Osbus 15:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Stoke-on-Trent

The article is well-written so far, and has potential to become a Featured article candidate. I would like to get it on the Main Page soon. If anyone could help me, that would be good. --Sunfazer | Talk 11:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some suggestions:
  • The article needs references- see WP:CITE and WP:V. Inline citations- WP:FOOTNOTEs- are also required for featured articles.
  • Please alphabetize the categories
  • See WP:CITY for city article guidelines; while you are there, browse through some of the already-featured cities.
  • Condense the paragraphs in the lead. See WP:LEAD for the number of paragraph suggestions.
  • Only years with full date should be linked generally- see WP:MOSDATE and WP:CONTEXT
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 14:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already had some changes made! --Sunfazer | Talk 14:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a fair way to go before this article reaches featured standard. Some points:

• The history section is quite short and has large gaps chronology wise. I'm not sure that the passage about the mayor's car registration is particularly encyclopedic.
• You can get Staffordshire oatcakes in much of Cheshire, so it is incorrect to say that their "fame has yet to travel outside of North Staffordshire".
• Things like geography, climate and demographics should be added.
• The "Famous people" section should go. Any particularly notable people should be mentioned in the relevant part of the article (such as Stanley Matthews when sport is mentioned).

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rapping

This article covers the topic completely. It is well written, accurate, sourced, and readable. I would like to recieve more feedback before I nominate it as an FA candidate.

1. Old peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapping/archive2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubdub (talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
   • Old old peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapping/archive1 Tim Ivorson 2006-05-28

• I started off the last peer review, and I'll start off this one also.
• See also First FAC

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.

• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• I think "History" can still be made more comprehensive

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though all of your concerns have been addressed, except perhaps adding to the history section. What would you want added there?--Urthogie 10:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The external links section describes the BBC page as a wiki. Is this accurate? Tim Ivorson 2006-05-28

The flow section has a link labelled "prosody", which points to a disambiguation page. I don't know which of the, presumably related, meanings of prosody is intended, but one of them is meter (poetry), which is linked from the next paragraph. If they both mean the same thing, only one of them needs to be a link, according to WP:MOS-L#Internal links.

In the same section, it would be nice to expand the discussion of metre. The article mentions Run-DMC as employing trochaic pentameter, but I found a web disussion, [6] which quotes Dana Gioia as using Run-DMC as an example of accentual metre (rather than accentual-syllabic metre, of which trochaic pentameter is an example):

Rap consciously exploits stress-meter's ability to stretch and contract in syllable count. In fact, playing the syllable count against the beat is the basic metrical technique of rap. Like jazz, rap extravagantly syncopates a flexible rhythm against a fixed metrical beat thereby turning a traditional English folk meter into something distinctly African-American. By hitting the metrical beat strongly while exploiting other elements of word music, rappers play interesting and elaborate games with the total rhythm of their lines. Here is a syncopated couplet from Run DMC:

He's the better of the best, best believe he's the baddest

Perfect timing when I'm climbing I'm the rhyming acrobatist

(14 and 16 syllables respectively)

. . . .

If rap were a written form of poetry, its complex syncopation would frequently push the meter to a breaking point. A reader would not always know exactly where the strong stresses fell. See how difficult it is to discern the four strong stresses in the first Run DMC couplet quoted, simply from the printed text . . . . Anglo-Saxon poets understood the problem inherent in strong-stress verse. That is at least one reason why they added alliteration to reinforce the meter. In rap the meter is also enforced by what its performers call "the beat," usually a pre-recorded digitally sampled rhythm-track. Traditional prosody describes the rhythm of poetry as the meaningful counterpoint of speech pattern against a fixed abstract meter. That same principle of expressive counterpoint is quite literally what rap does and its audience hears and enjoys.

I'd go ahead and edit, but I don't know how to tackle this. Tim Ivorson 2006-05-28

word. i'll try and add something that explains how much it varies-- but i'm not music theorist!!--Urthogie 18:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I can explain it in layman's terms...PCP MC 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Montsalvat

Montsalvat is an artist colony in Melbourne, Australia, and I feel this article, with a little support and help can become a featured article on wikipedia. Don't be turned down by the fact that it isnt a world-known issue or subject or object -that shouldnt mean the difference between featured articles and non-featured articles.

• Need Help With - Spelling, and grammar, needs to be checked multiple times for spelling and grammar mistakes. I would greatly welcome any comments and or suggestions, and will take every one very seriously. Thank you to anyone who helps Nick carson 08:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some suggestions:
  • Expand the lead to fit WP:LEAD.
  • Change the section Sources to References, and cite the refences in according with WP:CITE and WP:CITE/ES. WP:FOOTNOTEs will also be helpful.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, heading should not start with "The" or repeat the article's title whenever possible.
  • Per WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates should not be linked.
  • Please provide metric conversions for units of measurements (for example, provide the number of square meters in parentheses for 12 acres (48,562 m²). See WP:MOSNUM)

Thanks, AndyZ _t 14:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Have spent a few hours fixing things up:

• Cited references
• Deleted links to minor years without exact dates attached
• Added metric conversion
• Expanded the intro/lead (included a list of the types of artists in residence)
• Added Montsalvat to the list of art colonies
• Fixed up heading begining with "The"
• Changed section "Sources" to "References"

If somone could proof read it for me, and comment on my method of referencing, that would be greatly apreciated. Let me know what else needs to be done, thanks again Nick carson 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

Coming across this article on a whim, it looks like it has enough detail and the proper refereneces to warrant featured status. However, I can't tell if it has the requisite neutrality from simply glancing at it.  Denelson83  23:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see it, at last :-)

I hope the peer review will attract more editors, as I've been trying to drum up more support and input for several months, and have not had other editors to work with. I finally became discouraged that I couldn't drum up anyone else to help work on the article, and gave up about a month ago. Here is some of what I can add about the status of the article:

• Encephalon has done some preliminary work on a PANDAS article, as yet unpublished, and has given me helpful input, which can be found on his talk page. [7]
• The references aren't in great shape yet, as some of them don't reference the original, journal-published articles, rather textbooks that reference the articles. Time needs to be spent on sourcing the original articles, rather than texts that refer to them.
• Encephalon had explained to me how to use the Summary style for some of the long subsections, but I hadn't gotten around to doing that yet. [8]
• And, also on my talk page, user Colonel Marksman has suggested that the article is too broad, and I was intending to work on that. [9]
• There is additionally a To Do list on my user page of things I haven't yet gotten to. Sandy 23:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Add audio/video?

A really useful addition would be an audio/video sample demonstrating tics. Otherwise it appears to be developing well, great work by all those involved.--nixie 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I had included the following links to video clips from news reports, but they were deleted repeatedly in an exchange with an unsigned editor, that resulted in a request for mediation. I'm interested to know if others think they should be added back in ? I'm not aware of any other video clips that aren't spoofs, or any good video clips that show adults with tics (most people with tics are children). These clips are from the HBO Documentary on Tourette's, which the unsigned editor objected to, for reasons that were never made clear. CBS News report with video clips and News10 Report with video clips Petaholmes, can you help me understand the reasoning for putting the external links last? I was wondering because I had changed the font size for the references, since they are so long, so it's strange to see the external links after them. Is that customary? TIA Sandy 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the video link should be OK, is the anon editor still active?

In most articles I've come across external links are last, the MoS says to put them last, and it makes sense for the referneces to directly proceed the text as they were used to write the text, whereas the ex links are suggesion for finding further information.--nixie 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Nixie. No, I don't think the unsigned editor is still active, but it was a changing IP address. Yes, he seems to have returned. I didn't have any other editors to help reach consensus, as no other editor was involved with the page, so I didn't want to add something back in without some consensus. Sandy 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Video clips of tics

• HBO documentary video clip
• CBS News video clip
• News10 video clip

I found a better video clip. Video clip from TSA website about HBO documentary. I think the unsigned editor kept deleting my entries relating to the HBO Documentary, as he may have mistakenly believed I had a vested interest in it, in spite of my disclaimers? It's the only accurate source of video clips I'm aware of. What section do you think I should put those in? Should they just be in External Links? Or can someone teach me how to put them in a box somewhere in the article, similar to a picture? I don't know how to make a box similar to a userbox. Sandy 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the clips aren't ourrs, I would just include them in the external links section.--nixie 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Very nice article. Covers almost all aspects. However, a reference list at the bottom would be great. Extremely referenced (I mean inline citation), just adding some major reference books/articles in a seperate reference list would be nice. Though not necessary, turning all the red links to blue links would be beneficial in FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• One question about the lead (as I haven't read the rest of the article yet): Does the syndrome affect its sufferers by causing motor tics and a phonic tic? Or does having either one of them (an or situation) qualify as a symptome of the disease? I hope I'm being clear... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dwaipayanc ... I will work on red links, and a list of references. titoxd, yes, a TS diagnosis requires phonic motor and vocal tics. One or the other, and for less than a year (transient or chronic tics) is covered under Tic disorder. Is it unclear in the article? If so, I should fix that. On the other hand, these are entirely arbitrary, man-made definitions. A person with two motor tics and one phonic tic has TS, while a person with 50 motor tics and no phonic doesn't. Makes no sense, since TS, transient tics, and chronic tics are all thought to come from the same place, but that's the way the DSM defines them. Also, just to point out while we're on the topic, TS isn't a disease, and not all persons who have it are "sufferers" ... I've been removing that word as POV :-) Thanks for the interest! Sandy

Yes, it's a bit unclear for the article. I just picked those two words because they were the first two that came to my mind... ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip ... I've not got a lot of free time right now, so I'll work on clarifying the whole TS/Tic disorder (either/or/and) issue in a few days. Thanks ! Sandy 15:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! The article seems a bit longish. Can sections like "description" be summarised, may be with a link to a daughter article discussing the description in detail? Otherwise, imo, absolute FAC material.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps Prognosis may also be summarised. Shortening drugs section by minimising side effects may be another option. Even when I am writing this, I myself am not liking what I am writing! the article is extensively comprehensive. And I am suggesting the decrease in size just for the sake of decreasing. If you think such edits will reduce the quality of the article, please refrain from reducing the size. A few images might make the article more suitable for reading by a layman. However, it would be difficult to portray the tics by still images!! How about adding a AD pedigree showing the likelihood of inheritance? (again, this is debated!)--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, Dwaipayanc. Others (notably, Encephalon -- see my comments at the top of this article) have suggested shortening the article, using the Summary style, and I have wanted to do that. One other editor, however, resists my efforts to shorten the article. Following mediation, I have refrained from shortening it further, as I didn't have enough editors involved to develop a genuine consensus on some of the "fluff" that could be deleted. I'd like to take a red pen to the article, but that tends towards a revert war each time I try. I'm not aware of any useful images that can be used: don't know what to do about that. Likelihood of inheritance is difficult to accurately portray, as TS is a condition of variable penetrance (you can inherit the genes and not display the condition), and the exact genetic mode of inheritance is not clear. Please keep the good comments coming: if the article is to be shortened, I will need the support of other editors, as my attempts at deleting some of the "fluff" have been unsuccessful thus far. Sandy 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd, back to your question about motor and phonic tics required for a diagnosis: the lead says, "Tourette syndrome ... is ... characterized by the presence of multiple motor tics and at least one phonic tic ... " I'm not sure how to make it more clear ? Is it allright to bold the and ? Or is it unclear for another reason? TIA Sandy 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary Style

I've used the summary style to create main articles for the two sections I thought most needed to be pared down. Comments ?? Sandy 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see you have quite ruthlessly sacked many portions!! Anyway, the result is cool. The article is not aversive now. Yes I use the word aversive, because in the previous giant form, one could not help leave reading in the mid-way.

Now, I have changed the name of the section "References" to "Notes", as is the usual norm nowadays. And also decreased the font size. One thing you have to do is add a seperate "Reference" section. List some of the books/journal articles you have repeatedly used to create the article in this "Reference" section. For example, those resources for which there are many superscripts (a,b,c...) can be listed in "reference" section. This will help an user to find out major resources. You can see the article Bangladesh where they have extensively used this style. This style is slowly catching up. In fact, in my experience, in an FAC, there was an opposition why there was no reference. While that particular article had a lot of inline citations it lacked a sepearate Reference section. We had to create a seperate Reference section and listed major resources there.

I know the process is not easy for an article like this where multiple resources have been used. But at least give a try. I will add more if I find out anything. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

More: What about adding MedlinePlus, eMedicineSubj, eMedicineTopic etc in the Template:Infobox Disease of the article?

Anything known about the pathophysiology? In microscopic level? The article discusses genetic pathogenesis, but any features in autopsy etc.?

IMO, relationship between TS and OCD, TS and ADHD can be further summarised in "Causes and origins: genetic and epigenetic factors". You can create one more daughter article ;)

In "differential diagnosis", near the end, the article discusses the DD of tics in general. IMO, encephalitis, carbon monoxide poisoning are acute stuffs and should hardly create any probs. As a matter of fact, Duchenne, Down, Klinefelter's — less chance to be misdiagnosed as TS. Please see, and if needed, give inline citations. Of course those disorders may present with tics, but I do not know if those create problems while diagnosing Tourette's. Double check from other sources/texts if needed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the extended comments ! I've got a killer busy week, and will chip away at these as I can, unless someone else gets to them first. I will add that info to the Infobox Disease, which should be easy, and coming up with the most important references will not be hard at all. I'd still really like to add the videos of tics to a box, but don't know how to create a box. Also, with respect to creating the separate References section, a couple of questions. I noticed that none of the other featured medical articles have that (e.g.; asthma, pneumonia ): I'm wondering if there's a difference between medical and other articles? My concern is that, once I add that section (with the verifiable reliable medical reference sources), the section will tend to attract vanity entries, and grow to include every book ever written about TS. Comments ? Working on the InfoBox, the DiseasesDB has outdated inaccurate information about Tourette's, including an inaccurate DSM definition, so I won't add it. The OMIM info is also inaccurate (this is so often the case with info about TS). I tried to add the MedlinePlus and eMedicine articles, but don't know how to make the infobox format correctly ? Sandy 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added eMedicine and OMIM in infobox. Please see. Regarding the referenece section (and absence of those in other medical articles), this is slowly becoming a style nowadays. Perhaps those articles (you cited as Medical FAs) were selected as FA some months back, and did not need a seperate reference section. Now you should be ready for all kinda of comments in an FAC. Just list those articles/books that were extensively used, in "references". However, that may go on to become a huge list, anyway ;). Please try to summarise those paragraphs where association of TS with ADHD and OCD are discussed. I do not have any idea about how to add videos. You can see the article Indian cuisine where thare is a seperate section called "Media" that includes a video file. See if that helps you. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Length

Would like some guidance on desirable length. Reviewing past featured and main page articles, I found Military history of France at 64kb, Pink Floyd at 65 kb, and Rabindranath Tagore at 66 kb, so now I'm unsure about the guidelines on length? Sandy 10:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no specific guidelines on length, I mean no specific limit. There are subjects which simply cannot be shortened. On the other hand, a concise article can be read easily and it keeps the interest intact. With adequate number of daughter articles, a nicely written concise article is a better contender for FAC than a long article with a blast of info. However, as TS stands now, IMO, the length is not a problem right now.

WPWIAFA says the article "... is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles." Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of the article is rather short, and it does not summarise the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This Is the Sea

The only featured article about a music album, Smile (Brian Wilson album), was recently WP:FARCed, and was never a particularly good model for how to write an article about an album (having such an unusual history). A lot of our album articles are basically an infobox and a track list, and it would be nice to be able to demonstrate that one can follow the album project guidelines and get an article ready to take to WP:FAC. All of that said, I'm not bringing this here to simply pass through on the way to FAC. I don't think that this article is ready for the FAC process, and I'd like to get some editors' feedback on what still needs doing. What is in the article already represents a fairly comprehensive detailing of what has been published in reliable sources; there's not a whole lot of pure content that I can add. I'd like to encourage people to take a look and let me know what needs tightening, where the prose is less than compelling, what needs more explanation, what needs referencing, etc. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 02:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Quite a noble goal! Getting a featured article of an entirely new variety is never easy (Hopkins School took a long time to reach the quality standard set by Caulfield Grammar School). My suggestions would be:

• At least a stubby article for the disambig to the Irish film so you don't start off with a redlink.
• More reviews for the "Professional Reviews" section of the infobox.
• More information on the remastered version (which sounds like it has some pretty substantial additions) past "A remastered version was released in 2004, with a second CD of material from the album's singles, and unreleased tracks from the This Is the Sea recording sessions."
• A ref for the first sentence of "Album promotion", and an image of an ad for either a performance by The Waterboys mentioning a song from the album or an ad for the album itself.
• Perhaps one more music sample?
• A cleaner formatting job on Personnel than a list. A nice wikitable like Movie/Television cast tables would probably do it.

That's all I can see right now, but I hope it helps! Good luck. Staxringold 13:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Turns out I was wrong. Illmatic is an WP:FA, and gives us a perfectly good model. I missed that happening. Anyway, I created a short article for the film. More reviews is a reasonable request; but its not easy to find reviews from the 1980s -- I'll need some sort of music magazine archive. There's not a lot of verifiable information on the re-release, but, again, its reasonable to expect more detail. I'll see what I can turn up. Finding that "most succesful" ref should be easy. We have a good selection of images of the band performing, but it would be close to impossible to know which songs they were playing. I also doubt that I'll be able to locate any fliers or ads from twenty years ago that are advertising the sale of the album, but I suppose one never knows. I can come up with another sample. Probably the title track is the best choice. The only thing I really disagree about is the prettytable idea -- they're not recommended by WP:ALBUM, and I don't care for them either aesthetically or for ease of newbie editing. If it turns out in the long run that I'm in the minority on this, it should probably be discussed at the album project. Jkelly 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think the footnote system should be converted to the "Cite.php" system described at WP:FN.
• WP:FN: Citations should follow punctuation like so.<ref>LOL</ref> As opposed to this<ref>LOLOL</ref>.
• The first sentence is problematic to me because it does not succinctly define the subject. Its distinction as a "Big Music" album is meaningless to those not familiar with The Waterboys, and should probably emerge in a later sentence with an expanded explanation.
• The "with 'Trumpets'" part is problematic because it isn't clear that that is a song being talked about (until we learn it was the first song played live later on).
• Scott recalls that in December of 1984 "during The Waterboys' first American tour, [he] bought two huge hard-bound books... in which to assemble [his] new songs" It seems this information can be converted to prose without losing anything; I don't think a quotation is neccesary.
• The Songs section is very long and at times feels a bit "technical" and "dry". I'm not exactly sure how it can be divided or improved, but it seems to need a bit of work.—jiy (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Do you know a user that is doing the automated ref conversion? I'll try to polish the prose in "Songs". Jkelly 01:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

At a glance it looks good, the only thing I would do is make the image sizes larger because they just seem so small to me. - Patman2648 07:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian Legend

I think that this article could very well make the Featured Articles list at some point, but I'd like to know what needs improvement before I make it a candidate. I'll take any sort of constructive criticism, and I'm opening the whole article up for review. DocDragon 18:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some issues:
  • The lead is too short. Even though WP:LEAD requires only 1-2 paragraphs for the lead of an article this short, it would be helpful to expand it so that it summarizes the article.
  • References are needed
  • Inline citations are needed - see WP:FOOTNOTE, WP:CITE, and WP:V.
  • Not comprehensive: the article has several short sections. Story is only a single paragraph.
  • Image:TGL Box.jpg, Image:TGL.png, and Image:Guardian legend vtjog.png need fair use rationales (see WP:FUC)
  • Trivia generally isn't included in featured articles, but here removing it would make the article too short.
  • Per WP:DATE and WP:CONTEXT, years without full dates are generally not linked.
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input, Andy. I've done some improvement, but I'm having a little trouble finding more information for the article. Any suggestions?

DocDragon 01:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Kochi (India)

Critics needed!

Article - 33 kilobytes in length - looking for some strong, active critics to evaluate its progress so far. Suggestions, comments and brutal criticisms welcome.

What more can I say? :P -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 09:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Some random comments after a quick glance

The relationship between Ernakulam and Kochi should be clearer. Whether Kochi is a city that is distinct from Ernakulam or if they are two names for the same thing, or it is just the name of the part beyond that bridge etc. (The Ernakulam article calls it a city which adjoins the city of Cochin, but don't they come under a single corporation ?). The first line of the article says that Kochi is a city and then a few lines later says that it includes 'Ernakulam city'.

Reply: Ernakulam refers to the western part of Kochi mainland. The article was refering to the earlier definition, when Kochi was used only to describe, well.....as you put it, the other side of that bridge. :P I've corrected the statement on both pages. Take a look. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

When we were kids we used to call it 'pongunna paalam' (the bridge that raises) and I still don't know its proper name :-) Tintin (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Union Christian College and Aquinas College are some of the institutions in the city offering tertiary education. - If this is the UC college, Alwaye, it should not be mentioned in this article.

Reply: Corrected. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

The red private buses are the backbone of public transport within the city. Isn't the general rule that Menaka buses are red and Padma buses are of other colours ? May not be correct to classify all private buses as red.

Reply: I used to use that rule to catch the bus back home when I was a kid. It was just an unofficial rule, and is not observed now-a-days (many more bus routes came inbetween and busses can go without touching either Padma or Menaka). thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

The only international stadium in Kerala What is the definition of an international stadium (in other words, why are the corporation stadium in calicut or the chandrasekharan nair stadium not called by that name) ?

Kochi (Tripunithura) remained the capital of the princely state of Cochin The 'Kochi(Tripunithura)' sounds a little odd. Tintin (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Corrected. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

remove the word 'etc.' in '...Mattancherry, etc.' (rewrite that line...) --hydkat 11:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Done. The etc was for the tiny islands scattered accross the backwaters. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

I could not read the whole article now. Few points:

1. "...according to the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814, the city and its territory were ceded to the United Kingdom in exchange for the island of Banca. Kochi (Tripunithura) remained the capital of the princely state of Cochin (Perumpadapu Swaroopam in the local vernacular) from late 18th Century." Was Kochi under UK? In that case, how was it the capital of the ptincely state also?

   Reply: Only part of the city was ceeded to the British. See if it is clear now. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 13:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

2. "Post independence, Ikkanda Warrier became the first Prime Minister of Kochi in 1948". He became Ptime Minister?? Not Chief Minister? Was it a special sort of post?

   Reply: hydkat hit it bang on (see below). -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 13:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

3. "Then in 1949, Travancore-Cochin state came into being by the merger of Cochin and Travancore, with Paravur T.K Narayana Pillai as the first chief minister. Travancore-Cochin, was in turn merged with the Malabar district of the Madras State, till joining the Indian Union in 1947." Somewhat confusing statements. 1949 - 1947 etc. Please clarify.

   Reply: Oops. My mistake, sorry. Check the article now. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

4. "Cochin was the first princely state to join Indian Union willingly." This should be placed where you say that Kochi Joined India. In fact, you should wikilink the "Post-Independence", or, clearly say "After the Independence of India".

   Reply: Is it better now? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 14:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

5. History from 1956 till date is missing.

   Reply: Hmmm... I dont think anything important enogh to be recorded in history happend during that time :P. However I'll add a few points soon. Need some time for that. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 14:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Have created some red links in History. Please see.
7. "Kochi comprises the mainland Ernakulam, old Kochi including Mattancherry, Fort Kochi, Palluruthy and Thoppumpadi, the suburbs of Edapally and the exurbia of Kalamassery, and Kakkanad to the northeast, Tripunithura to south east, and a group of islands closely scattered in the Vembanad lake, viz. Bolghatty Island (Ponjikkara), Willingdon Island, Vypeen Island, Ramanthuruthu, Vallarpadom, Kumbalam, Cherai, etc" Long confusing sentence. Consider breakuo. Wikilink all place names.
8. National Waterways - wikilink.
9. Alluvium, Teri’s, Brown sands, Hydromorphic saline soils - ptper wikilink.
10. Mangalavanam - wikilink.
11. Extremes of temperatures needed, besides the average ones that are already there.
12. "The economy of the city can be classified as a business economy with emphasis on the service sector." — shoiuld be with inline citation.
13. International Pepper Exchange: wikilink.
14. use Non-breaking space between number and their units. I have edited some such instances under "Economy" please see.
15. Try ro elaborate how the Kochi Corporation is run. Number of wards etc. and if it is Mayot-in-council style (comprising of a board of elected commisioners) etc.
16. "parts of the world through road, rail, water and air." road and rail do not connect to other parts of the world. Its a bad poit to raise here though! Sorry.
17. Transport has a choppy feel, with so many paragraphs. Please see.

Well, so far now. I have created MANY red links. Please attend. One more point. Health Care is not usually included under Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

About point 2... since kochi was part of a princely state, on independence it must have had a prime minister for some time, before the princely state and adjoining districts were clubbed to form kerela during the first states reorganisation. --hydkat 13:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

More on Kochi

1. There are some redunduncy. Jewish community most of whom made Aliayh has been mentioned almost thrice (in deifferent sections). Languages have been discussed twice (in demographics and again in culture). Remove such duplications.
2. "...major urbanisation problems like poor sanitation and unemployment." may be slightly elaborated with data. Slum data?
3. crime data, preferably compared with national level or other major cities (as it is one of the highest in India).
4. In culture, you may point out the traditional dress, if any, and what people usually wear. Also, music. dance, non-religioes festivals, arts, architecture. Food habit may slightly be elaborated (use of coconut, any special traditional fast food etc)
5. The citation superscriprs you have used are before the punctuation marks. Please check if it's ok. I am not sure. Usually superscripts follow the punctuation marks. Also consider using Template:Cite news and Template:Cite news.
6. There are too many names of institutions in Education. Try to remove some, and retain the superble major ones! Check if health care is compatible with the article, I mean, it's not in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities.
7. "The red private buses are the backbone of public transport within the city." What exactly is that. A person not acquaited with the city may ask.
8. Besides Transport, "Demographics" and "Culture" are also choppy, with many short paragraphs. Consider merging or good expansion. You may also consider creating appropriate daughter article.

I have again created a lot of red links. Sorry! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the amazing feedback guys. I've modified the article to accomodate the mentioned factors. However its late now. I'll get back later in the morning and respond individually to each one of them. Meanwhile, keep them coming! -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 16:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• "However, owing to the recent developments in the city, the people have become more cosmopolitan in their outlook" - What recent developments are you referring to? The way it is phrased it makes it sound like you are talking about specific events (if so then give examples) instead of something like "owing to the recent economic progress, the people...". --Blacksun 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Over-wikified?

In seeing the number of red links suddenly being turned blue (a bunch of articles on the new page list initially got me here), I wonder if this article has now become over-wikified. There are a lot of links to non-notable places, companies, schools, and the like.

In my opinion, the solution here is to remove some of this from the original article, and delete the non-notable places. Some of these companies are probably notable within India, and some of places linked are probably notable at least within the city. But many of them just aren't notable... no non-resident of my hometown or surrounding area is going to care about the names of my local high schools.

I would suggest comparing articles on similar-sized cities; I suggest Columbus (Ohio) because I happen to live in the vicinity. Many notable (Fortune 500 or otherwise well-known) companies are listed, sports teams, and the like, but not minor geography--and even some of the larger geography in there (individual neighborhoods?) is questionable.

Thoughts from other 'pedians? --ES2 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed,. If the things mentioned are really notable, they deserve individual articles which are not just one-liners. They may be stubs, of course. If just one line is mentionable about something, that better not be in the main article either.

Advise: Deepu, you take time. Just do not go on a spree to turn red links blue. Create substantial stubs, just not for the sake of turning them blue. If necessary, let them remain red for a while. Or you may remove non-notable things. In fact, it has been suggested already in the review to consider decreasing the names of so many institutions etc. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is great

This article became great!!! As you know most of the article relate to Ernakulam district and Ernakulam town, please make changes to these articles like "Kochi".

Honda Civic

This is a popular car globally, and it deserves to be a featured article. This needs cleanup soon to make it a Main Page featured article. --Sunfazer | Talk 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some suggestions:
  • Trivia should be removed, and anything important should be incorporated into the article.
  • References and WP:FOOTNOTEs will be needed.
  • Years without full dates should not be linked; see WP:DATE and WP:CONTEXT
  • Please alphabetize the categories and the interwiki links.

Thanks, AndyZ _t 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The images could be greatly improved with not too much effort.

• Images should generally be of a "front ¾ view", unless they're showing the rear (eg. for the hatch shots). Generally, other cars shouldn't be in the view, and images should be cropped to not show excessive background around the car, especially if the background is somewhat distracting. Distractions like large rust spots or glare off the windshield should be avoided (often the same car can be used, just shot from a different angle).
• Also, there seem to be more images than are necessary... each generation should only have multiple images if they're of different body styles. --Interiot 17:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Take out the excessive images from the infoboxes, one image per Infobox please. Karrmann 13:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more things you need to improve.

• Remove the poor quality Take Me Higher images, and replace them with better images (Even if they are fair use) until somebody can create a better image.
• The only model that has any real info on it is the 2006 model. YOu need to add info about all the generations of Civic
• The 2006 section is way to long, split it into sub sections. Karrmann 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia

Previous peer review (May 2006)

Previous peer review (Sept 2006)

Previous peer review (April 2007)

Previous peer review (Dec 2006)

Sari, Iran

Hello All, Please help me by editing this article about city of sari, and if you need any infor please don't hesitate to ask me, Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ali1986 (talk • contribs) .

• Fixed nomination. AndyZ _t 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Dance

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)

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)

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)

Purba Banglar Sarbahara Party

Recently started article. Could need help, not at least with identifying splinter-factions and on the role of the party in the independence struggle. --Soman 14:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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.

• Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Bangladesh coa.png need(s) proper fair use rationales.

• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.

• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 14:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

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)

• 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&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.
• Can authors be provided for the references?

• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.

• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

• Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

---

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)

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)

---

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)

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

Cleveland Ukrainian Museum

I can add enough information to make this article not a stub, but i dont know which information i should add, or what is important. I would like someone to tell me the key points i should make about this museum.

can you find a museum article that is in better shape? that would help. Jon513 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Google

This article was previously an FAC, but it was rejected on grounds of sources. This article appears to be comprehensively sourced now, so I was wondering what more needs to be done before this becomes a featured article. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• A few things.
  1. I'm not impressed with the lead. It seems clumsy and doesn't really summarize the article. No mention of anything other than the search engine, for example. Also, is there more discussion of the size of their server farm? I don't see it.
  2. Referencing is still lacking—sources are necessary for the "Products and services", ""Twenty percent" time", and "April Fool's Day jokes". There are still gaps in the history section as well. Also, why are none of the "further reading" works used as references? If books are available, they should be used as references. Jessie Stricchiola's quote should be sourced as well.
  3. Original research—"Google also is involved in collaborative development efforts with the Mozilla Foundation, based on a recent job posting." Someone will have published something saying this; probably not the best idea to come to that conclusion yourself. I think I heard somewhere that Google was paying people a dollar for each Firefox download they referred... if true, maybe that would help the argument.
  4. Organization is a bit weak—Some brainstorming on my part (not fully fleshed out; I'm not saying I think this is the "right" way to do it): the "Google partnerships" thing at the end seems a little out of place... I'm thinking discuss the boardroom side of things (history, partnerships, controveries) first, and then cover products and corporate culture. Or maybe put products earlier but at least end with corporate culture. The controversies need to be discussed in this article (they stuff from the History article on criticism and controversies).
• This isn't a bad article, but has a ways to go before FAC I think. Hope this helps anyway! --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with many of the previous comments above. The 'partnerships' section is a little odd, and should either be rewritten, combined with another section, or tossed. It's a bit vague what a 'partnership' is, and in some cases, could refer to mere sponsorships.

I strongly disagree on discussing the 'controversies' in this article. The article previously had controversies discussed in it, and it made the article WAY TOO LONG as every conspiracy theorist on the planet seemed to want to insert something here. It seems to fit well now that is in the History of Google article, especially when you consider that today's controversy will eventually become tomorrow's history (it may still be controversial, but just toned down a bit as people move on to other things). I think the article is fine as-is, with the link to the 'recent criticisms and controversies' as a 'see also' link under the 'history' section. Dr. Cash 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Stricchiola's quote is referenced. Still looking for references for the 20% time and april fool's day jokes stuff, and others. Dr. Cash 00:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This part has been removed from the article. You're correct, one minor job posting does not indicate a partnership with anybody. Dr. Cash 00:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The 20% Time is referenced on Google itself as well as having been mentioned in a fairly recent TIME Magazine article on Google. The April Fool's Day jokes - I know I saw that referenced on Wired.com somewhere. Runa27 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Blue Comet SPT Layzner

An anime from the 1980's; the redlinked article was directed from the Super Robot Wars page, and I added a general overview. Now other people have expanded this a lot and I'm interested in making this into a featured article. Please help with any advice/direction you may have. Thank you. Viewer 00:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• no references
• expand infobox (maybe merge Staff into it)
• story section needs a spoiler tag
  • Correction, 'story' sections should have spoilers written out of them. --zippedmartin 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• external links should be included for people looking for more information.
• trivia needs to be expanded
  • "Delete triva section" is one of the first things people on FAC will say... --zippedmartin 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest creating a "Reception" section talking about ratings and show reviews. Merge US Release section into there.

...most of this information is in the second paragraph in the lead.

• lead should included where the show was brodcasted. Japan?
• Super Powered Tracers section is a little over detailed, If you wish, create a subpage for it and/or only summarize it on this page.
• Image:Layzner music album.jpg is included in the article and its copyright said its a album cover. No mention of a soundtrack/album is in the article.
• Characters section is also over-detailed. A sub-page should be created if you wish otherwise the section should include only the protagonists and antagonists.
• image sizes are too large making the article look unprofesion. Also possibly there might be too many images, I recommend reducing.

Thats all I can see for now, more expansion would help and a good copy-edit. Thank you. - Tutmosis 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Tutmosis. Viewer 19:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Main problem is huge number of completely unsourced assertions, I'm tempted to go through the article and sprinkle {{Template:Citeneeded}} around, but for instance: "was a ratings failure in its second arc" who says? what were the ratings? "the final Episode in particular feels like a rushed, incomplete mess" In who's opinion? etc etc. See also User:BrianSmithson/Writing_about_fiction. --zippedmartin 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Characters section does only contain protagonists and antagonists: the Show is an ensemble Cast.

And the Show was obviously a ratings failure since it was cut back from 50-something Episodes to 38, coincidentally two of the biggest Gundam Series-along with several other popular Mecha-aired at this time. As for the last Episode...it's seen in its entirety in OVA #3, wherein it makes a lot more sense and is less "edited".

Ankylosaurus

This page has been worked on by several WikiProject:Dinosaurs participants, although I recently made a major edit. I would like to hear comments on style, organization, and other structural matters, as well as anything else anyone can think of. Eventually I do hope to nominate this or another dinosaur article for Featured Article status. Sheep81 09:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some suggestions:
  • Per WP:MOSDATE and WP:CONTEXT, years without full dates should not be linked generally.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and the interwiki links.
  • The "In popular culture" section should be prosified, or converted to paragraph form (like from this to this)
  • I would prefer that the referencing be changed to WP:FOOTNOTEs, as is recommended by WP:WIAFA, but that is just the matter of preference. In Harvard referencing, there is no comma though (for example, (Carpenter, 2004) to (Carpenter 2004)
  • Image:Ecran ankylosaurus.jpg will need a fair use rationale (see WP:FUC).
  • Are there any useful external links? (see WP:GTL)
  • The &nbsp; (no-break space) should be added between numbers and their units of measure (for example, (74.5cm) to (74.5 cm). Converted units of measurements (the ones in parentheses) should use standard abbreviations.
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions! I have a question on your first comment. When no date is given, I assume you just mean to un-wikilink the year, not remove reference to it, right? We will work on some of the other things right away also. Do you have any suggestions on the text? Did it seem to read well? Was there anything, as a general reader, that you would have liked to see discussed? Thank you so much for your input and to anyone else who contributes. Sheep81 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just de-link it, but keep the year. I'll respond to your questions asap. AndyZ _t 15:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I found It is meant to refer to the fusion of many bones in the skull and body, so the intended meaning a bit confusing- perhaps it can be reworded.
• What exactly are today's standards?
• maximum width is redundant with largest known
• the feet are not well-known sounds rather odd, and should be reworded
• the section Description tends to jump between the present and past tense; it should be mostly one or the other.
• in the skin, as in crocodiles, armadillos, and some lizards This indicates that crocodiles and armadillos are in the skin of the dinosaur.
• Is Ankylosaurus is very rare in these sediments referring to fossils?

AndyZ _t 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will attempt to clarify these sections tonight. Sheep81 00:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro and description does not make it as clear as it should be that the genus is monospecific. Also, an image for the taxobox would be nice,I moved the Walking With Dinosaurs one tehre, but it should be possible to unearth something (fossils, for examples). Circeus 15:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I will make it more clear that there is only one species. I think the WWD picture has to stay down near the text which refers to the series for fair-use reasons. The taxobox could use a picture though, you are right. We will try to find one. Thank you! Sheep81 02:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'll add to my queries later, but should the image Image:Anguirus.jpg be there? The photo is of a fictional creature which only is similar to ankylosaurus at best, is named differently & is under fair use copyright. The image should be deleted. Spawn Man 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Somers, Victoria

Somers is a small town/suburb on the Mornington Peninsula, south east of Melbourne, Australia. I took all photography myself, and heavily researched the features of Somers, Victoria. I have been visiting Somers for most of my life and my parents before me, and was have collected alot of first and second hand information about the history of the town.

• Need Help With - If anyone can read through it and let me know how it reads. I know hardly anyone knows about this place, so does it tell you about it well? Does it give you an idea of what is there and everything? and the usual Spelling/Grammar. Thanks heaps Nick carson 08:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• For a similar article take a look at Waterfall Gully, South Australia. There is lots of room to expand the article on Somers.--Peta 01:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I will attempt to update the Information regarding Somers in the upcoming weeks, as well as the Lord Somers Camp situated there. Will keep you posted. Aceagain 07:13, 02 January 2007

Guinea pig

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

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

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

Toledo War

Hello, This article was given a peer review about two months ago, GA status, and based on suggestions, was submitted to FAC, where it failed in early June. The main objection at that time was that the article was poorly written, and needed more copy-editing. Since then, I have put in a lot of effort, and the article has been added to, revised, and copy-edited. The goal is another (this time hopefully successful) FAC, and I was just wondering if you had any suggestions or comments about making this article better. I look forward to addressing your concerns, and thanks for all of your help! Hotstreets 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a lot to suggest to you except wow, this article is great. The fact that two of our states had a war amuses me greatly and the article just gets funnier as it goes on. I did change two sentences that I thought could be better. The first in the lead I was worried that people would think the federal and state government had argued as those were the two governments listed in the preceeding sentence. The only thing that bothered me was that one paragraph in the 'Prelude to Conflict' section lacks any citations at all. That seems like it should be easy to fix. Again, I can't wait to see this article on the main page. It's a great article.--Dekkanar 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words and suggestions. I will definitely add those citations back sometime in the next day. Once again, thanks for the feedback! Hotstreets 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I edit a lot of articles for prose and this is one of the best I've found. Well done! Here are a few minor thoughts I had:

• "U.S. state" Unabbreviated that's United States state and sounds redundant but maybe this is used commonly? I'm not sure.
• There are some one sentence paragraphs like "Ohio would thus be granted access to the entire western Lake Erie shoreline, and the other new states would have access to the Great Lakes via Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Superior.[4]" that could probably be integrated.
• The state legislature would eventually name the county in which Toledo sat, Lucas County" When did this happen? I'm confused by its placement in the timeline and the words "would eventually"
• "notoriously hot-headed Mason" need a cite for this subjective descriptions
• "The line is identified on USGS topographical maps as the South [Boundary] Michigan Survey, and on Lucas County and Fulton County, Ohio road maps as "Old State Line Road."" Why is one italicized and one in quotes?

I've made many quite minor edits to the article, often eliminating what appeared to be slight redundancies. I apologize if I removed anything necessary. Let me know when this is up for FAC and I'll definitely give it my support. Best, MarkBuckles (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I have worked on each of your points, but on a few I just wanted to explain below:

- I left "U.S. state" as it is, due to the redundancy issues as well as the fact that the article that it links to is formally titled "U.S. state". I do agree that is it strange, though.

- The one sentence paragraph you mentioned was actually the result of the Wikisource boxes: it inadvertently broke the paragraph apart. I have fixed the problem so it no longer does that.

- I played with the paragraph regarding Lucas County, and I think I have improved it a bit. Unfortunately, that sentence provided the introduction to Governor Lucas in the prose, so moving it around proved awkward. Please let me know what you think of this; I did try to clarify the timeline as best as possible.

Once again, thank you very much for your feedback, and I will definitely let you know when this becomes FAC. Hotstreets 06:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian Bale

I did an overhaul of the Christian Bale article, and it apparently meets Good Article standards. There's always room for improvement, so I'd like any advice in getting it to qualify as a Featured Article. Thanks to anyone who'll chime in. --Antrophica 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Skipping through the article, I have following suggestions:

• Lead needs to be expanded a bit more. Personally 1 or 2 sentence to second paragraphs would do it for me, but other might be more picky.
• I was thinking maybe "Personal life" can go after "Career" not before...
• Some things which dont look too good are the small paragraphs: introductory parapraph in Career and "Shaft" sub-sub-section.
• Im not too fond of over sub-sectioning the Career section even though it works. See next point also.
• I'm not sure about how whole sub-section to notable films will go over in FAC. I like the format of the FA Diane Keaton article. The career section is a bit similar to that article and with some modifications I would recommend transfering it to that format.
• To add to previous point, my concern is that the Career section might have more information about the specific films than Christians career.

Thank you, I hope to see this article featured since I enjoyed his role in Batman Begins. - Tutmosis 00:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I placed the "Personal life" section at the top because it contains information about his birth, family and the public perception of him. Instead of moving it to the bottom, I suggest thinking up a different name for the section. I plan to expand the "Shaft" sub-section in time, as I haven't watched the film yet. The same applies to "The New World". The most important point in the "Shaft" sub-section is how it further affected his decision to take on more diverse roles. As for the possibility of the "Career" section containing more information about specific films than Bale's career, I kept that in mind while rewriting the article and did my best to avoid emphasis on the films over the actor. Harsh Times is an exception at the moment because almost nothing has been divulged about the film aside from its plot and one or two professional reviews. Bale has given no interviews that I could find elaborating on the film, so I guess we'll have to wait until he does or until its release.

Anyhow, good of you to take the time to point all that out. Thanks a bunch. --Antrophica 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very well written, but I'm concerned about the use of film titles as subheaders. The chopping and changing between film title headers and date headers looks awkward. It's also mildy POV. It looks a bit like "these are the films I've decided are worth discussing" and "these are the ones that are not so I'm lumping them in with a bunch of other films". Of course some films are more worthy of discussion than others, but there is no need to underline the point. There is also considerable discussion that has nothing to do with Bale himself. Example is in the American Psycho section. Some of the info is about the film, but has nothing to do with Bale himself and does not need to be in the Bale article. Harsh Times gives a plot/character summary and says absolutely nothing about Bale. If there is nothing to say about Bale, that's fine, but don't go into irrelevant detail just so there is something to say, because it looks like padding. I'll read through the article again when I have a bit of free time. Rossrs 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "Harsh Times" section, I had to write something to fill up space until more information was made available. It is padding. As for the overemphasis on discussing certain films, there was just more information available on these films than all the rest; although I do agree that some of these sentences are irrelevant and will probably be taken out by me or whoever revises the article before me. Additionally, depending on the responses garnered, the film headers may be removed altogether. Thanks for the review. --Antrophica 22:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I assume you're working towards putting this up for FAC and I wish you all the best with it, as the article is strong and he's quite an interesting actor. I very much disagree with your comment "I had to write something to fill up space", because you really didn't. :-) Rossrs 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it your advice that I remove the "Harsh Times" section altogether for the time being? Feel free, also, to edit the article to the best possible standard; alas, sometimes I'm not that perceptive to flaws that aren't singled right out. --Antrophica 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My advice is to remove anything that does not relate directly to Bale, or to reword it so that it does. I would mention Harsh Times as an upcoming release and leave it at that because it can be updated later. I'd love to edit this article, thank you - I think it has genuine potential - but I'm pressed for time right now. I will try to make some time to work on this. Rossrs 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pressed for time until the end of week. I'll get to making the edits then. --02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made the edits. Now I need to know if they were for better or worse. --Antrophica 03:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For the better! No doubt about it. There are probably little bits here and there that could be edited but for the most part I think it's a very good job. My only concerns now are : the lead paragraph is somewhat awkward in the sentence about his best known roles. I also think someone is going to describe the "cult figure" description as POV. I would find another word to use, but still link to the cult figure article. Maybe something like "his .... (adjective) roles have led to him attracting a cult following." Perhaps. I'm glad you got rid of the film title headers, but the dates look a bit arbitrary. Perhaps it could be 1980s, 1990s, 2000s like Diane Keaton. It wouldn't matter if some of these sections are long. Finally, in discussing Equilibrium it wanders off into a bit of a plot summary which is unnecessary, and is not about Bale. Lovely work on this article - congratulations. You've obviously put a lot of work into it, and it's very, very good. Rossrs 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. The Equilibrium cruft slipped past me; I'll get to it. About describing Bale as a cult figure, I think he's been cited as one enough to not violate NPOV, but I'll probably reword it just to be safe. The dates are also something I'll have to ponder on, since I headed the sections with the purpose of being specific. I'll get to nominating this as a FA once these last few things are taken care of. Can't hurt to try. --Antrophica 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There. I think it's about ready now. What do you reckon? --Antrophica 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's very good. I notice there is a mention of American Psycho in the 1990s sections, and then discussion in the 2000s. I'd remove the mention in the 1990s section to keep it in one place. Well done. Rossrs 12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave that in, rather than remove what I believe to be a good sentence. Once I'm done proofreading the article, I'll get about nominating it. Pat yourself on a back for me; you were a big help. --Antrophica 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, there's no problem with the sentence as such. Suggest you have a look at the image description pages before nominating. The lead photo is showing 2 different tags (screenshot & promo photo - and it can't be both). The ones you've uploaded are fine, but the ones uploaded by other people are lacking fair use rationales etc such as the Empire of the Sun shot. Having gone through the FAC process a few times, I'm sure people will object on these grounds. Sorry for not mentioning it earlier but I didn't really look at the images until now. Rossrs 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the Empire of the Sun shot is a doctored-up screenshot of a scene in the film, so I guess it would be just a promo image. Same for the infobox image. I actually didn't upload anything other than the Equilibrium and Newsies images; I just tagged and provided fair use rationale for images I thought required them. The Empire image was the last image uploaded and I overlooked it. Thanks for pointing it out. --Antrophica 13:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm on the brink of nominating this article for FA status. If anyone has any cents left to spare, now's the time. --Antrophica 08:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom DeLay

This is a neutral, stable, referenced article about a very controversial politician. I'd like to bring it up to FA status, and I think that this peer review will prove necessary for such an attempt to succeed. Please point out any POV statements, gaping holes in coverage, or other errors or shortcomings. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at it and just had to edit a few things in the first few paragraphs... the sentences were perhaps technically grammatically correct, but they were very long sentences. I didn't read too far past that, maybe will come back when I have a moment.

I'd also say that to me, the first few paragraphs had a distinctively negative slant. I'd qualify that by saying that I don't know all the details of DeLay's pre-US Congress life, but it appeared that most of the facts were drawn from one source (the "Absolute Truth" source)... better perspective might come from consulting other sources, including even sympathetic sources. KWH 04:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the first section of the body. You've made a distinct improvement. Please read the rest, and please edit anything that you think really needs fixing. Not everything in that section was from the "Absolute Truth" article, but after another read-through, you're right that it does depend pretty heavily on that source. I'll try to find other reliable sources for that period of his life, and synthesize any differing points of view without dwelling on any one part of that period more closely than the lesser importance of that period of his life merits. NatusRoma | Talk 06:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice article but the pic is of very low quality. American Patriot 1776 13:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the Biography and Early Political Career section. Would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 20:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First glance: I notice that there are absolutely no sources for any of the claims in the intro section. Are these claims reiterated and sourced later? It's best practise to source a claim the first time it is introduced. Or are the claims unsourced entirely? I also agree with Kwh: anything notable enough to be included ought to be mentioned by multiple sources. If multiple sources can't be found for something, it's probably not notable. Kasreyn 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, the intro section is way too long. Try trimming it down to one to two paragraphs of "summary" type information, and move the rest "below the fold" to various sections in the main body. The intro area should be a quick summary and outline of the article. Kasreyn 01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. You're right, things introduced in the lead are sourced in the body. I have read featured article nominations where this was preferred. Most of the statements in the article are attested by multiple sources, but for brevity's sake (there are already nearly 70 distinct sources cited) I have generally only included one reference per piece of information. Is there anything in particular that you don't think is notable enough to remain in the article? Also, I'll take a whack at the lead. It's hard to keep things brief with a subject who's currently under indictment, but I'll do some culling. NatusRoma | Talk 03:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've cut the lead down to three paragraphs. Does it seem better now? If you think that there's still too much detail in the lead, is there anything in particular that you would suggest taking out? NatusRoma | Talk 04:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Better, but I still think it's too long. A lot of the information could easily be "below the fold". I'm not an admin and I'm not involved in the decision-making process for what gets to be FA, but if I were, brevity of intro section would be one of my criteria. After all, I'm not proposing any information at all be deleted - just moved down the page a bit for appearance and readability's sake. I'm sure you're concerned that your edits may upset some of the article's longtime editors, but surely when they see that nothing is deleted, merely moved elsewhere in the article, they'll understand.
  • Specifically? Hmm. The first sentence is a great. In a pinch, it could be the entire intro section by itself. But that might be too short. So I'd include the sentences on his elected offices from para 2, possibly the "Hammer" bit, definitely the K Street thing since that's one of his major claims to fame. Most of the rest of it, in my opinion, can afford to be moved down into the main body. However, it might also be good to cover his eventual disgrace and notice of resignation in the intro as well. This would provide a pretty apt summary of the article: rise and fall in two paragraphs or so. What do you think? Kasreyn 05:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think that some recentism is justified given that the legal proceedings are currently the most salient element of DeLay's life. In time, much of the third paragraph of the lead ought to be removed, but I would prefer to keep most of it for now. If there's something that you think really doesn't belong, please go ahead and remove it. NatusRoma | Talk 18:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Also, do you have any suggestions about the body? NatusRoma | Talk 18:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Shouldnt the "Accusations of misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments" section be titled "Investigation of misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the section shouldn't just be about random investigations but the official investigation. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent idea. I have changed the heading to "Investigation of alleged misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments". NatusRoma | Talk 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Project Apollo

Looking for general advice to get article to a featured status. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 13:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• My comments:
  • The introduction should be expanded to somewhere between 2-4 paragraphs (see WP:LEAD).
  • Headings should generally avoid repeating the article title (for example, the heading Reasons for Apollo should be changed to simply Reasons)
  • Miscellaneous information should be incorporated into the rest of the article and removed; trivia sections generally are looked down upon.
  • Inline citations are needed. Generally, these are done in the form of WP:FOOTNOTEs.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interwiki links.
  • As of now, the article is too list-heavy. I would suggest that at least some of the lists be prosified (converted to paragraph form) if possible.
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 13:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • • I have changed headings and moved the list of capsule locations to the page about the Apollo spacecraft. I will implement the rest later. In reference to the comment on category order, wouldn't chronological order be better? --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a few comments:

• The "Reasons" section seems out of context. Only the first, brief paragraph discusses the reason behind the program. The other two are post-program reflections rather than initial motivation. Perhaps that section should be merged with the others, or else renamed?
• "equiptment".
• I agree that there are a lot of lists. The launch lists could be converted into nicely-formatted tables.
• There are some odd gaps between the paragraphs that don't really add anything and make the page look unfinished. They should be eliminated.
• George Low should be linked.
• Perhaps you could explain somewhere why there were no launches named "Apollo 2" or "Apollo 3"?
• The long paragraph in the "Manned missions" needs to be broken into 2-3 shorter paragraphs to make it easier to read.
• At the end could you include some comments about where the capsules are on display? Or are being stored? Or were destroyed?

I hope these comments were somewhat helpful. Thanks! — RJH 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasons section merged with background and end of program sections, and I've had a look at the spacing. I am researching Apollo 2, and as for capsule locations, this is handled in the Apollo Spacecraft article, as it refers to the spacecraft as opposed to the whole program. Thanks, GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 21:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have changed the lists to tables. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks nice, you might try something with the cancelled mission section, even just a few words as to why they were canceled, instead of mearely their names. That might be better than their names, in fact. Tuvas 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've put another table in for it. What do you think? --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)