Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

OK Computer[edit]

This article, in my opinion, is close to GA, but I wanted to see if anyone had any advice for it, as it does need some expansion and cleanup to get to an advanced state. I'd especially like input on integrating the "Track information" section into the rest of the article. ErleGrey 18:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand the lead section with more basic details, such as who produced it and where and when it was recorded. Rearrange it too. Compare with the lead section of the recently-featured Kid A.
  • Try and get rid of the list format in the "Musical style" section. Remove many of the influences cited; explain why they are important and how they influenced the sound of the album more concisely. Also, talk about the lyrics.
  • Move "Marketing and release" after "Musical style".
  • Only list track information essential to the article as a whole. Song articles can always be used for song-specific information. List information about select songs if they represent an important aspect of the album, like a musical or lyrical approach. Of course some song-specific information has its place, like details having to do with "Paranoid Android"; since it was the first single, its sound it notable for how it reflected on the album
  • Properly format all web citations. Make sure to include author, title, date, and retrival date.
  • At some point you'll want to look for the 33 1/3 series book on OK Computer. Apparently it focuses largely on musical analysis and criticism, which will be very helpful in regards to the "Musical style" section. WesleyDodds 07:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki's Delivery Service[edit]

hi I have been contributing to this article for a little while. I have been trying to get time to work on it more, I want to thank everyone that has put what they can in to it. Perhaps this article can get to "good article" status soon, until then I was wanting suggestions on how it is set up and etc. I will try to check back here as much as possible thank you bye. Alus 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly looks good. There are issues here and there. Examples include:
  • Sources & References
  • Disney release
  • Character's section needs more details
  • Differences between versions section needs to be reworded to were it flows better.
Any other thoughts? Sjones23 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi thanks for responding. I was the one actually, that made the todo list on the talk page. I have been trying to work on these subjects but need some assistance. thank you Alus 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the article could be reorganized to achieve better flow. The two differences sections could be put one after another or even merged. The musical and production sections could also be put one after another. I agree that the characters section is messy because of the whitespace. If you can't add more details then maybe you would consider reducing the size of the portraits? --Squilibob 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davis, California[edit]

This Peer Review was posted because i've noticed no one has nominated Davis Ca to be featured on the main page of wikipedia Anyone who has anything to say as to their thoughts must come and edit this to show their argument Stephen H.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni[edit]

I made cleanups to the article and added content across all sections. removed POV material in records and ODI career section. A 'debatable' issue is the seperation of ODI and Test career. If there is a overwhelming opposition to it, i shall merge the two into a chronological order. Kalyan 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The controversies is redundant kind of, because the incident with Lara isn't that big of a deal and is talking about Lara more than it is about Dhoni and his house being vandalized is kind of big but could be included in the world cup paragraph. Both can be added higher above in the respective paragraphs but doesn't really need to detailed much. Also the headings including WC should be changes to World Cup or at least the CWC.--THUGCHILDz 08:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the section to be a place holder for not only current but future content as well. I have no issues in merging them to the previous sections but would for other's views as well before i do it. Thanks. Kalyan 09:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit comments by Tintin[edit]

Review of this version (checked only for factual errors, not language)

  • Based on his performance at club cricket, he was picked for Vinoo Mankad Trophy Under-16 Championship
From the section on Junior Cricket, one gets the impression that this is a U-19 competition
Response: I did not understand your comments. Please clarify.
In the Junior section, VM trophy appears in the context of U-19 tournaments, and MSD was too old for U-16 cricket by that time (1998/9). This contradicts with personal life which clearly says that it was U-16 Tintin 09:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhoni debuted in the domestic cricket on the Bihar U-19 squad for the 1998/99 season
Why is this called domestic debut, while the previous section on personal life talks about him playing in domestic, age-level (apparently U-16) cricket. Which came first ?
Response: Modified the sentence. Kalyan 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest of India squad (MA Chidambaram Trophy and Vinoo Mankad Trophy). irreplaceable human being.
Very little context. Does Rest of India play in both ?
Yes. There were 2 tournaments - MAC & VM in which RoW played. A secondary reason for including it is the fact that there is little awareness amongst cricket fans on these junior (U-16; U-19 trophies). in the long term, i wanted to add these articles and provide a link here. If you think that this needs to be removed, shall do so. Kalyan 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhoni's performance for the 2002/03 season in Ranji Trophy ...
Should not be there in the junior cricket section]
Response: Error. Moved it to the relevant section. Kalyan 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhoni's performance in the 2000/01[9] and 2001/02[10] seasons were lacklustre scoring just one fifty in each season in four Ranji matches.
Not accurate. His average in 2000-1 was higher than in 1999/00. He also scored a 114* (not just 50s) in 2000/1.
Response: In 1999/00 he had an average of 70+, in 2000/01 it was 60+. So your first statement is not factually correct. However i concede on the second point, i missed the century and i think that is his first first-class century and hence the two sentences were modified.Kalyan 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In 1999/00, his Ranji average was 31.44 and it was 39 in the next year link. But my error anyway, as I read it to mean that it said that 2000/1 was a worse year when compared to 1999/00, but the article does not imply anything of that sort. Tintin
Oh my my... i confused SR and Ave for the 2 seasons. my apologies. i should probably take a small break. BTW, in the last modification, the sentence was corrected to remove reference to "lacklustre" for 2000/01 season
  • In the 2003/04 season, MS Dhoni opened for the Bihar team in the Ranji ODI trophy and scored a century (128*) against Assam in the first match.
He had already opened in three Ranji ODIs that season before this game.
Response: removed reference to opener. Kalyan 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the selectors picked Dhoni over International cricketer Deep Dasgupta[11] and scored a fighting half century in the second innings in a losing cause.
Rephrase. Sounds as if selectors scored a fighting half century
Response: Done. Kalyan 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhoni had a great start to the Trination tournament
Not sure whether "great start" is right because in his first match in the tournament he scored 8 v Kenya
Response: removed reference to great start. Kalyan 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later Tintin 08:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

It's a good article. I'll kick off by saying that the Lead section does not conform with WP:LEAD. --Dweller 09:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please let me know the specifics of what more info you need me to add. i wanted to keep it concise. i am getting the feeling that it has become way too concise. Ideas are welcome. Kalyan 10:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at recent cricket bio FAs: Adam Gilchrist, Harbhajan Singh, Paul Collingwood --Dweller 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Can you please review the revised and ahem., ahem .. much improved lead paras. I know it might be bit too long but "better long than short" was my principle to address the above comment. Kalyan 12:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very skeptical of the fair use claim on Image:Lara asks Dhoni to walk.jpg because it doesn't seem that the photo is at all necessary to understand the incident. I think the image should be listed for deletion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak agree to your point but the main reason why i added the image was that there was no other way i could lay my hands on a snap. also, i think it does illustrate the incident in question as we see Lara talking to Dhoni. but if we build a little consensus, i will remove the image. The trouble is to lay our hands on a few non-copyright images of Dhoni. Kalyan 10:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's hard to get photos, but that doesn't excuse dubious fair use claims, I'm afraid. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can defend that the pic represents fair use criteria but i think the whole effort in that is not justified. removed the pic. Kalyan 12:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be at Adelaide Oval when India come this year. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit comments by AllynJ[edit]

Warning: Wall of text incoming

Lead:

  • "Dhoni refered as 'Mahi' by his friends," - Needs rephrasing, maybe just a comma in there (and the typo fixed).
Response: Added Comma. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in many ways, identical to his ODI maiden century." - This sounds odd grammatically. Identical indicates there are no differences, which contradicts "in many ways", which suggests in most but not all.
Response: I wanted to imply the coincidences between the maiden ODI century and test century (Pakistan, 5th match, 148) but i guess the statement did not send the same message. Removed the phrase. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life section:

  • "Dhoni is a fan of Adam Gilchrist and his childhood idols" - 'idols' is currently italicised - why?
Response: I have no idea why it was italicized. removed it. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dhoni is a avid biker" - an, not a.
Oops. There is the first of many grammatical errors. My english teacher from school would be real unhappy. No Ma'am., you can't score me on this ... Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dhoni's focused on cricket after his 10th standard." - what's a 'standard'? It sounds like a school year, but I'm unfamiliar with the context; needs a wikilink I think.
Response: OK, i added a wikilink. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MS Dhoni was voted as MTV Youth Icon 2006" - consistency, it just says "Dhoni" elsewhere in the article, should here too (although that would result in all 3 paragraphs in this section starting with Dhoni, perhaps change to "he").
Response: Removed MS, also made changes to the first para to ensure there are no three "Dhoni"s starting the paras. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic career section:

  • "and scored 176 runs in 5 matches (7 innings) and the team finished fourth" - as the team finished fourth it should be, I think?
Response: Yes. Changed. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and did not make it to the quarterfinals." - Quarter finals should be seperated.
Response: Changed. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Team effort in both bowling and batting helped the Bihar U-19" - sentence starts awkwardly, doesn't read too well.
Response: Changed the couple of sentences. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in 2001/02 season[14] he scored just one fifty in each season in four Ranji matches." - Citation oddly placed here.
Response: moved. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are further uses of "MS Dhoni" as opposed to just "Dhoni" in this paragraph, too. Reads oddly to me.
Response: Changed. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Duleep Trophy finals, the selectors picked Dhoni over International cricketer Deep Dasgupta[15]" - selectors for what? The national team?
Response: changed. Kalyan 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Trination tournament involving Kenya, India 'A' and Pakistan 'A'," - Should be 'In a tri-nation', I think. Definitely needs the 'a', not sure on how tri-nation should be spelt but I would naturally think with a hyphen.
Response: Corrected, added "the"; added hyphen. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These knocks bought attention to Dhoni's performance from even the then Indian national cricket captain - Sourav Ganguly.[22]" - This sentence could do with re-wording - 'from even the then' reads badly. It should be "brought" and not "bought", too.
Response: changed. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ODI career section:

  • "Indian team in the 2000s saw the use of Rahul Dravid as the wicketkeeper" - Needs to start with The, I'd suggest.
Response: changed. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "getting Run out for a duck on debut.[25]" - run out shouldn't be capitalised.
Response: changed. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The score coming off only 123 deliveries was the then highest score by an Indian wicketkeeper as well as the then third highest score by a wicketkeeper in ODI cricket.[27]" - multiple uses of 'the then' which, again, reads badly.
The issue i had was that the record has since then been broken. i reworded a couple of sentences around this statement and not used the word "the then" at all. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dhoni had few chances in the first two games of the Sri Lankan tour of India (Oct-Dec 2005)." - few chances at what?
Response: reworded as batting opportunities. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the second innings[30]," - inline citations after punctuation, per

WP:CITE.

Response: changed. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 2005, Dhoni was rewarded a BCCI contract," - should be 'with a BCCI contract'
Response: re-worded the sentence. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when he aided India score 328 in their 50 overs" - needs rephrasing, perhaps to "when he aided India to their score of 328"? Not sure, even that doesn't sound too good to me.
Response: re-worded the sentence. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "India did not qualify for the finals and their underpreparation showed" - these two sentences could be split, I think. Right now they merge two competitions then another sentence is started to discuss the latter of the two. "Underpreparation" isn't a word - lack of preparation would be the correct term. Perhaps change it to: "India did not qualify for the finals. Their lack of preparation showed when they hosted the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy, when Dhoni's 51 against West Indies...", etc. The rest of that sentence could do with rephrasing too, to be honest.
Response: Thanks for being honest. I re-edited a couple of sentences there. i am not sure of the current version but it seems improvement over the earlier version. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However India unexpectedly crashed out the World cup after losses to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka." - World Cup is a proper noun, both words should be capitalised. This occurs again in the first sentence of the "Post 2007 WC" heading.
  • "Dhoni was declared the man-of-match for his performance," - man of the match, shouldn't use hyphens.
Response: Done. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test career section:

  • "(first three and half days were washed off)" - needs a 'with' at the beginning.
Response: removed the phrase as it was info-overload. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "India was left in a tight spot as Dhoni" - were, not was.
Response: corrected. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However Dhoni and Indian fielding dropped too many catches" - replace with something like 'However Dhoni and the Indian fielders dropped ...'
  • "as England set an imposing 313 run target for the home team, a target that India was never in the reckoning as the batting order collapse skidded the team to 100 all-out and Dhoni scored just five." - few things with this. 313 isn't a particularly imposing score to chase down under normal circumstances, why was it here? Because it was the final day? (Note: It can't be imposing because of India's batting collapse, as that happened after the score was posted, can't really be explained by that as it seems to be now.) 'India were', not was. Perhaps rephrase to 'as the batting order collapsed to', reads rather oddly as it is right now. 'as Dhoni scored just 5.' - consistency, per WP:DATE.
Response: re-wrote the last couple of sentences. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the series against the host West Indies," - perhaps rephrase to "On a tour of the West Indies"? Not sure, as it stands now it isn't grammatically correct.
response: corrected. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to aid India in setting a target for the West Indies." - This seems silly, whatever he scores he's going to have aided India in setting a target for the West Indies... specify what kind of target, preferably with the exact score.
Response: removed the phrase but am not too happy to see it go. i wanted to set the context of the 69 in the match was that it provided acceleration in india's second innings. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needed to be removed, personally, just reworded. As I said, whatever he scored it would aid India - why specifically did it aid it? You've said here that it provided acceleration - add that! That would be fine. :) AllynJ 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as India squandered their historic first test victory on their way" - lacks context. Why was it historic? Is the fact it was historic even that relevant to this article? I'm not sure.
Response: ALAS! you will never understand how it is for an indian fan. ok., being serious - the match was historic because it was India's first test match victory in South Africa. India's batting issues in the second test robbed the chance of even walking away at 1-1. No changes made. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. I appreciate that it was historic but I still feel it lacks context as to why it was historic, as it stands - perhaps consider changing it to "as India squandered their historic first Test victory, their first Test victory against South Africa, on their way". What I wrote isn't particularly well worded, admittedly (the repition of first Test in two different senses is confusing), but I can't think of a better way to put it right now. Also note that 'Test' should be capitalised, which currently it isn't. AllynJ 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lara was not called by the match referee for explanation of his actions but was not fined by the match referee." - why the use of the word 'but'? Sounds like both events are on the same side of the argument, whereas but would suggest they aren't. "... of his actions, nor was he fined" would be grammatically correct if I'm reading this correctly.
Response: Lara was called. removed 'not'. not makes sense. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements section:

  • "The record was broken by Herschelle Gibbs during his knock of 175 when he scored 126 runs (21x4; 7x6) in boundaries." - is this much detail relevant? I'm undecided. Should be clarified as to whom it was against if you feel it is, else just shortened to "The record was later broken by Herschelle Gibbs against Team X".
Response: I am not sure it is too detailed. the record was for boundaries and hence the data on no. of runs in boundaries, no. of 4s and no. of 6s. I have added the detail on the opposition but the same knock is referred to, a few sentences earlier. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to note:

  • Reference 1 is currently broken, not sure what's going on there.
Response: corrected link format. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I don't like some of the title headings. I don't have any WP guidelines to back me up, I don't think, but "Early career (2004 - 2007 WC)" seems a bit unnessecary, I would just put "Early career". "Post 2007 WC" also seems oddly written right now.
Response: removed sub-sections under ODI career section. this is only one section now.
  • Title "Junior Cricket" should be "Junior cricket", per WP:HEAD. Cricket isn't a proper noun.
Response: corrected. Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is quite a lot but if you want to get this to featured, which I think you definitely can do, they do need to be fixed. There's a _lot_ of good detail in here which I love to see, just the presentation needs be tidied up first. Thanks. PS, if you need any clarification on my points let me know, bit tired at the moment so may have been rambling a bit in my explanations. AllynJ 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Done making edits. Waiting for the next wave of comments :) Kalyan 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up
Lead:

  • "Dhoni, refered as 'Mahi' by his friends," - typo/grammar - 'referred to as'.
  • "Dhoni made multiple centuries against the Pakistan-A team in a trination" - change to tri-nation:"he made his maiden test century in his fifth Test match, whenn he scored 148" - typo, when has an extra n.
  • "Post 2007 CWC," - Post sounds odd in this sentence. I would also avoid using CWC as a contraction, perhaps change to "After the World Cup".

Domestic Career:

  • "(9 matches, 12 innings), four fifties, ..." - I see what you were trying to do here with trying to avoid confusion with the 'four fifties', but WP:DATE says consistency with numbers, which in this sense would mean changing it to "4 fifties" (the fifties aren't a in stating the list of numbers so needn't be turned in to numerals).
  • "MS Dhoni made it" - another MS Dhoni as opposed to "he" or just "Dhoni".
  • "Apart from the century his performance in the 2000/01[13] did not include another score over fifty" - citation oddly placed here, I'd recommend moving it to after the 'fifty'.
  • "received attention in India including the then captain - Sourav Ganguly" - I still think this is worded oddly (I brought it up on my first review of the article) - but my point before and now was less to do with the structure as a whole and more about the use of 'the then'. I'd recommend changing to "including Sourav Ganguly, the captain of the national team at the time" or something (not necessarily that exactly, I'm not sure how to word it without it sounding slightly odd...).

ODI Career:

  • "wicket-keeper spot doesn't lack in batting talent." - needs to be past tense, should be 'didn't lack'.
  • "In the second match on the series," - of the series, not on the series.
  • "Sawai Mansingh Stadium(Jaipur)." - needs a space between Stadium and the bracket as it stands; however the general style is to say "Sawai Mansingh Stadium, Jaipur": this is also how it's written further down in the article in the Achievements section, I'd recommend changing it.
  • "Sri Lanka had set India a target of 299 on the back of a Kumar Sangakkara century and India lost Tendulkar early. and Dhoni was promoted to accelerate the scoring but ended the game with an unbeaten 183 off 145 balls," - grammar here. I would suggest "and in reply, India lost Tendulkar early. Dhoni was promoted to accelerate the scoring and ended the game ..." - 'and India lost Tendulkar early' seems a bit out of context here as it doesn't specify the Indian innings has started; the 'and' at the start of the second sentence is out of place, minor oversight; a 'but' needs changing to an 'and' as I assume he did accelerate the scoring by getting 183 off 145. :)
  • "skiping the initial C-grade level" - typo, skipping.
  • "India scored 328 in 50 overs with Dhoni contributing 68 in their first match of 2006." - should clarify who India were playing in this sentence; it's clarified in the next but seems out of place (make sure to remove it from the second sentence too, duplicating the name of the opponents would be odd).
  • "In recognition of his consistent ODI performance," - I'm not sure about the grammar of this, I'd like someone else to clarify as to whether this should be 'performances' or 'performance (as it stands). Naturally I would think the former but I'm not 100% certain.
  • "Sri Lanka washed due to rain[40]" - needs a comma before the citation (for grammar, based on the rest of the sentence).
  • "India's underpreparation showed in the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy" - still needs to be changed to "lack of preparation", otherwise the changes from before are great.
  • "after India was left in a tight spot earlier in the run-chase." - were, not was.

Rest of the article looks great to me now, great work.

I replied to a few of your responses further up, be sure not to miss them too. I think that's me done after these follow-up comments, and will be happy to support once it heads to FAC I'd say. :) AllynJ 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All comments addressed. Kalyan 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought from Ollie[edit]

  • I think the sub-bullets (if you follow my meaning) in the records section would be better formatted as prose - i.e. as one large paragraph
Hi., with respect to the second "record" - i have followed your advise. however for the first record (183) - there are so many that, in my view, it does not make sense to combine them all. However, if others can pitch in and voice their opinion, i shall follow the same. Kalyan 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the tables would be better off in the "standard" colours (class="wikitable"). I can't be certain, but I think they would gain a better reception at FAC.
Done (though i dread to think of the effort to clean up tables in Tendulkar page. FYI, i used the formats used in Adam Gilchrist wikipageKalyan 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thoughts / suggestions - no need to act if you don't agree. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Vogler[edit]

This was rated as a stub class, however I believe it is start class now, hence the review for assessment purposes. That's pretty much all. -- Guroadrunner 12:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gran2[edit]

Yep, definitely start class now. Gran2 15:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • You star straight away with his racing career. Personal life? Family? Early years?
  • I suggest you turn the red links into stubs.
  • Add in your references publisher or work or writer.
  • You have many stubby paragraphs which are not good for the prose and the article's flow. You need to work on that.
  • A second review will be definitely needed, because the article is at an initial stage of writing.--Yannismarou 11:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date cultivation in Dar al-Manasir[edit]

I saw this article, and it seemed to be very comprehensive about an interesting subject, well written, researched, and cited sources (which need to be /ref'ed in wikistyle). There are many interesting photos and I think it would be great if it could get some peer review for FA preparation. Thanks. Rhetth 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, the article seems to have a few too many quotations in foreign script for what is basically an English-language article. Also, the cited sources could be changed into a standard format. Otherwise, the article looks good. John Carter 20:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, due to it's anthropological nature, the translanguage information seems important to avoid any ethnocentric misunderstandings. Rhetth (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Cardinals seasons[edit]

I'm working to improve this to Featured List status and followed the precedents set by Chicago Bears seasons, Cleveland Browns seasons, and Minnesota Vikings seasons. I am aware that the discussion for those articles required links to an article for every season of each of those teams' histories and I'm working on creating at least stubs for every season, and I will add wikilinks from this list to each article before nominating it for Featured List status. But I want to ask for any other help or suggestions besides that point.Timpcrk87 22:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidential assassination attempts[edit]

After referencing this article a lot, I'd like to know what else needs to be done for nominating it for featured list status. MaxSem 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond[edit]

Previous Peer Review:Wikipedia:Peer review/James Bond/archive1

This wasn't promoted as FAC, James Bond is one of the most popular articles, and needs some improvement. SpecialWindler 12:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi[edit]

Final film in the series that needs to be brought up to FA status. Just looking for any improvements that people can see it needs from it's current state? The Filmaker 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refrence are few and far between, there are NONE in "Plot"; it'll never get to GA with that, let alone FA. Dalejenkins 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't seem to understand how references are put down. The plot section does not require references because the reference is the work itself. To my knowledge, everything in the article is cited. Also, it is already a GA. The Filmaker 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the critical reception needs expanding: Pauline Kael gave a negative review, but we need the primary source rather than my Empire magazine quoting her. Alientraveller 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shared universe[edit]

I've expanded and referenced this substantially from its origins. I'd like the input of others to see where to take it from here. While I think it might be GA at this point, my goal is to eventually aim for the top. Issues I know to be of concern:

  • Is this correctly described as a literary technique? Should it instead be "in narratology"? Something else entirely?
  • I am of mixed opinions regarding the blockquote. It is large, but I think its complexity helps to underscore how confusing the topic can get. Is it a good addition, or should I try to find something shorter?
  • Is there any way to illustrate this article? What sort of image would even be appropriate?
  • Does this article need any expansion, such as more detailed discussion of the copyright and licensing issues?

All comments are, as always, appreciated. Serpent's Choice 06:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid[edit]

  • Needs citations throughout. Until then it's not even B-class. The History section grows increasingly detailed with each successive year, so perhaps a judicious application of summary style would be appropriate. The paragraph that begins "In the summer of 2003..." is far, far, far too long. The "Selected former managers" section appears to include the entire date range, so how is it a "Seletced" list? "Other sport sections" just includes links, so it is unclear what that section is even about. Can't the "Formula One sponsorship" stub be merged into the history? Good luck. — RJH (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flying the Flag (for You)[edit]

I've cleaned up this article, given citations, and what I'm wondering is what has to be done to take it up to GA quality. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 12:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, as I pointed out on the talk, a discussion of the song's critical merits (or lack of them) is a must - if the article doesn't say anything about the melody or lyrics, or their significance, it's not exactly comprehensive. At the moment I don't even know what the song is about, though having read the lyrics, I kind of see why. :p I also understand that visual effects in the performance are important in Eurovision, so mentioning that would probably be a good idea. Johnleemk | Talk 09:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've written a section on the lyrics and their similarity to real flights. Anything else? I'm not a music theorist, so I can't write on the melody, unfortunately. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dugong[edit]

help Dugong Dugong 17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ODI Awards for Sachin Tendulkar[edit]

Sachin Tendulkar has 53 ODI MoM awards and 13 MoS awards including the MoS for 2003 Cricket World Cup. Thus i created this page for capturing the details. of all his awards. There is also a table in the main article of Tendulkar that summarizes the awards won against each nation. The same can be moved to this page if required. Please let me know. Kalyan 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good but change the MoM and MoS to Man of the Match and Man of the Series. Also I see that you have used colors to differentiate matches between tournament finals and world cup matches and normal matches, so I would suggest you do the same with games India lost instead of highlighting them in Bold and Italics.--THUGCHILDz 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kalyan 17:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto (series)[edit]

I want this article to reach Good Article status, but I don't know how to improve the article myself. I'd like some suggestions on how we can improve this article. - .:Alex:. 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, the cleanup templates should be noticed? The trivial content could be merged into the article, and citations provided for the "Similar games" section. --Phoenix 04:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Not Stupid Too[edit]

Having spent two months rewriting this article, I would like others to provide specific advice for improving the article, and to assess the article's GA potential. If there is consensus that the article has great GA potential, I would also appreciate advice that would help me get it there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest adding a section that explains the satire present in the film in more detail. After all, both I Not Stupid films have underlying messages. Also, consider taking around 2 screenshots of the film and add it to the plot. Finally, the character section could be expended to have a little bit more detail about each character, as in Star Wars Episode III.--Kylohk 10:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions. I was unable to find any screenshots the last time I searched, but I'll try searching again, and hopefully I'll find several screenshots to add to the article. I am concerned that a section on the satire would be original research, although I think I could use the reviews as sources. As for expanding the Cast section, I will keep that in view. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Dreaming[edit]

This is one of Wikipedia's best articles on a Singaporean film (only my I Not Stupid can rival it), and I believe it has strong GA potential. Unfortunately, due to real life issues, Goh wz, the primary contributor to this article, does not have the time to push for GA status. I have promised to help him get the article GA status - please offer advice for improving the article to ensure it meets the GA criteria. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concord, New Hampshire[edit]

I am from this city and have made contributions to the article. I would like to see this article reach GA status and maybe even FA status some day. Any comments would be helpful. Cooljeanius 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32's review[edit]

Cool, a fellow Granite Stater! I grew up in Hudson myself. Well, here's some pointers to clean up this article for GA or FA status:

  1. The lead is too short. The lead section needs to fully summarize the article. Consider about 1 paragraph per section to do so. See WP:LEAD for more help.
  2. The article is insufficiently referenced. The History section, for example, has no references. I assume that the person who wrote this was reading from some source. If they were, it should be referenced directly to the source, at minimum usually once inline reference (either footnote or parenthetical note) per paragraph (when only one source is used for the paragraph) or after each distinct fact (if a single paragraph is built from multiple sources). If it is a print source, than relative page numbers should be included. If it is a web source, a link to the specific page (not just the home page of the website) should be included. See WP:CITE, WP:CITET, WP:RS, and WP:V for more information on when, how, why, and what to reference. The article Cricket World Cup uses a referencing style that I find fairly easy to follow and work with. It is a fairly short featured article I usually use as model when recommending a good referencing style.
  3. The Notable Inhabitants section is listy, and as such should probably be dropped to the end, and/or expanded so that each inhabitant is given a paragraph worth of treatment in full prose rather than list form.
  4. The media section should be expanded and more properly referenced. Some mention should also be given to TV, Radio and Newspapers which are distributed in Concord, even if not produced there (I am pretty sure the Union Leader is heavily distributed there as well)...
  5. Sites of interest section is listy again. Convert to prose. Also, external links should NOT be part of the main text. See WP:EL for more information. Also, this is entirely unreferenced as well.
  6. Education section has external links as well. Consider expanding this section from a list only(the list here is permissiable, since the information it contains works well for a list) to a more full treatment of the Concord Educational System. Most New Hampshire school districts maintain a district website. Consider looking there for info, as well as the local paper.
  7. Overall, the article MAY be in need of a copyedit. I am a lousy copyeditor, as my spelling and grammar are usually not that great. See out help at the League of Copyeditors once the article is up to snuff in other areas.

I hope that gives you some places to work up the article. Good luck!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders of the Lost Ark[edit]

I think that this article is in excellent shape and could very well be eligible for GA status. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. --Count Ringworm 14:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that jumps out at me is the lead section is extremely short. If you can fix that (see: Wikipedia:Lead section, especially The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article), I think you have a very good article. Gopher backer 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Delta Theta[edit]

This article has been expanded greatly this past week and I beleive it is quite close to GA status. Please list anything which will help bring the article to a GA status and eventually an FA status. Acidskater 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle history[edit]

Seeking general feedback with a view toward advancing this article to WP:GA and (maybe even) WP:FA status. Thanks. --Evb-wiki 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I suggest you move the article to History of Motorcycle. This title form (History of...) is by far more used in Wikipedia. CG 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More comment added from the Motorcycle talk page - no one really likes the proposal:
An editor at peer review proposed changing the name of Motorcycle history to History of motorcycles. His proposal is here. It seems reasonable, and I tend to agree (a little reluctantly). Are there any specific objections? --Evb-wiki 19:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote no. Seems the only reason for the suggestion is that many other articles use that convention. Just because everyone else is doing something isn't much of a reason to do the same, unless the consistancy serves some purpose. We could just as easily create an article by that name that simply redirects here, to help cover for the anemic search capabilities. (It appears that including 'of' in the search moves Motorcycle history from first in the list to 12th with a relevance of just 12%. -AndrewDressel 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the point, it would mean someone would have to change a lot of redirects, etc (unless someone's got a bot to do it) Pickle 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. I wasn't real keen on it anyway. --Evb-wiki 12:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds much better the way it is. If it's not broke, don't fixi it. I am copying all these comments to the proposal page as no one has put their comments there. ww2censor 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Pro[edit]

This article recently failed FA, and I'd like to get some more eyeballs on it. Maury 12:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nakad[edit]

I've recently revamped this page and woud like to know how to get it to atleast a GA standard. --RockerballAustralia 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Stefani[edit]

Currently listed as a good article. I'd like to take this to FAC after I nominated Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) (also at peer review). Any comments or suggestions about how to improve the article before then would be much appreciated. Also, it might be nice to have some input on how the No Doubt section looks. Considering it spans 15-20 years, I wasn't sure how to best summarize it, so I tried to do a very brief summary and then add the information that's relevant to Stefani herself. ShadowHalo 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

Dalejenkins[edit]

  • The "Harajuku Girls" mini-section is a bit too trivial, maybe a move to Love Angel Music Baby? Dalejenkins 06:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that they're a major aspect of Stefani's career, and they've generated quite a bit of controversy. There are already descriptions at Harajuku girl and Love. Angel. Music. Baby.; would it work better if I maybe removed a quote from the section about her being accused of racism? I could also try adding information to the section about how she adopted a "Dior-meets-Japan" look for promoting the album and how Japanese fashion was an influence in her early L.A.M.B. collections. ShadowHalo 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • The third paragraph of the lead looks to me like a collection of trivia. Maybe the prose there could become a bit more cohererent.
  • "Her brother Eric was the keyboardist for No Doubt, but left the band to pursue a career in animation on The Simpsons.". Maybe these could go to the previous paragraph, where you talk about her family.
  • "The album received mixed reviews by critics, who found that it "has a surprisingly moody, lightly autobiographical feel...[but] Stefani isn't convincing as a dissatisfied diva".[43] and called the album ..." Is the punctuation OK here? Is something missing?
  • "The couple discovered in 2004 that Rossdale had an illegitimate daughter Daisy with model Pearl Lowe when Rossdale took a paternity test." Do we have any clue (without violating personal life data) if and how this incident influenced the couple's life?

I can't find any major flaws. The article is comprehensive and well-written. Maybe some more attention to the prose when it becomes a bit choppy ("As a child, Stefani's musical interests consisted of musicals such as The Sound of Music and Evita.[6] After making a demo tape for her father, she was encouraged not to take music lessons to train her "loopy, unpredictable" voice.[6] Stefani was on the swim team at Loara High School and graduated in 1987.[10][11] She then attended California State University, Fullerton.[12] Her first job was scrubbing floors at a Dairy Queen, and she once worked at the makeup counter of a department store.[13] Her brother Eric was the keyboardist for No Doubt, but left the band to pursue a career in animation on The Simpsons."), but, in general, I can say that it is a very nice article.--Yannismarou 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to go over the Early life section again. A bunch of that is stuff that I found and inserted last night, so I think I just need to go over it to smooth out the text and add some better transitioning. Daisy Lowe was born sometime around 1989, so it was several years before Stefani and Rossdale were dating; I've clarified that in the text now. ShadowHalo 01:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed the last part of the last bullet. I've added some context and information about the couple's reaction and split it off into a separate paragraph. ShadowHalo 09:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backmasking[edit]

A fascinating topic with lots of material. I'm willing to do as much work as it takes to get to FA. Is it well-organized? Should the fair-use images be included? Should I upload more audio samples? Also, have the concerns about original research/quality of sources been addressed? Λυδαcιτγ 18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well sourced, and the beginning of the article is good. But it quickly descends into prose-lists towards the end, and could use a lot reorganization. For instance, in the "In the digital age" section, the second (and larger) paragraph is about a recent parody of analog backmasking. Instead, it would be more appropriate to mention that digital backmasking tools are now common (one even came with the built-in "sound recorder" in Windows 3.0).
  • Should the "alleged use" section be something like "contested accusations of backmasking"? After-all, these are never claims by the artist, but by those who oppose the artist. Also, this section should be after the section on uncontested use. ("Deliberate use" is redundant, since the lead defines backmasking as always deliberate.)
  • In my opinion, the parody prose-list (which will only grow in time) should be its own list, and should be summarized in this article.
  • Should "Satanic backmasking" be its own section? After all, Slayer used it "only for effect", which means it should be in "aesthetic use". Most of the other bands in that section are hardly notable.
  • I don't see the difference between "Critical or explicit messages" and "Censorship" as reasons for backmasking.

Basically, the only thing the article needs is reorganization. But it needs a lot of it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the "Use" section and Parody subsection are too list-like, and I'll try to provide some narrative and/or eliminate superfluous examples. Are you aware that there is a separate list of backmasked messages? (It isn't organized by type, however.)
  • The reason I think Satanic backmasking should be a separate section is the same reason why those messages are notable: because the majority of the mass hysteria focused on Satanic backmasking, and therefore actual Satanic backmasking is important.
  • The "Critical or explicit messages" are messages recorded to avoid censorship, while the "Censorship" section deals with backmasking as censorship.

Any further suggestions for macro-reorganization, or is the remaining reorganization just providing a flow for the examples? Λυδαcιτγ 02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flow improved for "Use" section. Λυδαcιτγ 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protocarnivorous plant[edit]

I'd like to try and get this article up to FA status and would appreciate comments that would work toward that end. Specifically, a few word choices may be awkward. Since I'm so involved in the article, I'd appreciate other points of view. Do I satisfy WP:LEAD? Nitpick away! --Rkitko (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! I could only find two things to mention:
  • In the section Defining carnivory, the paragraph on the broader definition is a bit unclear.
  • The Other subsection doesn't seem to fit within its section; rather than "other trapping mechanisms", it seems to be about "other uses for trapping mechanisms besides carnivority".
Anomie 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input! I'll look in to reworking that broader definition paragraph. It's difficult to describe. Great point about the other section. Capsella bursa-pastoris is definitely an "other" trapping mechanism, but you're right about the other three listed there. Perhaps they deserve their own section? Or merged into their respective sections--pitfall and bladder traps? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report of 1800[edit]

Any and all assistance with getting this article ready for FAC would be enormously appreciated. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Report have any continuing significance? I would think that later Constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court would have cited it from time to time. Also, did it play any role in Madison's later election as President? Cheers! bd2412 T 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited a couple of examples of relatively recent Supreme Court citation to the document. To the latter question, there is no role indicated in what I have read. Thanks for your help! I will let you know if the article is taken to FAC. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More links could be added, lots of black words could be Blue. Bamkin 15:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked a bunch more terms, and created redlinks for some names that ought to have articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the two of you, I am taking this to FAC now. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland A.F.C.[edit]

I would seriously like this article to be peer reviewed so I can decide what needs done for the article and therefore improve it and get it to featured article status. I really take pride in this football club and I would like the article too aswell. Eaomatrix 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First and foremost, the article needs a lot more citations for any material which could potentially be challenged, preferably formatted using templates such as {{cite web}}. Done - Cited.
  • Merge the facts mentioned in the Trivia section elsewhere or remove them (see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles). Done - Trivia removed.
  • Get rid of the section listing famous fans, the consensus for many other football club articles has been to remove such sections. Done - Gone.
  • Prune the external links section by removing links to forums and blogs (see Wikipedia:External links).Done - Down to 3.
  • What criteria have been used for the list of notable players? Done - List now exists for them.
  • The Grounds section deserves to have a few paragraphs of prose instead of a laundry list. Done
  • Remove minor roles from the list of staff. Done - Removed.
  • Description of honours won should form part of the History section, and does not need restating under the list of honours. Done - Deleted part under list of honours.
  • Some sections (Colours, Rivalries) are stubbish and could do with expansion. Consider merging Rivalries and Fanzines to make a Supporters section. Done
  • Only one sentence for three league titles in a decade?
  • Some pedantry: Stoke City were simply named Stoke F.C. in the 19th century. Done - Changed.
  • For general pointers about what sort of work is required to get the article to featured status, look at some of the existing featured football articles. A few further tips are given at User:Oldelpaso/On Football.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Avoid abbreviations like WWII & WW2 - it's more pleasant reading to see Second World War. Done
  • Absolutely per Oldelpaso, three citations for an article like this is inadequate. Check out Ipswich Town F.C. or Arsenal F.C. to get a feel for the level of citation required for a featured article. Done - Much more thoroughly cited.
  • Check out WP:DASH for your references to seasons, so instead of 1935-36, use 1935–36. Done
  • "...described by many as the greatest save at Wembley, and by some even as the greatest save of all time." - this is original research unless you can find something to verify the claims. Done - Sourced through book.
  • I would like to see some images other than club badges. Done - Added more.
  • The ref in Colours should be cited using the Cite web template, same with chairmen ref and managers ref. Done - Everything is Cite web now.
  • "...neither of the latter two clubs takes this anywhere near as seriously as the Tyne-Wear derby..." - needs citation or rewording to be encyclopaedic and neutral point of view. Done - That section no longer exists.
  • Honours table, see other FA's for general style, all sub-sections look like bullet lists without bullets - make them into decent prose. Done
  • I prefer to split the out-on-loan table so there's no awkwardly long player column.
  • Best to include ...correct as of... with manager stats. Done

As per Oldelpaso, hope this helps. The Rambling Man 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Qwghlm[edit]

Agree with The Rambling Man and Oldelpaso, especially on more citations, more free images and removal of the trivia section.

  • "football league" and "first/second/third division" should be capitalised. "F.A. Cup" should become "FA Cup". Done
  • One-line paragraphs in History section should be merged. Done
  • What was the Andrew McCombie scandal of 1904? It should be mentioned if important. Done
  • "amazing double save", "stunning volley" just two examples of POV language in the History section - all should be purged.
  • The fact Roy Keane was told his team were promoted while walking his dog is quite possibly the most banal trivia I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Get rid of it. Done - Gone.
  • History section far too recentist - half of it covers the period 1990-present, grossly distorted compared to the preceding 100 years. Done - Got rid of too recent stuff.
  • Details & images of the crests could be put into a separate section. Done
  • No proof that Image:Roker park aerial.jpg has all rights released, and in any case could be replaced with a free image.
  • "but perhaps the most popular currently" - speculative, unsourced. Done - Gone.
  • Top flight/Second flight etc. subsections of Honours section should be merged into the History section, really, it is just needless repetition here. Done
  • Consider splitting off the Records section into its own article and replacing it with a brief summary. Done
  • Trim the list of coaches and staff, and consider turning it into a table. Done
  • List of chairmen could be turned into a table too. Comment - I removed it, as I felt it was pretty trivial.
  • Grounds section should be turned into prose. Done

Hope this helps. Qwghlm 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

I think the guys above have covered most things I was going to pick up on, but I'll add the following:

  • AFAIK general consensus amongst WP:FOOTBALL editors is that "famous supporters" sections are non-encyclopedic and should be binned. If it stays it needs more citations - I find it extremely hard to believe that Olga Korbut is a Sunderland fan (assuming that isn't vandalism)....
  • "Trivia" section definitely has to go, facts mentioned in this section should be incorporated into the main text of the article (with appropriate citataions, which are currently missing), if any can't be incorporated then get rid of them
  • "Notable players" section is a bit dicey as there's no indication of what criteria were used to select the names listed. If it was based on, for example, a certain number of appearances then that needs to be explicitly stated. If it's just a list of names that one or more editors put in because they think they're considered "club legends" then that's original research and has to go.
  • "Managerless" is spelt wrong in the table
  • The bulk of the "top flight"/"second flight"/etc sub-sections of the "Honours" section is not written in complete sentences and reads like a series of text messages
  • Plus generally lots more references are needed.....

Hope this helps ChrisTheDude 11:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons[edit]

This is modeled on the 4 NFL teams season articles which are already FL so in theory it has a good chance of passing as a FL too. Thought I'd better give it a PR first though. Buc 17:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the Minnesota Vikings seasons list, this is shaping up pretty good, but there is still a little work needed to keep the consistency of the other team seasons' lists. Here are some ideas:
1. Try to find a way to abbreviate your awards.
2. Some of your color coding is incorrect -- check the Chicago Bears seasons list to see how shading is done for a championship season.
3. Individual team seasons should be created and wiki'ed to this list.

Good luck with the efforts! RyguyMN 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Mukherjee[edit]

There has been a lot of recent activity on this page, and I believe the article would benefit with a broader perspective and more comments from editors. The article was recently rated B-class, but that was before the cleanup. Hopefully, after inserting pictures and a few minor changes, the article could qualify for GA. Certain aspects, about whether or not a list of her friends should be included, inclusion of details of old friendship(s),etc are being debated. These discussions would also benefit from an outside opinion. We appreciate you taking the time to offer your inputs :) Best regards, xC | ☎ 07:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing that out. Much appreciated. xC | ☎ 06:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Review by karanacs[edit]

It looks like you have a lot of information here. I recommend that you do a thorough copyediting. Much of the language is very informal, and many of the paragraphs read like lists. I had never heard of Rani Mukherjee before this, and I understand from the article that she is a very famous actress, but I don't understand why. Here are some suggestions (by no means an all-inclusive list) to help out:

    • in lead, "career includes the top grossing films which have collectively placed her amongst the top heroines of all-time" -- doesn't make much sense to me.
    • Background section should not be under Career. It should be a separate section called "Early years."
      • First sentence of main part of article should start with her surname, not "She"
      • Instead of complete article, at top of Background section use Main Article, or See Also (there are templates for these)
    • Reorganize or reword first paragraph of Breakthrough section, please. I was confused going from sentence 1 to sentence 2
    • Breakthrough section reads more like a prose list. If the films or roles are notable, include more information about them (what was the gross, was she nominated for awards, did she start earning more money or more screen time). If the roles aren't particularly notable, then they may not need to all be listed.
    • What was the new look in Chalte Chalte that was widely noticed? Was the film a hit because of her new look or for other reasons?
    • Need a citation for all of the sentences in which you say her performance or the movie was critically acclaimed.
    • Is it really important that she was too busy to go to the Toronto Film Festival
    • remove red links
    • Some of your citations are before the punctuation and some are after. Either is acceptable as long as you are consistent.
    • Please italicize names of newspapers
    • I would incorporate the controversies section into the rest of the text.
    • Some of your sections are very short. It might be wise to combine them.
    • Incorporate some of the main Awards and honors into the body of the article, and also the more important polls. Remove any polls that are more trivia.
    • Your citations are not formatted properly. They should all include a publisher name, and, where possible, the author of the article and the date it was published.
    • Prose issues. Too many sentences are short and use very informal language.
      • Beware of using too many "also"s.
      • "She started out in tenth grade" is not a good sentence. Please reword or combine with the sentence either before or after this one.
      • "came up with", "landed up in college all over again", " this is how the masses got to recognize her", "didn't turn out so well" -- not good!!
      • It's okay to use her surname sometimes instead of saying "she" a lot. Don't refer to her as "The actress"
      • "the song 'Aati Kya Khandala' suddenly caught everyone's attention" -- this needs more explanation or to be reworded.
      • Use double quotes (") instead of single quotes (') for song titles.
      • "2004 was a much significant year in her career." is not proper English
    • I would also recomment that you include a section on criticism of her performances -- what do reviewers or fans like about her, and what don't they like. There must be reasons why she is so well-liked, but it wasn't clear to me what those were.

Good luck! Karanacs 02:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with some of the stuff above, and struck them off. We appreciate your comments, looking forward to improving the article further. Thanks!xC | ☎ 07:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be some misunderstanding about it, I just want to clarify - we'll be completing all the suggestions on this list. The items struck off are the issues we've dealt with already, they do not mean that those are the only things we have looked at. It takes time to complete so many things, which is why some things have been taken care of, while others are pending. xC | ☎ 07:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Mitchell (actor)[edit]

For an article about an English actor and comedian who isn't known that well outside if Britain, I think I've gone about as far as I can go without requesting other's opinions. It was rated as B class a while ago (no comments were left). I'm aiming for GA class with this, as right now it doesn't have the scope for FA. I need really to know if there are any prose issues, if anything else needs a reference (or if another as yet unused reference can be found) and if its covers everything. Plus of course anything else. Gran2 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • Personally, I would focus in the lead more on Mitchell himself and less on Mitchell and Web. Reading the first paragraph of the lead, I thought: "If the most important elements about his career are about M & W, then why do we need an extended seperate article about him?"
  • "At prep school". I don't like very much abbr. like prep etc. I think that in encyclopedical articles full words are better ("preparatory school").
  • The "Mitchell and Webb" section of this article is longer than the Mitchell and Webb article. This is connected with my remarks about the lead. Maybe the main focus on the duo should be in the main article about the duo.
  • "He has also written for series five of the BBC2 impressionist sketch show Dead Ringers.[26]" Avoid one-sentence stubby paragraphs.
  • "Personal life" section is more of a "Personal opinions" section. The current content is still interesting, but do you have any real information about his personal life to add?
  • It is nice the "Solo" section is enriched with critical approaches of his work. The more you add, the best for the article.

I think the article will go through GAC, but I'm not yet sure for FAC.--Yannismarou 19:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going for the angle of including everything he has done in detail. And as alot of that was him an Webb it only makes sense to include it. The actualy Mitchell and Webb article is a stub, that I wasn't even aware of until a month or so ago, I don't even thin its that necessary. About his personal life, there are a few sentences about his romantic life, which basically consists of him not having one, as he said on Parkinson the other week. He isn't married, and hasn't had any long term relationships as far as I can assertain. The other two changes you said have now been made. Also, thanks for the review! Gran2 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a recent interview (May 5) with him, which helped add to the PL section. He cannot drive, and never learnt to, and has OCD! Didn't know that myself, but there we go. Gran2 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shakespearean characters[edit]

User:AndyJones has been working on this list since he created it on 2 November 2005. He is near to completion with only two plays left to cover. This is such a well researched and well structured and useful article that I feel it should be nominated for Featured List when finished. Advise on how the List could be improved or made more accessible for readers would be helpful.

I am wondering if the list should be in a form of a table.

Name of character / Play / Gender / Comment

Perhaps with colour coding for each play - or perhaps group of plays - The Comedies, The Problem Plays, The Histories, etc.


SilkTork 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but isn't color coding discouraged in Wikipedia? A table might be nice though. Wrad 14:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colour coding appears on Featured Lists, such as List of elements by name and Timeline of Apple Macintosh models. However, I can understand that some people may have difficulty following a colour code if the article depended on it and they were colour blind. SilkTork 09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, which I happen to be. I guess we'll decide on it as more reviewers come. Wrad 12:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link still doesn't seem to be working. Wrad 05:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Problem was with the target page, not this one. I've fixed it. AndyJones 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol[edit]

This page had a peer review a year ago and has since been improved by members of WikiProject Bristol. We are hoping that it is ready for submission as a candidate for featured Article but would appreciate any comments about what is needed to get it ready for this stage.— Rod talk 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial suggestions, let me know if any need clarifying:

Lead

  • Is the fact that the location is "between the cities of Bath, Gloucester and Newport" a significant enough item of info for the first sentence of the lead?
  • In the lead, shouldn't the population figures be quoted as "approx", "at least" etc, rather than exact?
  • Didn't the Industrial Revolution last a lot longer than just the 1780s?
  • "unitary districts" should be wikilinked
  • the coastline is on the Severn Estuary; the Bristol Channel starts at Weston-super-Mare (however it would be a shame to lose a mention of the Bristol Channel from the lead, so can we retain it in some other form)
  • The Lead shouldn't really contain any referenced statements - instead it should contain summary info of referenced statements elsewhere

History

  • wikilink first occurrences of Norman, and any centuries
  • where was the 1257 bridge and does it still exist?
  • can we give an idea of the extent of the city at each stage of its development e.g. when in the 14th Century it expanded to include some suburbs, which present-days areas are these?
  • might this benefit from some subheadings?
  • shouldn't plague have an initial capital?
  • what form of "suffering" did the Royalist occupation result in?
  • Can we source the comment that few slaves were brought to Britain, and how few?
  • scandal - POV
  • What were the riots about?
  • penultimate paragraph - why "despite", and which museum?

General

  • Removal of redlinks by stub creation would be desirable
  • Can we reference any unreferenced stuff
  • There are a few places where the canonical when-to-wikilink approach hasn't been adopted

More to follow later. SP-KP 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Economy

  • "reliant on" a bad choice of words in that it requires a higher degree of evidence than simply saying that these areas are significant current contributors to the city's economy.
  • what's the relevance of combined Bristol/B&NES/S Glos/N Som GDP figure?
  • the city is "more affluent than" the UK as a whole ... I think we mean that the city's average inhabitant is more affluent than one chosen at random from the UK as a whole, don't we?
  • how has unemployment rate changed over the years - is 2005 a representative point in time?
  • what does "since the port was leased" mean?
  • important - one of those "to be avoided at wikipedia" words
  • Is HP in Bristol or S Glos? Not sure where the boundary is. Likewise BAE at Filton
  • luxury - pov?
  • "will include" - crystal ball - see WP:NOT
  • Aerospace stuff could do with its own subsection

And more later. SP-KP 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: hiistory being subdivided: I personally don't think it should be: this is in summary style, so the subarticle is there for expansion. There are nine paragraphs in the history section, and since it's in summary style, I can't see it being expanded. I am not a fan of excessive subdivision, and don't think nine paragraphs is enough to need them. Other people might like them though?
Re: HP and BAE: they're both in SG, but as is made clear in the article, we're talking about Bristol in all is definitions, not just the officially sanctioned boundaries. Since they're in the contiguous built up area, and employ many people from the city, they are relevant. Similarly, UWE's main campus is not in the administrative boundaries, but is clearly considered to be Bristolian.
Re: aerospace section: as per the first point, I'm not sure a subsection is neccesary. Joe D (t) 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for the comments. I've had a go at fixing some of the identified problems in the lead and history sections, but don't have the expertise for the economy section.— Rod talk 19:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Culture

  • Again, quite a long section - can we split up using subsections?
  • Prestigous - POV
  • "thriving" music scene - POV
  • can we wikilink the musical styles
  • what is a "cultist" band?
  • what does "This music is part of the wider Bristol urban culture scene ... and still thrives" mean?
  • "will become" - crystal ball
  • is @bristol worth a specific mention?
  • "fame" - a non-to-ve-used-at-wikipedia word
  • Animal Magic - "cult"?
  • what was the "18th century Gothic revival"?
  • what is "mature verse"?
  • what was the "Romantic movement"?
  • what was Robert Southey noted for? Likewise Coleridge
  • what was significant about the marriage of Southey & Coleridge to "the Fricker sisters"
  • Did Wordsworth spend more time in Bristol than anywhere else?
  • all listed comedians are contemporary - is that due to the choice of examples or is this a recent phenomenon?
  • "world famous" - POV
  • are inline external links OK per MoS? I thought we didn't do that in FAs, but I may be wrong
  • unusualness of Brizzle & whether visitors will hear it ... I don't know about this - if they arrive via the Bus station, they'd have to have earplugs in not to hear it!

Politics & government

  • what does "elected in thirdws" mean?
  • rogue s on the end of Parliament

Demographics

No comments on this section

Physical geography

  • "forms to" typo
  • Does Exmoor really shelter Bristol?

Education

  • "major" institutions - POV
  • the mention of the Create centre - seems a bit incongruous, if not spammy
  • what is a "city learning centre"?
  • "important" again
  • Festival of Nature - not really an organisation, more a recurring event
  • Not quite clear about the Humphrey Davy thing - was the gas discovered in Hotwells? What was his work there and was it connected with the discovery?
  • Given that this section veers off into science rather than education is it titled correctly?

General

  • The article is very light on ecological info given Bristol's ecological uniqueness. I'd suggest this topic has it's own major section. I should volunteer to write this, I suppose!
  • Section ordering - maybe needs some more thought? Major basic topics like demographics & physical geography are late on in the article, while specialist topics like culture & economics are early.

One more push and I should complete the remaining sections SP-KP 11:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Education: could be either "Education and academia" or "Education, science and technology"? Regarding the Create Centre, the city council seem to consider it a big deal, but I don't know how notable or influential it really is. Comparative visitor numbers for these things would help establish their notability, I'll try and find some. Anyway, how's this for phrasing?
  • Culture: the section could be subsectioned (though, again, it falls within my personal limits of acceptable section length), but I'm not sure how to go about it without having an absurd number of them, with each paragraph getting its own header (which IMO would be far more harm than help). If it's subsectioned, I'd go for 4 headers along the lines of: "Arts", "Leisure"/"Sport & leisure"/"Sports & events", "Media" and "Dialect".
  • Ecology: is it worth turning the Physical geography section into a "Physical geography and ecology" section? The Phys Geo section is currently quite short, and by combining them one can relate some of the ecology to the geology and location.
Joe D (t) 12:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

  • "Recently" i.r.t. the airport should be a specific date range
  • First were should be First was

and finally

  • Can we work some of the "See also" links into the text? I'm thinking of Maltese Cross (under Culture?), Wills (under Economy?). A See also list should only really contain things we can't fit in elsewhere. SP-KP 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've been working my way through the problems identified (thanks for all of them) & sorting the referencing format & doing stubs for red links. In politics I'm not sure of a better way to word the bit about how the councilors are elected in rotation. I would agree with the suggestion that history should be sub divided - what headings would you suggest? It would be good to combine physical geog with ecology (Bristol's ecological uniqueness ? POV is it more unique than anywhere else?) and possibly rearrange sections - but not sure of the best way to do this. Any further suggestions/improvements welcome.— Rod talk 08:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to respond on the ecological uniqueness point, what I'm talking about here is really uniqueness by association with the Avon Gorge. As a city (without the gorge) Bristol's not unique at all, but with the inclusion of the gorge, we have (in roughly descending order of importance) two or three tree species unknown elsewhere in the world, a dozen or more (?) nationally rare plant species, some of which are found nowhere else in Britain; and some (not sure how many) insect species which are recorded here and nowhere else or at few other sites in Britain. No other "normal-sized" British city comes close to this (London is a bit of a special case because it's so big). SP-KP 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced History should be subdivided, but if it must, how about something like "Pre-Norman", "Mediaeval"/"Pre-industrial revolution" and "Modern"? Unfortunately, the pre-Norman section would be disproportionately small unless expanded a little... Joe D (t) 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK so basically ecology needs to be summarised from Avon Gorge?. I will have another go at the history section & possibly sub section, but I have a few other questions:

History

  • I'm having problems finding much evidence of a Roman settlement at what is now Inns Court (apartfrom a dig in 1997 which found "Wall foundations, timber slots, pits and postholes" - can I delete this & leave it covered by "There were also isolated Roman villas and small Roman settlements throughout the area" - further info as identified & added to History of Bristol.

Politics and government

  • Can I delete the sentence saying who the leader, deputy & leaders of political parties are - ? notability, ? having to be updated each time there is an election etc
  • The bit on race relations (although referenced) contains a couple of red links ? can I remove Paul Stephenson ? notability

External links

  • Do we need all those templates? particularly the A38 ones? also Bristol isn't actually on the Severn so I don't understand that one. Could someone do a stub for Stokes Croft as it mentioned in other articles (eg Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol ) but still a red link.— Rod talk 13:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a stub on Stokes Croft, but I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the Bristol article now. Chris Jefferies 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it was a redlink on the template "Settlements on the A38 road" which is now hidden - but useful for other articles anyway. — Rod talk 09:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To help editors see which of the above suggestions are left outstanding, can I make one more suggestion - using this technique to strike through those which have been actioned?

I've done strikethrough for the ones I can remeber doing - I just don't like editing other peoples contributions without their "permission" - even though that seems strange on wikipedia.— Rod talk

Yellowknife, Northwest Territories[edit]

This article has been around for a while, but not a whole lot has changed or been added to it lately. I think it would be a good idea to get some feedback on it, and comments on how it could be improved. -YK Timestalk 01:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Raven Mad Daze is a street festival celebrated every year as part of the Solstice Festival, by the residents of Yellowknife..." has had a {{fact}} tag for a month or so... I think I added it, even. Would be nice to have that addressed by a local or someone who knows if this is a big festival or what. --W.marsh 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raven Mad Daze" is in fact a long running, semi-notable annual event on the the summer solstice. It used to be much, much bigger than it is currently, but I would say it is just as notable as Caribou Carnival. And yes, I am a resident. -YK Timestalk 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would still be a good idea to have a third-party source confirming the importance. --W.marsh 04:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs more coverage to be comprehensive. Off the top of my head the things it is missing a city article should cover are government/politics, demographics, infrastructure (transportation, roads, sanitation, etc), economics (largest employers, type of economy, etc). Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, which in fact could use some improvement along the infrastructure lines. Ann Arbor may be a good guideline to look after since it's one of the city FAs with the smallest population. Oh, and of course it needs some reliable references. See what are the best books and sources on the city and find those. - Taxman Talk 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've worked up some additions and re-writes to the article. Check them out here. -YK Timestalk 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite improvements, I think you should merge that in right away so other's can help improve it too. Still needs more references and fleshing out, but it's on the right track. - Taxman Talk 13:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last few sections (Culture, Media, Regional Mines) are simple bulleded lists. They could be converted to prose. Regional Mines should go under the Economy section, eventually as a table. Law and Government could be renamed to Government (or Politics). Climate and Physical Geography could be renamed to "Geography and climate" (note sentence case for section titles) or Geography with a subsection on Climate (most Canadian Cities use that layout). History, Law and Government and Economy sections need more references. The lead would need more context (as to the importance of Yellowknife in Canada). Maybe a better map can be found for the infobox, one that shows the entire NWT with Yellowknife emphased. --Qyd 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's another one: "In the Dogrib language, the city is called Somba K'e ("where the money is").". This could do with a citation. --W.marsh 04:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Avalanche[edit]

I've worked on this one some time ago. It had almost 0 references. I re-wrote it a bit, put a lot of references every time it needed. I have not edited it for some time, but other users did. I'd like to know what could be done to make the article better. It is a GA right now, and, although I'm not saying that's the point of having this Peer Review, it'd be good if we could make it to FA status. Well, just point out what could be done to improve this, no matter how little it is. Thanks--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32's review[edit]

Unencyclopedic tone in places: *Quebec City was by far the smallest market in the league, and many players (including Lindros) were skittish about playing in a virtually unilingual francophone city. Skittish? Plus, this sentance is unreferenced. Where does it come from? *turned the Nordiques from an also-ran also-ran??? *Led by captain Joe Sakic, forward Peter Forsberg, and defenseman Adam Foote, Colorado entered their first season in Denver with a strong lineup and an intrigued fan base. Intrigued? Can you read their minds?

  • This series also ended with Martin Brodeur losing the Stanley Cup to his boyhood idol and Avalanche goalie, Patrick Roy. Boyhood idol? Is that necessary? If so, it is unreferenced.

*In 2003, the Avalanche thrillingly came back in the standings Thrillingly? Adverbs are NOT your friend. Avoid such peacock terms. Simply report the facts. Do so in an engaging way, but always maintain the proper neutral tone. *The second last game of the season was particularly exciting Again, according to whom? The writer's own opinion? *The elation of getting the record was short lived however ugh....

  • More copyediting is needed in MANY places. I am NOT a good copyeditor myself, but this needs extensive work from The League of Copyeditors. I highly recommend listing this article there for a copyedit.

Unbalanced coverage: *The history section gives WAY too much emphasis on a few events, like the Lindros draft & trade and the Roy trade. While I agree these are significant events, they DOMINATE the history article. Was NOTHING else from these time periods worthy of mention? *The rivalry with the red wings spends considerable space dealing with a single fight. Notable to mention, not notable enough to dwell on... *The records section only lists season records back to the franchise move to Colorado, but the individual records covers the Quebec years as well. This seems inconsistent... *No treatment is given to Denver's prior NHL franchise, the Colorado Rockies I would not expect a LOT of treatment, but I would expect the article to at least mention them.

Referencing issues:

  • The last several paragraphs of 2001 and beyond are unreferenced.
  • Most of the rivalry section is unreferenced. To be honest, most of this section could go. Any information here can be folded into the history section anwyays.
  • Honored members is mostly unreferenced.

That should give you a start on fixes needed.

Thanks a lot. Several of the issues were (I hope) fixed, but not all. all the mentions about the unencyclopedic tone were changed, with the exception of the particularly exciting. It is explained and backed with a reference that the game was particularly exciting because the team had to win and scored the winning goal 10 seconds before the end of a sudden death overtime. Anyway, this is still up to discussion. The history section will need a rewrite, I think it's poor, specially the part after the move. The Rivalry with the Red Wings was reduced. I'm not sure about what to do in the records section and I can tell you why: the individual records have as the title: Franchise individual records and that includes the Quebec Nordiques. I'm not sure on what is the policy is, I will research it. The Colorado Rockies now have a mention in the part about the move to Denver. The honored members section has references, I think that's enough. I will hope to deal with the other unreferenced parts later as they will require more time. I will submit the article to the The League of Copyeditors as you suggested. Thanks a lot for your review.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck through the items that were fixed or explained better. The article still needs some work, but it is MUCH improving. Some organizational issues I spotted:
  • The roster is listed twice. Is that necessary?
  • Might it be appropriate to list the history of assisstant captains as well as captains? Since Sakic has been the captain for so long, it would help flesh out the article.
  • I am still a bit leary about excluding the Nordiques years from certain sections. I always understood (and I could be wrong, but this was my impression) that, except in unusual cases like the Baltimore Ravens or the San Jose Sharks, a franchise maintained the rights to the history of their former incarnations. Thus, the Nordiques aren't considered a distinct franchise from the Avalanche; the Avalanche are entitled to all of the records and history back to 1972 as part of their own franchise culture. It would be nice if the lists of things like captains and head coaches reflected this (if it is indeed true).
  • While we're at it, the captains and head coaches sections would be better served as a table than as a bullet list, n'est pas?
Well, good luck. This is getting better, and I look forward to future improvements. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The roster template has been removed.
  • I would insert that information about alternate captains, if only I had it or knew where to find.
  • If you say that the franchises maintain the rights (and all that...), the records going back to the nordiques time should not be deleted. It's hard to decide. If you look at the Featured Article New Jersey Devils, you'll see that there's no individual record from the time before the move to New Jersey (but that's probably because all the records of the franchised were set after that move) and there's not a listing of the captains nor head coaches of the Colorado and Kansas City times.
  • I'd only put a table in head coaches if we had stats for them. And I think that's probably easy to do, you just have to see the teams season records and the seasons they worked on. I'll try to do that later.
Thanks once again for your input.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the table in the head coaches section?--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things are looking up. Maybe the whole Nordiques/Avalanche issues is being blown out of proportion. I never wanted the Nordiques statistics REMOVED. I wanted them ADDED to places where they were missing. If you feel that this is adequately dealt with in the Nordiques article anyways, so be it. I dig the coaches table. Maybe the captains table can be added for consistancy. I KNOW it will be short, but it won't be short for ever... And WRT the alternate captains, none of the hockey DB sites list this? Hmmm. I am most familiar in dealing with the football database sites, and many of those are VERY detailed. I am surprised that information is not out there. I believe you, but am still suprised.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (UK)[edit]

Me and some fellow editors are trying to get the article to FA status. Please can you inform us about any changes you think needed to be made and which sections are the poorest. We have previously been informed that the article suffers from poor sentencing/wording. If you agree, please copy/paste the related sentences here and make any corrections you see fit. Thanks, Dalejenkins 18:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on article talk page EyeSereneTALK 20:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you nominate it for GAC before you try for FA again? I can see two citation needed tags. And the references need to be in the citeweb format, loads of them have no accessdates. Gran2 06:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surface weather analysis[edit]

It has been mentioned during FAC that this article should have peer review, which I have no problems with. I look forward to the critiques. Thegreatdr 20:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jayron32's Review

Issues that need addressing:

  1. The lead: Quite inadequate to summarize the article.
    1. First of all, a SWA is a type of weather map. It is the one most people are familiar with from the nightly newscast, but there are MANY other types of maps used to show weather, and an SWA is only one of them. Isotherm maps showing temperature distribution, radar maps showing prescipitation, satellite cloud imagery, etc. may all be used individually or in conjunction with SWAs to produce hybrid maps.
    2. The lead is not really a balanced summary. The history section is summarized in only a single sentance, while the symbols receive about 90% of the summary. Plus, its only a single paragraph. I would recommend the following structure for the lead:
      1. First paragraph should be a general introduction to an SWA and how and why they are used
      2. Second paragraph should summarize the history of their development
      3. Third paragraph should summarize common symbols and features.
      4. Fourth paragraph should summarize uses of SWAs.
  2. History section:
    1. The see also line at the top is a TOTAL non-sequitur. If this is to be included at all, it should be part of a see-also section. Where a see-also line is imbedded under a heading, it should lead to an article that expands the section directly, usually created as a fork for size reduction. This section really needs no forking, and needs no imbedded see-also.
    2. This section needs some expansion in areas. We have some gaps in the development of SWAs. Who first thought to plot isobars on a map? How did such maps become such powerful forcasting tools? When and how did familiar symbols become standardized?
      1. This is becoming the most difficult section to update to your satisfaction. I have added more on the history of the evolution of the surface analysis within the United States, but it doesn't cover your three questions. I'll see if I can find something, somewhere. Thegreatdr 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      2. I must say this isn't good advice. Articles should be balanced in how much space they allocate to each subtopic, with the amount of space proportional to the subtopic's importance. The article already allocates too great a portion of space to history and more wouldn't be appropriate. If you want more details on the history of this type of analysis, WP:SUMMARY calls for creating a subarticle and expanding that. - Taxman Talk 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        1. That's definitely a possibility Taxman. I'll consider the creation of a subarticle for the History of surface weather analysis, which would make the article more proportional. Thegreatdr 02:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Plotted symbols:
    1. Quite inadequate. We have no full discussion of the full weather-station symbol code. the NOAA surface analyses use a standardized weather station symbol for indicating cloud cover, windspeed and direction, pressure; not just weather conditions, which is what this section implies. We should have a graphic of the full symbol, and a discussion of each element of the symbol and how to interpret it.
    2. We need some expansion on WHY the various isolines are important in helping weather forcasters. We can plot isobars or isotherms, but so what? Why would we want to? Again, a picture of an isotherm, isobar, or an isotach map may be appropriate. Also, techinical terms like these probably need wikilinking to the appropriate articles.
  4. Synoptic scale features:
    1. No discussion of what this term means. It is jargony, and the section needs an introduction of its own.
    2. Also, this section does not need a see-also line, since these terms can be wikilinked in the article itself, rather than as an imbedded see-also line. See discussion above as well regarding the use of these.
    3. Pressure Centers subsection is choppy and hard to follow. It should probably read something like:
      1. Paragraph 1) A pressure center is... They are important because... They are represented on a map with...
      2. Paragraph 2) A low pressure center is... Winds typically circulate... Weather typically associated with one is...
      3. Paragraph 3) A high pressure center is... Winds typically circulate... Weather typically associated with one is...
    4. Fronts section has same issue. Try:
      1. Paragraph 1) A front is... They are important because... They are represented on a map with....
      2. Paragraph 2) A warm front is... Weather associated with a warm front is...
      3. Paragraph 3) A cold front is.... etc.
      4. etc.
  5. Mesoscale features:
    1. The see also line could probably include the mesoscale convective system link, but the rest should be regular wikilinks in the body of the text.
    2. The introduction is better than above.
    3. Dry line subsection has informal languages: "sloshes"???
    4. Dry line subsection also needs some expansion. Triple point is hard to interpret without context. A chemist might read this and thing something totally different than a meteorologist, and a lay person would have NO idea what either was thinking...
    5. Squall lines section. Explaining haboob might be good besides just wikilinking it.
    6. Same subsection: There is already a key above explaining the symbol. A briefer mention might be in order, but the nonstandard CAPS have got to go... Removed CAPS per suggestion from Mesoscale Convective System, but OUTFLOW BNDRY and SQUALL LINE are in caps because that is exactly how they are labelled on analyses, in caps. Thegreatdr 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maps in aviation section:
    1. Consider both expanding this section slightly AND maybe forking to its own article if aviation SWAs are significantly different than all others, such as maybe an article titled Aviation weather maps or something. IF you do this (and it isn't strictly needed, you could just expand this section), THAT would be an appropriate use of a seealso template.
    2. Better yet, expand this to a full section on "common uses of SWAs" and include aviation as a subsection.

Where I have given you an outline of how to organize a section, you definately want to be more varied in your prose than I have. These are merely outlines to follow to set up the sections in a logical organization scheme, not a strict template to follow for wording and such. There ya go. That should give you a start on ways to improve the article. Good luck. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs a longer lead per WP:LEAD. Be very careful to spell out how "Surface weather analysis" is any different from meteorology in general. Is that really the most recognizable term for the concept? I'm sure this has been hashed out before, but why not just name it weather map? - Taxman Talk 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to read my review above. A surface weather analysis isn't really a feild of discipline like "meteorology", it is a tool used by meteorologists to predict the weather. It is not a synonym of weather map, it is a type of weather map built on data from individual weather stations. Since these weather stations are ground based, the map is called a "surface weather analysis". There are lots of weather maps built on data from sources other than ground stations, for example: radar, or satellite, or balloon data. Weather maps that show this kind of data cannot properly be termed "Surface Weather Analysis", since, well, they don't use surface weather data.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With that type of context improved, the lead is quite a bit better. Check what I added based on what you said here. The bits of context that differentiate this should be made clear. The only other major thing the article could use is expansion from reliable sources. - Taxman Talk 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are coming along. The article weather map has risen from the ashes, per Jayron's comments, which now houses the aviation weather map section, since those maps don't deal with surface conditions most of the time anyhow. That article also talks about forms of analysis done on weather maps, which has been added to the fronts section. The lead has been reorganized, per the commments above. All the comments above have been responded to and resolved (except for the history questions), from what I can tell. Let me know if anything else comes up, whether within this peer review, or FAC. Thegreatdr 13:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, this is improving greatly. It seems we have taken care of the big issues (the history section appears more comprehensive now. I remove any objections to that one as well). Now lets work on the little stuff. First of all, I am NOT a great copyeditor. My strength is always the big picture, such as organization and the like. You may want to post this at The League of Copyeditors for a review from them. I am not saying the prose isn't good, I only note that copyediting is NOT my strong suit, and someone else should look at it, if only to say that it is good writing. Some other stuff that I caught on this read through:
    • The U.S. Army Signal Corps, which evolved into the modern National Weather Service That makes it sound like the NWS is a division of the army (which it isn't) or that the Signal Corp doesn't exist anymore, but "became" the NWS (which is didn't). You might want to clarify this relationship some.
    • The first attempts at time standardization may have taken hold in the Great Britain by 1855, but in the United States standard time did not come to pass until 1883, when time zones started to come into use across America for railroad use. Sentance is hard to parse. Not sure how to fix it, but it needs a rewrite. I keep getting lost while reading it.
    • The use of frontal zones on weather maps did not appear until the introduction of the Norwegian cyclone model in the late 1910s Why not wikilink Norwegian cyclone model, since there is a see-also at the bottom for this anyways (more on this later) That's an external link, not a see also. =) Thegreatdr 17:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of the term "front" to describe a weather line on a map or the interface between air masses that the line symbolizes came from the line's resemblance to the military fronts of World War I Again, hard to parse. Also, WWI and military fronts should be wikilinked.
    • The earliest surface analyses from the United States featured only a map of the continental U.S. with the day's air temperature, barometric pressure, wind velocity and direction, and a general indication of the weather for various cities around the country plotted directly on the map. Again, hard to parse. Probably a run on sentance that could use a reorganization or splitting into smaller sentances.
    • Symbols for weather are not straightforward, and were devised to take up the least room possible on weather maps. Replace symbols with "These models" or "These symbols" or something to better indicate relationship of this statement to rest of paragraph.
    • Consider looking to this page: [1] for additional help in decifering the station model symbols. It might help clean up that section a bit more. The section is MUCH better now than it was before, but it could probably still use some expansion. It is very "dense" in information, and that can make it hard to follow a bit. Plus, I like the graphics on the HPC page better than the one you used. Its easier to read, and as part of the NWS, graphics from the HPC should be public domain... Not a biggie, but might be worth checking out. Even if you don't use it, dropping it into the External Links section is probably appropriate. While the station model depiction is simpler than the one currently in the article, I think it would be a mistake to substitute the simpler station model for the more complete one. However, the wind barb from that page was needed, so included it both within this article and weather map. Thegreatdr 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Low Pressure section, the relationship between low pressure systems and cyclones is unclear. The term cyclone is just dropped in, without explanation. Is it a synonym or a low pressure system? Is it a type of low pressure system?
    • In High Pressure, I don't remember, but don't some sources call high pressure systems "anticyclones?". I could be wrong, but I believe I have seen that term in print before... Might make for a nice balance with the low pressure section to mention the term.
    • In the Fronts introduction, you wikilink "mountain" but not "pressure gradient force"? Not even sure if pressure gradient force has an appropriate article to wikilink to, but you shouldn't wikilink common words like "mountain". Everyone knows what a "mountain" is.
    • The fronts subsections are underwikilinked. Some terms that should probably be linked to existing articles include: "cold front" (its first appearence isn't linked), "stratiform", "squall line" (its first appearence in the article should also be wikilinked), "trough" (in relation to meteorology), and "shear lines" should be wikilinked.
    • The cold and warm fronts curve up naturally into the point of occlusion. Up is imprecise here? Northward? Away from the earth's surface?
    • Inconsistent use of airmass/air mass. Not sure which is correct, but using BOTH isn't
    • "At night, the boundary reverts back to the west as daytime" awkward phrasing. The whole dry line section could use some work.
    • I understand why the CAPS are used for terms like SQLN and the like, but maybe these terms should be in quotes as well? Not sure on that usage, and a better grammarian than I should probably look at it and give their opinion.
    • The term "Sea/lake/river breeze" is awkward. Maybe rewrite as "Sea breeze (also lake breeze or river breeze as appropriate)" would be clearer. Also, the description of a sea/land breeze cycle closely resembles a dryline cycle... Is there any relationship between the two? Just curious.
    • The see also section has terms that are wikilinked in the text. I am pretty sure that the See Also section at the bottom should be reserved for related articles that are NOT wikilinked in the text. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions which specifically explains how See Also sections are to be used.
    • Years, months, or days that are NOT part of full dates should not be wikilinked, unless the year is wikilinked to an "in XXXX" article to provide context (such as [[2001 in music]]) or something like that. Only wikilink full dates in the form [[9 May]] [[2007]] which allows for the date formating aspect of the wikisoftware to work correctly. See WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT for more info.
  • There ya go again. Like I said, the article is MUCH improved, and the above nit-picks are quite detailed, but again, if this article is to have the "compelling or brilliant prose" expected of an FA, it needs work. Don't forget to post at WP:LOCE for another look as well.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing. Perhaps an actual NWS map that shows the station model codes clearly would be appropriate. this one: [2] from the HPC does just that pretty well. It is zoomed in well enough to show the stations and isolines clearly. Others can be found at: [3] which again might make a good external link to the article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw in the last edit summary that there isn't an article on the Norwegian cyclone model. It sounds like an important enough event in the history of meteorology that there SHOULD be an article on it. I know when I read this article, and saw the term used in a few places, I wanted to read more. Perhaps starting a stub for now and wikilinking the term would be appropriate here.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne of Denmark[edit]

I had often passed back and forwards through the Jacobean period, both from a historical and a literary point of view, without really noticing James I's consort, Anne of Denmark, whom I vaguely regarded as a nothing queen compared to the largely vivid queens and consorts of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, a sort of mouse behind the throne. But, as I worked on one or two Jacobean topics recently, she slowly but surely came into focus at last.

And then I was brought up short by a passage in Alan Stewart's biography of James where he suggests that James stood aloof from many of the phenomena we now see as peculiarly Jacobean and that Anne was actually the central figure of the court culture. Considering that the Jacobean age—particularly the first decade, when Anne was still in good health and highly active—provided one of the great literary flowerings in British history, with Shakespeare, Middleton, Jonson, and Donne at the height of their powers, this placed Anne in a new light for me. Editing the article about her, I discovered also that she was more independent and politically active than I had imagined. The more I read about her and the more editing I indulged in, the more I started wondering if this could become a featured article. So I'd be very interested to read and address any comments before I brave those gnashing Symplegades. Any criticism gratefully digested. qp10qp 03:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit[edit]

Here are my comments for improvement. Feel free to paste them into peer review when you do that.

  • Can you spice up the first paragraph of the lead? It just has names and dates right now. You need to draw the reader in just a tad more, I think.
I've cut a dull chunk and amalgamated it with the second paragraph, which introduces some aspects of her character.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, recent reappraisals acknowledge Anne's assertive independence and, in particular, her dynamic significance as a patron of the arts during the famous Jacobean age. - Are these reappraisals based on an underlying methodology like feminism?
McManus's book is very feminist, I think. But Pauline Croft, though a woman, crafts her comments in ways that disguise any overt feminism, it seems to me, though she endorses the reappraisal. Barroll contributes a major and original reappraisal of Anne without sounding particularly feminist: but he has worked with Cerasano, who is very feminist. I'm not sure. I think feminists like McManus have followed historians' reappraisals of early Stuart monarchy—a general trend over the last twenty years but not a feminist thing itself—by focussing on Anne, and then their works have in turn informed mainstream biographers like Alan Stewart. It's difficult tracing the origins of the reappraisal: Ethel Williams in 1970, not noticeably a feminist though identifying, I think, with Anne as a woman, said a number of little things which I suspect may have set off a few bells among feminists later on, for example that Anne's support of Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones had never been fully appreciated (a very significant thing to say when you consider that they are two of Britain's greats, and very dependent on patronage). I also get the impression that feminist studies of the Jacobean age are often more cultural and literary than purely historical: the historians, even the women, seem more cautious in their language than the literary and cultural analysts—I suppose because they are interpreting a limited number of known facts rather than a vast sea of literature and art which can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.
Basically I was wondering if there was a reason for the reappraisal that you could put into the sentence. Revisionist history often happens for a reason. Awadewit Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment below about historical views.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anne's birth at Skanderborg Castle in Skanderborg, in Jutland, in the Kingdom of Denmark - too many "in's"?
Carch, are you listening? Ten flagellations, now.
Oh dear. I'd better bring cat o' nine tails up to Good Article standard, or something. Carcharoth 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely sorted by Carcharoth.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Güstrow provided Anne with a frugal and stable environment during her early childhood - "frugal environment" seems like an odd description.
I think I got the idea from Williams's: "Life at Güstrow was frugal, orderly and virtuous; very different from the hectic conditions prevailing at the Danish court." One ties oneself in knots trying to use different words, and Williams is the only real source of information about Anne's childhood that I've come across. I'll try to find a different word than "environment".
Better wording now in place, I think.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anne was under pressure to fulfill her perceived chief purpose and provide James and Scotland with an heir - why "perceived"?
I thought it might sound a bit horrid not to add that. One of the historians just calls it her purpose. I think I can leave out the whole central phrase without loss, though.
I think it is more historically accurate to say it was her purpose, though. History isn't always pretty. Awadewit Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed all mention of purpose and I think the sentence is better for it.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anne's opportunity came when James left for London in 1603 to assume the English throne, taking the earl of Mar with him. - her "opportunity" to do what?; also might be unclear to some readers why he was assuming the English throne now
I can just say "opportunity" to take custody of Henry.
Sorted by Carcharoth.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Custody" section, I was slightly confused - did she miscarry twice? Also, you might indicate that it was thought that she miscarried because of the stress over the Henry custody battle. I'm sure we don't really know why. Figuring out the real medical causes of events in the past is nearly impossible.
She did miscarry twice. I thought it was clear they were different: one was in 1595 and one in 1603—the dates are there...I'll try to make it clearer, by perhaps saying "miscarried again". In fact she miscarried at least one more time, but I'm not sure when that was. I did try to distance those foreign interpretations. I can say "it was thought", or whatever.
I've adjusted here and there to make this clearer and brought Calderwood's contemporary quote from the notes into the text.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Reaction to favorites" there is a referencing mishap.
Fixed. qp10qp 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you can expand a bit in the "Patron of the arts" section; I was disappointed by its brevity, especially since the lead said that she led a sparkling salon.
I wanted to keep the overall length down. But actually I think this is her most important sphere. Oddly, though, precise information about the painters is lacking, while there is a major ton about the masques.
I would add information on the masques, then. I know that size is an issue, but right now you talk about her mostly in relation to other figures. It would be nice to bolster the article with something she did on her own. Awadewit Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still to do: I've decided to add a paragraph on masquing, but I'll have to do some re-reading first.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought some info up from the notes into the article and added the bit where Carleton says the Spanish ambassador risked getting paint on his lips when he kissed Anne's hand after The Masque of Blackness. qp10qp 15:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tiniest thing - some of your ISBNs have hyphens and some do not.
I just copy them out of the books. Some have hyphens, some gaps, and some are solid. What do you think is the best way to do them: all solid?
I do solid. Awadewit Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done solid.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you suggest that there are competing interpretations of her reign among historians - I would have liked to see a section or a few paragraphs comparing those interpretations somewhere. Awadewit Talk 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the notes are full of conflicting interpretations, but, as you know, I don't really like intruding the historians into the main text unless absolutely necessary. Anyway, I'll see what I can do.
Well, then don't tempt us in the lead! :) Awadewit Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a subsection on this with a paragraph dealing with historians' opinions. Obviously, I'm only sampling five historians there, but Croft does summarise this whole reappraisal, and so I've cited her to cover that.

Many thanks for your help! qp10qp 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

Yomangani[edit]

  • Can't see much wrong with it. Engaging, comprehensive etc. etc.
  • Quibbles: Some of the intrigues and events could do with a little expansion in the body of the article: personally I find it annoying to have to flick back and forth between the article and footnotes to understand what is going on. For the general reader some background might be helpful in places (e.g. ...though Lutheran rather than Calvinist - most people who can work out the significance of that don't need it mentioned and those can't need more explanation). What's with the occasional lowercasing of earl and duke in titles? There is also intermittent linking of dates. It seemed to end rather abruptly, but maybe I'm just used to these articles tailing off through "Styles and arms". Yomanganitalk 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review. I've yet to do a full pre-FAC copy-edit, and when I do I will try to clarify a few things in the main text. I must read it through without referring to the notes to see if the main text stands up on its own, because that's all most people will read. My noting system is idiosyncratic and still not fully realised: I am trying to develop a system whereby the citing of the article is easier for readers to check (at least to the degree that they may see what the article text is based on at key points); also, since Wikipedia is a collection of information, it seems a waste for editors to look up interesting details or points and then cover them only with "Jones, p. 7", because then the information returns to the abyss; finally, I think I might better help the school and college students who want to use the articles by providing them with a collection of interesting quotes on a subject. The trouble is that this is, so far, a very cumbersome apparatus for a mere encyclopedia article, though I am trusting that one day notes will be fully hideable and perhaps available on clicking in a side bar or superimposed box. The toughest call is judging what to put in the article and what to note; sometimes I can't see the wood for the trees and deceive myself that something is covered in the article when it is only covered in the notes.)

On "Lutheran rather than Calvinist", yes, I think that can go. You're right: if the article is going to include that, it should explain it, which really would take too long.

The lowercasing of earl and duke is the result of a decision I've made to follow American rather than English usage style (CMS), though I occasionally trip up because it really is a tricky area. The style I've used looks odd to a British eye, but I've only really intended to use the capitals when the name and title is given as a block: so it would be: Duke Henry of Brunswick, but Henry, duke of Brunswick—because the second shows only that he is one of the generic dukes of Brunswick. However, I've been inconsistent in places, as you've probably noticed, and so I will check through very carefully.

Linking of dates is a mystery to me. Once I learned to link them properly, I found people going through unlinking them, referring to other guidelines, so I tend not to give a fig about all that these days. Usually someone comes along who is only too happy to set them in order.

On the abrupt ending: well, she died. When a reigning monarch dies there are usually a whole set of consequences to lay out, as it were, but there don't seem to have been many consequences following Anne's death, poor thing. I didn't put an "assessment" or "legacy" section in because I was trying to fold elements of those into the main text. qp10qp 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you basing it on Wikipedia:Capitalization#Titles (and I'm not sure you are) then the Duke of Buckingham merits a capital, whereas "George Villiers, a duke of Buckingham" wouldn't, But then again maybe the convention you are using is just ugly ;). Yomanganitalk 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a bit ugly; but it saves decisions further down the line and having to end up placing capitals here, there and everywhere. For example, if you say the "Duke of Buckingham", then you have to say the "Duke", the "Earl", etc. and, logically, "George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham". The CMS gives a string of examples, including:
the president of the United States; the president; President George Washington; President Washington; George Washington, president of the United States.
and:
the archbishop of Canterbury; Frederick Temple, archbishop of Canterbury; the pope; Pope John Paul II; the earl; the earl of Shaftsbury; Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury.
On the other hand it does admittedly say: Prince Philip, duke of Edinburgh (often capitalised in this honorary title)—so that may apply to the duke of Buckingham, who was not a hereditary duke, though I'd rather try to keep the whole system consistent.
This is all on pages 240 to 243 of my CMS, which says: "Civil, military, religious, and professional titles and titles of nobility are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name, as part of the name...;When such titles are used in apposition to a name, they are not part of the name and so are lowercased."
This may not exactly be Wikipedia MoS, but it does say somewhere in the MoS that CMS style is also acceptable. However, I do have some inconsistencies in the article (Earl Marischal) and must smooth them out. qp10qp 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I just hope it doesn't catch on. I think I may have capitalized one when I was looking through, before I realized you were doing it intentionally. I'll go and look. Yomanganitalk 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were quite right about the dates, of course. I've now grasped the nettle and linked them properly (I think). qp10qp 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a careful copy edit and tried to clarify some of the intrigues as you suggest, trimming bits of rind off the carrot, so to speak. I'm no longer the best person to tell whether the information reads clearly, because I've gone over it so often that I'm starting to hallucinate. Might as well stick it up for FAC forthwith, since I can't think what else to do (famous last words). qp10qp 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sale, Greater Manchester[edit]

This is a current Good Article nominee but we're aiming to eventually get it to Featured Article status. Any recommendations for improvement would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Epbr123 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elk (Cervus canadensis)[edit]

Pretty well detailed article...preparing to update all cites to ensure they are still accurate so mostly asking for a copyedit, and suggestions as to what I and others might have missed that needs further coverage.--MONGO 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Sections - I'm not too keen on See Also section, should surely be able to be worked through text (related species yada yada yada). Also; I'd make a last section Elks and humans and have products, hunting, farming folklore and trivia all rolled into it. Trivia sections area bit wishy-washy and not liked in FAC these days. Subspecies should be a subsection below Description - all these make nice hierarchical headings/subheads too.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sod it, I'll get stuck into it myself. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Needs a copyedit. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: I know it was difficult finding common ground for the article name but I really don't like Elk (Cervus canadensis) however I'll see what others say.

Overall, looking very promising though. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Description ad Distribution and habitat both seem to have information which belongs in each other on subspecies. Unravelling this satisfactorily I find to be one of the most infuriating parts of getting thee type of articles up to FAC. Good luck...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural references is a section stub. Surely there must be more than that? Perhaps they are cultural in Asia too, btw. If nothing else the section can be mereged into usage with reference to hunting (which I assume occurs and is currently also missing) throughout the ages.
Elk products might be renamed Human uses or economic importance or something.
Elk are naturalised in New Zealand after a single introduction and cause some environmental damage as well as form one of the economic assets (in the form of hunting). You do mention that they were introduced but don't mention the benefits and gloss over the costs - seem to have adapted with fewer ill effects and hunting is extensive. I doubt many Kiwi ecologists would agree.
Migration is currently about one population on one continent, this article should be about the whole species, not just those in the Americas. Does the species as a whole migrate? Are there larger migrations in Asia than in the US?
Until recently, red deer and elk were considered to be one species, Cervus elaphus, perhaps were often considered would be better. I have older books that include the split.

Just from my brief skiming. I'll look over it later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments:
    • The sections on subspecies and DNA analysis refer to technical terms and concepts which need more explanation for the layperson. I'm not sure what "ecotype" means, and it is strange to have the phrase "ecotypes (former subspecies)" repeated three times. "MtDNA" needs to be spelled out, and the significance of mtDNA findings explained.
    • The lead should cover the major points of the article. It is a common mistake in bio-articles to have the lead focus on the origins of the subject's name. Naming should be discussed in a section, and briefly mentioned in the lead.
    • The article needs a general copyedit. There are some grammatical mistakes, and style issues such as "Please note that...". I can give it a final once-over after the article is in near-final shape. Just give me a shout when it's ready.
  • Cheers, Kla'quot 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...I want to expand several sections and will use the kind advice offered here by several editors.--MONGO 04:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments As mentioned already, the part about petroglyphs needs to be expanded. What's the significance of these to Native Americans? Could this fit in the "human uses" section? If you need more information, I suggest trying Google Scholar, Google Books (sometimes there are old, but useful full text materials, other times the snippets they show give enough information), or Amazon full-text book search. --Aude (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks...that's coming...I have some leads but your suggestions are also helpful.--MONGO 21:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Dreams May Come[edit]

I have done considerable work on this article, because not many people have read this novel; most have only seen the 1998 film adaptation. I provided a detailed plot summary, an infobox, some information about the novel's religious background, and information regarding the differences between the film and the novel. I later condensed the plot summary in accordance with Wikipedia standards not to be too detailed about summaries. I tried to provide a general outline of the events. marbeh raglaim 06:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further ideas you might like to consider[edit]

Nice start, I have three comments at present
Your suggestion to add a "section listing the various paranormal phenomena that the book mentions" would perhaps be better as prose rather than a list. Perhaps part of a "Major themes" section.
There could do with more referencing and in-line citations (see you have some).
More on the reception the novel had before and after the film version if you can find such a source.
The "Character" section could do with more descriptions, I myself think a list format is fine here; "but" there should be more to it, something describing the characters and there basic position in the narrative and roles they fulfill.
Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try working on a major themes section.
I'm not sure what parts you think need more citations. Could you be specific?
I have been unable to find much information on the reception of the novel. Amazon provides no external reviews, and in fact the "Product Description" seems to be written by someone who only saw the film. I have looked through journal and newspaper archives from my old university and found hardly anything.
What I do need to work on is information on the different versions. The only version I have read (and which I now own) is the one published after the movie, where the cover is based on the film, and it also contains an afterword by producer Stephen Simon (aka Stephen Deutsch) explaining how he came across the book and what it means to him and how it has changed many people's lives.
I will also work on the Characters. marbeh raglaim 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have now updated the Character section, created a Major Themes Section, added some info about the different editions of the book, and modified some other info. What remains is to make the infobox reflect the first edition, add a cover image, and include technical info about the other editions. Any other suggestions? marbeh raglaim 21:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, now I have a real question. I have put up information about all three editions, and I think the article looks about complete now. The only thing needed is a picture of the cover. Here is a URL with a pretty good picture:
http://eloise.vox.com/library/book/6a00c2251c536cf21900ccff86550f985d.html
My only question is I'm not sure how to upload this in compliance with copyright restrictions. marbeh raglaim 09:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a cover from the first edition. It is generally the prefer edition to use unless there are any other notable literary events in the life of the novel. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting organization (charity)[edit]

I'd like some perspective and help improving this article should anyone want to spend some time on it. I'm particularly concerned about the organization of the article such as the order I listed the different sections. Consistet depth may also be a problem because I may unjustifiably go into deeper detail in some sections than others. Thanks! EECavazos 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I renamed the "See also" to "References". The See also section should link to other internal articles that are related in some way to this article that are not generally discussed already in the article text. I'm not sure if they are really references though. Some may just be External links - I wasn't sure how to address them. Morphh (talk) 2:21, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This phrasing is confusing to me - consider rewording "donations to a supporting organization garner the same deduction higher donation rate as deductions to public charities." The term "deduction higher donation rate" just sounds like a odd jumble of terms. It's probably my lack of knowledge in this area and this is a common term but it sounds like it's missing something like "deduction of a higher donation rate..." or something. Morphh (talk) 2:27, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second and Thrid sentences both start with the term "However", which makes for odd prose. Consider rewording - Could probably remove the second "However".Morphh (talk) 2:31, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider reworking the footnotes with links and such. Take a look at the Citation templates. Duplication of footnotes - first ref should use name="refname". The next time the ref is used you can use the name="refname" />. See WP:FOOT. Morphh (talk) 2:53, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New restrictions" - Is the word "New" in the header needed. Are their "old" restrictions or something else to consider here? Should it just be called "Restrictions"? Just tossing out ideas as it jumped out at me. Morphh (talk) 2:58, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
Check, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 2:35, 05 May 2007 (UTC) 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winklethorpe[edit]

I've tried to review fairly broadly. I noticed a few typos etc while reading through, but I'll give it a second read through for that later. Good article in the making, I feel. I think a better organisation may improve the article, as would giving less technical introductions before going more deeply (Pension Protection Act of 2006 is a good example of a less technical summary)

I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead: “donations to a supporting organization garner the same deduction higher donation rate as deductions to public charities” – While from context I can guess what deduction higher donation rate is, I think you need to more firmly establish the context here for non-US readers.
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definition section. I had to re-read this section to get how you’d laid it out. I think it’s definitely a good idea to give the 3 strands, and then detail each one. My approach would have been to introduce in less technical language, however. A really rough example would be something like “Under § 509(a)(3) the Internal Revenue Code gives 3 tests for a supporting organisation: an paired organizational and operational test, a relationships test (just making that description up for an example), and a control test (ditto).” And then give headings that use the less technical terms. You can then get technical to your hearts content.
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d echo the “New restrictions” heading comment by Morphh. I can’t think of a better one, however. Again, I’d suggest summarizing in less technical language first. The later Pension Protection Act of 2006 section is a good section - perhaps reorganising to use it to introduce this section? Do the later subheadings (Charitable trust) stem from 509(f)?
Check, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the new restrictions more properly belong in the Reform section?
Check, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treasury regulations. This is an ongoing issue (the suspension), and you can future-proof it by providing dates.
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reform: Past impact and criticism. Would “impact and criticism” or just “impact” be as good? Also, there are no details of reforms in this section - perhaps it shouldn't be a subheading of reform?
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congress Mandated survey: could this section use a little more material – perhaps an idea of the conclusions of the survey (unless it’s not done yet, in which case a short “report expected in late 2007” or whatever).
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: my instinct would be to put it first, thereby using it to introduce the general background. There are no right answers here, though. Do you have any material on the motivation of its introduction, who the proponents were, etc?
Check, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the structure, you're the best judge of it. As an example, you could consider a more chronological structure as below:

  • History
  • Definition
    • (subheadings)
  • Impact
  • Reform
    • (Pension Protection Act)
    • (New restrictions)
  • Survey
Check, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means perfect - the mix of technical and narrative might be fairly ugly. Something to consider, though? Winklethorpe (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles the Clown[edit]

I've referenced everything in the article and think that there are not quite enough reliable sources for getting this to GA status. Feedback would good.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd rather this article was not viewed as a content fork.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*The image is almost too small to be useful. Is that fixable? *The lead says "any other living person", which implies Bubbles is alive. *The lead section should be an overview, so there's no reason for an "overview" section.*The quote is referenced, which is important, but the text should say who says it.

  • The last sentence is cute, but probably inappropriate. One reason is that the article does not discuss the actual clown doll itself, but only the photograph of the doll. If the doll itself is to be discussed (who owned it, what happened to it), then it should probably be in its own section.

– Quadell (talk) (random) 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can create a higher resolution picture. I'll also do some research into his fate, and create a section on that. Thanks for comments.

Riatsila 10:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you go about researching his fate? Emailing the BBC?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I am emailing them anyway about the upcoming dates that test card J is due to be shown.

Riatsila 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tell me when Test Card J is due to be shown (it is only shown once a year in early January now it seems) and please tell me what happened to Bubbles.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the email, but due to the large amount of emails they recieve it will be some time until I get a reply.

Riatsila 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy[edit]

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy is an article about a current controversy of the George W. Bush administration, that includes leading figures at the White House, the Department of Justice, and the two Congressional Committees on the Judiciary.

This is an unusually detailed request, as I attempt to give a useful overview.
The editors active on the article have collectively stumbled onto a big project, that is in need of (and ready for) some significant changes, and we could use some independant wisdom and advice on smart editorial choices, and have pointed out to us where some attention could be fruitfully applied. Recognize that we might not get consensus on all suggestions, since a lot of people may participate in the article in any one week. I'm unsure if this article fits into a particular working / editorial project, since it crosses a lot of project boundries, and it seems that each of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government Agencies are narrower than the scope of this article. I'll post a note on each of their talk pages, in case some people active there desire to comment here. The goal is advice; we're not especially concerned about establishing a rating for the article, since we know this article is going to be changing. Here are some edit statistics for the article, in case anyone cares: WP Page History Stats: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Overview: The article has been moderately stable for the past month, but it needs some significant format and length revisions. It has grown greatly since its first edits late February 2007. The active editors need to split up things and make some sub-articles. (And we're all busy in life, so we should admit that it will take some time to properly respond to and incorporate suggestions.) Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy will give a hint on what conversations have been going recently. There's a giant talk archive. Speculated Accomplished split-outs are:

(a) the creation of separate article to move the brief biographies of eight (and more) dismissed attorneys to: Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary
(b) extending a chronology or time-line and making that a separate article: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline The article suffers a bit from being a mixed set of chronology and narrative.

Suggested improved names for those split-offs, and any other split-offs invited.

We, at the moment don't have active disputes or vandalism occuring, which is rather remarkable, but this may change as the issue itself changes. Since this is a currently unfolding event, we can expect more information to show up on the article at unexpected times. Since the topic is controversial, and notable, it is amazingly well sourced, as neary every editor has had to "prove" their contribution with sourcing...mostly to reliable sources.

Known issues, comments welcome on these and other topics:
Size: 128 K bytes. Huge. We know. (a few days after posting the peer review request, one section was moved into a daughter article: Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary. Discussion about moving others continues.)
Stability: It's an ongoing current event, and controversial, but fairly stable, considering that.
Prose: With a lot of fingers in this pie, no single editor has really gone through and copy edited and re-written the entire article from top to bottom. Yet also, a lot of the article is carfeully written so as to rely properly on the cited sources. Not a small undertaking to re-factor the article, especially as there's significant new information every week.
Footnotes

  • Although some paragraphs or sentences give multiple footnotes, sometimes it actually does take several sources to have a supported claim, given the secretivness and evasiveness of the administration on the topic.
  • Some footnotes are to the same source, but appear more than once because they have not received the name="some name" tag

Formatting of the article

  • Since it's big article with many issues, it happens we've chosen a very non-standard introduction above the table of contents to highlight just a few of the expanding number of issues. It's probably time to push this below the table of contents, since it is way over three or four paragraphs desirable for an introduction. (Proposed change subsequently implemented.)
  • What's the standard on footnoting in the lead/introduction? We've found it desirable to footnote copiously there too, since we can't rely on the body of the article to stay the same in a month or two, and because the topic is controversial.
  • Comments on the Neutrality or lack of one is invited.
  • Suggestions on what sections to split off. See narrative further above.

Editorializing: We're wondering what if anything should be done, that there seem to be obvious truths about the controversy that can't be explicitly stated, according to policy, namely the Bush administration's motivations, since there are rather few citable facts on that front. Only citable editorials, and cited "some say" and "opponents say" statements.
Links: A template for links to videos of Attorney General Gonzales's testimony on April 19, 2007 was created. It links to C-SPAN's recordings of the hearing. Also it was discovered an useful and apparently reliable publisher using YouTube, that divided up the entire hearing into "Senator-question-period-sized segments. What is the view regarding such a creation and reliance upon YouTube.com links? We hope readers think this is an exceptional case and good use of YouTube. The template is: Template:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy_Gonzales_April_19_2007.
Acilliary category and navigation template comments invited:

Thank you in advance for thoughtful comments and effort on this review. -- Yellowdesk 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works analogous to Harry Potter[edit]

OK. First off let me say that this is not a peer review in the conventional sense, because this is not a conventional article and wasn't intended to be. I do not expect this article ever to be rated as an FA or even a GA. I created this page in an attempt to corral and control the exploding number of edits by people convinced that JK Rowling ripped off their favourite authors. Some of the claims (such as "JK Rowling ripped off Alan Moore because both of their works reference Guy Fawkes") are too ludicrous for inclusion, but a number have been discussed elsewhere. This article consists of two main sections. One, "Cited works," deals with those works for which I can find authoritative sources comparing them to the works of JK Rowling. The other, "Other examples", is an OR "sandbox" for people to post their own rants. Occasionally, an "Other example" gets promoted to cited works. The "Other examples" section is a pressure valve to allow for the anger of editors to be constructively released. Therefore I must ask that you take in stride the huge amount of OR in this page.

That out of the way, my problem concerns the section on Jill Murphy. It's hard to deny the similarities between Rowling and Murphy's work. I can provide a number of sources comparing them. However, a rumour has circulated for years concerning a purported lawsuit mooted by Murphy against Rowling. In all likelihood this lawsuit never happened, but a number of editors have rewritten pages to claim that it has. IMDB still claims that this lawsuit took place. But since it didn't (or at least almost certainly didn't), there's no reference to it anywhere online. I'm stuck in the unenviable position of having to prove a negative. What should I do? Serendipodous 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • You don't have to prove a negative. If no information exists in reliable sources, then the disputed facts can be removed without prejudice. IMDB is user edited. User edits have to pass through a kind of editorial review, but the site is no more reliable than a Wiki, and is generally deprecated for use in reporting facts any more complicated than the actors and crew of a film. Basically, if it only shows up in the IMDB trivia pages, don't trust it. Simply put, the onus is on the editor trying to ADD the fact to prove, by the use of reliable sources that the fact is verifiable. If it isn't verifiable, it shouldn't be in the article, period. If editors continue to push the issue, there are means of remediation... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Martin Scripps[edit]

I have written this article on a British serial killer in about a week, based primarily on a book I borrowed from my local library. However, the book includes a lot of trivial information that I tried to keep out of the article, but in the process I may have omitted information that may still be important or valuable even after 12 years. I am also afraid that in my desire to write a good article the prose may be too sensationalist. Please advise me on how this article can be improved, including any information that needs to be added or removed, to reach Featured Article standards. If this article makes it to FA, it will be the first crime biography FA. :) Resurgent insurgent 04:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Psychless[edit]

Review by Psychless Type words or read things!

Lead:

  • The nationalities of the victims should be removed. They are mentioned later in the article and not that important.
  • "several" should be removed or replaced with "three". "various countries" could be replaced with a better phrase

Early Life:

  • First sentence should be revised to: John Martin Scripps was born in Letchworth, Hertfordshire, England to Leonard and Jean Scripps. His father was an East End lorry driver and his mother a Fleet Street barmaid. Just my opinion on how it should be structured, if nothing else just add the links.
  • Cancun → Cancún, Mexico also Montreal → Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • abscond is an obscure word and a more commonly known word or phrase should replace it
  • Please give Ken Cold's full title, not the abbreviation and/or a wikilink to the appropriate article on it.
  • Period after revenge instead of semicolon. More information on how he persuaded her to divorce him and his relationship with her after that would be nice. It has also been stated that her hometown is in Mexico (if you follow my suggestions that is) so "in Mexico" should be removed.

Imprisonment for drug trafficking:

  • switched to → started
  • had he not escaped → had he not escaped again
  • I think the sentence: "He was trained to bone out fore quarters and hind quarters of beef, sides of bacon, carcasses of pork, and how to portion chicken.", is unnecessary as the sentence that talked about his butchery training is enough in my opinion.
  • The part about Maria and her child seems to belong somewhere else. Also who is the father of her child? His relationship with her needs more explanation like said above.

Victims:

  • The title of this section should be changed as it is talking about the murder of the victims. Not the victims themselves. Their needs to be more of a beginning to the section also.
  • Third sentence could use less detail. The exact goods he was purchasing is irrelevant.
  • I don't think the wikilinks to human legs, knees, torso and thighs are necessary.
  • The sections Timothy MacDowall and Others? could be merged together into one section called Unconfirmed Victims.

Appeal and hanging:

  • "you are told every day that you are not a member of the uman rase." Capitalize "you" and provide a short explanation of "uman rase" not just linking it to human race.

Overall: Wikify links like: May 2007 or May 1991. This is a really good article. Good Job on including the Persondata template. The things I pointed out are very small changes that will be easy to fix. I suggest first trying to get GA status. If successful try for A-class in WikiProject Biography. If this article can succeed in both (you will probably get a review of the article on both steps) it will have a very good chance of becoming a Featured Article. So implement my suggestions and try for GA. Good Luck! If you have any questions come on down to my talk page. --Psychless Type words or read things! 22:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Resurgent insurgent
Lead:
    • Fixed.
    • Fixed by replacing "several" with "three" and omitting "various countries" altogether.
Early life:
    • Changed as suggested.
    • Changed as suggested.
    • "Abscond" replaced with "ran away from jail" (a bit too colloquial perhaps?)
    • Link replaced with unlinked "Police Constable".
    • Fixed, and whole new section on Family added that has all the information on the Martin-Maria relationship I can find. Unfortunately, no source I can find states how Maria was persuaded to leave Ken.
Imprisonment for drug trafficking:
    • Fixed.
    • Fixed.
    • Deleted the quote altogether, as it was just restating the preceding summary and in a not very interesting way.
    • Relationship with Lara moved to Family section.
Victims:
    • Section title changed to Murder of tourists.
    • Sentence shortened to just say he was "buying electronic goods".
    • Links all removed.
    • Sections merged as suggested.
Appeal and hanging:
    • "You" capitalised, and I added "[misspelling of human race] after "uman rase". Is that what you had in mind? I'm loathe to put [sic] anywhere because the notes were misspelt in so many places.
Overall
    • I am reluctant to wikilink dates similar to "July 1992", because I must confess I'm the type who doesn't find these links relevant to the context.

But now that I added in a new section and split out the escape into its own section, you might want to review a second time. Thank you for your patience! Resurgent insurgent 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

  • ""I will call you the moment I check into the hotel to give you the contact number. If you do not hear from me on March 10, it would mean that I would have a seat on the plane to return to South Africa and would arrive home on March 11. But if I do call you on March 10, that would mean that I have not managed to get a seat and would return on March 12.""

The above is a quotation, so needs a citation. All quotes need citations. LuciferMorgan 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Quigley later testified, "[Martin] was instructed in butchery over a six-week period in March and April 1993. He was trained to bone out fore quarters and hind quarters of beef, sides of bacon, carcasses of pork, and how to portion chicken.""

This is another quote which needs citing. LuciferMorgan 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Resurgent insurgent
    • The first quote has been given a inline cite, and the second one has been removed for being a simple restatement of preceding text that lacked "spice" value. Resurgent insurgent 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Review by Psychless[edit]

A throrough GA reviewer suggests wikilinking dates similar to July 1776. Just note that if you do get her as a reviewer (I feel sorry for you if do) she will expect them to be wikilinked. Anyways, onto the review.

  • In the infobox the country name needs to be in his birth place.
  • Death place should be: Changi Prison, (insert city where the prison is here), Singapore
  • Update Persondata accordingly
  • Wikilink murder in infobox and death penalty in lead.

Arrest:

  • Wikilink Changi Airport

Trial:

  • When describing his statement should you make it sound more like a statement? Would that make it more or less NPOV?
  • judge needs to be capitalized

Conclusion: As you can see these are extremely minor things. Nominate it for GA is my opinion. Go to my talk page if you have any questions. --Psychless Type words or read things! 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Sörenstam[edit]

We're ultimately looking for FA status here. The article recently got promoted to GA status, and a further promotion would be ideal. However, the article needs an improvement, so it would be great to know of anything that needs improving to meet FA criteria. - • The Giant Puffin • 09:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSmack[edit]

Oh my, please, stop dropping so many 'In 2006's and 'In 2003's - that sort of thing. It hurts my eyes! ;) Also, read User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a thoroughly and incorporate its suggestions. Tap me on my talk page if you need me to respond further, but keep article comments here for everyone's sake. JoeSmack Talk 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy editing has started. How are we doing against the other criteria? Mudforce 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "whose achievements rank her as one of the most successful female golfers in golf history." Although you overcite the lead, you leave this assertion which needs desperate backing from sources uncited. About the overciting issue, have in mind that you don't have to cite in the lead things you source later in the text.
  • "She has won eight Rolex Player of the Year awards (a record),[3] is a six times Vare Trophy winner (the award given to the LPGA player with the lowest seasonal scoring average)[4] and is the only female golfer to shoot a 59 in competition.[5]" Cite in the middle of the sentences only if it absolutely necessary for emphasis reasons. Otherwise, gather the citationd at the end of the sentences so as not to make the article difficult to follow for the reader.
  • "She was also a good skier. The coach of the Swedish national ski team suggested the family move to Northern Sweden so she could improve her skiing year round.[12] She also played football in her hometown team Bro IK.[13]" In some parts like here the prose looks a bit choppy to me.
  • "(Annika got the odd numbered clubs and Charlotta the even) and got". I don't like got ... got ...
  • "Amid notable controversy". I think it is important to expand a bit on the controversy. Just a link to the main article is not enough IMO.
  • "She continued her dominanance in 2004 earning her seventh LPGA Player of the Year award tying Kathy Whitworth for the most in LPGA history. She posted 16 top-10 finishes in 18 LPGA starts, including eight wins, becoming the first player to reach $15 million in LPGA career earnings. She took her own LPGA single-season scoring average record to 68.69696[6] but played too few rounds to win the Vare Trophy. She had ... " A bit monotonous the prose, don't you think? The next paragraph is not better.
    • Copy edit changes made to make the prose a bit more "compelling" Mudforce 21:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other awards and honours" is listy. Desperately needs better prose, and better paragraphs. Similar problems in "Off-course activities".
    • Will attempt to merge Other awards and honours contents into other sections Mudforce 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good article, but IMO not yet ready for FA status; not even sure about A-Class status.--Yannismarou 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Men[edit]

This film article is currently recognized as a Good Article, and I consider it broad in scope, providing a compelling amount of detail for both Production and Themes. The references used in the article appear to be acceptable attributable as well. I would like to see this article continue improving to eventually reach the goal of becoming a Featured Article, so critical commentary on the article would be appreciated. Please bring up any concerns regarding the content, the wording, or the structure of the article. Even if you are familiar with the film and/or its article, I would suggest reading it with an independent eye like a reader who is coming to the article without any familiarity with the subject matter. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very, very good. I wracked my brain trying to think of missing material, but I think you covered it all. Well written and well sourced. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa F.C.[edit]

How can we get this page to GA status then FA status and what would anyone recommended?

(Everlast1910 20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso[edit]

  • The lead section should be two or three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD.
  • The number of subheadings in the history section is excessive, and they editorialise in a non-neutral manner.
  • The history section should deal with all eras in an evenhanded manner. Currently, the last decade, in which Villa have not won a trophy, is covered in far more detail than eras in which the club won several.
  • The prose needs a thorough copyedit - it contains a number of basic grammatical errors e.g. there was only 14 playing staff used in the whole season. There are several instances of weasel words and a number of POV statements which need removing or referencing (e.g. This was a decision welcomed by many Villa fans; arguably Villa's best result since the 1982 European Cup Final; while 18-year-old defender Gareth Barry was easily the most competent young player in the Premiership that season; Dwight Yorke was now established as a world class striker).
  • A number of paragraphs are unreferenced. Any statement which could potentially be challenged by a sceptical reader should be supported by a reference.
Have added a number of references can anyone else see anywhere that is in need of reference.(Everlast1910 00:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
One I did notice - the bit in the 'Formation by Villa Cross Cricketers' where it states that the club was formed by cricketers wanting to stay warm in the winter. I would imagine that this comes under the same ref for the rest of the section but it looks unreferenced as it stands EyeSereneTALK 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the list of notable players have inclusion criteria, or is it an arbitrary list of players chosen by those who added them?
  • Get rid of the Famous supporters section. A celebrity's support for Villa has no effect upon the club, if a person's support for Villa is truly notable it should be included in their article, not Villa's.
  • Where appropriate, convert bulleted lists into continuous prose (see Wikipedia:Embedded list).
  • For further pointers, take a look at some of the existing featured football articles.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man[edit]

  • Use dates etc in accordance with the relevant section of the manual of style.
  • Shorten the history section considerably and remove the many subsections - compare with Arsenal F.C..
  • Fair use images need rationale for each page on which the image is used - see fair use policy for assistence here.
  • See the dash policy - typically you'll find season descriptions ought to use the en-dash instead of the hyphen e.g. not 1953-54 but 1953–54.
  • I tend to write numbers below ten in text so "...five man board contained three members..."
Changed all the numbers to word form under ten.(Everlast1910)
  • Consider wikilinking football seasons thus: 1953–54.
  • European champions history belongs in the History of Aston Villa page, here you just need a brief synopsis of the tournament win, probably two sentences max, not five sub-sections.
Made a separate page with the full history on there which can be added to, then left a brief description (Everlast1910 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
Put Reference See Also and External links in the correct order (Everlast1910 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Notable players. Why are they notable? Consider making a sub-page for List of Aston Villa F.C. players or similar, and perhaps only discuss a few here, like the ones in national halls of fame? Again, see Arsenal F.C. for how this is best achieved.
  • Coaching staff not required.
  • Turn records section into prose and consider adding a graph of league placements year-on-year.

That's it for now, let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man 12:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments[edit]

Reading through the article, it uses 'Aston Villa' and 'Villa' interchangably. It would read more encyclopedically to use the club's full name throughout. Interesting article though ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Schools Association[edit]

This article has been on wiki for a while, and im not sure where to take it from here. Ideas? Twenty Years 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhala alphabet[edit]

Hi,
I have done quite some work on this article during the last month and I think the coverage is quite complete. I honestly fail to see what more could be done, but of course other people will find the shortcomings more easily, hence I list it on this page. Jasy jatere 11:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting[edit]

After the article's recent failure from GA, the article could likely use a good peer review. It's done wonder for surface weather analysis. Thegreatdr 17:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Trimmer[edit]

Sarah Trimmer is a relatively unknown writer of children's literature. Although she was extremely popular at the end of the eighteenth century and quite influential, she has unfortunately been forgotten and scholars are just now resurrecting her and her works. This article is currently GA and I am attempting to reach FA; any suggestions that would help it reach FA would be particularly appreciated - prose, organization, POV, clarity of statements and sourcing, etc. Thanks. Awadewit 06:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zleitzen[edit]

Another triumph Awadewit. I tried to find faults but failed. The only question I have is shouldn't this be in British English?-- Zleitzen(talk) 05:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was holding up the British end just fine by writing all of these fine articles on British figures. Seriously, though, it is written in American English because I speak American English. Awadewit 07:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "Johnson, delighted that she admired Milton enough to carry his works with her at all times, "subsequently invited her to his house and presented her with a volume of his famous periodical The Rambler." Did you forget to close here the qm, or are there just by mistake? I did not correct by myself, because I had to find something to write in this peer-review. And yea! Here it is the great flaw! Me the malevolent, I found it (hi! hi! hi!)!
  • Oops. How embarrassing. Thanks for seeing that. It is now fixed. Awadewit 19:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While reading "Literary career" where you analyze her works, I thought that maybe some of these works, such as An Easy Introduction to the Knowledge of Nature and Fabulous Histories could stand as seperate articles. You could create them and then use WP:SS for Trimmer's article. Not that this is necessary; after all the article is just 45 kbs.
  • It would be nice to do that but there is just so little scholarship on them. I might think about doing that at a later time when there is a little more material to draw on. I don't know about writing a whole article based on a smattering of sources. What do you think about that in terms of wikipolicy? Awadewit 19:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is a problem with wikipolicy. They will most probably be stub articles, but this is another issue. Anyway...It is not a major issue.
  • I'm not a fan of the stub article that can't be expanded. Anyway, would you mind looking at the article again? I've revised the lead and added a new section on "Charity school books" (I found another article! yeah!). If you could read those two parts, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit Talk 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked the lead from the first place. Of course, it does not follow a lineal chronological presentation of her life and achievements, but I do not think this is a problem. It is coherent, and well-written. I also liked the way the section you say is written. I can't propose anything else; it seems comprehensive to me. Maybe a better citing. Personally, I would cite kind-of-assertions like this one:"Trimmer was a savvy promoter of her materials; she knew that her books would not reach large numbers of poor children in charity schools if they were not funded and publicized by the SPCK.", but again my dense citing is not applauded by everybody around!--Yannismarou 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article.--Yannismarou 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow[edit]

Thank you, Awadewit, for inviting me to read such a lovely article. I made a few minor tweaks of grammar and expositions throughout, which you should feel free to revert. I think the article is excellent as is, but here are two ideas you might pause to consider:

  • The final two sections, on her children and her works, are good information, but they seem to be just "hanging" there; they're true appendices, no? ;) Perhaps you could convert them into Tables, to set them into their own space? Also, what became of her children? I'm just curious. A Table might allow you to offer additional notes on her works that didn't get much "air time" in the main article.
  • I will think about this, but unfortunately there is very little information available about her other works. Any comments would be my comments (perhaps original research?). As to her children, what you see is what information there is (note, I do not even have the death dates). Awadewit 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead could have more discussion, in broad strokes, of her perspective on the world, which is emphasized so well in the main text, e.g., how her Anglican faith and social/political conservatism colored her works. The theme of fostering the rational education of children, within those colored limits, might be good to enunciate in the lead, too?
  • This is a good idea. I will work on revising the lead.
  • I'm a little uneasy about the speculation of why more feminist scholars have not considered Trimmer. It's easy to see that she's not as colorful (or as historically reviled) as Mary Wollstonecraft, but a scholar's choice of a subject is probably guided by many factors, no?
  • It isn't speculation; I have a citation for this. I can add it in. While it is true scholars' choices are guided by many factors, Margaret Ezell has made powerful arguments that the reason certain women writers were "rediscovered" and others were not was because they fit a particular model of modern feminism. It is a generally accepted criticism of early feminist scholarship. I will add a citation tag to remind myself to add this citation. Awadewit 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps other things will occur to me as I brood over the article further. Thank you again! :) Willow 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

  • None of these suggestions are really relevant. Awadewit Talk 04:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The script does not recognize images in infoboxes. It does do a good job on non-linked day and year, though sometimes it finds these in ref tags and does not recognize they will be linked from there. It also does not recognize direct quotes that violate WP:MOS (if they were article text and not quotes), such as 19th and capitalization. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize that. Perhaps the script should not analyze blocked quotes - that would help solve the problem of "archaic" spelling and whatnot. Awadewit Talk 14:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will suggest it to AndyZ, who wrote the script (I have some other suggestions too). Ruhrfisch 02:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qp10qp[edit]

I'm reading the article and finding the notes are screwed up, with repeated note numbers not matching tag numbers numbers. I'm not quite sure what the matter is. Will copyedit and comment later, but this might need to be fixed sooner, if anyone can do it. qp10qp 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that, it seems all right again now. Perhaps it was my computer. qp10qp 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. They are fine over here. Do you find that sometimes wikipedia does inexplicable things and then fixes itself? Awadewit Talk 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the article very much and would support it if it went to FAC. I'm particularly impressed since you say there is no biography and only partial information; but it reads as if you have selected from a larger body of facts, so that is a writing achievement. I also like that the article presents quite a complex appraisal of Trimmer in a largely lucid way: here we have an uncomplicated woman who is nonetheless a complicated figure owing to all the social and literary trends which have elapsed since her heyday and layered the ways we may perceive her life.

I usually have one or two overriding suggestions to make after reading an article, but in this case none occur to me. I did, though, have a degree of expectancy aroused after after looking up Henry Howard's portraits of Trimmer at the National Portrait Gallery (their website seems down at the moment). I don't know where they got their information from, but I expected there to be a narrative in the article somewhere about Trimmer's loss of several significant relatives, including a son, a daughter, and her husband in a short space of time, but presumably there is nothing much about that in your sources.

Here are some points—none of them major. Feel free to ignore them.

  • For me, the source link in the top image's page just gave a Google search page.
I think I fixed that. There is actually a better portrait of Trimmer (you can see it at google images by typing in "Sarah Trimmer"), but I couldn't find a fair use version of it. Perhaps you would have better luck at that than I did. You seem to have some knowledge about the artist. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, not really. But I might be able to rustle some up. That really is a good painting, in my opinion. qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to add a short note on Howard to that image page? Minor artists are very poorly done on Wikipedia, and I find the information attached to images often frustrating. I am struck by how good this little known painter (new to me) is (but what on earth is Sarah wearing round her neck?). I can have a go at this if you can't find anything: he's mentioned in my Fairy Art book, I've discovered.
I'm afraid I know nothing about Howard or the fashions in the painting. Edit away. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, he's on my list (after John de Critz and Robert Peake the Elder). I noticed you red-linked him, which I think is a good policy. qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trimmer was responsible for her children's education and it was her ongoing duties as a teacher, as well as a mother, that sparked her initial interest in education."
I find this a clumsy sentence, but I'm hesitant to mess with it in case I've got the meaning wrong. I'm presuming this means duties of teaching her children rather than any professional teaching. Because one would hope that teachers were interested in education before they took up the profession; and one would hope that teaching one's own children was more than a duty.
I have revised. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is a really good sentence, IMO. qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While proponents of Sunday schools such as Raikes and Trimmer claimed that the schools would help control the growing social unrest of the poor, critics claimed that these schools would only encourage the social upheaval they were trying to quell."
I think I know why they claimed this. But it is never articulated anywhere in the article that some might have believed educating the poor would be a mistake in case they got above themselves. I don't know what is in the accompanying reference, but it would be nice if a quote could be added to the article, preferably from a contemporary critic, articulating why the critics claimed that such schools would encourage social upheaval.
I'll look for a nice 18c quote. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one of Hannah More's pronouncements. qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except Hannah More was on Trimmer's side of the debate - she ran quite a few schools herself. Awadewit Talk 03:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a quote. Awadewit Talk 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that charity schools had become outdated is touched on; maybe a sentence on their history would help set the context for the schools of Raikes and Trimmer.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "outdated." Some people challenged their methods but I don't think there was a widespread revolt against the charity school system yet. I added a bit about the SPCK founding charity schools 100 years earlier. Let me know what you think I should do there. The whole history of education in Britain is enormously complicated - it's a hodgepodge. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is fine. The reader has the information to distinguish the different types of schools. qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We hear that Barbauld's books had a systematic structure, but in what way did Trimmer's not have a systematic structure? (The point seems to be set up as an antithesis.) "Barbauld was a dissenter and more inclined, according to Fyfe, to "encourage curiosity, observation, and reasoning."[33] In contrast, Trimmer, as a high church Anglican, depicted nature as "awe-inspiring" and as a reflection not only of God's divinity but also of his goodness.[34] These beliefs are reflected even in the structure of the text; Trimmer's aim was to convey a sense of the awe, therefore her text does not progress in an orderly fashion through a study of the natural world. Barbauld's texts, however, emphasize the slow accumulation of knowledge as well as logical thinking."
I am not totally clear here. It doesn't fully come over to me why conveying a sense of awe should lead to less order (I'm not denying that this is the case in these books, just that the dots of the explanation don't quite join up for me.) After all, religious awe is not necessarily random but may be highly hierarchical, with nature interpreted according to a set of archetypes and religious symbols, as in medieval Christianity or even in Blake. I'm presuming that Trimmer's nature walks are a series of spontaneous delights and Barbauld's an organised learning experience. But this sounds quite systematic to me: "...a book containing a kind of general survey of the works of Nature would be very useful, as a means to open the mind by gradual steps to the knowledge of the SUPREME BEING, preparatory to their reading the holy scriptures.”
Well, perhaps you could email Fyfe and ask her (I have her email address somewhere)? That is a very astute criticism of her argument. Maybe I could quote you in my dissertation "User:Qp10qp. "Personal communication on wikipedia. Peer review of Sarah Trimmer." 16 May 2007."? Seriously, though, I can't really say any more than what is in Fyfe's article (I would enter that no-man's land of "original research"). I agree with you, but I liked that her argument compared Trimmer to Barbauld (whose page I have also written) and brought out Trimmer's religion in a less fundamentalist way, so I thought I would include it. If you think it is too vague, perhaps I should take it out. The problem is, there is so little written on Trimmer at all and Fyfe's material is some of the best there is. (By the way, your assumptions regarding the texts are correct, although one could argue that Trimmer's text is structured as well, in my opinion, but I won't go into that). Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't take it out. Perhaps most readers will assume that if it's in quotes it must be deep. I can't talk because I use quite daft quotes at times—in the Anne article there's this one: "…saw a funambulous Frenchman play strenge and incredible practicks upon stented tackle in the Palace". This is really just a trap for my partner-in-crime user:Carcharoth, because he has a penchant for wiktionary-linking archaic words (disappointingly, he hasn't bitten yet). qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you have a date for when she stopped publishing with Johnson because of his ideas, but when I was reading some bits and pieces about his circle when pottering around one of your Wollstonecraft articles to see if Wollstonecraft attended his evenings at the same time as Blake, I got the impression that he was connected to radicals all along...certainly he supported the French Revolution before 1800. I wonder a)what happened to put Trimmer off at a particular point? or b) has a source used guesswork to give Johnson's support for the revolution as the reason for the break? "Eventually" is something of a vague word, I feel, though I expect that's attributable to your source.
I wish I knew all of that myself. If I ever get around to reading the Joseph Johnson biography, I may learn that and put it into this article. Unfortunately, nothing I have read on Trimmer says anything definite. But you are right that Johnson supported the French Revolution from the beginning. By the way, what I have read on William Blake suggests that he was not one of Johnson's inner circle but was rather considered an "artisan" or a worker-for-hire. There is a lot of dispute over this, as you can imagine, but I do keep seeing that conclusion popping up. And, yes, Wollstonecraft met Blake - he illustrated her Original Stories from Real Life. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's where I got the idea. I was wondering (I don't know why) if Wollstonecraft socialised with Blake at Johnson's or if Blake just happened to be an illustrator employed by Johnson, who did it as a routine job. Blake's article says there's no evidence that Wollstonecraft met him, but I would find it hard to believe that they didn't meet, given all the connections. qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blake was regularly hired by Johnson. I don't know if he socialized with Wollstonecraft, but I can't imagine that they didn't meet since Johnson hired him to illustrate her work. I wonder how the Blake page can claim that they never met. It is hard to prove a negative like that. Did Blake write somewhere that he never met Wollstonecraft or something? I should drop them a line. Awadewit Talk 03:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say they never met but that there's no evidence that they met. qp10qp 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see my statement on the Blake talk page. With historical evidence, nothing is ever "for sure." What would prove they met? That they said they did? Well, someone could be lying. It is all so tricky. Also, I'm not sure why the page is all caught up in whether or not they met - it's not the most interesting thing to talk about there. But this is a whole separate issue. Awadewit Talk 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
qp10qp 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trimmer commissioned sets of illustrations of the Bible for which she provided the commentary."
Given the example of Jesus walking on the water, would it be apt for that illustration to be positioned close to the above sentence?
The reason it is so far down is because I have the title page for the "Introduction to Knowledge" right there already. I kept thinking about how to rearrange the page to put it closer to that paragraph, but I haven't come up with a good scheme yet. Also, I don't have any illustrations from the Guardian and that is such a long section, I thought it needed something to liven it up. Let me know your thoughts. Layout is important to me. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lesson the Liturgy from the Book of Common Prayer"
Doesn't read quite right to me.
I'll look that up again. I probably copied it incorrectly. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Awadewit Talk 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abridgement and Abridgements: are these the same?
I'll look that up, too. I think that my source may have some typos. What a shocker. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A result of some condensed narration that went awry. Awadewit Talk 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Worried about fiction's potentially damaging impact on young readers, Trimmer always referred to the text as Fabulous Histories, and not as The Story of the Robins; moreover, she never allowed the book to be illustrated within her lifetime."
Does the last part link to what went before? If so, from this I'm not clear how. Why would an illustration be more fictional or damaging than the text (if that's what's meant)? Does Trimmer believe that words like "story" are too fictional-sounding? Seems odd for a story writer and so may need a touch of explanation. It's actually quite intriguing.
I have tried to explain more. The potentially damaging effects of fiction was a view shared by many during the 18c - one might compare it to video games now. One often hears condemnations of video games along the lines that novels were condemned during the 18c - they lead to moral corruption, they destroy the family, they lead to violence, etc. It really is remarkable. You can take some texts from the 18c and replace "novel" with "video game" and except for slight language differences, you would never know the differences. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More on this now in the fairy tale section, too. Awadewit Talk 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a high-church Anglican, she was intent on protecting Christianity from evangelicalism as well as secularism."
What does "evangelicalism" mean in this context? Does it refer to the notion in general or to the specific movement(s)? And how did Trimmer protect Christianity from it?
I've revised. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claimed emphatically that the degree of human happiness was in direct proportion to the degree of submission of the divine Will."
I know this is a quote, but is "of" correct there? (If so, I don't understand the meaning.)
It's probably supposed to be "to," but I'll check. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grenby points out that Trimmer, like Rousseau, believed children were naturally good; in this, she was arguing against centuries of tradition, particularly the tradition of original sin and the Puritanical attitudes towards raising children (exemplified by John Wesley)."
The capital P there bothers me slightly because, having been raised a Methodist (not that I still am one or ever studied its history), I never associated Wesley with Puritanism, as such. I would have said that the heyday of Puritanism was before Wesley's time. I could buy this sentence without the mention of Wesley: is it there because a source mentions him in this context?
Grenby does. By the way, Wesley was raised pretty Puritanically. I don't know if you know anything about his upbringing, but it was almost a caricature of Puritan parenting. I think his mother might even have written something on parenting. (I think Methodists now try to deny their Puritan heritage - for what reason, I do not know; but many Methodists came out of the Puritan/Dissenting tradition in England. I myself was raised Lutheran. Not that I still am one, either. Lutherans deny their Catholic heritage. It's all so complicated.) Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did Wesley have puritanical views on raising children, though, as opposed to having been raised puritanically himself? qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. He and his brother wrote a series of hymns, some specifically for children, that support this view. This is really not a controversial statement as far as I know. Much of what I have read on Wesley and Methodism in the eighteenth-century refers to him and his movement as part of the Puritan tradition and emphasizes that it retained important aspects of that culture. I'm sure that I can track down a book somewhere that says this officially if you want me to. Awadewit Talk 03:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe you. My knowledge of Puritanism is feeble after 1700, obviously. 04:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "However, as Ruwe points out, “by the confluence of political, historical, and pedagogical events at the turn of the century, a woman such as Trimmer was able to gain a greater visibility in the realm of public letters than was perhaps typical before or after;” "
I think this might need a little explanation. It could well be true, but from this, I don't know why.
Well, I'm afraid I don't know either. That was the concluding sentence to her article, so I used it to mine. It sounds like a conclusion, doesn't it? Unfortunately, not everything in it is explained in Ruwe's article (again, we could email her). I think that it is more of a rhetorical flourish - I thought it was a nice flourish, though.
It does seem like a particularly liberal period of history. The British regime in India was at its most enlightened during this time. Everything tightened up as the nineteenth century wore on. The writer probably assumes that this is self-evident. qp10qp 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was both liberal and conservative. The 1790s, for example, were some of the most radical years in British history but also had the so-called "Treason Trials" (Thomas Hardy, John Horne Tooke, John Thelwall). The government clamped down on radical thought after 1794ish and it was difficult to be liberal during that time (Anti-Jacobin Review. The early nineteenth century is often seen as a time of reaction. When William Godwin started publishing again in the early nineteenth century, he had to publish under a different name. Not until the teens does some radicalism spark up again with workers demanding rights and votes (Peterloo). This happens after the defeat of Napoleon. It is all so complicated and I don't know if it is really worth trying to summarize one of the densest and complex periods of British history. Whether it can be called liberal or conservative tends to depend on what perspective one is taking, what issue one is exploring, etc. Let me know what you think. Awadewit Talk 03:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I daresay you know this, but there's still a "need page" reminder at note 60.
Yes, I have to go to the rare books library to get that essay. Our main library has lost the book. I haven't wanted to bother recently. Awadewit Talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that's my lot: you've done Sarah proud, Awadewit. qp10qp 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scribblingwoman[edit]

  • Wonderful, rich, and useful article. Not much suggests itself to me, other than the following minor question: in the section on "An Easy Introduction to the Knowledge of Nature" (3rd par.) the argument seems to suggest that as Trimmer did not subscribe to Rousseau's ideas of gender, she was not as conservative as some have suggested. It might be more effective to compare her with some unquestionably conservative figure, or to qualify the reference to Rousseau somehow.
I'll work on that - thanks! Awadewit Talk 09:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a little comparison to Gregory and Fordyce. Awadewit Talk 09:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on another fine article! — scribblingwoman 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid belt[edit]

I'd appreciate any feedback you might have on how to further improve this page. The one area I'm having difficulty is in finding a good scientific source for why the concept of a destroyed planet (forming the belt) is now disfavored. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RJH, I'm no expert in astronomy related topics, in fact I don't think I'd even make it as a novice, so take these suggestions with a grain of salt.

  • The asteroid belt is a region of the solar system falling roughly between the planets Mars and Jupiter where the greatest concentration of asteroid orbits can be found. How about the region instead of a region? Also, located instead of falling?
    • Done.
  • The next sentence introduces the term minor planets and uses it in place of asteroid orbits. It's a bit odd that we have separate articles on these terms when both articles state the terms are interchangeable. This may not be a problem (I didn't completely read both articles), and is probably outside of the scope of this article, but is it possible to at least clarify this a little between these two sentences to avoid confusing readers?
    • Good point. I added merge tags to the asteroid and minor planet articles since they are highly redundant.
      • Ok, so should existing links in the article to 'minor planet' be replaced with links to 'asteroid'?
        • I removed the links and clarified in the lead section that the two mean the same thing in this instance.
  • The 98.5% statistic makes the greatest concentration claim in the first sentence a bit redundant doesn't it? Is it worth just merging the two sentences?
    • Done.
  • most of the surviving material was swept out of the region. This wasn't clear at all until I read that only about 0.1% of the original belt remains. Can this be cleared up somehow?
    • I tried to, but I'm not 100% certain I understand the difficulty.
      • When I read that 98.5% of the solar systems asteroids are contained here, but that most of the material has been swept away I wasn't sure what to make of it. For some reason it wasn't immediatly clear to me that the belt is much less massive than it once was, until I read this later on. Both the new and the old sentences are fine, so if you have preference for one over the other then by all means use it, but I tried to clear up my confusion anyway.
  • The size of the smallest bodies is described in the third paragraph, so is it worth doing the same for the larger bodies so we get a better indication of the range of sizes?
    • Done.
  • No indication is given of why Bode thought another planet may orbit in the gap between Mars and Jupiter - is this known? Was Ceres' discovery by direct observation?
    • I started that section with a couple of paragraph-long discussion of the Titus-Bode law. Then I ended up removing it in order to keep the article focused. I think a reader could investigate this on the Johann Bode article if they were curious. Is that reasonable?
  • A total of 1,000 asteroids had been found by 1923, 10,000 by 1951, and 100,000 by 1982. I think this should probably be referenced.
    • Done.
  • About 220 of the asteroids in the belt are larger than 100 km. Maybe another reference needed here? Any chance of this being a little more precise than about?
    • Astronomers only know the approximate diameters of many of the asteroids, so it's a "best guess". I added a clarification. I added a link to the JPL small body database instead. That can be used to obtain the current best value. (It's actually at 211 now, so I was over a bit.)
  • (where 1 A.U., or astronomical unit, equals the average distance between the Earth and the Sun) Isn't it a bit late to be introducing this, considering the unit is used well before this paragraph?
    • I moved it up a tad. It was in an appropriate location originally, but the text was revised.
  • This "core" region contains approximately 93.4% of all numbered minor planets. It might be worth clarifying if you're talking about all numbered minor planets in the belt or the solar system here.
    • Clarified.
  • The absolute magnitudes of most asteroids are 11–19, with a peak at about 16. The problem is probably my (lack of?)understanding here, but it seems weird that a peak would be between a given range? Just checking.
    • Changed to "median".
  • They are redder in hue I don't have any suggestions off the top of my head, just the word redder seems a bit odd.
    • Tried to fix.
  • the mean orbital period of an asteroid forms an integer fraction with the orbital period of Jupiter. For some reason this just doesn't seem to read very well. Maybe something like the mean orbital period of an asteroid together with the orbital period of Jupiter forms an integer fraction .. and then work the mean-motion resonance into the rest of the sentence instead of leaving it until the next sentence? It just wasn't very clear until I read the next paragraph.
    • Slightly modified; hopefully it's better.
  • The main ones Maybe The main Kirkwood gaps?
    • Okay.
  • After five billion years, the current asteroid belt population bears little resemblance to the original one. Wording is a little odd again. will bear will probably suffice, but I don't think a little more work on this sentence would hurt.
    • I'm not completely clear about the problem, since it was comparing the current population to the progenitor asteroids. But I did a rewrite; hopefully it's better now.
  • Approximately a third -> Approximately one third ?
    • Okay.
  • The In media section is a bit lame. Half of the section is material that was only just discussed in the previous section. Any chance of this being expanded to include specific examples, maybe even some misconceptions or something?
    • Nope, sorry. This section was very deliberately whitted down to a bare minimum so that the article could focused on the scientific aspects of the belt. The main article link for that section contains a slew of examples and a discussion. The current article is past 32Kb. — RJH (talk)
      • I only just read the GA review, so sorry about that. It's still a bit weird that the section isn't much more than another 'see also' entry though. darkliight[πalk] 23:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Making it a link in the "See also" section works for me. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully some of this helps, and thanks again for another interesting read. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 12:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good feedback. The references will take a little longer to complete. — RJH (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Your suggestions have been implemented with the exception of the infobox. I don't think a planetary infobox would be appropriate and I'm not aware of any that are specific to asteroid belts. — RJH (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wallis Simpson a.k.a. The Duchess of Windsor[edit]

The article is currently rated B class. IMO, it is fully referenced, comprehensive and well-written. What do you think? DrKiernan 08:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zleitzen[edit]

DrKiernan, I presume! Another strong article. Amend those blue web links in the films section and haul the article over to FAC if you think its ready. Good work.-- Zleitzen(talk) 08:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again! Amended the film section. Thanks. DrKiernan 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "She remains a controversial figure in British history." Maybe, this sentence would be better placed at the last paragraph of the lead, coming as a conclusion of the summary of her life.
  • You link some single years - this is not in accord with MoS, according to which it is recommended to link date-month-year only. I fixed some, but I think not all of them.
  • Sometimes, the article gets over-wikified. For instance, in the second paragraph of "Later life" Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is wikilinked twice.
  • "that she was anything other than a victim of her own ambition, who lived out a great romance that became a great tragedy." I am not sure if such a comment is encyclopedic. In a biography of her it would be OK, but in a encyclopedic article, I do not know.

In general, a very nice article; I don't think it would face any serious problems in FAC.--Yannismarou 12:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, amended a few more of the links to single years. DrKiernan 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Link to year removed, and infobox added. DrKiernan 07:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are very welcome - keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English-speaking Quebecer[edit]

  • Please provide comment on the article's neutrality in general. --Soulscanner 07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have plans to add or add to the following sections:

  • Education: description of enrollment and proposed changes in English school system in Quebec--Soulscanner 07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Health: role that McGill University Health Center plays in Quebec's anglophone community inside and outside Montreal--Soulscanner 07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Language: Description of bilingualism and trilingualism in English-speaking community; rates of intermarriage with French-speaking community; description of language used in workplace
  • Politics: will bring issue of political representation of community up to date. I know this section is long. It may require a seperate article. --Soulscanner 07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your time. --Soulscanner 07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People reviewing the page should be aware that there has been considerable disagreement between Soulscanner on one hand and Mathieugp and myself on the other. Generally speaking, it is important for any reviewers to verify sources because a big part of the disagreement has ben about whether the sources introduced by Soulscanner actually justify the statements in the article. See Talk:English-speaking Quebecer for details. Joeldl 09:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's University[edit]

I would like to get this up to GA-Class. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I think the Sports, clubs, and traditions and Students and faculty need the most work to be wikified.--J2000ca 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavour (B) (American: flavor), honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), metre (B) (American: meter), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), 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 17 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • 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, J2000ca 14:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Good & Evil (video game)[edit]

This article is currently rated as Stub-Class, any input to bring it to Good article standards or at least B-class is very appreciated. --MrStalker 09:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try expand the lead to two paragraphs
  • Remove the trivia section
  • Expand the Reception section, scores from websites, quotes from reviews sales figures, any award wins/ nominations. M3tal H3ad 11:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qjuad[edit]

Agree with the above. I also recommend moving the plot section either before or after the gameplay section. Also, add citations of the in-game script to plot section; specifically the key moments in the storyline. If the script isn't readily available, then a gameguide can be cited. - Qjuad 03:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don't need to cite a script or gameguide for plotline cites. Take a look at Final Fantasy VII or any other Final Fantasy FP (take your pick, there's tons of them!) and you'll see the accepted citation format is simply citing the exact text from the English version of the game. Green451 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde[edit]

Took a look at it and did some polishing. My suggestions:

  • Lead needs to include reception and language localization to fully summarize the article.
  • Use the manual of the game or reviews to reference the gameplay section.
  • Include in gameplay a good picture of a standard in-game moment to give the reader a feel for how it is played.
  • It is unclear what the "original" language of the game is, although it is most likely that it would be French, given that the game was written and designed by French designers in France." Needs a ref; borders on OR.
  • "This is one of the few games available on the market that gives practically no clues as to the native language, as everything is localized, including signs." Also needs a ref, same reason.
  • Rename the entire development and sequel plans to a "sequel" or "legacy" section under reception, since that is what it is about.
  • Write a development section (interviews with makers during development, marketing, previews, expo appearances, problems, changes etc.). Maybe use the interview in the external links as a start.
  • Wikilink publishing dates, and make sure to inlclude them on every reference.
  • I'm lead to believe there is a soundtrack that accompanies this video game. Please include a section about it.
  • As previously mentioned, reception needs to be expanded. Look here or here for well written ones (preferably the former).

Have fun.--Clyde (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan[edit]

The article is currently under improvement, most of the work done by User:Lepeu1999. Despite a proper Development section (on its way), what is needed for the GA or FA? igordebraga ≠ 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik[edit]

  • The lead section should have only two or three full paragraphs.
  • The Plot section should be under 900 words per WikiProject Films' style guidelines.
  • There needs to be a Production section to reflect in more detail about how this project got started. When was the idea first introduced? Was the project fast-tracked to production? Why did Spielberg join the project; why did Hanks?
  • There does not need to be so much "historical background" about the actual events if there is already an article on it.
  • Filming locations should be combined with the new Production section, since it is a part of the process.
  • Portrayal of combat could be renamed to something else, since there were adjustments that weren't combat-related (like the tank models and the change of division). Not sure if this section could be broken up into actual details of production and criticism of the historical presentation (which would go under Reception).
  • The article could use an image that would illustrate as many of the main characters (especially Hanks' and Damon's characters) as possible, as well as the D-Day invasion scene, which seems (at least, from my readings) to be the most talked-about scene in the film.
  • Reception section could be more detailed; some questions below to answer:
  • When and where was its world premiere?
  • When and where was its US premiere (was the first US showing commercial or at a festival)?
  • Is there any information about how many other countries the film was showed in?
  • The specific percentage at Rotten Tomatoes could be included, as well as specific reviews covering the pros and cons of the film.
  • What did British and German reviewers think of the film?
  • Any WWII historians that reviewed the film? (Take a look at Apocalypto -- poorly structured article, but there are quite a few reviews of that film by historians.)
  • "...being one of a few that have won the Best Director award without also winning Best Picture" is not addressed at the IMDb citation and probably not addressed at the Academy's official list, either. A citation should be found to support this observation.
  • Is there anything encyclopedic about the VHS or DVD release of the film? Did it have anything that was left out of the theatrical release? Was it successful with VHS/DVD sales and rentals?
  • Wasn't the film aired on TV uncut? I don't know if I'm confusing this with Schindler's List, but this may be a similar controversy that could be addressed.
  • How were casting decisions made, especially for Hanks and Damon?
  • I would suggest taking a look at the film's IMDb trivia; there is some information that could be followed up on and integrated into the article (not as trivia, of course) with citations attached. There is some casting talk on that page, but I don't know if it's true.

Feel free to respond to my suggestions, and I'll add further commentary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with the IMDB trivia suggestion is it's a Wiki itself and anyone can add to it. I'm not sure that part's a valid source.--Lepeu1999 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; what I meant was to use it as a guideline to see if that information exists out there, and not cite IMDB directly. Just follow up on some of the information if you have time, such as Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford being considered for the role of Captain John Miller. I've found that some trivia bits have some grain of truth to them, as I found with some things for Spider-Man. Of course, never cite the trivia page for IMDb directly, just take keywords and see if you can find matching information at an attributable source. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast list should be set out in Actor as character syle with a small bit of info about them. Buc 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images also need fair use rationales. See passed GA/FAs film articles for examples. --Nehrams2020 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BackupHDDVD[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/BackupHDDVD/archive1

Having recently failed an FA nomination with a combination of nit-picking and serious concerns, this article needs quite a bit of improvement. I'm looking to iron out every seam and any advice to that end is greatly appreciated. Noclip 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the problems the automated peer review found were trivial. I'd really appreciate an in depth commentary on the quality of the writing, the flow, and other major problems. Noclip 03:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Henry College[edit]

This article has had a previous peer review and looking at it I believe, we have met all of the standards on that one and now I would like to have another peer review so that the article can be brought up to good article status before nominating it for featured article. I would appreciate all help. God Bless, Professor Davies 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC) I am not a professor at the college, I am still a high school student who is merely known as Professor by friends. Here is the old peer review in quotations, [reply]

"I'm hoping to improve this article to at least "good article" status, and eventually make it a featured article candidate. I feel like this article is fairly well-written and comprehensive, but I'm sure there are a number of improvements that can be made, which is why I am listing it here as the first step in the process of making this article FAC-worthy. I know one of its main drawbacks is a lack of pictures, which I think I'll be able to take care of in the next couple months. My main concerns are, does this article have enough information? Is it properly referenced? Is it well-written and understandable to the average reader? What other things need to be improved? Any help and commentary from you all would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Aplomado talk 23:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP: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.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 01:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. Can you tell me specifically which sections are most in need of expansion? Also, should the list of courses be turned into prose somehow? Aplomado talk 01:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Athletics", "Traditions", and "Statistics" all could use expansion. AndyZ t 13:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I'll look into making some changes as soon as possible. Aplomado talk 20:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Professor Davies 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the previous peer review here so others can see it. If you are a professor at the college, you should be aware of WP:COI.

Edgar Lee Hewett[edit]

Looking for feedback on style, substance, NPOV, references, and everything else that makes a good article good (or better). SqlPac 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Connolly[edit]

I would like to see this article improved greatly and I want help on it so it can be promoted to good article status. Eaomatrix 11:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Al[edit]

Am requesting a peer review having undertaken long-term work on the article, most recently re-organising the history section prior to putting it forward for what I see as a possible GA Candidate. Thanks for comments in advance. Flymeoutofhere 10:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Fowl (novel)[edit]

I think that this article is quite near to qualifying for GA, but I usually overestimate these things, and I expect that further improvement is needed. For this, I'm asking for some help from more experienced article writers :). Any comments/criticisms welcome. Ale_Jrbtalk 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's actually quite good, dear, and faily accurate, however:
Mistake #2 & 3: The books suggest that Artemis would not know much about Butler's past, or shouldn't, rather, according to tradition, (which, btw, Butler has breaks by telling Artemis his name, I believe. Sorry, it's been ages since I read them) Juliet trains somewhere in Asia, something we find early on in the 3rd book when Artemis reaches her by calling Madam Ko-- a phone number he shouldn't have, but I suppose we're supposed to write it off to his genius. Anyway, based on the fact that he's not supposed to know much about Butler, I suppose you could assume he wouldn't know if Butler's sensi was alive. But that brings up other plot contradictions.
I also suggest you access: www.orionawards.breakthepressure.com/forums. There is a thread with a great many other major plot holes that might be valuble as well. (and the people are experts, and very nice, and I'm sure would be glad to help you. I'm pretty sure the majority of the members have the book memorized) I'm not sure if there's a subpage about it, but you might also mention it has a small, but very loyal and active fandom, as is evident through the before mentioned site, and Artemis Fowl Confidential. justice 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The mistakes section was actually added while I was inactive; I'm not sure it should be there (too triviaish for my liking, personally). What d'ya think? Ale_Jrbtalk 06:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For wikipedia, it may be, I'm not sure. There really are a great number of mistakes, such as Artemis's birthday, and things like that... I'm not sure. I would definitely keep the mistakes section small, however. Other than that, I would say the article looked good. However, just because there was nothing glaringly bad about it doesn't mean its absolutely wonderful. I'm not sure I have any great ideas for making it sparkle, unfortunately. Sorry. If you need help with anything, leave a note on my talk page. justice 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Club (film)[edit]

I aspire to see this film article reach FA status. I've improved it enormously to be well-rounded in terms of production information and themes. I'd like suggestions about if anything needs to be added or trimmed for anything in the Production section, as well as any clear-ups needed for the Themes section. Also, is the Reception section comprehensive enough, or does there need to be more coverage about the film? Are the references used satisfactory? Are the external links and the literature in "Further reading" appropriate? Answers to these questions as well as any other critical observations are welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My review is mostly positive. Seems like it has great potential to reach FA status. I answered "yes" to all three of your questions, and, as for the Reception section, I really liked the critical reaction section. I think that is very well written, and includes interested, useful information. As for other critical observations, there are just two things I'd point out:
  • In my opinion, I'd rather see a DVD cover than poster as the main picture. I don't know the standards for a movie infobox, and, maybe, you're supposed to use a poster there if one if available. If so, ignore this comment.

  • Also, you, the article states when the spoiler begins, but it never says "spoiler ends here", as many other articles do. I find the spoiler end template very useful, so I know when I can resume reading without ruining the film for myself. - hmwithtalk 17:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression is that across the board, film posters are the first images considered to illustrate the film. I've noticed that if a poster cannot be provided, maybe because the film had such a minimal theatrical run decades ago, then the cover of a re-released DVD would be used instead. I don't have much of an issue with switching, but I think that the cover does not change much in showing the actors in their lead roles. Is there a good reason to change the image?
  • Well, this is an issue that a peer editor brought up with me. There are aspects of both Production and Themes that are intertwined with the ending of the film, such as the way it was filmed to reach that end and also the thematic connotations of the ending. I wasn't sure where to put the end-spoiler tag -- would at the end of Themes be acceptable? It would require numerous spoiler tags to "cover up" any spoiler-ish information. I can also try to reword it to make less mention of it, but I'm concerned that implication would still be there... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I retract my comment about the poster then, as I did not know what was standard. Perhaps at the end of themes would be the best place for the tag. - hmwithtalk 17:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've complied and placed the end-spoiler tag accordingly. I appreciate your review; if you notice any further discrepancies or think of any topics that need to be covered in this article, feel free to share these thoughts here. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of family relations in the National Hockey League[edit]

This page has gone through a massive overhaul (see here). My obvious concern is the length of the article. The page is massive, not only in length, but in the size of the article itself. I note that other featured lists are of comparable length (see List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, which is 97kb). I also know that the "Trivia" section could be renamed or altered somewhat. The facts and information in it are definitely worth of keeping in the article; I simply ask someone with more prose ability than me to make it more appealing. Another concern of mine is the width of the page. The table begins to look very squished and the pictures overrun the right-hand margin at 1024x768, and it looks just plain ugly at 800x600 (though who still operates at that resolution, I don't know... mine looks fine at 1600x1200). My wiki-fu is not as strong as others, so if you can please make some cosmetic improvements it would be greatly appreciated. I know this can eventually make featured list (it definitely won't fail for lack of citations, that's for sure), it just needs that little extra to put it over the top. Thanks, and I look forward to your comments. Anthony Hit me up... 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky[edit]

I'd like to promote this article to FA status. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it looks pretty decent, and it compares fairly well in both layout and content to the FA'd Minnesota article. With a little work it could become an FA. Here's a few comments that I hope are of some use:
  • The "Top tourist attractions in Kentucky" table needs citations.
  • Working on that right now... Done. Sort of. I put in a few references. I could only find three on the table, though.Cool Bluetalk to me 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Law and government" has too many single-paragraph sections. These could be merged.
  • The "Demographics of Kentucky" table is unclear to me. What is with the Hispanic-only rows and why have Hispanic × non-hispanic cells? Perhaps an explanation is needed?
  • The railroad and barge images in the Roads section could be moved down to the corresponding sections to reduce clutter.
  • The Culture section has some inline links that should be converted to citations for consistency.
  • I am currently attempting to work on that. It may take a little time. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little dubious about the gallery section. That might need to be relocated. There is a fairly large Kentucky category over on the commons that contains plenty of images.
  • I think the gallery is fine, there aren't that many images there -- by the way, I think if I were reading an article about a topic I knew nothing about a few extra photos couldn't hurt. Anyone agree? -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 01:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we eventually need to absorb the best images from the gallery into the main article and drop the rest of them. However, I don't think we're anywhere close to FA, or even GA, at this point, so I'd like to keep them until we decide which ones are best. Acdixon 13:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many of the citations consist of only a link. You'll probably get slammed for that when you go for a FAC. I'd use cite templates throughout to get a consistent look.
Good luck. — RJH (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd commented in a discussion that the article looks good but has some problems that are more subtle. The article in places seems like a cobbling together of trivia and tourism information that, while interesting, doesn't always really describe it's subject properly. I was asked for an example, so I figure this is a good a place to do it as any.

Take the geography section. Probably the easiest to do well, too. But Kentucky's starts out with a description of the borders. Okay, pretty basic. Then it devotes a paragraph to the Kentucky Bend. This is what I'm talking about... very interesting bit of trivia, but not at all relevent to the geography of the overall state. If someone asks me "What's Kentucky like?" I don't say "Well 0.01% of the land is called the Kentucky bend...". Interesting, but not really helpful in describing the state as a whole. Then the section describes the traditional regions, which is a getting back on the right track, but it really just names them. The rest of the section is devoted to how many counties there are and how they formed. Very interesting, but the section has failed to describe what the state is actually like, Geography-wise. No mention of the farm-dominated central portions of the state, no mention of the Appalachian Plateau in the east. No mention of where the forests are, the cumberland gap, etc. Just some tidbits of trivia, really.

I will try to improve this section, and contribute more to this peer review, which I think is a good idea. --W.marsh 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guster[edit]

How can this article become better? What does it need, not need, or what should be expanded? - hmwithtalk 17:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look, here are some suggestions:
  • Expand the lead - see appropriate MOS guidelines about what it should look like.
  • Separate the discography section into its own article.
  • Lots of refs for both Style and Fan reception sections. Both need to be approached with RSs as both can get pretty POV if you're not careful, as well as getting kind of OR-ish. Cite all awards received.
  • Remove the Tufts image. Not relevant enough to need to see what the university looked like.
  • Kill the trivia section or incorporate it into the article. If you can't find a ref for each trivia bullet point then you should remove it.
  • Read over WP:EL and remove cruft links. The fan page and the 'gusterography' both seem like ones that should be tossed.
Thats about it for now. For everyone's sake respond directly to comments here, but tap me on the shoulder about it on my talk page if you need me to comment further. JoeSmack Talk 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I took care of most of the main issues, except for the Style & Fan reception sections, which will need a bit of time through which to sort, so I'll have to wait until I have more time to spend on the article. If you or anyone has any further tips, let us know! - hmwithtalk 10:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I noticed, as JoeSmack Talk noticed as well, is the lack of references. But even more than just in Style and Fan reception, it was in the whole article. Something that is more of a personal opinion is the eveness of the pictures (they are all on the right). It might give it a better feel if you change some of the pictures to the left. Other than that it is a great article! Acidskater 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump[edit]

An article on Joseph Wright of Derby's best known painting, I'm think of putting it up as a featured candidate. It's short but I believe it's comprehensive. Any comments gratefully received. Yomanganitalk 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit[edit]

An enjoyable article on one of my favorite paintings, but I feel that it is lacking some sections. Here are my suggestions.

  • I was disappointed to see that your major source for the painting itself was a library website. Art historians have written a lot on this painting. Since you have scholarly sources for the other material, I urge you to find scholarly sources for the painting as well. It will help you flesh out the page a bit (see next).
  • I would suggest that you subdivide the "Painting" section and expand on each subsection. Here are some suggestions:
  • Description and style - This section would describe the painting in more detail and elaborate on the style of the painting, for example, the girl looking out at the viewer. The structure of the painting would be covered here. Chirascuro would go here as well. Any more information on what artistic traditions the painting was participating in or rebelling against would go well here, I think. It is here that the article is most lacking - a description of the painting's structure and style. Research will go a long way to help you fill in those holes.
  • Themes - This section would explain some of Derby's symbolism (the classical bit) and his interest in the Industrial Revolution. I would put the cockatoo bit here, for example.
  • Reception and legacy - This section would explain how the painting was received and who Derby thought he was painting it for. Your last paragraph would work well here. You should also include a history of the painting after the eighteenth century - what happened to it? Who bought it? Where did it go? Etc.
  • I would reorganize the lead a bit, leading from the general to the specific. For example, I would place this sentence - "Part of a series of candlelit scenes that Wright painted during the 1760s, Air Pump departed from previous painting conventions by depicting a scientific subject in the reverential manner that had previously been reserved for scenes of historical and religious significance" - perhaps second and then go on to describe the painting itself.
  • The Boyle New Experiments reference needs more citation information in the footnote.
  • I would delete the "References in other works" section since the list is going to be extensive and these don't seem very connected anyway.
  • There are some awkwardly worded sentences (nothing terribly serious); I suggest a copyeditor when you have finished revising. It's nice to have another pair of eyes or two looking at the article. Awadewit Talk 06:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I think you have a good point about dividing up the "Painting" section, although I'm not sure there is enough material to justify subheadings without it looking choppy: I shall probably adopt the structure without the headings. The reception and legacy section would be fairly thin, as until the mysterious Mr. Tyrell gave it to the National Gallery it is shrouded in obscurity (I was interested in finding the original purchaser, as I thought the inclusion of the full moon might have been included as a tempter for someone from the Lunar Society). The article at the library site is written by the curator of the Wolverhampton Art Gallery, it just happens to be available online there, so I'm not too worried about that. Thanks again for taking the time to look it over. Yomanganitalk 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would do more research so that you have more material for each subsection. Awadewit Talk 08:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qp10qp[edit]

Well, it's nice to see that colleague Yomangani has moved on from executions and embowellings to the mere public torture of birds. I never have liked this picture (more of a Stubbs man); but what an interesting and absorbing article (narrative art has fascinated me since the author of a book on the Pre-Raphaelites gave a revelatory lecture-with-slides at my school). The article is well-written and constructed, as always with Yomangani's productions: my main suggestion is that what read in places as subjective judgements might be better attributed to their authors within the text (as opposed to just in the notes). This isn't the old "not-enough-citations" refrain, but a question of ensuring that the article doesn't give the impression, to readers unfamiliar with the referencing principles, of analysing the picture for itself.

A few points (feel free to disregard them, of course):

  • "Scientific curiosity overcomes concern for the bird."
But does it? The boy and the Erasmus Darwin guy on the left seem to be showing scientific curiosity, but who else? Presumably the Peter Stringfellow geezer in the middle has seen it all before; the chap on the right is arguably averting his eyes; and the others are either indeed showing concern for the bird (the two girls) or preoccupied with something else (the lovers, the father, and the boy at the back). Of course, the point is probably from a source (Solkin?), in which case perhaps its author might be mentioned in-text, so that it does not appear to be a definitive assertion.
As an aside (being worth nothing as original thought), my interpretation of the painting (though Wright would have intended many meanings, as well as a complex narrative) is that it depicts the degradation of science into showmanship and the varied reactions to it of society. The point about scientific unconcern is developed further down the article, but once again there seems to me a contradiction between the idea that the picture represents "the dispassionate detachment of the scientific society" and Wright's, I would suggest deliberate, representation of a set of differentiated reactions. The possibility, mentioned in the article, that the bird may be saved, or that the viewer is invited to save the bird, further disturbs a reading that scientific curiosity overcomes concern for the bird.
  • "the subjects of the painting show the dispassionate detachment of the scientific society"
Not exactly clear what "the scientific society" means in this context. Most of these viewers aren't overtly part of the scientific society in the sense that the Lunar men, for example, were: so is the point that this painting comments on the attitudes of the society of the industrial revolution overall? My own sense would be that Britain at this point was still not really a scientific society as a whole, which is why this experiment was still pulling them in; wouldn't a truly scientific society have considered that it rather proved the obvious? Might not this picture just as well show how little the general public still understood of science at this time?
  • "...the chaotic experiment contrasting with the orderly scene from The Orrery"
It doesn't look chaotic to me, but highly controlled. Again, this is probably a judgement from a source and might best be framed as such in the text.
  • "Wright's Air Pump was unusual, in that it depicted archetypes rather than specific people. The young lovers are thought to be based on Thomas Coltman and Mary Barlow..."
Having stated that the picture doesn't depict specific people, the article goes on to list the specific people it might have been based on.
  • "natural philosopher"/"Experiment 41"/"Lunar Society"
Although there is a link for "natural philosopher" later in the article, it might be worth a phrase of explanation at first introduction (I had to look it up, to see what it might mean in this context). Another detail that struck me as needing a phrase of explanation was "Experiment 41" (although the experiment is described, I was left unclear as to the format of Boyle's experiments; how many there were, for example, and where this particular one fits into the scheme or context of his work or publications; the reference "Robert Boyle (1660). New Experiments" strikes me as a bit bald—from what publication or source did you take the quote?). The same for the Lunar Society: though I have heard of it, some readers might require a phrase explaining what it was.
  • "...James Shuttleworth, his Wife and Daughter acknowledged as his first masterpiece."/"The first of his masterpieces, Three Persons Viewing the Gladiator by Candlelight..."
So which was it?
  • Descending to the microscopic level, the Uglow book lacks a publication date. I found numerous other editions, but that particular ISBN took me up a few blind alleys, so I can't add a date for the edition you used myself.
Anyway, congratulations on another fine article. qp10qp 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking it over. Most of the above look to be failures on my part to fully explain the various points. I'll expand those during the week, and put some attributions inline as you suggest (and in attempt to avoid torture and eath I'll try Carebears or the Andrex puppy next). Yomanganitalk 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a great article? What makes this article credible--Angel10302022 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Virginia[edit]

I've been working on this one for a while pretty much solo. I would like to put it up for GA soon, but I'd like some other eyes to look at it first. Thanks in advance.--Kubigula (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Planet/archive1

Needs serious work. Just wondering what sort of work it needed. Serendipodous 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJH[edit]

Overall I think the organization is fine and it has good content. Here's a few suggestions that I hope are of some use.

  • A number of sections have no citations. I usually like to see about one per paragraph or more, but that's just a personal heuristic.
  • There appear to be many redundant links. (C.f. WP:MoS#Wikilinking.) Jupiter, for example, is linked 8 times, and not always consistently. Probably only 2-3 links to Jupiter are necessary.
  • Mixed British English and American English. Example: centre and center.
  • A reader may be puzzled by this sentence: "There was particular disagreement over whether round objects that existed in belts, and large deuterium fusing objects should qualify." It might be clearer if it said "debris disks" and put a hyphen between deuterium and fusing.
  • "Dynamic characteristics" doesn't mention the differing orbital elements, such as ellipticity or inclination. The section could also use an illustration or two with examples of some attributes.
  • The initial list of planets in the "Within the Solar System" also gives the number of moons. This is redundant with the data in the "Planetary attributes" table, so perhaps the list should only show the planets?
  • I think that if you put a definition at the start of the "Beyond the Solar System" section, the table of contents should properly indent the sub-sections.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Governors of Kentucky[edit]

Probably needs a few more cites, but I'll try to address those soon. Overall, I'm hoping this list is at least close to featured list status. Please leave feedback on anything that might cause this list to fail a featured list review. Acdixon 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team[edit]

I'd like to get this article definitely to GA and maybe up to FA quality. I would appreciate any feedback or copyediting. Thanks.↔NMajdan•talk 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Texas A&M University[edit]

We've done a lot of work to improve this article from its previous stub status. I'm interested in opinions on whether there appear to be gaps in the coverage, and any suggestions on what needs improvement to make this a potential GA or FA article. Thanks for your help! Karanacs 13:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Nmajdan[edit]

Looks like a good article. I did a quick scan of it and found some issues. I'll try to examine the actual content and wording at a later time if I can but this should be a good start.

  • Per WP:UNITS, make sure you have the metric conversion of certain values. Check out {{convert}}. So, instead of "180,000 acres," you would have "{{convert|180000|acre|sqkm|-1|sp=us}}" which yields "180,000 acres (730 km2).
  • Make sure all citations are in the same format, such as WP:REF format. (Granted, I'm not too familiar with Harvard citation format but it would make sense to me to have one format and stick with it.)
  • Image:Texas AandM University seal.png and Image:Vision2020-tamu.gif need fair use rationale.
  • I question the license of Image:Lawrence Sullivan Ross.jpg. A photograph of a copyrighted work cannot be licensed in such a way.
  • A personal preference of mine is I don't like seeing very short sections. The content under section "1990s" and before "George H.W. Bush Presidential Library" should be lengthened. Are the "George H.W. Bush Presidential Library" and "Bonfire Collapse" sections deserving of their own section? You could probably remove those section headers and group them under 1990s and it wouldn't hurt anything. Especially considering there is no other content for 1990s.
  • Fix ref 17.

Good luck!↔NMajdan•talk 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up[edit]

Thanks for the incredibly quick response! I've made the changes you suggested, including homogenizing the citatinons, fixing citation 17, and adding the conversion of the units. I've also added Fair Use rationale for the A&M seal image and fixed the licensing of the Lawrence Sullivan Ross image, and removed the section for George H.W. Bush Pres. Library. I appreciate your help! Karanacs 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Skoblar[edit]

hope for Quality rate : B (perhaps A) or at least Quality rate : Start. priority : Mid And some feedback/comments

Dionysostom 12:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Dionysostom[reply]

Quadzilla99[edit]

  • Comment Needs expansion (if possible) and inline citations. Quadzilla99 12:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For expansion, I'll see later (possible expansion on International Career), for notes and references I'll do it as soon as possible :)--Dionysostom 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Not much to add to what Quadzilla99 said. The article is a stub, and without expansion a review cannot be yet helpful. Just two additional remarks:

  • A picture would be nice.
  • The are problems with MoS, such as the wikilinking of single years.--Yannismarou 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reply : I ve tried to add wikilinking on all single years. --Dionysostom 13:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight[edit]

This article was cited by a news source as being an example of wikipedia's poor quality. Since then, I have been making huge changes, adding scholarly sources, etc. I am aiming for GA status, and need some tips. Wrad 20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longer and more descriptive lead section. Also the symbolism/interpretations section, etc, have so many subsections I would consider making separate articles for them and leaving behind a link and a little blurb. JoeSmack Talk 20:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead. What would be the best way to go about making separate articles for the symbolism and int. sections? Wrad 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be something in the Wikipedia:Manual of style relating to that. JoeSmack Talk 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked it over, and realized I need to fix the capitalization of the headings. However, the article doesn't pull up a length warning yet. For now, I think I'll forego creating subarticles unless other reviewers also suggest it, as I think it may make several very short articles where I'd rather have one good one. Wrad 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit[edit]

I am so glad that you took this article up after seeing it trounced in the press - a noble effort. Here is what I would suggest to improve it.

  • First and foremost, I would suggest doing a bit more research. I noticed that you have quoted from some academic articles (excellent) and from some anthologies (not so good). Anthologies purposefully leave out a lot of material because they have very little space for criticism, since their main function is to print primary source materials. Also, they do not necessarily reflect the state of the profession - they take many years to edit and often great compromises are made to the "senior" people which does not leave a lot of room for innovative and new scholarship. Thus, I would encourage you to read something like the Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance which has material about Gawain and can guide you to better sources. I'm sure you know about the MLA database as well. Once you do this, you will realize that there are entire books written on every aspect of Gawain. More of this criticism needs to be reflected in your article.
I agree that research needs to be done on some of the things mentioned below, however, I think the use of anthologies in this article is appropriate. They are only used if a) backed up by other sources b) they truly represent the common opinion or general facts, such as the dialect or time period of the poem, not literary opinions. Your later questions, though, open up some questions for further research, as I state below. Wrad 04:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be a summary of the article. Some of the details in your lead should be reserved for the article (where the manuscripts are located, for example) and some major pieces of information are missing (themes). See WP:LEAD.

 Done

  • I would cut the character list and rely on the plot summary to introduce the characters.
  • I would try to cut down the plot summary (looking at it, I would say to 1-2 paragraphs) and delete the subheadings as well - they are distracting. Remember that a plot summary does not have to be told in the same order as the story itself and should tell only the essential plot elements and character relationships. It would also be helpful if the summary began with a summarizing statement such as "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight tells of four eventful days in the life of Gawain in which he responds to the challenge of the Green Knight and attempts to resist the seductions of a lady" (or something like that). That way readers know where you are going in the summary; give them a "topic sentence" of sorts.
Question: Does the plot need to provide background for the criticism later in the article? I had that in mind as I edited the old version. Also, can a plot be longer if it has more "essential" elements than other plots? Different critics see different things in this poem as essential, and I wanted to avoid bias.
You need to provide enough background so that readers can follow the criticism later but you do not have to introduce everything up front. Writing a good plot summary is actually much more difficult than most people realize - in their efforts to be fair and represent every part of the story, they forget about the fact that it is supposed to be a summary. I understand your concerns about bias. If it is any consolation, all plot summaries represent an interpretation of the text in some way, so you cannot avoid foregrounding one interpretation over another in your summary. One way to counter this is to be aware of which interpretation you are foregrounding and try to balance that interpretation with others in the criticism. Also, always remember that you want the reader to go beyond the summary and get to the "themes," etc. which will tell them a lot more about the text. You don't want them to get bogged down in the details of the text. Awadewit 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to cut it to four paragraphs. Could you give an example of a similar article with a good synopsis? Wrad 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must explain what a manuscript is and what the Cotton manuscript is in particular in the "Poet" section (you just jump right in at the moment). You cannot assume that your readers know anything about medieval manuscripts.
I think this is better now after doing the below.
  • Do more scholars accept single authorship or not? Where is the preponderance of opinion?
 Done I think this has been cleared up as I did the below.
  • The "Poet" section seems a little disorganized - try to make each paragraph have a single idea.
 Done
  • How do we know that the author was a "he"?
All possible authors I know of are men.
  • In the "verse form" section, give an example (from the original text), of the various styles you are referring to.

 Done

  • "Similar stories" looks like a prose list. Make these sentences cohere into paragraphs.
 Done Or at least attempted.
  • I would introduce sections entitled "Themes" and "Symbols" and move the appropriate material there rather have the broad "Literary criticism" (there are just too many subsections there).
 Done
  • The "color green" and "green Knight" sections should be integrated.
I hesitate to do this, although I see your point. I think both sections need to be developed more. As I look at it, there is much more to say about both which, I think, would merit their separation.
I would vote for development, then. Awadewit 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

  • Many of your sentences begin "some believe" or "others believe" - are these scholars? If the ideas you are quoting are specific to particular scholars, you should name them; if they are generally accepted by a group of scholars, you should say "some literary critics" or "some historians."

 Done

  • "The Order of the Garter" doesn't seem to merit a theme section as you have written it.
Agree, changed some wording and moved to interpretation section.
  • I would put the "Theme" section before the "Symbols" section. Can you add more themes?
 Done Good idea, other articles do this. And yes, I can.
  • Again, I would make "Interpretations" its own section.
 Done
  • Certainly there are more than two modern interpretative schools?
Yes, this needs to be expanded.
  • The writing in your article often becomes convoluted - you often try to pack too much information into a single sentence. Also, some of your verbal constructions are a little off. Why don't you post this over at the League of Copyeditors or find a trusted wikipedia copyeditor to help you out. Awadewit 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post it when other major edits are done, so it doesn't need to be repeated.

I know you don't mean this, but I just want to point out that although I have done a lot for this article, it isn't mine, it's everyones. I hope others will edit this as well. That said, I'll see what I can do about your suggestions. Wrad 02:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of this. Often, though, editors have worked so much on one article that the article ends up being entirely their own work. I'm sorry if I have slighted the work of others here. I, too, hope others will assist you (I often wish for this on articles on which I am working, but, alas, I tend to do all of the heavy lifting myself). Awadewit 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, somebody's gotta do it. Wrad 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Arsenal F.C. (1886-1966)[edit]

Largely self-written, and I would like to get this up to GA status. I'm very aware it needs more citations, but I am not sure where - either add {{cn}} to them in the article or list the problem points below. The other issue is NPOV - as I am a fan after all and aware of the possible problems that entails. And of course, there may be other issues, so fire away below. Thanks. Qwghlm 17:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man[edit]

Wonderful article, I'm not even a Gooner but I found it a great read. My comments:

  • Personal pref - I don't like "...in 1890-91..." - I'd prefer "...in the 1890–91 season...", but that's personal. Technical pref - I think you need to use the en-dash between each of these years.
  • Yes, more citations, but since I don't have any books which you may reference, and I hate referencing every sentence if a paragraph of sentences can be referenced in one go, I'm reticent to add the "citation needed" tag. One example though is the last three para's of the first section, no citations at all.... but you knew that!
  • Hints of POV - "...lavish spending", "...given a 7-0 hiding..."
  • Not sure about the use of v. for versus but another personal pref I would guess.
  • Really minor point but "The war" section ought to be title "The Second World War" in my opinion since it was, after all, the second one.
  • "...usually figured around..." is a bit colloquial.

Hopefully some of that is useful, but I thoroughly enjoyed the article. All the best. The Rambling Man 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your commentss. I've dealt with points 3, 5 and 6 and duly corrected. Re: (1) I omit the word "season" as it leads to unnecessary over-repetition. I will (eventually) get round to sorting out the endashes (the very final thing before applying for GA). And I am gradually adding in citations so hopefully part (2) is now less salient, although I still have a long way to go... :) Qwghlm 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso[edit]

  • It might be a daughter article, but it should still have a full lead as a summary.
  • The fact that Archibald Leitch designed Highbury is repeated.
  • Looking at the ref given, it looks as though Herbert Chapman campaigned for the renaming of the tube station rather than personally changing it, so this could be worded more clearly.
  • The occasional prose issue here and there, but it is a high standard overall and more "fresh pair of eyes" stuff than anything else - a few unneccessary "had"s, semi-colons perhaps a little overused. One or two fannish part-sentences: Arsenal topped the table from October and never looked back, Unbowed by the disappointment of the previous season.
  • Like his predecessors, Wright could not achieve much either - could do with rewording; Chapman was a predecessor...

The refs added in the last 24h mean that GA should be a breeze if a more substantial lead is added; this is a potential featured candidate. Oldelpaso 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the above issues have been addressed now. Thank you both for the kind words on FA status - I may ask for it though to be honest I think it's too much an esoteric subject for it to deserve FA status. Qwghlm 10:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectively disagree - there should be nothing preventing it getting to FA status should it meet the FA criteria, no matter how esoteric you consider it to be! I don't even think it is that esoteric, no more so than, say, History of Lithuania (1219–1295). Anyway, whatever direction you take with the article, well done on an excellent job. Let me know if I can support you further. The Rambling Man 10:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaharai Bombing[edit]

Another milestone in the ongoing saga of Sri Lankan civil war. Attracted considerable international attention because the UN security council choose to chastise Israel over its collateral damage in Lebanon which killed about 40 people at the same time but ignored the similar incident in Sri Lanka. Looking to make it into a good article, so need input from WP:RS, WP:NPOV and style perspective. Thanks Taprobanus 12:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fsotrain09[edit]

One thing: I would remove the external jump in the lede section. Wiki-linking the town name and listing this link along with the other external links tends to be preferred. -Fsotrain09 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Taprobanus 14:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Vikings[edit]

I would just like to get some feedback on how to get this article to at least GA status. RyguyMN 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. Just a quick reading:
  1. You need to make consistent citation style (see WP:CITE) because I found external links mixed with footnote citation. I suggest you to use the footnote style.
  2. The "ocean of blue links" somehow confuses readers. There are a lot of links to click, distracting a reader to read the whole article. I suggest editors reduce them, for instances, not to link all the years because they are not related with the subject.
  3. There are a lot of redundancies in the article with the History of the Minnesota Vikings. Please consider trimming the history section (see WP:SUMMARY).
  4. The {{see also}} (and similar) templates in the middle of a section also distracts a reader. Consider to put it just below the section heading or make an internal wikilink.
  5. The subsections of the "Franchise traditions, trends" section are still stubby. Please also remove "To listen to a sample of the Viking horn go to:(Vikings Tailgating) (ext. link)" statement. It is unnecessary and looks like an internal spam link (see WP:SPAM).
So good luck. — Indon (reply) — 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Indon, I will focus in on those. RyguyMN 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Square Garden[edit]

This article is quite extensive and after a quick run-through it seems to be close to a GA-status. Before nominating I wanted to put it up for a peer-review. Acidskater 20:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed after reviewing the article that it needs a lot of work on references. Acidskater 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karma in Jainism[edit]

The Karma theory is the fulcrum of the Jaina philosophy. Hence this article is submitted for peer review in entirety. The main aim is to ensure that it gets upgraded for featured article status. Thanks. --Anishshah19 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no lead section at all. Please read WP:LEAD. Snottywong 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done


A lead section has been added as per the wiki guidelines--Anishshah19 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vice City[edit]

I'd like to have a peer review for this article so we can see whether it needs improving or not. I'd like to get it to a Good Article status. It's quite a solid article, and I personally have tried to improve it myself but obviously one person can not do this on their own, so I'd like some other opinions on how this article is going. .:Alex:. 10:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived list of suggestions for a peer review for Grand Theft Auto:Vice City. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below. No further edits should be made to this archived section of the page.

Vice City[edit]

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

  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • 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 33 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that 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, APR t 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below. No further edits should be made to this archived section of the page.

Winona Ryder[edit]

Now I have given the article a complete rewrite, I would like to get this article in shape to reach GA or FA status and would like any constructive criticism, comments, suggestions, etc. to assist me in improving it. Thanks and Many Regards. Angel2001 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have huge problems with the sources you use. Sites like Tv.com and imdb.com are considered unreliable and should therefore not be used. --Peter Andersen 09:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois[edit]

Second Review[edit]

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

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

Kayastha[edit]

This article and the editors could use suggestions on how to improve it.

  • I'm unable to make sense of the article. I see the Kayastha trace from Chitraguptaji, but I'm unable to see how that fits in with the subcastes section or how that section's image fits with the text given there and how either relate to the subject. Context is needed for all unfamiliar terms. Then the NOTES: section gives three seemingly different definitions of the term with no reconcilation to what's in the rest of the article. Basically we're given almost no information on how the different information about the subject relates to the whole and to the rest of the information. For example how do the "sons of" sections fit in and why are they important? 2) The VEDIC ORIGIN note completely violates WP:NPOV and appears to be WP:NOR to boot. Work on organizing the whole article logically so it is clear how the parts relate, what are the important point, and provide context to ease the reader in. Also tell us how the information is known, from what sources, and if any are considered more reliable than others. - Taxman Talk 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devil May Cry 3 (manga)[edit]

I am placing this page for a peer review to raise it to Good Article, as part of Devil May Cry Task Force's scope of improving DMC related pages, all the suggestions presented will be attended to ASAP. Thanks for your time.-凶 20:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 05:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking briefly at the article I have noticed a few things. The lead needs to be totally rewritten. Establish context, it looks like this article was split from a bigger article at some stage. Say that the different parts are called codes explicitly. The main article template shouldn't need to be used so many times in the article, why not get rid of them as they are creating a lot of whitespace needlessly. Link the characters' name instead. You may not even have to have each character in a subsection.--Squilibob 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Air Flight 574[edit]

I want to see this article get FA status. Anything, no matter how trivial, would be apreciated. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carcharoth[edit]

  • What is the latest with linking in the bold bit? Is it now OK, or should the linked phrase (in this case Adam Air) be repeated nearby in the surrounding text?
  • Piping airline behind "passenger flight" is probably acceptable, but you need to make clear in the lead (not just the infobox) what sort of aircraft is involved. Helicopter, airplane? And what sort? In this case, the Boeing 737-400 detail could be either in the lead or left to the first section, I don't have a strong opinion on that.
  • "remain missing" (and similar phrases) need a date qualifier, so people know when the article was last updated.
  • Tenses: "has described the disappearance" - change to " described the disappearance" - plus similar tenses need clearing up. Should all be completely past tense now.
  • The lead needs expanding. More dates and times could be added for a start. It also needs to bring in stuff from the reaction and aftermath sections.
  • "had flown with eight airlines, including Adam Air" - can you expand this to mention these other eight airlines, if that sort of information is available?
  • "the plane went on schedule" - better phrased as "the plane continued on schedule".
  • You need something about how modern aircraft can deal (or not) with the weather conditions encountered. Are 130 km/h a cause for concern? This implied, but not made explicit in the article.
  • The chronology and geography is confusing (as it was for the investigators, I'm sure). You give the last known time of contact, and then seem to go back and describe earlier incidents. Make clear precisely which events come before others. For example, is there a time for that satellite beacon reading, and where exactly are those co-ordinates you give - are they over the Makassar Strait? Google Maps put me on the coast of the island of Sulawesi. Also, show the location of the Makassar Strait on both maps - is it to the west of Sulawesi? Is this further evidence of a turn-around? Some of this is clarified later, but in the early parts of the article it is confusing.
  • Did the satellite co-ords prompt the search on Sulawesi? Mentioned later in the article, but not at the first menition of the 'false discovery' - did the satellite beacon data come after or before searches had started on Sulawesi?
  • "located the black boxes" links to a later section of the article. I find this annoying as a reader. Let readers arrive at that section naturally, rather than allowing them to jump ahead like this. Ditto for the link hidden behind "the black boxes were since located elsewhere".
  • The "continued efforts" and "location of the wreckage" sections overlap chronologically. This is confusing. Try and separate the two and keep things chronological throughout the article.
  • "It discovered a large amount of wreckage in the area, which is now considered to be all that remains of the aircraft." - this contradicts the lead section, which says "the main wreckage, and the 102 people on board, remain missing".
  • "A senior Indonesian marine official said he doesn't believe the equipment which is necessary to retrieve the boxes from that depth is available in any Asian country" - need a date for when he said this.
  • The bit about battery life expiring for the black boxes is presumably just for the beacon locator. I assume the data stored in the black boxes will last a lot longer (indefinitely?), as is implied by the continued desultory efforts to recover them? If so, make all this clearer.
  • The salvage section in particular, and the article in general, needs more dates. When someone says something, say when they said it. eg. "Adam Air have stated that they do intend to select a company to conduct the operation shortly and will pay for this themselves" - when did they say this (you can't expect people to go down to the footnote and check the reference date). Make clear at what date the information stops. This will help if people later come along and update the article with new information.
  • "A team from the United States with representatives from the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing and General Electric are currently in Indonesia and will assist the Indonesian National Committee for Transportation in the investigation." - currently? When was this? What is the latest?
  • The introduction to the section "Maintenance concerns" is too short: "Investigators quickly became concerned about apparent poor maintenance and believe it may play an important factor in the accident." Use this introduction to summarise what is said here.
  • "deliberate breaches of international safety regulations" and "swapping parts between aircraft to avoid mandatory replacement deadlines" - give more details. What international safety regulations? Explain what a mandatory replacement deadline is and how swapping parts can avoid it.
  • "This may be of particular significance as it is known the aircraft and Air Traffic Control reported crosswinds hitting the plane from different directions, exposing a possible navigation error." - this sentence needs referencing to a source, otherwise it is Wikipedia editors drawing their own conclusions, which is original research.
  • The suggestion by relatives of the passengers that a malfuntioning rudder valve caused the crash needs foolproof referencing. Then explain it using material from those other arrticles you refer to, but don't go too far. Wait for the official report. At leats link to an article on rudder valves if we have one (or write one).
  • The "Aftermath" section is good. Overall though, it would be best to wait until the investigation reports comes out, and until the possible shut-down of Adam Air is resolved, before going for Featured Status, as then the article would be more stable.

Hope this helps! Carcharoth 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Young (pitcher)[edit]

I put this up for peer review a few weeks ago and was encouraged to expand the article. I have now and would like feedback before submitting for WP:FAC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here are the changes since the last comment on the original peer review.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous information[edit]

Expanding the article is fine, but I think the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction. There can be too much information, especially when it becomes as esoteric as it can become in this article. The article (as about 90% of those on WP) also has a current day bias. I think the 2007 section discusses half of his starts this season.

I am not trying to beat you up here. And I am sure that lots of the obscure stuff is not all your doing. But at some point, reading an article becomes sort of unbearable if you have to sit for a moment and think about whether some random statistic is actually relevant.

But as to some specifics:

  • Young took a no-hitter into the sixth inning of his 2nd Triple-A start on August 2, 2004 against the Sacramento River Cats.
  • Other Princeton baseball players who played in the major leagues include Moe Berg, Charlie Caldwell, and John Easton.[32] The other Ivy League players to have played for the Texas Rangers are Pete Broberg (Dartmouth College) and Doug Glanville (University of Pennsylvania). OK that's good, but is it necessary?
  • This was the first Ranger 1-0 victory since August 25, 2000 against the Toronto Blue Jays,[43] a stretch of 669 games.[24]. The club went 5-2 in his brief 2004 stint with the club. How important is that to the article. Its fun to think that the team went 5-2 with him on the team, but I cannot believe that his mere presence is correlated with victory
  • May included his season high 13.2 scoreless innings recorded in May 3 - May 9, 2005. Is this all that impressive? A lot of guys throw 13 scoreless innings
  • Young's closest no-hitter was 5.2 innings of hitless pitching against the Houston Astros before allowing a Craig Biggio single in the sixth inning on June 25, 2007 at Houston. About a thousand other guys have taken no-hitters into the sixth inning. Is that impressive or notable
  • He went 3-1, 2.59 over 24.1 IP in four starts in interleague play giving him the 10th-best (tied) interleague ERA in the American League. 10th best?
  • Young, the former Princeton Tiger athlete, started seven games alongside former University of Pennsylvania infielder Mark DeRosa making them the second Ivy League tandem in the last 50 years to start for the same team, the other being Ron Darling (Yale University) and Bill Almon (Brown University) of the 1987 New York Mets. I think the Ron Darling part is unecessary.
  • Allie Reynolds set the record at 25 straight road starts spanning the 1948 and 1949 seasons that Russ Meyer almost matched with his 24 straight road contests spanning the 1953 and 1954 seasons. OK, Young had a great road stretch. Probably enough to mention that it was the last time since Allie Reynolds and move on
  • This would have been the first no-hitter in San Diego Padres history.[62] It was the first time a Padre had taken a no hitter into the ninth inning since Andy Ashby on September 5, 1997 vs. the Atlanta Braves (8.0 innings). The Padres are joined by the New York Mets, Colorado Rockies and Tampa Bay Devil Rays as the only franchises who have never pitched no-hitters. The last part is irrelevant to Chris Young
  • During Young's next start on June 4, 2006 at Pittsburgh he did not allow a hit for the first 5 1/3 innings,[68][69] making him one of only two pitchers (Steve Trachsel—June 20–25, 2002)[70][71] to have consecutive starts with at least five hitless innings since the 2000 season. this may be one of the most obscure statistics I have ever seen
  • He pitched 6 2/3rds shutout innings facing twenty-five batters and throwing 102 pitches (63 of them for strikes Pitching 6 2/3 shutout innings is really notable, his pitch count really isn't
  • Young's 6–0 2006 road performance was one of forty-nine undefeated road seasons with at least five victories by pitchers since post-season play began in 1903. It is the first, however, to be followed by a post-season road victory. I'm sorry, this is the most obscure statistic ever
  • Allie Reynolds is the only other pitcher to go twenty-five road starts without a loss.[57] Reynolds' twenty-five game streak spanned the 1948 and 1949 seasons.[3] The last of the nine other pitchers to go twenty consecutive road starts without a loss was Greg Maddux who went twenty-two starts without a loss during the 1997 and 1998 OK, we get it, good road pitcher, Reynolds
  • Young continued his mastery over the Pittsburgh Pirates against whom he twice took no-hitters into the 6th inning in 2006. He posted 7 shutout innings and has now allowed only 7 hits against the Pirates in 23 2/3 innings I am surprised that every pitcher in the national league can't claim utter superiority over the Pirates.
    • :)17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The day before, Alfonso Soriano homered off David Wells, and upset the Padres with his admiration and celebration of his own work. He stopped at the plate to admire the ball and then started his home run trot with a few steps backward.Maybe this is valid, maybe not. I just cannot imagine how a fight takes as much time to discuss as his entire minor league career

These just need to be re-written[edit]

    • Normally I would just rewrite an article myself and fry some of the more random stuff. But you have made the effort to ask for input so that's my two cents. Take it for what its worth. Montco 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Too many citations/extraneous information[edit]

But there are some parts of the article that have numerous citations for the same sentence, like this: "His five starts in June were highlighted by a career high twelve strikeout performance on June 9, 2006 against the Florida Marlins and a June 21, 2006 win over his former team, the Texas Rangers.[45][58][59][60][61]" I don't think you really need 5 citations for one sentence. Another thing that kinda bothers me about this is the fact that it jumps from 45 to 61, meaning that in between the first time "reference 45" is used to here, there are (at least) 16 other citations.

I am considering using either the box score citation or the game summary/recap. This change would take a sentence like the above from 5 to 3 citations.
Jumping citations are caused when a very important reference is used throughout a well cited article. This is a good thing. It says we have cited several important claims and that we have found a very important resource. Recall WP is a tertiary resource that relies on credible secondary resources. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that proves that the source is a really good source. But I think that if you have a lot of information from one source, then you could just group all that stuff together. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1: cited 8 times.
Reference 16: cited 9 times.
Reference 24: cited 15 times.
Reference 44: cited 13 times.
Again, this is an indicator that we have found a credible secondary source chock full of interesting claims. This is a sign of a high caliber WP article. It is a common feature of WP:FAs. Not so common in stubs and start class articles. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this could all be grouped together so the site only needs to be referenced once. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now here are the similar references I've spotted, followed by how many references I think are necessary:

References 97-103: 2
When this goes through WP:FAC next month we will get much broader feedback on this issue. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several parts of this article that are unrelated to Young, which I think can be removed (not in any particular order, just the order that I found it in). These following sections could be better placed in San Diego Padres:

"Young was overshadowed by teammate Jake Peavy (4-0, 0.79 ERA) for the National League Pitcher of the Month in a month where teammate Trevor Hoffman (0.00 ERA, 11 saves) was also a contender.[94]"
Explains why his performance was better than the month he won the award last year, but did not win. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Young's performance is independant of that of Jake Peavy or Trevor Hoffman. What they do doesn't affect Young. He didn't win the award, so it doesn't need to be mentioned. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Young's story is intertwined with Peavy's. See the latest addition from this weekend's activities. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...when the Cubs travelled to play Young's former team the Texas Rangers, whose Sammy Sosa hit his 600th home run during the series against his former Cubs team"
Will be removed soon. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be removed, this is only in the article because of Sosa through the Rangers through the Cubs through Derrek Lee through Young. This is a five-link chain created by Young. Additionally, what Young does doesn't change the schedule. The Cubs would play the Rangers, no matter what. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All gone. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"However, Carlos Zambrano continued his no hit bid into the 8th inning, but took the l-0 loss by surrendering a home run.[103]"
Young got ejected in the fourth when both had no hitters going. This may be modified, but is part of the story. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what Zambrano does has absolutely no affect on Young's performance. And this isn't an article for the story. Zambrano's no-hit bid is completely irrelevant to the events that occurred earlier in the game and it is completely irrelevant to Young in anyway. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reminder that it could have been a nohit duel. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Other Princeton baseball players who played in the major leagues include Moe Berg, Charlie Caldwell, and John Easton.[32] The other Ivy League players to have played for the Texas Rangers are Pete Broberg (Dartmouth College) and Doug Glanville (University of Pennsylvania).[24]"
Believe me his numerous Ivy League fans find this to be an encyclopedic claim. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... how are you able to prove this "claim?" How are you able to prove that he has numerous Ivy League fans and that they find this claim notable? The Ivy League players who played in the MLB don't affect him and him playing in the MLB. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof would be its source who is meeting the interests of its audience. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three other current and previous pitchers--Randy Johnson,[34] Andrew Sisco,[35] and Eric Hillman[36]--are also 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m). "
Better to say he is among only 4 6 ft 10 in major league pitchers ever than to say he is 6 ft 10 in. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it isn't really important to list the other 6'10" players. I actually think it would be preferrable to only say that he is 6'10" without listing the other players. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch for WP:FAC and the majority will rule. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This was the first Ranger 1-0 victory since August 25, 2000 against the Toronto Blue Jays,[43] a stretch of 669 games.[24]"
May be removed. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, more about the Rangers than Young. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably after a few all-star games this kind of stuff will be less important. It is probably still topical now. Again, watch for WP:FAC
"The Padres are joined by the New York Mets, Colorado Rockies and Tampa Bay Devil Rays as the only franchises who have never pitched no-hitters.[62]"
Every time Young pitches he will be shooting to erase the Padre name from this list. As a tertiary resource we report what is important according to secondary resources. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you said that every single night, a player has the chance of hitting 6 home runs in a game, then you would say on every single article "[Player] hasn't hit 6 home runs in a game in his career. Additionally, you can't be sure that Young will be the pitcher to throw the Padres' first no-hitter. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We report what secondary sources include. If it is important enough to include in a news story, it may be important enough for this. Watch for FAC.
"Allie Reynolds is the only other pitcher to go twenty-five road starts without a loss.[57] Reynolds' twenty-five game streak spanned the 1948 and 1949 seasons.[3]" (is that Reference 3 again? From 57 to 3?
Common when one uses a cited WP:LEAD to have such skips. If a fact is important it will be cited in the lead and then again wherever it occurs.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else performing a particular feat doesn't affect another player's odds of performing that same feat. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand point.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"last of the nine other pitchers to go twenty consecutive road starts without a loss was Greg Maddux who went twenty-two starts without a loss during the 1997 and 1998.[85]"
His streak was an important accomplishment. He must put it in context. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who was the last player to accomplish the feat, that still doesn't affect Young's chances of performing that same feat. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an odd streak. This helps people get a perspective of how commonly it occurs. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I still think that only one reference is needed for one sentence, not five, four, or more.

Reference 24 is his player profile. It doesn't need to be referenced 15 times. It's his player profile for the 2004 season, which I believe is only necessary at the end of the 2004 season section.

If this were the only reference for this section I would do that. However, with numerous references, people need to know where the claims are coming from.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply group all that information together and reference it at the end of the section. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 16 is "The Top 20 Greatest Athletes." Why is that referencing his personal life?

Look at article and see claim cited. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna worry about this. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 44 is his player profile for 2005. Again, I believe it is only necessary to reference it at the end of the 2005 season section.

We'll get feedback on this at WP:FAC, however, see above. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing as above. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 56 is his player profile for 2006. "Broken record," end of 2006 season section

Same as above. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References 97-103 are about the Cubs/Padres brawl. I believe that it is only necessary to have one reference for the fight and one for the suspension. The other 5 we can do away with.

Each story has bits of the claim. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how one or two references can't be used for this. And if the references contain parts and parts of the whole story, then simply find a source that contains the whole story. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 77 is a blog written by Young. A blog itself isn't valid as a source, even an autobiographical blog.

"In November 2006, he traveled to Japan to take part in the Major League Baseball Japan All-Star Series.[77][78] Young was the starter in an exhibition game against the Yomiuri Giants which was memorable for the Major leaguers' three run ninth inning rally to earn a tie.[79] This game was the prelude to the 5-game series which began with three games at the Tokyo Dome and was followed by games in Osaka, Japan and Fukuoka, Japan.[80] Young pitched the fourth game of the series. Young also blogged on behalf of mlb.com about daily life during the trip. He detailed visits with United States Ambassador to Japan Tom Schieffer, time in the Harajuku, and travels on the Bullet Train.[77]"

I believe this is far too much info to talk about one event. If it were me, I'd simply say that he traveled to Japan to participate in a baseball game against the Yomiuri Giants. The last part, "He detailed visits with United States Ambassador to Japan Tom Schieffer, time in the Harajuku, and travels on the Bullet Train.[77]," seems too biographical for an encyclopedia.
A common complaint is that an article is not broad enough. We have to focus as much as we can on things outside the lines when they are relevant. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Young's performance didn't determine the rally, it didn't determine that three games were played here and the other two were played here. I would just say "In November 2006, Young traveled to Japan and pitched in an exhibition game against Japanese All-Stars." --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not every single game needs to be mentioned. I would mention games like his closest no-hitter, career-high for strikeouts in a game, the brawl, team/rookie records, and I don't think that every single season needs its own section, maybe a section for his pre-MLB years, a section for his Rangers years, and a section for his Padres years. I would remove anything that doesn't directly relate to Chris Young, like Trevor Hoffman and Jake Peavy in the competition for the NL Pitcher of the Month award. The part that says, "The day before the fracus, Alfonso Soriano homered off David Wells, and upset the Padres with his admiration and celebration of his own work. He stopped at the plate to admire the ball and then started his home run trot with a few steps backward," isn't directly related to Young, but is indirectly. First, it should be before the mention of the HBP. Second, shorten it to saying something like "the Padres weren't happy that Alfonso Soriano took his time to round the bases."

Personally, I think that a lot of the abbreviated versions you suggest are a good way to take a viable WP:FAC and send it back to WP:GA status. I will make some changes to this one. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does not every game need to be mentioned, but the ones that are don't need to be sourced. Game stats aren't something that somebody will come to and argue about. I think you've over-referenced the article. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the pictures in the 2005 season section are just pictures of him warming up before a game. First, I would remove those pictures because it isn't any different than his picture in the infobox, just a different angle of a different pitch. Second, those pictures would belong in the 2007 season, anyway.

This is a really good article, no doubt. But it has way too much information. This isn't a game-by-game biography of Chris Young. I believe only the most important, extremely crucial stats should be included such as the aforementioned personal bests, team/rookie records, notable events like the brawl, how close he came to that no hitter in 2005, etc.

I counted over 200 times in the article that something was referenced. I don't think any FA comes close to that amount. It's very hard to read the article to see [1][5][48][38][2][7][4][85][35][74] everywhere. It needs flow so it's easier to read, and by that I mean the references are distracting and make it more difficult to read. A lot of duplicate references I think need to be removed and a lot of the excess information about every single game should be cut and only kept in if it's notable, such as those career/team highs, etc. --Ksy92003(talk) 14:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many FAs have twice as many citations as this one. I will likely eliminate dual references from the same publisher for the same game as I mentioned before. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, there are too many references here and every little detail is referenced by about 3 sources. Most of them can be combined by finding one source that contains all that information and can group together information. The others are mostly sentences which don't even need to be referenced. And true, many FAs have more citations than this one; however, those FAs also are a lot longer and the references are throughout the article and spread out throughout the article. Those FAs don't have a reference/citation every 1.5 sentences.
At FAC I have personally had people add such citations to sports articles such as Toronto Raptors and Dominik Hasek. A general reference verifying claim is useful, but an additional box score or game recap is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in my opinion, I don't think this article will become a FA in its current state because it's far too challenging to read the article. The large amount of references disrupts the flow in the article and you can't read it without being disrupted by ...[23][4]...[23][86][32]...[64][24]...[43][27]...[83]. It really makes it hard to read. Also, it's too much like a biography as opposed to an encyclopedia, which is what it should be. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are under no obligation to stop and read each reference. I think this has a good shot at FAC. How many FAC's have you been involved in? TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been involved in any FAC's because usually the articles that I edit are not articles that were created for the purpose of trying to get it to be one.
As far as "stopping and reading each reference," I'm not really planning on spending a couple hours of my precious, valuable time to read 100 references just because of one baseball player. But if you're so confident that this will be a FA, then we'll just see. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball[edit]

Looking for comments on improving the article before I nominate it for featured status. Dlong 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1997-98 Tennessee Lady Vols basketball team[edit]

Looking for comments on improving the article before I nominate it for featured status. Dlong 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish phonology[edit]

The article has been around for quite some time now, but I feel it's time to put it through some proper reviewing, either to nominate the article for GA or perhaps even FA. Peter Isotalo 11:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasy jatere comments[edit]

  • The lead sentence should mention the subject, i.e. phonology
  • Swedish as a second language does not belong in the lead
  • lack of standardization should not be presented as a problem
  • delist
  • first table needs caption or introduction
  • the presentation of phonemes and allophones in one table is idiosyncratic. Make two tables, one phonemic,one allophonic
  • The reference to stress-timed languages is not appropriate, you probably mean lexical stress.
  • The consonant clusters in onset and coda contain extrasyllabic s. This should be mentioned in the phonotactics section
  • make the north wind story a three column table
Phonetic transcribed English
phiphapou pipapo foo bar blah
  • The sound samples are very nice, but they should be integrated better into the text. Instead of
Phoneme
(IPA) 		Pronunciation sample, phonemic transcription and translation
l listenⓘ lov, /luːv/, "tack"

have

== Laterals ==

/l/ listenⓘ (lov, [luːv], "tack")

Variations of /l/ are not as common, etc blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla blablabla

Psychoactive drug[edit]

Please, leave comments on what could get this article up to Featured Article status. Jolb 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we're getting close. Looking at the Featured Article Criteria, I think the places this article falls short are:
    • 1e (Stability) This is an unstable article because there are so many different perspectives on this topic. Just look at the talk page and revision history for evidence of that. Drug users want this article to talk about subjective effects and reference their drug of choice, anti-drug people want it to focus on addiction and abuse, psychopharm people want it to focus on the hard science. We end up in a tug-of-war between these extremes that is hard to reconcile. We need to keep this article at the highest level of information and link to specific articles that provide more information on those topics with less noise from the competing POV's. This article is starting to fall in line with that philosophy, but I am concerned that it will take some vigilance to keep it headed in that direction.
    • Additionally, There has previously been an ongoing edit war surrounding the chart. Now, I'm a fan of the chart and think it has some value, but we have to admit that it is controversial and that the citations it lists are not immediately verifiable, either because they are publications that few of us have access to or because the websites they direct us to don't have anything that looks remotely similar. While Thoric fought hard to defend this chart against claims of it being original research, I think there is little doubt that it is at least an original synthesis of information, and as such, has dubious status as enyclopedic content. But then, there are so many people who love the chart and feel that it clarifies a murky subject, and those of us with more knowledge of the subject have to admit that there is some validity to this classification, even if it is overly simplistic. I think anyone who visits this article for the first time will feel the pull between these two perspectives, which undermines the authority of this article. As long as this issue remains outstanding, I see this as the major roadblock to Featured Article Status.
    • 2a (Lead section) I think the intro to this article isn't strong enough. The statement on abuse and dependence is worded poorly and doesn't sound authoritative enough, and the assertion that psychedelics can be used to treat chemical dependency, while sourced, is still a controversial claim. I am giving this one some thought and will attempt a revision. The lead section should also reference the legality issue to give a complete overview of the article's contents.
    • 3 (Images) We need more. Thanks for the Timothy Leary pic, Jolb! Images for the addiction and legality sections would be nice (maybe we can find some public domain movie stills depicting these issues?). An image depicting neurotransmission might also be appropriate for the "effects" section.

Steve carlson 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another thought. We should expand the section on "drugs as status symbols" to include more detail on the cultural implications of psychoactive substances, including their acceptance in mainstream culture and drug counter-culture.

Steve carlson 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Manilow[edit]

I would like a peer review of this page after making some major edits.

I would particularly like suggestions as to how to make it flow better given that it is reads more like a series of events.

A large amount of trivia has been moved to a sub-page, but WIKI is suggesting this should be removed. As this reprsents many peoples contributions is there a way to keep it and it still be acceptable.

Goinglogo 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the people who has volunteered on this article that Goinglogo mentioned before. I think our major concern is to have everything included that we have and more, but written better so that it flows better and is not WP:Fancruft. I previously attempted to get a Peer Review here around December 19, 2006, but got no input. My goal then was to turn the article from B rated to an A class article. The article most recently looked like [4] just before Goinglogo's massive facelift to the article.

I looked over Goinglogo's changes. I think it would be a good idea to have a seperate article about Manilow's medical interventions over the years, as it is all well referenced and did take up a sizeable part of the article along with the small trivia section as some raters dispise Trivia sections in biographicial article and will not give them a higher rating. I think, however, that too much was moved that is a part of the article and put on this new seperate trivia page (Manilow 1965 Playboy letter - encouraging him to try showbusiness, various times Manilow made headlines, and more mixed in besides). I do not quite understand the Emmy awards part at the bottom as Manilow has won three Emmys so far (Callback in the 1960s, The Barry Manilow Special and Music and Passion) while some of his other projects won as well for other people involved (The Third Barry Manilow Special, Copacabana movie, Big Fun on Swing Street special) and just one is mentioned on the page with other nominations his specicals received. Looking forward to any and all input on this article. 67.98.154.56 14:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have included the Playboy article in context as you suggested.
I am trying to create an awards section and I got the list of his Emmys from the Emmys website by doing a search on his name. It didn't say anything about Callback. Can you be a bit more specific?

Goinglogo 08:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goinglogo, thanks for considering my suggestion. Scooter has a blog online at [5] she has her contact information on the right column, if you need to get in touch with her. I think the Emmy for Callback is a local Emmy. The specific category and details, if any existing archives go that far back, will probably be found at the New York City local Emmys about that time or in articles Scooter has up.

Looking forward to hearing from Wikipedians out there about this article on Barry Manilow in Wikipedia. 67.98.154.56 12:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A more complete list of Barry Manilow's awards to work from that includes the Emmy, Grammy, Tony, and Oscar nomination and much more can be found at [6] 67.98.154.56 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Family (band)}

Battery (electricity)[edit]

I've been working on this article for quite a while, adding references and cleaning it up. I plan to get it to GA status soon, eventually pushing it to FA. How do you think? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Please give the article a rating using the following: C-, C (Start-Class), C+, B-, B (B-Class), B+, A- (GA-Class), A (A-Class), and A+ (FA-Class). I doubt that C- or A+ would be used, but they are included to cover all technically possible choices (obviously "stub" is impossible). Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Initial impression: Too many sections. Try to form larger groups and make the second-level secions into third-level ones. Λυδαcιτγ 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

electricity is a source of energy but we don't give a fuck

Space Interferometry Mission[edit]

I first expanded this stub in November, when I was a relatively inexperienced Wikipedian, since then it has seen some minor cleanup edits by various editors. The other day I came back to it and did a large expansion. The article is pretty thorough now. I made a some notes on some things it needs on the talk page, some of which are already done. Aside from those I would like to expand the section on the instruments a bit. Some of the sections, including the lead, still need a copy edit (hopefully by someone unaffiliated with the article), I am slowly going over it myself too. Any comments and/or edits would be appreciated, particularly is the article understandable to someone with little or no knowledge of the topics discussed? IvoShandor 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I assessed this B class myself, if anyone disagrees, change it please. My plan is, this peer review, GA, then FA. IvoShandor 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sdsds[edit]

Reviewer Background

I had not seen this article before, and knew nothing of the subject mission. I was led here by an entry on the Portal:Space exploration/Things you can do page.

Overall

This is a very well crafted article! It cites a sufficient number of reliable sources, has nice images including both photos and diagrams, the article structure is good, and it seems (to a naive reader at least) fairly comprehensive. Congratulations!

Lead section

The lead could be improved. The phrase, "American Space Agency, NASA" is non-standard. Its capitalization (at least) should be changed. Also, the first paragraph doesn't really mention that this is a planet-hunting mission. Yet that is the incredibly interesting and notable aspect of this mission! It should be mentioned prominently, like in the very first sentence, even.

  • Any other comments on the lead, I will institute your suggestion. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Development" section

I would like to see this section, which has numerous sub-sections, starting with a one or two sentence introduction, rather than a four paragraph introduction. In essence the section needs a "lead" of its own, so readers can decide if they want to read the section carefully, skim it, or skip forward in the article.

  • This will be incorporated per your suggestion. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Launch date" sub-section

I would like to see this sub-section be retitled simply, "Launch". It should cover the planned date of the launch, but also (as it does) the launch vehicle(s) being considered and the launch location. It could cover how the sizing of the spacecraft and the intended orbit limit the selection of the launch vehicle. Also, although Shuttle and existing EELVs might be the only options today, since launch isn't today has there been citable consideration of using newer launch vehicles not yet available, e.g. SpaceX Dragon or ISRO GSLV or Ariane?

"Mission" section

The Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit deserves the amount of discussion it gets. But reading the article I still don't fully understand it. What paramters set the location for the satellite? Why will it trail by 95 million km instead of 100 million km or 50 million km? Also, why is the rate given in AU/year but the final distance in million km?

  • Further explanation necessary, roger that. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ending

I sense the article could use a concluding section. Perhaps tying the work into other missions and research. How does this mission compare with the research which just these past days has gotten attention for finding an possibly Earth-like exoplanet, etc.? Alternately, maybe what it needs is a "Criticisms" section. Surely someone, somewhere, is dis-satisfied with the results of the mission definition process?

  • Perfect, I was struggling with this, there are plenty of intricately tied in missions to talk about in a brief conclusion, two or three paragraphs good you think? IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last thoughts

Again, this is a great article. Best of luck in moving to FA status! (Sdsds - Talk) 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added comments above, thanks again. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strasbourg[edit]

An article with a real potential and a lot of nice pictures. RCS 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Karanacs[edit]

Overall I think this article is well-written, and illustrated very well. I would rate it as a B-Class article. I do see some room for improvement.

  • It is unlikely this can be rated GA status unless you add inline citations.
  • "summer temperatures can be inordinately high." - how high is inordinately?
  • "one of the most atmospherically polluted cities of France, although the progressive disappearance of heavy industry as well as effective measures of traffic regulation in and around the city are showing encouraging results" - how much of a decrease has been recorded/is being seen?
    • Is the pollution caused solely by things happening in Strasbourg? Since it is on the border, is any of the pollution coming from Germany? (we have this problem in Texas, where pollution sometimes drifts from Mexico)
  • History Section
    • Need to separate the history section into subsections -- it is a little long for a single section.
    • The first paragraph in the history section does not read very smoothly for me.
    • You use the name "Stratisburgum" in paragraph two, but don't mention how the name changed from "Argentoratum" in paragraph 1, although "Stratisburgum" is mentioned in pargraph 3 as a name used in a later century by the Alemanni -- did they rename it?
    • Did Gottfried von Stasburg live in Strabourg? It is not entirely clear (although the name would imply that he did).
    • In many places, the article needs better transitions between facts within a paragraph.
      • One paragraph mentions both the Strasbourg Cathedral and the city's printing industry with little transition.
      • Better transition between composition of La Marseillaise and the French revolution (for people not familiar with La M.)
      • Work on transitions in WWII paragraph
    • Last three paragraphs of History section all begin with "In <year>"
  • I would remove the galleries of pictures. The article has a lot of beautiful photos placed appropriately in the text, and does not need an additional gallery.
  • Is it necessary to list the notable streets or squares? Unless there is something particularly notable about them (other than they originate in a certain time period), I would leave out those lists.
  • "is the most spectacular" - weasel words -- what is "spectacular" about it?
  • Instead of a list of museums, could the article instead focus on a select few of them that are especially important for various reasons?
  • There are a lot of red links in the article -- these will need to be taken care of before the article reaches GA.
  • Can you prosify the culture section?
  • Many reviewers for GA and FA articles detest Trivia sections. You might want to transfer it into a Popular Culture section and prosify it (or consider removing the trivia).
  • Why was Strasbourg chosen to be the seat of so many European things? You might include information about that in the European Role section.
  • Is there any speculation on what changes might occur as Strasbourg becomes a part of the new Eurodistrict?

Great job so far! I think with a little bit of work, especially with citations, this will pass the GA review and has a shot at becoming a featured article. Karanacs 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erie, Pennsylvania[edit]

The article didn't make GA status before and has been reworked from suggestions from its failed GA review. I would like know if there is more work that is needed (and what it is) or if it is ready to be renominated for GA. --​​​​Dtbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a one line paragraph in the lead that looks lonely, and a blank space in the economy section.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had major edits done since and the above comment taken care of in the article. Any new suggestions or comments would be appreciated. --​​​​Dtbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 00:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Commission Association[edit]

This article may need a check to see if there is undue weight given to very old criticisms (relative to content on current state of org.), and undue weight to minority POV. Some disputes on primary/secondary sources have also arisen. 3-4 main editors engaged in several month long gridlock/edit war with obvious POV on both sides. Bold editing would be appreciated to get everyone out of their foxholes. Nswinton 04:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venous lake[edit]

Any feedback you can provide to make this article better would be greatly appreciated!

I looked over the article this morning and wikified it quite a bit. It reads like a medical journal (less now than before, though). Try to make it at least somewhat layman-friendly (ie. "Etiology" -> "Causation"). Also, this needs to be expanded, it's basically a stub with three images. How about adding an infobox for skin diseases to this and other related pages so people can see the article in the larger context. That would make the length more acceptable (I am not aware of a whole lot more that can be added, and have it remain encyclopaedic). I tagged the article for expansion and infobox. Nswinton 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Chi[edit]

I've been doing a good deal of updating Sigma Chi and hope to see the page jump up to a GA-status and eventually become a featured article. If there is anything that you think will make the article at least a GA-status please say so, as well as if you believe it is already GA-status. Acidskater 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some general comments: ...remove bullet points in organization as well as the literature section, form into prose. shorten the lead, see appropriate MOS guidelines for that. the horizons logo is terribly low quality; either make the image much smaller or upload a higher quality version. on second review of the literature section, most of it seems like non-encyclopedic info and possible copyright violations. add a little blurb in notable and chapters sections, don't just leave them empty. look at MOS for section titles standardization. This needs more work before it can be GA, such as the previous items as well as more references. If you want to carry it to FA status, read User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a thoroughly and incorporate its suggestions. No one said GA/FA process wouldn't be a lot of work! ;)
For everyone's sake keep comments to this article here, but if you need me to reply further tap me on my shoulder on my talk page too. JoeSmack Talk 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Chandler[edit]

Obviously, the article needs more images, but I'm hoping it is good enough for good article. Please feel free to provide any kind of feedback, but particularly anything you think would cause the article to fail a GA nom. Acdixon 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead needs to be a broader summary of the article, see WP:LEAD for more info.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment. I've expanded the lead significantly. Acdixon 12:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holden WM Caprice[edit]

This is a automobile article about a luxury sedan.Please leave detailed comments below.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs some sections and some references! JoeSmack Talk 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strasbourg Cathedral[edit]

A good complement to the article Strasbourg, also to be reviewed. RCS 12:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely need more references. JoeSmack Talk 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Picture of Dorian Gray[edit]

Archived discussion from 29/07/2006

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

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

Review by Awadewit[edit]

I'm sorry to say that this article should never have been passed for GA.

  • The biggest problem with this page is that it does not base its analysis of the novel on the work of literary critics or any kind of scholarly source. I clicked on almost every internet source. The sources here are appalling; they are sites like cliffs notes, sparknotes and gradesaver. These are not reliable scholarly sources and do not reflect the current state of scholarship on Wilde or Dorian Gray. Do we really want the outside world to think that wikipedia is basing its entries on books that students use to cheat in high school and college and that are notorious for their mistakes? I think not. Moreover, the information that you obtain from these sites could be just plain wrong; it will obviously be superficial and incomplete. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on solid scholarship by experts. See WP:RS. I would start with The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde edited by Peter Raby. It has introductory essays on major topics related to Wilde and his texts. It also has a helpful bibliography. I would then move on to the MLA database. The editors of this article need to spend months researching this article and totally rewriting it.

Moving on to other problems.

  • The lead has too much plot summary and a cliched statement about the book as a "classic."
  • The plot summary is difficult to follow at times and has some odd sentence constructions.
  • I am not a fan of character lists. The plot summary should adequately tell the reader who the important characters are. Wikipedia's novel pages look too much like sparknotes and not enough like an encyclopedia entry. Character lists only enhance this effect. There is no real information gained from these lists.
  • The theme of "aestheticism" which critics have definitely agreed is central to this novel is never explained, nor is its connection to duplicity. The quotations do not stand in for explanation.
  • The page also does not make it clear what is the editor's interpretation of Dorian, what the editor read at sparknotes and what is a scholar's interpretation. It is very confusing. It needs to sound less like a college essay. The extensive use of quotation is part of what gives it this appearance of a personal opinion.
  • While anti-Semitism might exist in the novel, the page has presented it as one of three major themes in Dorian. That seems far from fair to me. The editors need to read the scholarship on this text. If the scholarship emphasizes that theme to that extent, then the page should as well, but if it does not, then it should not be given undue weight and other, more important themes should be included.
  • Although there is no written proof that "Urashima Tarō" had a direct influence on The Picture of Dorian Gray, it is the notion of deferral of aging is central to both stories: Dorian's primary wish is "to be always young". - Why have you included this extensive section on the Japanese tale? What scholars have discussed this?
  • I would urge the editors to integrate the "allusions to other works" into the "themes" section. For example, why was Faust alluded to? The reason is that there are similar themes in Dorian - explain the themes and the Faust reference (using scholarly sources) together rather than separating them.
  • The former date is also significant in that it coincides with the year in Wilde's life during which he was introduced to homosexual practices. - This is a highly dubious statement. The editors need to read more about Wilde. The page should also take into account what literary critics and historians have said about "homosexuality" in the nineteenth century - it was not nearly as defined as it is now. There is much to be said on that topic.
  • The "literary significance" section seems like more of a "publication history" section.
  • The "Allusions from other works" is listy and seems to reference almost entirely works post-1980; delete or include pre-1980 works.
  • Much more referencing needs to be going on here in general, but research should help out with that. Awadewit 02:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of tuberous sclerosis[edit]

I'd like to develop this timeline to meet the featured list criteria, which include timelines. The only previous featured medical timeline is Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. I don't think there is enough material out there to build a History of tuberous sclerosis — it just doesn't feature in the popular press or books. There are no famous patients. The medical characters involved are mostly relatively obscure, with only a few big names. I'd like some feedback on the overall style and the writing style of each entry. The medical terms are I'm afraid somewhat long and obscure. I've tried to introduce them in context so you should get a rough idea of what XYZ is without having to know exactly what it is - but following the wikilink or reading the tuberous sclerosis article would fill in the details. I've added some comments on the talk page about the inclusion criteria. Thanks, Colin°Talk 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions:

  • "They have been awarded with eponyms such as "Bourneville's disease" and "Pringle's adenoma sebaceum". In comparison, much recent research involves large international teams." (reference?)
  • Interactive guideline? [7]

Anyway, this is a greatly referenced timeline article. Congatulations! NCurse work 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your feedback. I've added two citations for the eponyms (from where else but Who Named It). That Interative Timeline you linked to is very attractive, though it concerns the patient's lifetime, rather than history. Cheers, Colin°Talk 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos[edit]

Looks excellent at first glance. Well-referenced, good prose. A few suggestions:

  • Under "Nineteenth century":
    • 1880: Marie died on 1979-05-07? :) Also, if bromide of camphor was used to suppress convulsions/as a sedative (as I presume it was?) then a plain link to bromide might be better than one to bromination, which is a redirect to halogenation.
    • 1885: "…a case that was of a hard and fibrous nature." A case of?
  • Early twentieth century:
    • May be just a silly factoid, but I'd like to see nationalities or whatnot for the authors described if possible; it helps give a bit of context, and an idea of where and how discoveries were progressing at the time—I find the mention that Sherlock was a barrister, for instance, to be quite interesting.
  • Mid twentieth century:
    • Shouldn't it be "Mid-twentieth century"?
    • The Lancet should be italicized, as perhaps should Guy's Hospital Reports back in "Nineteenth century". I could do this myself, of course, but I'm quite comfortable in the role of "reviewer" rather than "copyeditor" :)

I'd support this as a featured list. I guess, what with your experience at FLC, you'll know when to push for prime time. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. I've fixed the copyedit stuff. I agree about the nationality. I've tried to find extra details like occupation, location and forename. You've encouraged me to go over them again to see what else I can dig out. Might take a wee while. It is easier for those folk who are dead and have obituaries. Colin°Talk 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks for the quick action. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

I've never reviewed a featured list before, so I'm not up on what they're looking for. I noticed only some minor things:

  • Notice that cite web (see your References section) returns a language icon, while cite journal does not (see your Notes section). That's another one of the cite template inconsistencies that always makes me crazy. I prefer the look of (in French) and (in German), but to make them work with cite journal or cite news, you have to take the language parameter out of the cite template, and put the icon template inside the ref tags but after the cite template.
  • I wikified all of your full dates in references, not because it has to be done, but because it causes your dates to show consistent formatting according to the reader's preference. Another cite template inconsistency is that accessdate doesn't have to wikilinked (it automatically is), while the date parameter does have to be wikilinked.
  • Is it possible to wikilink hamartin and tuberin ?
  • There are four chapters to the story of tuberous sclerosis:[2] This breakdown confuses me, because I then expect to see a table of contents which conforms to these four chapters. Can you relate those chapters to the table of contents by century?
  • I wasn't clear on the 1932 entry: are stereotypies associated with TSC, or was that an error? (If so, can you adjust Stereotypy (psychiatry), which I've tried to clean up? :-)

Very nice — looks like you're on your way ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for tidying up the refs, and the review. Wrt the ref language field: I can't say I much prefer one form over another but agree it would be nice if they were consistent. Perhaps I'll post a request on the template page. It would be great if hamartin and tuberin had their own pages but I wouldn't be able to write more than a stub. I'll look into asking a wikiproject for help with that. I agree the chapter analogy breaks down a bit (chapters with fuzzy borders). I'll think about how to rephrase or section things. Wrt stereotypies: about half of children and adolescents with tuberous sclerosis (TSC) have autistic spectrum disorder (PMID 17268883), with perhaps a quarter classified as autistic (PMID 9813776). So I think the Stereotypy (psychiatry) article is OK when it mentions ASD and need not directly mention TSC. Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheism[edit]

This article is a mess. It doesn't explain well what are the believes of Pantheists, but instead focus on showing how the other religions may be considered Pantheistic, or whatever. Actually, the article has a lot of biased arguments and lack of focus on what's supposed to be saying. If there are other editors with a bit of time in their hands, please improve this article through the peer review system.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (please join WP:PT or WP:SPOKEN) 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your statement, it appears that you are attempting to resolve a content dispute and recruit new editors. These are two endeavors for which WP:Peer review is poorly equipped to assist. For dealing with the content issues, your first step in resolving the dispute it to raise your concerns on the article's talk page. As for recruiting additional editors, you should try contacting the various Wikiprojects associated with this article. --Allen3 talk 10:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What in tarnatation? No, I'm not recruiting editors. I merely wanted some experienced editors to sit down and discuss how to improve this article and remove some of the biased and unsourced statements to actually create an encyclopedic article. I seem to have failed to understand that Peer Review only applies to so-called "high-quality" articles, which wouldn't happly in this case. My bad.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (please join WP:PT or WP:SPOKEN) 10:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alot is lacking or out of order.... it should start with the ancients (Thales to Xenophanes) but with caution that the ancients said much that can be mischaracterized as PanTheism, but is not quite it.... they were not so sophisticated, never shared all ideals of modern PanTheism.... then into Vedic concepts of unknowable date of origin.... this should precede Eurocentric developments.... there's no mention of Johannes Scotus Eriugena and his PanTheistic De Divisione Naturae, condemned by the Church for such an interpretation of Christianity.... this was sometime in the 800s, and was really the last word on PanTheism to the 1500s with Giordano Bruno and Jakob Boehme.... they set the stage for Spinoza's dissection and Toland's popularization of the idea, which is what we have as PanTheism today!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind[edit]

I think I'm almost ready to bring Morrowind to FAC. I've worked my hardest to eke out any relevant information from all accessible sources, and present it in a somewhat appealing, or at the very least-acceptable, fashion. I've been to WP:CVG/PR and WP:GAC, and tried to address all their concerns, though I'm not always the best with article prose. I'd love some comments, copy-edits or suggestions! Thanks in advance! Geuiwogbil 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Cartier[edit]

This article is already a GA, but it has been suggested to me that it might also be good enough to nominate for FA status. While I am quite pleased with it, I am not sure whether it will entirely satisfy the FA guidelines for comprehensiveness, and would welcome some feedback on that issue, as well as any general criticisms and comments. Angmering 10:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at that image. As for the expansion, yes that's what I thought — there simply isn't anything more, that's the problem. Angmering 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a problem though if it's classed as comprehensive. LuciferMorgan 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I mentioned on your talk page, ideally I'd like to find out what he was doing from the time he moved to Britain in the mid-1930s to when he reappears on film credits in the late 1940s, but he doesn't seem to have left much of a trace in the usual places (The Times digital archives, etc). Angmering 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've employed Google Scholar. Have you used Google Books? Λυδαcιτγ 03:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never even heard of "Google Scholar" I'm afraid! However, I have looked through the Google Books link, and although I haven't turned up any leads on what he was doing during the War, I have found a nice bit of criticism to help balance out some of the praise in the article. Angmering 10:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well then you've already found many of the results Scholar turns up. It still might be useful, though; here's the link. Λυδαcιτγ 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, shockingly I actually went to the library and used some real books! ;-) Thanks again for the link, though! Oh, and I've had a go at chopping those black borders out, by the way - any better? Angmering 09:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. A few more things:
  • Last sentence of the second intro paragraph is confusing. Perhaps change to something like this: "He went on to produce and direct over 120 productions in the next 24 years, ending his television career with ____ in 1976."
  • "He was married three times, lastly to Margaret Pepper, whom he married in 1949 and remained with until his death.[1] He had one daughter with Pepper, and another from a previous marriage.[3] He died on 7 June 1994, at the age of 90; his death was overshadowed in the media by that of Dennis Potter, another important figure in the history of British television drama, who died on the same day.[28]" — the repetition of "he" is tedious
  • This site credits him for 1977's Gaslight, which appears to contradict the sentence "His final directing credit came on the play Loyalties, screened in 1976."
  • Any idea what he did in his later years or how he died?
Λυδαcιτγ 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made the change you suggested to the lead, and also edited the paragraph about his death to try and remove the repetition of "he". The article used to mention Gaslight a long time ago, but another editor removed it, saying it was never made in the edit summary. Both the IMDb and — perhaps more reliably — the British Film Institute seem to agree with this, both having Loyalties down as his final directing credit. On the subject of his later life and death; given that he was over seventy when he retired I'd suggest he didn't do a lot, but obviously that's not sourced! Neither his MOBC bio, nor the Screenonline one nor his Times obituary mention any activities in the 1980s or early 90s (aside from the Late Show interview) and none mention a cause of death. Given he was 90 though, I don't find it especially odd that they presumably just assumed old age. I'll keep looking, though. Angmering 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A NY Times review of 1946's "The Man from Morocco", which was adapted by Warwick Ward from an original short story by Cartier. May be worth adding. LuciferMorgan 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a general biography infobox — I was pretty amazed that there was not an "infobox director", but it seems the film people are happy with using slightly-bent-out-of-shape "infobox actor" templates. I've also added the suggested non-breaking space to 35 mm film, and I think all the full dates given are properly linked. Angmering 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today (song)[edit]

This is an article that I've been working on considerably recently. It is currently a Good Article and I would like it to eventually be featured. What needs improvement? --Brandt Luke Zorn 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • After the release and minor success of the band's debut, Gish - add album after debut so we know it's an album.
  • Billy Corgan recalled that - second time you mention him so only use Corgan, as for the rest of the times you mention his full name
  • link Writer's block i had no idea what it was until i searched it
  • Butch Vig, and the band and received a positive reaction. This seems a bit awkward with two ands so close
  • Credits section is pretty much redundant as you mention who does what in song history and people may object because of a redundant list.
  • Ref 15 needs clean-up

M3tal H3ad 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Neptune/archive1

Wikipedia:Peer review/Neptune/archive2


This planet is one of the few who is still not at FA-status. I believe that with a few small updates it could reach it. Please help with some feedback.Nergaal 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the FA's of other planets, I don't think this article has enough prose, and it definitely has too many images compared to the amount of prose. --HansHermans 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the amount of prose is indicative of any kind of short coming. Comprehensiveness is what ultimately counts. Wisdom89 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a cursory glance of the article reveals some potential problems - Citation necessary tags are present. Moreover, there are whole sections without citations: Case in point, when comparing Neptune to Uranus. Those sort of things need to be fixed before FAC can be considered. Wisdom89 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows versions[edit]

Please check this article.

I would like you to check:

  • Windows versions
  • included software

You can also merge DOS/9x/NT/CE-based tables.

If you want, you can remove tags (inuse, underconstruction).

Thanks a lot.

Sorry for my bad English, but it is not my native language.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master alvaro (talk • contribs) 16:12, April 21, 2007 (UTC)

Counting Crows[edit]

I would appreciate advice and comments on this article's present state and suggestions as to what it needs to make it better. I did some major editing and added a lot to the article, including all the references now present within it. I'm not really sure where to go from here though.

Tom s252 16:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Saalfeld[edit]

The images should be removed from the discography (See WP:MUSTARD#Discographies, Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images, WP:FUC #3 and 8, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Discographies). Also, anything notable and sourced in the trivia section should be moved to the appropriate areas of the article, and the rest removed. I also think the lead should be re-written. Instead of giving a summary of the article, it currently seems to be a place to "dump" information that didn't fit elsewhere (influences, origin of name). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help. I've sorted the discography, and moved everything of interest in the trivia section either into the main body of the article, or into Adam Duritz, the singer. I'll work on the lead. --Tom s252 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • Try to add some pictures, at least one for the infobox.
  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD.
  • Check WP:MoS for proper linking of dates and years (principle: we link full dates not single years, unless it is years in music etc.)
  • Try not to have uncited paragraphs, and fix all the {fact}}s. In some parts the article looks heavily cited; in others under-cited. Have a good balance.
  • "Various songs from this tape would later resurface on the band's debut album August and Everything After; the songs contained on the tape featured different music and in some instances different lyrics." Try to avoid stubby one-sentence paragraphs like this one.
  • Get rid of "Trivia". It is recommended not to have trivia or listy sections. Incorporate useful information in your main text.
  • Format notes 17-19, using Template:cite web or Template:cite news.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
  • You could add more about their musical influences, and about how critics have commented on their albums and on their music in general. I also think that this sentence "The band has covered artists such as Rod Stewart, Pure Prairie League, Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, U2 and Oasis." is blur and, if you want to include it, it needs further analysis.--Yannismarou 12:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for this.
    • There was a picture in the infobox, which was removed, I can only assume because it wasn't public domain. I've had difficulty finding a public domain replacement? Any tips?
    • I'll get to work on the rest of these, thanks again. --Tom s252 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Doctors[edit]

Can this article be peer reviewed so I can have an idea what to do to get it to good article status. Retiono Virginian 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beano[edit]

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

Split the lists of strips sections into another article. Buc 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Nswinton 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer overflow[edit]

This page has been stable for a long time now. As far as I can see it fulfills all the FA Criteria and is technically accurate. Any comments? Cheers, Tompsci 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It could use a short blurb about how buffer overflows have been dealt with throughout the history of computing, perhaps with an example of the very first recorded buffer overflow, and the names of computer pioneers who first began designing systems that dealt with stack errors, etc. Just a thought. The article is EXTREMELY well written, btw. Matt Brennen 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat subjective perhaps, but I think the technical description is too sparse and technical. It could do with twice as much prose and no C at all (certainly not two blocks of it). IMO the diagrams would be better as larger, clearer, annotated images rather than tables. Also seems like there are too many short sections and one- or two-sentence paragraphs. NicM 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Perhaps merge the exploitation and history of exploitation sections into one section of 3-4 hefty paragraphs, trying to link the two together if possible. Is the first buffer overflow a good example that could be covered to explain stack or heap exploit? NicM 12:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • I agree on the diagrams, these could be improved. I think the article is concise and accurate as best as I can tell, can you give an example? Is it that you don't think the prose flows well? I disagree about the C, C and its variants are the languages most affected by the problem, so I think it makes practical sense to use it in the article. Cheers Tompsci 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know that C and variants are most affected, and they should be mentioned, but I think two blocks of C code don't add anything to the article—they are confusing for the unfamiliar and there is plenty of commentary out there on C string problems, I'm not sure we need to concentrate on technical details here or give code examples, how about covering C in relation to what others say about it? I know the OpenBSD guys, Ulrich Drepper and various other people have all given their opinions on safe string handling in C. Even if a technical discussion must stay, I certainly think the corrected example could go (it isn't our job to teach people how to write correct code, just to explain what a buffer overflow is) and the first example doesn't need to be a complete program and could be radically trimmed. Using argv is not very useful for non-C programmers either. It could just be something like:
char buffer[8];
strcpy(buffer, "excessive");
        • Which has the advantages of being concise, and of tying into the example in the first section. Maybe this is too simple and a strncpy example would be more suitable, but in any case a code excerpt would be much better than a complete program.
        • The prose itself is okay, but IMO it is broken up into too many small sentences and small sections. The problem is more that it seems as if the entry level in this article is very steep, the language is technical, the flow of concepts seems to move very quickly. The first two sections at least read much more like a textbook than an encylopedia article. I'm not really sure if this is fixable, buffer overflows are a technical concept that rely on a lot of other technical terms to be explained :-(. NicM 08:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Minor things: there are three external links (the "Arri Buffer" one seems to be broken from here) that would be better as notes, the notes could be formatted better, preferably in a standard format (cite web?) and including better titles and access dates. The section would be better titles "Notes and references" IMO. Why three safe library examples that seem to be focused on *nix and none that even mention Windows? Are these really the three most commonly used, what about glib? NicM 08:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I'll try to get round to making the minor fixes at some point and I'll also try and make the prose flow a little more, make it less dense. But I think the technical nature may be unavoidable. -- Tompsci 00:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Century (building)[edit]

This is a major contributing property to the Central Park West Historic District, nominated below. I have worked on it a great deal lately and would appreciate some feedback and perhaps some pointers toward additional sources on its architecture as I try to attain GA and one day FA with this article. I have put in some pretty intense effort around peer review lately and am hoping to see some fruits for my labors. : ) Thanks ahead of time any help is very much appreciated. IvoShandor 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IvoShandor.
  • Really needs a picture of the building.
  • Jacques Delamarre appears as a red link twice so I think that perhaps a stub should be created.
  • Work could be put into improving the prose. Don't forget to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, and then go through your article with a toothcomb to iron out any problems. A sentence such as "Theater demolition pushed forward through early November", which begins a paragraph, could be better worded for example, but I spotted more examples elsewhere.-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I will just respond to your points in a paragraph here, it just easier. I will address the prose as I copy edit, which I haven't yet, feel free to make any easy changes you see, of course. Jacques, I would very much like to create an article for, hence the red link, he's fairly notable as a NYC architect during the time period. Photo requests are in with two separate users who will get to them within the next two weeks, hopefully shooting the majority of properties on List of properties (Central Park West Historic District). Thanks again for taking the time to look over the article, any additional comments would be welcome. IvoShandor 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland[edit]

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

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

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

Central Park West Historic District[edit]

Going for GA maybe FA one day with this interesting and recently created article. I hope to have an attached featured list eventually. Any comments about the article and its content would be most warmly responded to. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 15:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the Ghostbuster building seems to almost solely be based on the film, and not any significance beyond that. It doesn't include its real or original name, its use, and the fictional background of the building seems out of place within this article, though more "real" information might offset that. 160.79.140.254 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know the only other name for the building is 55 Central Park West, I have other info I could add from the main article as far as that goes. Do you know of another name for it? IvoShandor 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history area probably should contain some information on how it developed into an area that should be a National Historic District. 160.79.140.254 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. IvoShandor 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. IvoShandor 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padahuthurai bombing[edit]

As an attempt to bring sanity and calm towards Sri Lanka conflict related articles in Wikipedia, this is a third in a series of articles that has been rewritten and in need of NPOV, WP:RS and style check. It is about an incident that happened in 2007 January when bombs well on a site that has conflicting claims ending in the death of 15 civilians. Thanks Taprobanus 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Brennen[edit]

[…]…I am astonished at how well layed out this article is. I know nothing of the politics or the circumstances, or on how biased or unbiased this topic may be, but I will say that this is perhaps the best article I've ever seen on wikipedia when you are considering spelling, grammar, asthetics, photos, and layout. If the material is unbiased, and I hope it is because I wouldn't know (it seems to be), then I see no reason this should not be a featured article. […] Matt Brennen 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a couple of typos- so I may have jumped the gun just a little bit. Someone better than I should go over it with a fine toothed comb for sililar errors. The article is otherwise in very very good shape. Matt Brennen 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point them out, I will fix them Taprobanus 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nswinton[edit]

I've made edits on narrative writing style, metric/english measurement flip-flops, messed up sentence structure, spelling errors, a random parenthesis (!) in the middle of a sentence, and a few sentences that were completely unnecessary to the article. I've re-written whole paragraphs. The quotes were badly formatted (blocked, but with no quotation marks!). I'd strongly encourage a few more people to critically proofread this article for spelling, grammar, typos and sentence structure. It does a decent job (as far as I can tell) of being NPOV despite a clearly controversial topic, and cites it sources well. After a few more people look over this and give it some more polish, I think it'd be a worthy GA candidate. User:Nswinton 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 yards, use 100 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100&nbsp;yards.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: fibre (B) (American: fiber), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), isation (B) (American: ization).

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight, Tonight[edit]

An article about a single by The Smashing Pumpkins. Like "Today" (also being reviewed), it was recently made a Good Article and may have potential for Featuring with some work. Any comments toward improving it are welcome. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems somewhat slight; add more and merge some of the paragraphs together. The background section seems superfluous at this point; we need something about the song itself there. And move the music video section below the reception secion. It also might be helpful to make a table for chart positions, a la "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or "What You Waiting For?". WesleyDodds 06:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punahou School[edit]

I would appreciate any comments about any section of the article, or the article as a whole. I would hope to elevate this article up to GA status, and possibly even FA. Sr13 (T|C) ER 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First review[edit]

  • Lead is way too big - it should be a brief summary of the article, not several paragraphs.
  • Listing of all the buildings on campus is completely unnecessary. Remove or move to it's own page.
 Done Removed listing. Sr13 (T|C) ER 08:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of notable alums is to the size that it's probably ready to be it's own article.
 Done I don't think that the alums deserve their own article, but I cut them down to size. Sr13 (T|C) ER 08:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look around at other articles on similar schools and universities and emulate the good examples.

Nswinton 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second review[edit]

  • Good. Will need some work towards B status, though.
  • 9'th reference missing.
  • Several "citation needed" throughout the article, you may not base claims on personal research. It might require one reference per paragraph.
  • Avoid external links inline.
  • Image:Punahouschoolflag2.png lacks a fair use rationale.
  • POV — "Because of his love for this school...", "actually named".
  • Format the references using the cite templates.
  • I'll further check-up to the writing once those are addressed. Michaelas10 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third review[edit]

  • The section on Case Middle School is disproportionately large. I suggest spinning it off as its own article (since it has an adequate number of cites), and then just having a two-paragraph summary in the article.
  • By contrast, there seems to be no description of the campus (size? number of buildings? organization) or other components (does the high school have a name? lower schools?)
  • This is a 501 c (3) organization, yes? So why not a link to their annual financial form (990) filed with the IRS? And a bit of info from that (e.g., annual revenues, size of endowment)?
  • The subsections in the "Athletics" section dominate the table of contents. I suggest using semicolons to bold what otherwise would be subsections. (There really ought to be two only two true subsection headings: "Programs" and "Olympians".)
  • The "history and traditions" section combines two disparate things; I suggest an "Other" section with info on events ("traditions" really relates to culture, not a school, I'd argue, but that's a very minor point), the asteroid, and other things that don't fit elsewhere, with an expanded history section (see next point).
  • The "History" section most definitely needs to be greatly expanded: what happened between 1842 and the point where Steve Case (and please remove the "Because of his love" phrase; that is an absolutely, completely unverifiable phrase - unless he hooked up to a lie detector or given truth serum, and then only if you believe either of those really works) gave $10 million? Clearly the school expanded - when, how, why?
  • Does the school have any particular teaching philosophy or approach? Has this changed over the years? Was it a pioneer in anything (co-ed education, girls in sports, whatever)?

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock & Roll McDonald's[edit]

I was going to nominate this as a WP:GAC. However, it is quite short for a GA. I want to make sure I have done most basic things before nominating the article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Having pics on either side of the lead is not recommended. I suggest that the ones on the left be moved lower down the article. The sourcing and text look OK. Not sure about the volume of pics in the gallery section.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Moved pics down. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead sentence is awkward. You need to make explicit both names, as the shortened version should be obvious from the article name, so just "The Original Rock 'N Roll McDonald's is ..." should be fine. Also, "is one of the most famous" should be followed by the plural ("locations") rather than the singular. Expand the sentence in the interest of clarity to "The Original Rock 'N Roll McDonald's is one of the most famous McDonald's locations in the world, and was once the busiest."  Done 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Condense the second 2 sentences to "The restaurant/museum, located in the Near North Side community area of Chicago, Illinois a few blocks west of the Magnificent Mile, has been a tourist attraction since it opened in 1983."  Done 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Last sentence to "The site has a Rock & Roll exhibit in a building adjacent to the restaurant, a small upstairs McDonald's museum display. The restaurant has a maximum occupancy of 300, which is about three times the standard patron capacity."  Done 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "in order to subsidize the decor" needs a citation
  • Don't use 2nd person: change "Downstairs there is a section on the first floor entitled "Chicago Firsts." There you will find events and organizations that originated in Chicago." to "Downstairs there is a section on the first floor entitled "Chicago Firsts, featuring events and organizations that originated in Chicago."  Done 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "to name a few" doesn't sound encyclopedic.  Done 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Lyrics are generally copyvio, and shouldn't be linked to.
  • Gallery is good, but too many pictures. Take out 5, either 3 or 4, 6 and 7 (who wants to see the escalators?), 8 (a garbageman?), and 12 (hard to tell what it's showing), leaving 6 images.  Done 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Make the gallery a separate section, as it isn't all about the Rock & Roll Exhibit.  Done 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Give captions for gallery photos.  Done 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement in Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

Curious about the neutrality and tone of this article, and how far it is from being able to be nominated for feature article. - Freechild 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I actually read this article recently, independently from peer review, and found it very informative which is a good sign.
    • It needs a lead for a start Freechild, see WP:LEAD.
    • Bit nervous about the amount of crossover material that also appears in Racial Tension in Omaha, Nebraska, see WP:FORK and consider whether it applies.  Done
    • The floating quote that heads 1912-1962 needs to be incorporated into the body of the text, it also needs to be clearly attributed. At present it looks like its a floating title.  Done
    • For reference formats, see a recent FA article such as Puerto Ricans in World War II, which has access dates for web citations and so on. Try and format your refs as closely to those as possible.
    • Make sure you read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, including the advice from individual users at the foot of the article, making any changes that may apply.
  • Do all of the above. Then give me a shout on my talk page and I'll see if I can help you make the article a featured article candidate.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Bliss Baker[edit]

It's been nearly five years since the previous peer review in April 2007, and the article has changed significantly (diff) (gained about 10k in content). I'd like opinions on where the article stands now: Does it meet B-class standards? If not, what needs to be done to bring it up to that level? I've gone out of my way to include a lot of sources (as many as I've been able to find). I'm working on getting additional sources, but the going is slow as I try to find articles and other references which discuss this lesser-known but important artist.

Thanks for your time! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd removed the characterization of several paintings as masterpieces, because they were unsourced and seemed a bit hyperbolic. Generally such a description--a fairly profound assessment--would seem to require sources of greater reliability than those provided. Bentley's article provides helpful information [8], but there is no indication that he is an expert whose assessment is valuable, and his article was written for an advertising publication [9]. Perhaps more dubious is the inclusion of the St. Bonaventure page as a source, which is aimed primarily at selling prints of the painting--the use of the term 'masterpiece' has a decidedly commercial application there [10]. Otherwise this is a well researched and written article. Bringing it to B-class may be difficult, given that the most voluminous scholarship on Baker--and there's not a lot--comes from 19th century sources. It would help if there was at least one major article about him from a recent publication--his work merits rediscovery. JNW (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you cite a plaque at a museum? The Fallen Monarchs display at the museum where it's housed states it's considered his masterpiece as well. I don't know that I'd discount commercial sources describing two of his paintings as masterpieces, either, as those are the only two of his works I've seen described that way, including in other commercial sources showing others of his works. I agree with your assessment of finding reference materials on his works; it has been quite difficult to find what I've included in the article. It took almost 5 years to find his birthdate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 10:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd err on the side of caution and not describe it as such, unless the museum's text was written by an acknowledged scholar in the field. And I flat don't put much value in the overtly commercial sources--I think they're rather meaningless. When I include a laudatory description, as at May Night (Willard Metcalf painting), it's a direct quote taken from a preeminent scholar in the field--I may or may not even agree, but it's solid ground. The fact that he's been largely ignored by scholars and historians for the last century makes it all the more important to cite one or more 'heavyweight' sources when referring to works as masterpieces. The bigger picture is that you've done an excellent job hunting up information on a veritable ghost. JNW (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've found a few other refs, including one showing he was considered a well known landscape artist (per a well known art critic of the time). I've removed the "masterpiece" descriptor from the "Morning" paragraph, but I'm still hunting down more refs for the description of "Fallen Monarchs" as I've seen that painting described as the masterpiece in multiple places. Just have to find them now. Thanks for the comments and suggestions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the introduction is a bit long relative to the size of the article. It should serve as a summary and anything else moved into the body of the article. For example, a suggested intro could be:

William Bliss Baker (November 27, 1859 – November 20, 1886) was an American artist born in New York City who began his studies and career just as the Hudson River school was winding down. Baker began his studies in 1876 at the National Academy of Design, where he studied with well-established artists such as Bierstadt and de Haas. His paintings were created using oils and watercolors, including several works done in black and white. While Baker is relatively unknown to the general public, his works are considered "characteristic[ally] American" and done with "amazing skill." Baker completed over 130 paintings in his career.

The info about his summer house and the cause of his death should definitely not be part of the introductory summary IMO Sionk (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've shortened the lead a bit, though I'm hesitant to shorten it any further. I think two short paragraphs is good for the length of the article. Thanks for the comments and suggestions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just expanded the bio a bit, as well as rearranged it a bit to flow better. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph should say why he is notable. It doesn't now, and leaves the reader wondering why there is an article about him on Wikipedia? The easiest fix is to rearrange the sentences. FurrySings (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added "award-winning" to indicate notability. Which awards are explained later in the article and in the infobox. Thanks for your time! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any additional comments or suggestions? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Illinois Experimental Dairy Farm Historic District[edit]

Looking to go GA, maybe FA one day with this. I have worked recently to expand it and plan some more expansion, I have an article on the round barns hanging out in my user space that will be up soon too. Any comments or edits would be greatly appreciated and responded to with enthusiasm. IvoShandor 10:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  •  Done See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
This one isn't relevant so I marked it off. IvoShandor 15:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The peer review script doesn't recognize images in infoboxes. Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch 11:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a very good start and has obviously had a lot of work. Here are more thoughts (from me, not a script). The lead paragraphs will need to be expanded if it is to become FA. It would be good if free photos of the barns (interior or exterior) could be obtained. The map image license is questionable (seems to be IL State Govt work, not free US Govt).

History section: Can you explain the Hatch Act more? Have to make the whole division into three components vs four departments clearer too (confusing on first read). I would not link "state wide extension service" to "University of Illinois system" (they are not the same, are they?). Also needing clarification is the relation of the Department of Dairy Husbandry, the Experiment Station, and the Experimental Dairy Farm. Was EDF a unit of ES under the DoDH? The dates here could use more explanation - administrators in 1888, then 1889, then 1902-1913, then a paragraph with no dates, then the barns were constructed in 1907-1913. Perhaps earlier mention of the barn dates to put them in context? There is also no mention of the use of the barns between their construction and 1960, then nothing to 1994. Is there more detail available here?

Boundaries section and following: can you give the relation of the farm to the University and surrounding town (Champaign-Urbana)? I made some copy edits on the rest of the section. Again pictures would help. There is a fair amount of description of the current state of the site, but little of its use / state in the past. How many cows were there? Was it student run? Who lived in the Manager's House? What was done in the laboratory?

Last thought - several places say essentially "the round barns were influential in promoting round barns on private farms" and there are other redundancies (style of the Manager's House, for example). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 02:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Plains of Abraham[edit]

I recently did a rewrite and added substantial sourcing to this article; since then, it has been named a good article, and I would like to submit it for featured status in the near future. The GA reviewer felt it was a pretty good package as it stands, and I've not really come up with any other ideas at this point. So, I would appreciate any comments that might be forthcoming about ways to improve towards the eventual goal of reaching Featured status. Are there any additions that would be beneficial? Any sections that might need improvement? Thanks in advance for any comments. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81[edit]

Looks good, I commend you for your effort to rewrite the article. A couple things though:

  • See if you can do some wiki-linking; words like feint, terms like pack ice, and military units like the 43rd and 47th Foot regiments should have articles here; if they don't then the red links may encourage editors to create the articles.
  • I saw a few things that looked suspicious to me, so I added a pair of {{fact}} tags to the article. Nothing against you, I know that reading the material makes one familar with it, but I would like to no where to dreadge up the information :)
  • See about condensing the references section by combine citations that go to the exact same source; among other things, this helps streamline the article which reduces the article's size.
  • Lastly, can you provide a translation for the French terms? I am fairly confident they are simple and straight forward, but 14 years on the US-Mexico board has taught me to ask instead of guess, lest you get it wrong.

Overall though, I'd say it definately has potential. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments; I've gone through and worked through your suggestions. Thanks for pointing out the sourcing issues; I found a new source for one spot, and combined two paragraphs into one, as they were both from the reference that was in the second graf. I hope that works! I've also Wikilinked one of the regiments involved in the fighting, as it does have some references that I can work with down the road. I'll take a look at the other regiments and see if there's enough there to create something (and figure out the best way to name them). As for the French terms, I know enough French to order poutine and that's about it. There are no really major French phrases, and I did link one that I noticed, so hopefully that helps. Thanks again for the comments! Tony Fox (arf!) 03:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting thoughts from the auto-review, too! I incorporated what I could. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hope it was useful - keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch 12:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antibody[edit]

This article has been improved through a wonderful collaborative effort, and was recently named a good article. It has featured article potential, we would love some input from others on where the article might be improved and so that we can see where to go from here.--DO11.10 03:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis[edit]

Not a thorough review, but a few things that stood out:

  • Briefly, the organization seems a bit off - why describe the different types of mammalian antibodies before describing antibody structure? This creates the awkward necessity of saying that the classifications are based on the constant domain of the heavy chain, without having explained what that is.
  • Cosmetically, it'd be nicer for the lead image to be in color.
  • Wikilinking seems inconsistent - you should link glycoprotein again in the structure section, and currently there's no link to amino acid at first mention, but the word 'diversity' is linked.
  • The last sentence in the VDJ section is a fragment, or missing a verb, or something - it just doesn't read right.
  • I think the class switching section should be expanded; currently it's so 'summarized' that it doesn't say much anymore.
  • Similarly, expand on the avidity vs affinity thing. Start by linking affinity to the correct page instead of a disambig. The phrase 'true affinity' is unclear; I'm not an immunologist, but as described, 'avidity' sounds like what I'd call the binding affinity.
  • Put the image gallery before the references? Nobody's going to see it down there. Opabinia regalis 03:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great ideas, thanks Opabinia! I (or we) will work out these points. A quick question: I think that the lead image is useful because it describes the "lock and key" concept in the adjacent text, did you think so too? If you think that the image is helpful I could probably colorize it, if not we could just change it out for a different antibody image.--DO11.10 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I? I've created this, feel free to use it if you like. It's colorized and a vector image, as preferred for diagrams. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Opabinia! In response to your first, I think the sections were originally organized so that structure came before isotype like you suggested, but the whole heavy chain thing didn't make sense without first knowing what they represented (i.e. different types of antibody have different heavy chains). So what I did here was to leave the order the same but just remove the one sentence going into heavy chains from the isotype section (this actually seems to simplify this section a little), which removes the redundancy between these two sections AND then leaves all reference to heavy chains coming under the structure section. Do you reckon this helps or just makes things worse?? Ciar 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. New color figure looks great Fvasconcellos! Ciar 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Top figure looks great! I'm not sure about removing the heavy-chain reference from the isotypes section though; that's a pretty important fact about their classification. Opabinia regalis 01:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, but the reference to heavy chains being related to classification is still there in the heavy chain section (second sentence) - it was repeated in the article, so I only deleted the first mention! Ciar 01:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos[edit]

After a quick read, a few comments:

  • As a layman, my main concern with this article is its prose. There are several little things that stand out to me and could be improved to make the prose more compelling, such as:
    • An overuse of parentheses—IMHO you can shake things up a little, use some em dashes and semicolons!
    • A few strange sentences, such as "…the base of the Y is important for binding to specific receptors (such as Fc receptors) to allow activation [of] immune responses appropriate for a given antigen."
    • There could be better use of punctuation throughout;
  • There's some weird wikilinking, and better use could be made of piped links, e.g. jawed fish could go directly to Gnathostomata, bony/cartilaginous fish to Osteichthyes/Chondrichthyes etc. Also, some links to important jargon (such as monomer, dimer et al., immunoglobulin domain are present, but not at the first instance of the word they link to;
  • And I'd like to see a bit more on monoclonal antibodies, given the growing prominence of their role in therapy.
:) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fvasconcellos, those are really good suggestions. I think that some of the wikilinking issues came from a series of section reorganizations. Off to add some spicy dashes and semicolons :). Thanks again--DO11.10 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; looking good so far, BTW. One more thing, which I've just noticed: all web references (i.e. not to periodicals or books) should have the date of last retrieval, and as much information about the source as possible, such as author, publisher, date of creation etc. if available. The {{cite web}} template is my personal choice for this, but some editors dislike it; plain formatting (MLA style/APA style/insert your favorite here) is OK as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poliomyelitis[edit]

I have recently expanded this article quite a bit (although it was quite good when I came to it). I would like to see the article through to featured status, and would appreciate any suggestions or comments as to content, organization, readability, etc... that will help the article get there. --DO11.10 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a readable article and together with the related articles, Wikipedia has a lot of info on polio. However, the article is a bit of a mix between a clinical, modern description of polio the disease and all the history/legacy. It is hard to pull out the current info from all the story telling. I suggest you extract a History of poliomyelitis article and leave Poliomyelitis to be a modern description of the disease. That leaves you to structure the History as suits the story-telling flow, and structure this article in a way that probably fits the WP:MEDMOS suggested section headings for diseases. It is a bit radial and you might hate the suggestion (make sure you consult any other regular editors before making such a change). But I think it will lead to two articles that are each better focussed. I think the title "Ancient disease, modern killer" is more appropriate for a Sunday magazine than an encyclopaedia. Your "Famous people" section is largely unreferenced — such a list needs an inline citation per person. The one source given is a geocities page, which doesn't count as a reliable source. WP:MEDMOS has more advice on such people-lists and other aspects of medical articles that you may find useful. Your comments on that guideline are welcome on the talk page. Colin°Talk 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your thoughtful suggestions. Yes, I admit that I totally hated the idea of splitting the history out, but after some thought, I realize that you have a good point, and I think that splitting out the history section would probably improve the "clinical" side of this article, and allow me to more closely follow the MEDMOS sections. (BTW, I am pretty much the sole regular editor of all of the polio articles, so not really a problem there.) I do have a few questions though:
  • I would clearly move parts of the "ancient disease" section to a "History" article, but what about the Treatment and Legacy sections? Should they also, in majority, be moved?
  • I think that I will also have to split the 'notable survivors' out on it's own. Although it is (highly) doubtful that the list will expand, I feel that there are currently enough entries to warrant a separate list, and that this would also better facilitate references. Besides I really like the MEDMOS example List of notable brain tumor patients.
  • In relation to this, I have read the list guidelines but I am still a bit confused over what a list of polio people should be called. Should it be called "List of polio survivors", or "List of people who had polio", (they clearly no longer have polio) or something else all together...? Further complicating matters, I think that this list should include only people who had the serious form of the disease (experienced temporary or permanent paralysis or the polio had some other profound affect on the person's life), thoughts?
Thanks again!--DO11.10 23:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Legacy seems to be a good end-section for the History. Not all treatment is historical — the disease hasn't been wiped out yet! This "split into two" is only a suggestion. You might find that it doesn't work when you try to do it. I think it is worth a try. I'm sort of saying you'll just have to try and see how it turns out. Perhaps try it out on a personal scrapbook page and you can post me a message if you want me to have a look. You could also try directly contacting one or two of the reviewers who hang out at FA — they may be more experienced with article structure than I am.
I see the recent CfD on People with polio recommended turning it into a list. You've currently got about 50 polio survivors. A List of polio survivors would be a suitable name. I'm not sure how easy it will be to objectively determine the entry criteria you propose. As you said in the CfD, "if polio is recorded in a biography it generally means that the disease affected their lives in some profound way (usually by causing permanent paralysis or disfigurement)". Sometimes, there is very little information to work on: "XYZ overcame childhood polio to ...". How can we judge how serious that was and what effect it had on their life. Perhaps they had no paralysis, but missed a year of school and that changed their life? It would be simpler if the criteria were simply that the person was notable (i.e. Wikipedia article, or reasonable hope of one) and that a reliable source can be found for the diagnosis. The list format gives us room to expand on the personal impact, if we know the details. Up-to-you — perhaps you have already thought of how to make your criteria work? Colin°Talk 13:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions:

  • "the United States, and much of the world, experienced a huge increase in the number of polio cases" ( a reference would be welcome)
  • "Bulbar polio describes the form of the disease that occurs when poliovirus invades the bulbar region of the brain stem which occurs in approximately 2% of cases of paralytic polio." (reference?)
  • "The iron lung saved many thousands of lives" (I think it shouldn't be included iwhtout reference)
  • "The first effective polio vaccine was developed in 1952 by Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh. " (reference?)
  • You could use even more images from the Commons page.
  • Two more external links? Global Polio Eradication Initiative and Kids' Health page

Anyway, a great, well-referenced article which should even be featured. NCurse work 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, those references should be pretty easy to find. Thanks for pointing out these deficiencies.--DO11.10 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1080° Snowboarding[edit]

I basically moved this article from stub level to where it is now, but it still needs work. Things I'm worried about: should the character section be removed as game guide material; does there need to be more references in gameplay; and most importantly, I wrote this article on my own and I don't know if there's anything I'm missing or left out. Any comments would be accepted.--Clyde (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't played the game, so I can't tell you if you're missing anything important off-hand. I corrected a few ref problems, and removed Rumble Pak from the input section of the infobox, as it does not provide input. I see a few sentences where I can tell what you're trying to say, but it's not coming across. Here are some places for improvement from the Development section:
  • "1080° Snowboarding was programmed by two English programmers" - Is this correct? Exactly two persons programmed the entire game? Or were they merely the lead programmers?
  • According to the only interview I found and the credits I found, they are the only two programmers. And they are English I guess.
    • I don't believe they are literally the only two programmers. References to two programmers are, I believe, to indicate that they are joint leads. Writing it is it now, without the specific number reference, solves the problem. Pagrashtak 05:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the adverb "mainly." I don't know what "Writing it is it now" means, but I hope the problem is solved.
  • "It was produced by the Nintendo game designer and producer Shigeru Miyamoto" - It was programmed by programmers, and produced by producers. This should be reworked to avoid the obvious.
  • I fixed it up and it looks like you worked some magic too. Done
  • "The two programmers had also done Wave Race 64" What is "done"? Programmed? Done
  • "1080° used the Nintendo 64 engine" The Nintendo 64 is a console, not a game engine. (Incidentally, I changed the spelling to "Nintendo" here, assuming it was a typo. If there is in fact a "Ninentdo 64" engine, my apologies.)
  • The quote I found was "The 3D engine is, of course, the original N64 engine..." I was under the impression that meant there was an N64 engine. However, I've done some work with game engines, and never ran into it. Not sure what the move is...
    • I imagine they mean the Wave Race 64 engine, but can't say for sure.
  • I reworded it to not compromise the sentence, but not assert that there is a Nintendo 64 engine without a proper base.
  • "the characters are 'skinned' so there are no joints between the polygons. Also, all the character animations are interpolations between animation and inverse kinematics. So basically, when your character hits something in the game, his body is modified according to what you hit, from what direction, and at what speed." - this is too long for a direct quote. Say it in your own words (hopefully avoiding the second person in the process), and use the source as a reference.
  • I started, and will finish as time permits.
  • Finsihed, but it could probably use some more touch-ups.
  • "The game used real physics" - The game still does this if played today, so "uses", not "used". Done
  • This isn't from the Development section, but I see the "Interactive Achievement Award winners" category, yet there is no mention of the award in the article. Why?
  • Never noticed it before. Again, I'll add more about it in as time permits (apparently it won the 1999 console sports Interactive achievment award).
  •  Done adding it in.
Pagrashtak 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, and I'll get to all of them as soon as I can. I and replied and worked on a few things already (sorry for the whole time permits thing, but I became a bit busier than I intended; no worries though).--Clyde (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More replies.--Clyde (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I fully understand about being busy. I appreciate the response. Pagrashtak 05:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More replies. Clyde (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help. Anything else?--Clyde (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'll check the prose problems it brought up when I get time.--Clyde (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitstable[edit]

This is a current Good Article nominee but we're aiming to eventually get it to Featured Article status. Any recommendations for improvement would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Epbr123 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So You Want to Be a Wizard[edit]

I've just added a section about major characters and the theme to this article, and I figured I need some more opinions besides just my own. Personally, I'm not sure if the theme section is appropriate to keep in or not. Also, what do you think about the length of the summary. I wasn't sure whether I should of cut it down a bit or not, so I just left it alone. But any suggestions for improvement are appreciated. Nazgul533 talk 23:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kevinalewis[edit]

Two major observations. Only one source - article is desperate need of inline citations and other referencing. Notability - nothing as far as I can see that speaks verifiablity to subject of why or how this novel is notable.

  • Another comment - yes the Plot summary is a bit overblown. Quite out of scale to the other elements that should make up a good article. Basically the other elements almost don't exist yet. Nice start but the Plot summary tends to be considered far too important. A Good article can be good even with one. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IvoShandor[edit]

  • Make sure the lead conforms to all guidelines at WP:LEAD.
  • The plot summary needs work, see WP:WAF, it is mostly written in an in universie style, not too mention a bit too much, length wise.
  • Lack of inline citations makes it hard to discern source material, more important as you add more sources, which you should. See WP:RS.
  • The release details section shouldn't be presented as a list, also, not very detailed.
  • Work on these points and I can provide a more proper analysis.

IvoShandor 10:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally see no reason why "release details" shouldn't be a list. Does need more to it though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EMBED. IvoShandor 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For most things the "Indented List with content" style would work well, however this "Release" type inormation doesn't lend itself to anything other than a list. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

automated peer review suggestions[edit]

Building the World Trade Center[edit]

This article is a subarticle of the main World Trade Center article, and one of a series of articles (see my user page for a list) on the topic that I'd like to reach FA status. Before going to WP:FAC, this article can use some folks to look it over and make suggestions. Is the prose "brilliant", as called for in FAC criteria? Is the article comprehensive, or is it missing anything? Are the concepts here explained clearly enough? Anything need clarification? Also, it "Design and construction of the World Trade Center" the best name for the article, or is there some better title for this article? Any other suggestions? --Aude (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand the significance to the deal of the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad. Reading between the lines, it sounds like they had to assume the obligations of the railroad to get New Jersey to agree. Tom Harrison Talk 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, a sentence or two should be added about the Port Authority. It's a bi-state agency, controlled by the States of New Jersey and New York. Thus, Port Authority projects require approval from both governors. As originally planned, the WTC project was expensive and the original location didn't offer much benefit to New Jersey. At the same time, New Jersey was operating the H&M Railroad after it had gone into receivership. Operating a subway system (H&M is now the PATH system) is a money-losing endeavor, unlike other projects the Port Authority took on. At the time the H&M was built, the only option for people crossing the Hudson was ferry. It was successful in early years, with 113 million riders in 1927. Once the Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, and George Washington Bridge were built (all by the Port Authority), people chose cars for commuting and ridership on H&M dropped to 26 million in 1958. With the WTC built where it was, that made it convenient to New Jersey and the PATH system, giving some benefit of the WTC project to New Jersey and agreeable for New Jersey to support the project. Ridership in 1999 had increased to 67 million. [11] Without this agreement and change of locations, the WTC may have never been built for lack of support of the project from the State of New Jersey. --Aude (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few thoughts....

  • I am not able to convert the "ksi"...I believe it is the same as "kilo-pound per square inch" and if so, might be a good idea to add Pound-force per square inch equivalents.
  • An image of the construction of the towers, showing detail of the cranes, etc, would be helpful.
  • Slight expansion on the actual construction of the towers...I think the use of a newer type of cranes was implemented, but am not sure. I'll look around.

I'll think about this and see what else I can come up with...but it looks ready for FA I think. I ran a copyedit on the spelling, did a few metric conversions. I'll check the refs and make sure they all jive.--MONGO 05:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea on where we can find such images that can be used here? As for the cranes, yes that's correct. I can add something about that, and maybe some other details. I'm not good with converting units, but will look into that. --Aude (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for some images on the web, but nothing that is usable...fair use, etc. I'll see if there is anything else.--MONGO 04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added something about ksi, but I'm not sure the note I added is a good format. Tom Harrison Talk 13:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Construction section has been expanded quite a bit, including about the cranes used. As for images, there are numerous potentially useful images in NY Times articles I've looked through. I don't hold much hope, but I'm contacting author and journalist James Glanz who works for the NY Times to see if they might have something that we can use. Or if he can suggest some other place to look/ask. I'm quite sure that's our only hope for more images. --Aude (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to our Wikipedia article on Mr. Glanz, he's going to Baghdad and might not respond to my message in a timely manner. I may contact his co-author. --Aude (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been thinking over what the article should be titled. The current title is too long, and think the article would be better titled simply as "Building the World Trade Center". I don't want to do page moves right now, but possibly after peer review. --Aude (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Went ahead and did the page move. I think the shorter, more concise title works better. --Aude (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks good. I'll read over the text again tonight.--MONGO 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is coming along very nicely. One thing that strikes me though is that it doesn't really distinguish the fact that the twin towers were only part of the WTC. Perhaps we could add a small section on the construction of buildings 3 - 7, and modify some of the text to not use "WTC" interchangeably with the towers. Since the new development will continue use the WTC name, perhaps we should also make it clear in the intro that the article describes the original construction (and maybe a small section at the end about the rebuilding that would direct people to the WTC site article that currently details the reconstruction.) --Jleon 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are good points. The wording has been tweaked, trying not to use the term WTC interchangeably where the article is specifically discussing the towers. Also, added a brief section on the other buildings. Some details are available in the 7 World Trade Center article, and the other articles should also include specifics. The World Trade Center site article needs a lot of work. May make it my next priority to clean it up and improve it. When that's done, it would be easier to go in and put a small section here if needed, as well as redo the section in the main WTC article. A navigation template will probably also be added to tie the various articles together and help make it clear what the scope of this article is, and where to find other related topics. --Aude (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Mentioning the constuction of WTC3-7 might be interesting, but I imagine the vast number of readers are mainly interested in the details of the twin towers. Here's FEMA reports on WTC 3, WTC 4,5,6 and WTC 7 for quick reference.--MONGO 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Think the article strikes the right balance, with importance of noting the World Trade Center was more than just two buildings, but not excessive details which can be handled in the respective individual articles. If anyone thinks it's too much or not enough/missing something, please say so. --Aude (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think the "fire protection" section can use some more work, given the importance implications this had for the collapse. Before going to WP:FAC, I'll also try looking around in some more technical/trade journals to see if any other important details are missing. --Aude (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Construction in general could be exhaustive...from discussion to whether the concrete in the floor pans had reinforcement wiring, that the elevator shafts were cased in gypsum board (not uncommon and met code anyway)...well, you name it...striking the right level of intricacy is the main issue. I don't see a need to be overly exhaustive in the minor details...what we are talking about is the overall decisions, design and major structural issues, and I think you're real close at this point.--MONGO 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something might be said about the fire escape system. Tom Harrison Talk 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new building codes that were followed were more lenient in that regard. Added mention of that. --Aude (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After numerous suggestions, discussion, and changes, I think the article is ready for WP:FAC. This doesn't mean that we can't tweak the article or edit it later on with further improvements and added sources. Thanks for all the suggestions and help, which continue to be welcome. --Aude (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eris (dwarf planet)[edit]

This article seems pretty good to me; just wondering what you think it needs to move up to Feature status. Serendipodous 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks pretty good so far. I'd suggest merging some of the one or two-paragraph sections, unless they can be expanded. That would also serve to shorten the table of contents. The Atmosphere and Surface sections needs a citation or two. Some of the notes consist only of a link: I'd use cite templates so that those are properly configured. The External links section seems very long: can any of those be merged in as references? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I've addressed a lot of your issues, though there still are a few refs I need to place. Serendipodous 13:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sizes of various TNOs including Eris were measured by Spitzer Space Telescope. See [12]. This is the third independent determination of its size and I think it needs to be mentioned in the article. In all other respects the article is good and should be nominated for FA status. Ruslik 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frustratingly, that article doesn't actually give a diameter estimate for Eris, so I probably shouldn't include it. It did make a number of interesting claims about its albedo, however. Serendipodous 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Estimate is in Table 4. Ruslik 06:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagstaff, Arizona[edit]

Article recently pass GA status, with some useful comments. I would be interested to get additional feedback from the community on recommendations for getting this up to featured article status. Dr. Cash 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K Foundation[edit]

At WP:KLF, we've been out of action for a little while and have got a bit rusty. I would like to request a peer review on this GA-Class article, 1) to help us get back into the swing of things, 2) to prepare the article for FAC. I believe it's 90% there, but would like a little guidance please. Getting this Featured would be quite exciting, as it would be the third creative partnership involving Jimmy Cauty to become Featured (the others are The KLF and The Orb). --kingboyk 17:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the people who've taken the trouble to review so far; I will respond over the weekend. Cheers. --kingboyk 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better late than never, I'm here now. Got rather distracted by other on-wiki events. Apologies for that. --kingboyk 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WesleyDodds[edit]

While it's well-written and extensively referenced, I do think a lot of the background material in the "context" section is unnecessary. For all intents and purposes, the important part of the section starts halfway through ("The KLF had become one of Britain's biggest bands . . .)" I suggest condensing the first few paragraphs and adding some "See also"/"main article" templates. Also, possibly group the adverts, Turner Prize, Money, and money-burning sections under a larger heading, like "Stunts" or something else that would be appropriate. These are preliminary comments, so I'll try to get back as soon as possible with more. WesleyDodds 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In past FACs we were told that articles should stand alone, and include context and background. However, I think you might be right - perhaps we don't need to start in 1987, when Drummond and Cauty began their partnership; perhaps we could indeed start in 1992, when they retired the KLF name. I'll put this on the talk page/todo list for further discussion/action.
I don't like the sound of "stunts". We could perhaps come up with a more objective term like "Projects", but you haven't yet convinced me the current sectioning scheme is "bad" :)
Thank you again for your comments, any further comments are welcome. --kingboyk 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it occured to me a few days after my comment that "Projects" is probably the best header. WesleyDodds 10:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "In 1992 they machine-gunned a music industry audience at the 1992 BRIT Awards (albeit with blanks)". I did not fully understand what happened here.
    • They appeared live on stage at the 1992 BRIT Awards, and at the end of the performance fired a machine gun into the crowd. It's explained in more detail at The KLF#Retirement. Maybe if we start our context section in 1992 (or 1991) we can expand on that a little; if not, can you help me make it clearer now that you know what happened? --kingboyk 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was all ploughed back into their extravagant productions." Their productions as KLF or KF? You mean their music productions as KLF? And what does "extravagant" mean here exactly? Were they spending too much money for their productions? Why? What was the purpose of these "extravagant" productions?
  • "this money-destroying machine". I would not repeat this characterization of the previous quote. I think the point was made clear.
  • What I also do not understand is what was the purpose of these "K Foundation adverts". Was there any? They were just for fun? It is the Situationist thing you mention in the lead, and which might be interesting to be a bit further explained?
  • "The 1994 K Foundation award was an award given by the K Foundation to the "worst artist of the year"." Again did they want to pass a message? Just to subvert the Turner Prize? Or I just shouldn't look for an explanation!
  • "these announced the "amending of art history".[33] During the evening, Rachel Whiteread was announced as the winner". Maybe the prose could be a bit better here.
  • "On the 23 August 1994, in a boathouse on the Scottish island of Jura, Drummond and Cauty incinerated £1,000,000 in cash." No review comment here! I just decided to write it down, in order to try to realize what they actually did!!
  • "Reid admitted to first feeling shock and guilt about the burning, which quickly turned to boredom." I think you should cite here.
  • "Drummond and Cauty quickly became bored of questions about their burning of one million pounds.[citation needed]" You should fix the tag here, adding the requested citation.
  • "Drummond and Cauty would next work together in 1997, when they attempted to "Fuck the Millennium" as 2K (music) and K2 Plant Hire (conceptual art)." Stubby paragraph and I don't see any correlation with K Foundation. You want to tell us what they did next? Then create a better context.

This must be the weirdest article I ever read in Wikipedia! This does not mean that it is not nice. It is; as a matter of fact, because it is weird, it becomes very attractive. When I started reading the article, I got the impression that I am stupid, I forgot my English, and I fail to understand what the hell is going on here! But this is just the first impression. Then, you start to understand better the "K Foundation's world". Could we have a more "gentle" entrance to this world for the ignorant reader? I cannot explain better my suggestion here, maybe iinfluenced by the way K Foundation worked (!), but this is the first thing I thought after I read the article. Maybe a more explanatory prose (at least at certain selected points and in the lead) would be helpful. In any case, a very intriguing article!--Yannismarou 13:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1913 Liberty Head Nickel[edit]

I'm interested in bringing this article (most of which I wrote) up to featured article status. At this point, I think it is well-written, well-formatted, and well-sourced. I'm interested in any comments, criticisms, or suggestions before posting this on WP:FAC. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The intro could do with being longer, and it would be good, where it says "there are several methods by which the coin could have been legitimately produced", to give a couple of examples. Laïka 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added two examples of Bowers' opinion as to how the coin could legitimately have been produced. As for the intro, I agree a longer one would be nice, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to expand it without adding redundancy with other sections of the article. Any suggestions? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could add a little bit about the early history of the coin (possibility of clandestine production etc), although having read through the article again, I agree that it is difficult to avoid just repeating yourself. Laïka 06:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian football champions[edit]

This article is based on three existing featured lists, namely Danish football champions, Swedish football champions and English football champions and my intention is to promote this to Featured List status. To that end I'd appreciate any comments that would help prepare the article for candidacy. I've made a concerted effort to make sure club names are consistent (although naturally some have changed over time) and hopefully my summary of the history of the Championship is succinct enough without going overboard. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A top piece of solo work. Yet more kudos to TRM. --Dweller 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Numbered for ease of response by TRM.

  1. I'd like to see some explanation of the name change from "Italian Football Championship" to "Serie A". --Dweller 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. Even the Serie A page skips over this. I'm trying to find a reasonable explanation somewhere... The Rambling Man 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Added explanation that I found in a rather splendid book called Calcio - the story of Italian football. Hope it's enough to satisfy your needs! The Rambling Man 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There seems to have been a ‘psuedo-scudetto’ in 1916 which might be mentioned. It’s covered in it:Coppa Federale di calcio 1916. Winners:A.C. Milan. Similarly the 1944 Campionato dell’Alta Italia, which was competed for by teams to the north of the Gothic Line. Winners: Spezia Calcio 1906. —Ian Spackman 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for noting those two that I missed! Yeah, I mentioned the 1944 tournament in the text already but I've broken into the Second World War section in the table to mention it in context now along with a reference to explain about the "decorative" nature of the title. As for the 1916 tournament, my Italian sucks, as does Altavista's babelfish so I'm not 100% sure what the circumstances of this title really are. I've added the tournament into the table of winners along with Juve who came second, but beyond that I need guidance from somebody who speaks with Italian tongue! The Rambling Man 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m afraid my Italian too isn’t strong enough to read and summarize the article in the time I have free just now. But this is how it is summarized on the page it:Associazione Calcio Milan.
    Nel 1916 il Milan vince la Coppa Federale, che in quell'anno sostituisce in qualche modo il campionato, sospeso a causa della Prima Guerra Mondiale. Non si tratta, tuttavia, di un trofeo ufficialmente riconosciuto dalla FIGC come titolo italiano.
    In 1916 Milan won the Coppa Federale, which in that year acted as a substitute in some manner for the championship, which had been suspended on account of the First World War. However it is not treated as an official trophy or recognized by FIGC as an Italian title.
    Beyond that it’s worth saying that the competition was limited to northern teams—although that did then include all the best clubs—; and that all the top-flight clubs, with the notable exception of Pro Vercelli, did take part. Hope that helps! —Ian Spackman 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Details added now, hopefully enough to satisfy! The Rambling Man 09:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissenters March[edit]

Please Peer Review; has a total of 47 inline citations. --Parker007 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments that I hope are helpful:
  • First paragraph is a single, long sentence. Consider breaking it up into two or more sentences.
  • The section stub needs to be addressed, as does the "citation needed" tag.
  • There are multiple one-sentence paragraphs that would look better if they were merged appropriately, or else expanded.
  • The references should consistently use "cite" templates for proper formating.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kid A[edit]

This article has been accepted for GA and I would like to push it up to FA, so general comments would be appreciated. I believe the content compares favourably with all other FA album articles, but if there's anything specific to this album that is still missing, please could you let me know? Also, is 45kB too long? If so, is there anything here which could safely be omitted. Thanks - Alex valavanis 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial minor comments:
    •  Done A few of the citations in the lead section are actually unnecessary. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of the article is a summary of the rest of the article, so the material included there should be cited in the body of the article. Use citations in the lead only when absolutely necessary (like with a direct quote or a very bold statement).
    •  Done Cite all chart positions in the "Charts". try to include as many non-US/UK chart rankings as you can.
    •  Done Expand the soundclip descriptions, a la The Smashing Pumpkins or Radiohead. The more you comment on the actual soundclip, the further fair use is justified (which is becoming more and more of a sore spot at FAC)
    •  Done Seriously, add "alternative rock" to the genre infobox. It's widely accepted as an alternative rock album (two notable examples include Allmusic.com and the Grammy Awards), no matter how different from other Radiohead releases it might be. It's definitely a more useful designation than "art rock".
I'll do a closer reading of the article soon. Make sure to check out Surfer Rosa and Doolittle for recent examples of how to make a great Featured Article on an album. Oh, and don't worry about the length; from the looks of it, much of that length is taken up by the citations which, while counted when you click edit and see the page size count, are omitted by length guidelines. WesleyDodds 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments - I've made all recommended changes, so let me know if you have any further suggestions. What do you think the chances are for FA? - Alex valavanis 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA-wise, read and use this guide thoroughly - 1a is often the toughest FA criterion for articles. JoeSmack Talk 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 4 is broken. I'm getting a 404 error. ShadowHalo 06:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it seems that all of the links at Sound Opinions are broken. I hope it's just a temporary problem, as the link doesn't appear on a web archive! I'll see what I can do. - Alex valavanis 09:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now - Alex valavanis 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Neeson[edit]

I'd welcome comments on what needs to improved in order to get this article to GA standard. References are currently being collected; I hope to add them to the article soon. Thanks for any advice/comments that can be given. -- My NameIs URL 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try finding a free image of Neeson, somewhere on Flickr or somewhere. Keep expanding and adding references too: Neeson's personal life, family, friends, childhood. Alientraveller 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid finding a free image of Neeson has proved difficult; there's none to be found. And every image that's added to the infobox and/or article is swiftly deleted. I'm trying to improve the article with, as you suggested, references and expansion of sections but a picture would really help. -- My NameIs URL 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest placing a "{{Reqfreephoto}}" on the talk page. This should alert people that you need an image, and hopefully someone that has personally taken a picture of Neeson will upload their image for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The easy way out is getting an image from one of his important films, preferrably Schindler's List given it made him a star, next to the paragraph discussing his role in that. Alientraveller 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:030929.jpg was put in but, along with another, it was removed. I take it that it's safe to reinsert it into the article? -- My NameIs URL 18:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to achieve any type of status with the article, the first thing they will tell you is that you need a free image (basically a personal photo of him) because he's living. No image is fine until you expand the article more, and until someone can find a free image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Opposition (the Friedrich Kellner diary)[edit]

I'm starting this peer review on behalf of Rskellner (talk · contribs). What are your suggestions to improve this article to A-class status? It is currently a Good Article nominee. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DO11.10[edit]

I was at first struck by the fact that I had never heard of Friedrich Kellner or his diaries, I think that this is quite a shame, as he was certainly a interesting figure and left behind such a rich legacy. Some comments on the article:

  • The section "Various entries from the diary" provides no context given for the entries. Why are these particular entries important? What was going on in the world and in his life that made him write such things? The quotations need to be given proper context, and interpretation if necessary, on an individual basis rather than just stated. (The entries also need to be in block quote format.)
  • It is extremely important that this article make clear that any feelings discussed here were ones Kellner wrote about in the diary. Otherwise it looks like WP:OR. For example: Throughout the course of the war, Kellner looked to the United States for rescue, and (wrote in his diary that he) could not understand why that country acted so late to stop the carnage of World War II.(page number cite)
  • Most notable individuals and/or published works generate criticism, have Kellner or the diaries ever been criticized? If so this should be included.
  • "The purpose of the diary" - does not seem to be an appropriate title for the material in this section, and the material here should probably be combined with the "author" section at the top.
  • Kellner began his secret diary to expose the crimes of the Third Reich. He was risking his life to put his thoughts on paper, but he believed his diary could serve as a warning for future generations to oppose dictatorships and their totalitarian ideology. - I think that perhaps "record" rather than "expose" would be more appropriate and this makes more sense when taken with the second sentence here.
  • The diary has been on exhibit in museums in America and Germany. The first public showing.... - this confuses me, aren't museums public places.
  • Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before a person's name.
  • was part of the Presidential Library’s commemoration of (the 60th anniversary of?) Victory in Europe Day, which took place on May 8, 1945.
  • The documentary film was released in 2007 (please state this in the article) and mention of it should follow the 2005 Library commemoration.
  • Needs an infobox, probably {{Infobox Book}} (maybe put Image:Kellner Diary 25 Apr 1943 Atlantic Wall.jpg in the box?)

--DO11.10 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a number of changes made[edit]

I do appreciate what is happening here in this Peer Review, and I feel confident the end result will be a much better article.

Most of your suggestions have now been followed, including the removal of the "Purpose" section. I have also removed the repetition about the presidential library exhibit and the documentary. And I have removed the repetition about my own participation. I even removed the photograph of me.

I think that your participation is perhaps the most important part of the diary's journey, and answers a big question "How/When/Why was the diary translated into the English passages I am reading?" I don't think that including your own involvement is unseemly at all it, and is a very important part of the story, besides it is not WP:OR since there are reliable sources that can be used to cite your involvement. I read the "Fort Worth Star-Telegram" article, I found it fascinating and quite moving, would it be possible to include more of this type of information? Perhaps something more about his political beliefs and his vehement dislike of the Nazis, and also the struggles you went through to translate it and get it published?
I encountered resistance when I first created this article because I had included too much biographical material. I was told that the Friedrich Kellner biography article was the place for that, and the separate article for the diary should be about only the diary. I will try to find the middle ground and include more of this information that you want to see. I believe I can do it if I concentrate on a purely objective tone. My problem, of course, is my personal closeness to the subject matter.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure how to box the quotes and still keep the citations within the box. I will work on your very first suggestion about providing some kind of context for the quotes -- but that will be tricky, because I would not want to intrude my voice on top of the diary entries. I will see what I can do, and others can make changes to my attempts.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations might help here-
My problem with boxing the quotes is probably a misunderstanding on what is meant here by boxing. I have codes that create a nice colored box with the quotes nestled within, but the code for the citation doesn't work within the code for the box, so the citation drops out. Is it okay for me to leave this task to someone more knowledgable about tweaking these codes? I'm not trying to get out of work. If someone will at least do the first quote, I will be able to follow that model and do all the others.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have formatted the quotes according to the WP:MOS, I also moved some images because they were (at least on my screen) overlapping with the text.--DO11.10 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your question about criticism of the diary, I am afraid that has not yet occurred, but no doubt will be on the horizon once the diary is published by the University of Giessen (Justus Liebig University). There are some interesting comments about the diary by Professor Dr. Sascha Feuchert at the JLU website (see the link in the article). During the exhibition of the diary in Germany, Professor Feuchert gave a long speech about the value of the work. And a number of newspaper stories have been published about the diary in Germany, Israel and America. Should I cite more of those?

My original question about criticism was motivated by: 50% personal curiosity, 50% remembering the criticism that Anne Frank's Diary of a Young Girl has generated (and I suspect most people don't know about). Absolutely! Cite or link to as many references as possible.
Dr. Feuchert's speech is actually online at the university's website, so it will be easy for me to make a reference to it. I shall do that, and I will include other references besides that one.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Friedrich Kellner article, there is a section called "Reception of the Diary." Do you think that should be moved out of there and placed in the "My Opposition" article?

Yes, I think that this should be placed in the diary article, doesn't really need to be removed form it's current location though. I would just expand the detail level for each entry (I will have to think about specifics here).
Perhaps tomorrow I will have the time to copy and paste that article. I should be able to expand each reference without two much trouble, and without padding it in any way. There is an abundance of specific data that can be used here.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, a major newspaper feature article about the Kellner diary just appeared yesterday (Sunday, April 22, 2007) in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I think you would find it very interesting. It also includes a video and slideshow. Do you think this article should be referenced in some way? Scott Rskellner 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite facts using these newspaper articles, do so. IMO, The more references, the better. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 09:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% here.--DO11.10 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I placed reference to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article in the "Author" section, where it helps to support a statement there. I also placed a brief "purpose statement" (which I put in italics) in the beginning of the various entries from the diary section. If needed, the purpose statement can be expanded. The entries should speak for themselves. If anyone thinks a particular topic needs to be represented among the diary entries, please let me know the topic and I will see if there is a corresponding entry in the diary. There are 676 entries to choose from, covering many different topics. In the two-page Star-Telegram article, they also set aside a section for various diary entries. Scott Rskellner 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably expand the infobox, fill in as many of the fields as possible. I will let you know I think of anything else, I have to think some more about the "various entries" situation. Please don't hesitate to contact me.--DO11.10 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now expanded the infobox. Perhaps someone would doublecheck it once again to see if I left anything out.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One entry I am particular curious about is the last one, on May 17, 1945 (or at least one after VE day). I have had some thoughts on improving the "various entries" section, but in the interests of, well interest, I will post them on the article's talk page.--DO11.10 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Given that Kellner himself titled his journal, should this article be instead located at My Opposition, with incoming redirects from Friedrich Kellner diary and Friedrich Kellner's diary? There is nothing at "My Opposition" currently that would necessitate pre-emptive disambiguation. Serpent's Choice 07:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was orginally titled "Friedrich Kellner Diary." Then it was changed to its current title "My Opposition" (the Friedrich Kellner diary). If it is changed again to simply "My Opposition," won't that create problems with all the links, now becoming double re-directs? ScottRskellner 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing double redirects is fairly painless. As well, there are some articles that have been moved far more than twice. Serpent's Choice 01:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I have already made two mistakes with the title, first making it Friedrich Kellner Diary and then changing it to My Opposition (the Friedrich Kellner diary). I would not like to make another mistake, so please help me to change the title to whatever you feel people will agree with, and so it won't have to get changed again. And if you could help me to understand what I need to do with the linking (double redirect) situation, I would greatly appreciate it. I will do whatever is necessary to make this a worthwhile article. Thank you. Scott Rskellner 04:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be called My Opposition. Double redirects are easy to fix, just change the redirect location, you can access redirect pages easily by checking "what links here", So once you move the page just change the redirect at "Friedrich Kellner Diary" from "My Opposition (the Friedrich Kellner diary)" to "My Opposition". Easy peasy! I would also follow the suggestion above, and create redirects to My Opposition for the two red linked articles, and to any other spellings, etc... If you need any help drop me a line.--DO11.10 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that there is a separate article for the Canadian documentary, My Opposition: the Diaries of Friedrich Kellner. The Canadians used the plural "diaries" in their title of the film instead of the singular. Yet it is actually a single diary, but in ten volumes. ScottRskellner 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OKAY, I have just changed the name to My Opposition, and I went to the old Friedrich Kellner Diary page and changed the redirect. Now the "What links here" section is pretty sloppy. Perhaps I will just go to every one of those links and change them all to My Opposition. Thanks for helping with this. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve matters. Scott Rskellner 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Null (SQL)[edit]

Seeking feedback on all aspects of the Null (SQL) article: content, style, layout, NPOV, citations, etc. Everything that makes a good article good. Thanks.SqlPac 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks I've just read through the suggestions, and I'll start making the applicable changes asap. Thanks! SqlPac 00:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are very welcome, keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch 01:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logically, the WP:LEAD section should summarize the article. What you have in the lead is more of a theoretical definition of NULL. I would organize it so that the first true section is called "Logical meaning of NULL" or something, and contains most of what's in the lead currently, and a new lead section summarizes the article. (I've also been improving the text in places, where appropriate.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I also added a "common mistakes" section. Is this useful?) – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more note: the "see also" section contains articles which are already linked in the text. "See also" sections should only contain useful articles which cannot easily be explicitly mentioned in the body. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Quadell, appreciate the feedback. We're constantly working on it, and we'll address these issues you bring up. One thing - the "common mistakes" section appears to be an expansion of the "Empty Strings and Zero" section already in place. I would recommend combining these two sections into one larger section. Thanks. SqlPac 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got rid of the articles in the "See also" section that are already linked in the article (most of them). I think I got them all, will double-check later. Thanks! SqlPac 05:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Diamond[edit]

First, as a non-native English speaker, I'd like someone to read through the article and comment on the language. Secondly, as I have re-written most of the article, I want to ask senior Wikipedians advice on how to proceed with it. Should I add more info on some areas? My ambition wants to seek a GA or A status, but is it sensible as she is still active and releasing a new album? Moorvis 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nswinton[edit]

I fixed one minor typo, but this article is honestly in very good shape. I'd suggest you nominate it for GA. Mandy Moore was recently a FA, and she's still active in acting and music, so I don't think her future career would cause any trouble. Nswinton 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • Indeed, the language needs work. The article should be copy-edited by a native English speaker. You can file a copy-editing application in Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. In the lead for instance, there is no variety of expression (you repeat the same forms of expression and words like "Sweden", "hit" etc.).
  • We do not wikilink single years (2005). Only date-month-year (e.g. January 1, 2005). Check WP:MoS.
  • It is not nice to have so many citations in a row. Maybe you could combine them per Tourette syndrome or Actions along the Matanikau.
  • I know she is too young, and the biography cannot be long enough. But any possible expansion and addition of information would be welcome.
  • "This Is Me Now" and "This Is Me Now" are not part of her biography. Maybe you should create a new section, in which to incorporate these sub-sections under "Career" or "Hits" or something similar.
  • "The third album" is stubby. Could you expand it a bit?
  • Are there any critics' comments about her talent, her voice, her future maybe as an artist?
  • I am afraid that the images should be removed from the discography (See WP:MUSTARD#Discographies, Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images, WP:FUC #3 and 8, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Discographies).
  • The fact she is active is no problem for GA or A-Class Biography project nomination. You will have of course to update the article when something new happens.--Yannismarou 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banat Bulgarians[edit]

The article's just been promoted to GA status and I'm looking for any suggestions and criticism en route to a possible FAC. Any comments and reviews would be appreciated. Todor→Bozhinov 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Motels[edit]

There doesn't seem to be many band pages that have even been stamped as "good." I'd love some feedback on how to improve this article to at least get a good rating. Thanks. Fyunck(click) 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IvoShandor[edit]

  • The Albums and singles sections would do well to heed WP:EMBED. This way the article can eventually lend itself to WP:SUMMARY.
  • The lead section should represent a concise, stand alone summary of the whole article conforming to the guidelines at WP:LEAD.
  • Citations are important and this article has no inline citations. They should be provided for anything extraordinary, or statements of fact that are likely to be challenged. Add a notes section. See WP:CITE and the templates at WP:CITET (even if you don't use the templates - I don't - they can give you an idea of what info to include in both your inline cites and your Sources or References section.
  • I would denote that Los Angeles is L.A. in parenthesis on its first reference in the intro: Los Angeles (L.A.) for any foreign reader who may not be familiar with the abbreviation, if that is possible. : )

More in depth

  • "First incarnation"
  •  Done1971 in Berkeley, California, we find the first roots of The Motels. Lisa Brenneis (bass) coxed Dean Chamberlain (lead guitar), Chuck Wada (rhythm guitar) and Martha Davis (vocals, guitar) into forming a band (then called The Warfield Foxes).
  • The tone of that sentence is all wrong.
  •  DoneAlso at this time two new members fill vital slots; Richard D'Andrea on bass and Robert Numan on drums.
  • This is written in present tense. Make sure the article's tenses agree with themselves, this should all be past tense as the band no longer exists.
I understand the past/present tense should be consistant but it's a problem since the Motels still tour to this day. New members of course but the band has changed members many many times.
I have reworded this. IvoShandor 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancies, watch for them:  Donehad signed --> Just signed.
  • I have corrected the example I provided, still be on the lookout for this type of thing. IvoShandor 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Motels and two other local bands, "The Pop" and "The Dogs", kicked off the local band scene
  • The second "local" is redundant.
  •  Donewith a hallmark concert
  • Not even sure what this means but it sounds like someone's opinion. Even if you have a source make sure to obey WP:NPOV in the use of it. This is also an example of something that would require citation and explantion.
  • I just removed the word "hallmark," problem solved.IvoShandor 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneChamberlain was soon heard again in his band Code Blue and signed to Warner Brothers Records.
  • Awkward.
  • See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD for style and writing guidelines for music article, such as how to write out band names. The current italicization plus quotation marks is incorrect I believe. I am not an expert on music stuff around here though. Seek input at the project on this.
  • I think band names are italicized based on the above link, I am changing them as I see them.
  • I have added some {{fact}} tags where I thought inline citations might be helpful.
  • "Second incarnation . . ."
  • Try to keep your section headings as succinct as possible, most successful seems like overkill.
  • In March 1978, Davis was approached by lead guitarist Jeff Jourard (formerly of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers) to form a new Motels.
  • This sentence is odd, he isn't a lead guitarist unless he is in a band, perhaps just describe him as the former lead guitarist for _______. Also the end of the sentence, to form a new Motels." To reform The Motels?
  • Playing in Chinatown at Madame Wong's restaurant/nightclub so many times they were nearly the house band, they began to draw a faithful crowd around the L.A. music scene.
  • Another example of a sentence that doesn't obey NPOV, or needs citation.
  • Make sure the entire article gets a good copy edit or two by unaffiliated eyes. I like to use the non-emergency request section at League of Copyeditors for any article I am unsure about before I nominate for Good article.
  • By Mother's Day 1979
  • I would just give the exact date and link it/them per WP:DATE.
  • Example:  Donefinished recorded
  • Don't forget about that copy edit. : )
  • Still needs going over. I just made a first pass of the first two sections. I corrected the above example. IvoShandor 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of the members forged on and finished recorded the new album. Using studio musicians to fill in for the vacant guitar spot, the band was able to finish the album by March 1982.
  • Look for places like this where sentence structure can be improved. ---> The rest of the members forged on and finished recording the new album by March 1982, using studio musicians to fill the vacant guitar spot.
  •  Donehad made enough airplay
  • See below. IvoShandor 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • had enough airplay (keep looking for this kind of thing)
  •  Donehad made enough airplay to land the #33 on the Billboard Rock Album Cuts chart
  • Awkward.
  • Their first single from the album, "Only the Lonely," found its way into the Top 10 in the U.S. by June.
  • Only the Lonely comes out of nowhere here.
  • Their first successful U.S. album coincided with the emergence of MTV, which led to music videos for both "Only the Lonely" and "Take the L." Davis won a "Best Performance in a Music Video" award in 1982 for her performance in the "Only the Lonely" video. In October 1982 the band added a sixth member, keyboardist/guitarist Scott Thurston.
  • If these two events are going to be connected there must be an inline citation.
  • The Motels returned in 1983 with the album Little Robbers.
  • Returned from what/where?
  • Garay by now not only was producing their albums, but their videos as well; and, he became the band's manager.
  • This is an example of a poorly constructed sentence. Try losing the now and using a date, nows in general make it sound like the present tense, I saw a couple other spots like this, look for this. Maybe ---> By _____ Val Garay was the band's manager while he produced albums and videos for The Motels --Or something like that, it may be a poor example.
  • made its way to the Top 10 in the U.S. The album went gold in the U.S.
  •  DoneI would spell out United States in this instance so that it's obvious there is a sentence break.
  • Merge and/or delete one sentence or really short paragraphs.

Make sure this is all in past tense, may require extensive editing.

That is all I have for now, I will be along with additional comments on the final two, shorter, sections and where, after I reflect upon it, the article may need expansion to meet the GA criteria, which you should read if you haven't. The Motels rock btw. IvoShandor 08:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving this a copy edit. And marking things above and commenting for you. Just so you know, make sure someone else does this as well, gives it a copy edit I mean.IvoShandor 08:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments[edit]
  • The first single, "Shame," became a Top 30 hit on the pop charts and a Top 20 on the dance charts.
  • Needs clarification, which country? IvoShandor 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the pound sign # is appropriate before numbers, perhaps it should be spelled out, perhaps the numbers should be below ten, consult the Music Project or WP:MOS, not sure which section. IvoShandor 09:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have completed adding {{fact}} tags and finished with my first pass copy edit. IvoShandor 09:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should refer to people by their first and last name on first reference and then by their last name after that, I like to refer to them by their entire name again if it has been awhile since the first reference. IvoShandor 09:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note song lyrics and gig lists are completely unnecessary for an encyclopedia article. IvoShandor 09:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last two sections[edit]
  • "Martha Davis section"

I went ahead and made some changes, they are noted below.

  • and it set the stage for her creativity and longing to get back in the game.
  • Removed.
  • Davis released her first solo album entitled Policy in November, and had a hit with "Don't Tell Me the Time" (#8 in Australia), but in the U.S. the song only went as far as #80.
  • Reworded for NPOV and better structure.
  • General copy edits and reworded another sentence.

In addition there were some changes I couldn't make, they are noted below.

  • In November, and had a hit with "Don't Tell Me the Time"
  • What year was this?
  • "Featuring section"
  • Just changed everything myself here, should look okay.

IvoShandor 09:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion needed=[edit]

Here I will list areas that either need expanded or created as I identify them. This is, in part to satisfy GA broadness criteria (3a), which requires that all major aspects of a topic be touched upon. The other reason is to make The Motels article rock as much as they do. IvoShandor 09:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Music: Virtually nothing on what type of music they played, their sound, their style, etc.
  • Influences: Who does this band cite as its influences.
  • Formation: Now we know when they formed, how did they form?
  • Videos: You talk a lot about their videos and awards for them, why were they important or influential in the early days of music videos, why were they chosen for the award, this should be discussed somewhere if possible.
  • Breakup: Do we know why the band dissolved? How do the original members all relate to each other today? Any hostility or was it an amicable split?

Pertinent discussion from user talk page[edit]

I have posted a peer review for The Motels. IvoShandor 08:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really no problem, as for the sourcing, if they would truly say it to anyone it shouldn't be too hard to find elsewhere. Since the new incarnation of The Motels is different I would say it would be appropriate to use past tense for the old Motels and present for The Motels featuring Martha Davis. As for the shows, no kidding? I live near Chicago. Thanks for the info. If you have any comments about my peer review feel free to address them on the peer review page and I will comment there. I kind of figured you didn't write the bulk of the article but I like to address the peer review nominee directly sometimes in my reviews. : ) Hope it helps, I may have some other comments as the page develops. IvoShandor 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your first ref, I had to revert but I changed the date from 73 back to 75. You can see the formatting I used for the reference when you edit the page. Always try to include, author (if available), title with link if available, see how I did it on the page, publisher, date published (if abvailable) and the date of retrieval, all full dates in citations should be linked per WP:DATE. I didn't add your second citation back in, but removed the fact tag, still needs a cite though, because it looked like a fansite, see WP:RS. IvoShandor 06:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I saved the ref tags and realized they were in error. As I was fixing the backslashes you had already done it and we had a conflict wiki edit. I'll add some references at a time you aren't fixing all my problems :-) By the way, a fan site it is... my own, but it is semi-official. Martha Davis wants me to keep it up to date and most of the former band members periodically send me info to include. I know many personally and they were the ones who originally told me of the wiki site and it's inaccuracies and asked if I could "fix" the errors. So first it was get the info correct, then get peer review to get the writing upgraded with some good advice. Then dig into my source articles to properly cite this thing and hope that not too much sourcing was gotten over a glass of wine with Marty or Martha backstage. I will only use my fansite as a last resort but things like a comlete gig list, song lyrics and some band member interviews are found nowhere else.
This could lead to problems, see WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:COI. IvoShandor 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I am done over there for now. : ) IvoShandor 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about COI because I'll just keep presenting the article to peer groups for refinement. But the other two items...well... I guess I'll just keep my site out of the article completely to avoid any potential problems. Thanks.
I appreciate it, It isn't that I am against your site, its just that these policies and guidelines are the result of months and years of hard work and aren't in place for arbitrary reasons. I thank you for seeing that. If it isn't a problem I am going to copy this dicussion to the peer review page under its own section so it will be archived later accordingly. IvoShandor 09:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ananthabhadram[edit]

Quite a sensational attempt at film making, from a master of the visual art in India... well, POVs aside, this article may have a good chance to become a good article at least. Please, check and advise (if possible, lend a hand, too). Aditya Kabir 05:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PC78[edit]

It's a good start, and the article seems to be well referenced. If you haven't already, you should take a look at Wikipedia:What is a good article? and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. My own observations:

  • Lead section
    • Ideally this should be two paragraphs long.
    • Why mention the director's other films? What relevance do they have to this film?
    • Says "The film was originally going to be directed by Sabu Cyril with actress Meera Jasmine in the lead", but doesn't say why it wasn't.
    • I'm not sure what it means by "screened using satellite technology".
    • Perhaps it could also give a brief summary of the "Inspirations" section?
  • Production
    • "and later Cyril became busy Shankar's film Anniyan." — busy with Shankar's film?
    • Paragraph beginning "Kathakali has become an inspiration for many Indian films..." — this doesn't seem particuarly relevant. This is something that should be covered by the Kathakali article.
    • Paragraph beginning "This interest in the work of Varma..." — again, this doesn't seem to be relevant. Should be covered in the Raja Ravi Varma article.
    • Why mention the Jackie Chan film just because it uses the same martial art form?
  • Plot summary
  • Reception
    • This section is quite short. If possible it should include box office results and critical response.
    • I don't think it's enough to simply say "It also was a commercial success", even if that statement does cite a source.
  • General
    • The article could do with copyediting for grammer and spelling. There are some short and/or awkward sentences, eg "The film was originally to be directed by art director Sabu Cyril." I've already fixed the few typos I found, but there could be more.
    • References — I see that some are labelled as being "in English", but since this is the English-language Wikipedia it should be sufficient to label those (if any) that aren't.
    • External links — I could be wrong, but I don't think YouTube links are allowed. Is this film listed at All Movie Guide? If so you should add a link for that (and add it to the infobox as well).
    • Red links — Personally I would either remove them or if possible create stubs for them.
    • Images — Make sure you give a source for the two screenshots. If you created them yourself, then say so.

Hope you found that useful, and good luck getting this up to GA standard. Regards, PC78 23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Forest Whitaker[edit]

I'm interested in getting some specific suggestions about how to improve this to at least a "good article" rating.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vbd (talk • contribs) 06:35, April 17, 2007 (UTC)

  • The only issues I see are the pair of one-sentence paragraphs and the inline link in the "Personal life" section (that can be converted to a cite template). Otherwise it seems pretty good to me. Once the issue below are addressed I'd go for GA and see what type of feedback you get. — RJH (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

Find critical feedback for his acting roles and add it to the article to give some context about his rise to fame. Try Roger Ebert and the usual suspects. LuciferMorgan 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • You could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
  • "His mother put herself through college and earned two Masters degrees while raising her children (Forest has two younger brothers, Kenn and Damon, and an older sister, Deborah). The family moved to the Los Angeles area when Whitaker was a toddler. Whitaker commuted" The prose is a bit choppy here I am afraid.
  • "He was accepted to the Music Conservatory at the University of Southern California (USC) to study opera as a tenor, and was then accepted into the Drama Conservatory. He graduated from USC in 1982. He also earned a scholarship to the Berkeley, California branch of the Drama Studio London." Choppy again. Maybe an overall copy-editing would be helpful.
  • "His performance earned him the 2007 Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role, making him the fourth African-American actor in history to do so." Repetition of almost exactly the same phrasing from the lead.
  • "Television work" is full of stubby paragraphs that make it listy. Similar problems in "Film work".
  • "Whitaker has a medical condition called strabismus,[14] which is sometimes referred to as "lazy eye."[15] Whitaker, who has a 1st Degree Black Belt in Karate, is a vegetarian.[8] He and his daughter, True, have recorded a public service announcement promoting vegetarianism on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)." Trivia amassed together! Re-organize the section, make the prose more encyclopedic, and get rid of this "trivia sense".
  • Your narration is too "dry". Make it more vivid, and add assessments, praises and even negative criticism concerning his work.--Yannismarou 12:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Only Move Twice[edit]

The page is modelled after current FAs Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia. Any suggestions that anyone has would be greatly appreciated. Also, I'm curious if anyone thinks that Image:YOMTlying.png should be removed. -- Scorpion 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelas10[edit]

Ah, my favorite The Simpsons episode. It needs copyediting I'm afraid.

  • Albert Brooks voiced > Albert Brooks-voiced.
  • ...and IGN.com named Albert Brooks' performance as Hank Scorpio the best guest spot in the show's history - Link IGN without .com, "Albert Brooks' performance as Hank Scorpio" redundant with previous sentence.
  • "Also" often used excessively.
  • saying "The episode is... - Take "the episode" outside the quotations.
  • ...comedy," and, "it's impossible - Use {{interp|...}}.
  • The authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood - Move "Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood" to the beginning of the sentence.
  • ...called it "A tremendous episode" citing that it had - Uncapitalize "a", this isn't a sentence beginning. Comma before "citing". "That" redundant.
  • big action films - Remove "big".
  • ...makes an appearance - Where?
  • ...after American American army general - Just change to "U.S. army". No need in the first "American", as it's obvious.
  • The song at the end of the show is a parody of various Bond themes and was written by Ken Keeler - The show in general? Move "written by Ken Keeler" earlier.
  • There are also references to several other Bond films, such as Sean Connery's Bond is tackled by Homer and killed - Grammar.
  • Homer buys Tom Landry's hat,[3] and not long after this episode aired, the Denver Broncos won the Super Bowl - Remove the sentence, not a cultural reference. Michaelas10 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done and done. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs section about the writing of the episode. I think the Reception section need more than just ratings it was given and quotes. Buc 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything from the production section comes from the DVD commentary, so thats about all the production info that can be found. There is some info about the writing in the section. -- Scorpion 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bus Uncle[edit]

As it stands, the article about the Bus Uncle, Roger Chan Yuet Tung is a Good Article. Last year, it was nominated for FA status, but failed. The major reason was the lack of citations. Anyway, I started improving the article over the last month.

I have improved the grammar, rearranged the layout, separated important points into different subsections, added fair use rationales to all 4 pictures and added citations to many paragraphs made in the article (through newspapar articles, magazine articles, radio programs, news reports and even a TV drama episode).

I would like the article be reviewed again, to see if there is any more room for improvement so as to reach FA level. Thanks--Kylohk 09:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I liked the article very much! I think it could go for FA status, but A-Class review in our project and GA review give you room for more feedback before the final FA nomination. Some (minor mostly) remarks:

  • All you photos are fair-use ones. In the past, some FA reviewers did not like that, but I am not sure if this is still a problem.
  • "Nevertheless, he was not charged with any of these offences." It looks like an orphan stubby paragraph. Maybe you could merge it and connect it better with the previous analysis.
  • Maybe you could enrich the sociological aspects of the incident, by enriching with more scholar analysis "A closer look at life in Hong Kong".
  • "Effects on popular culture in Hong Kong" could be also enriched. How is it explained the popularity of this incident among the society? They actually became stars those involved in the incident!! Is there any scholar or media analysis about that?
  • I think that in "References" you should put all the sources you mention in "Notes".
  • "Although the session was widely reported, many believed it was artificially created news and unworthy of front-page attention." Uncited. When you use expressions like "many believed" etc. citing is appropriate to avoid WP:WEASEL. The same with "Nonetheless, others denied any social insights could be gleamed from the video clip, arguing that the frenzy was artificially created by sensationalist newspapers in order to boost circulation and profits."--Yannismarou 11:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 1[edit]

Thank you for your review. I was getting worried that no one would ever bother to read it! Anyway, I made some changes based on your comments:

  • The Aftermath session is merged with the Legal Issues one. After the nevertheless sentence, you will come to the part where he was assaulted in the restaurant. After all, if he were charged by the police, he could not possibly be hired.
  • In the effects on popular culture in Hong Kong section, I've added an incident involving a student and teacher in school and their usage of the catch phrases. Detail has been added about the TV sitcom episode.
  • I have added another viewpoint in the "Close look at life" session, it is to do with people's inconsideration in public.
  • A reference has been added to the Media ethics session. It is an editorial criticizing a newspaper company's fabrication of news.

If there is anything else that I should pay attention to, please let me know.--Kylohk 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 2[edit]

Let me reply to your comments 1 by 1.

  • I agree with the point made about British spelling, and I have adjusted the spellings accordingly to make use of British spellings.
  • Some redundant words have been removed, some retained, if I consider them to disrupt the continuity if the article.
  • The heading comment is irrelevant because the name of the Video is called "The Bus Uncle", hence it begins with a The.
  • The comment about the measurements is incorrect. The . Ng mentioned is taken from the phrase "Dr. Ng", where it stands for Doctor Ng, with Ng being the surname.

Cheers.--Kylohk 13:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The peer review is script generated so it sometimes makes mistakes (like the header or Dr. Ng). Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birchington-on-Sea[edit]

This is a current Good Article nominee but we're aiming to eventually get it to Featured Article status. Any recommendations for improvement would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Epbr123 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Styracosaurus[edit]

I've recently worked to expand this article, and would now like feedback. Comments about accuracy, depth, WP:MOS observations, prose, etc, are more than welcome. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added this to Wikipedia:Peer review, but any discussion will also occur here. --Bduke 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bduke. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are at Talk:Styracosaurus/Comments. Cheers! Circeus 14:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

  • Why does the lead say the dino has 4 to 6 horns when the one in the picture has 7 or 8?
  • There are too many weasel words, especially in Horns and Frill:
  • has been the subject of debate between whom?
  • it was long believed by whom?
  • In popular culture has no citations, and seems a little too short and listy to even be included.

Not a bad start, though. Keep at it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, Cryptic. There were two or three major spikes on each side of the frill, with smaller hornlets and hooks along the lower parts of the frill. There also individual variation. I'll try to make it clearer in the text. The weasel wording obviously will have to be adjusted. I will also try to expand the pop culture section, with references, to make it less listy and possibly worthwhile. Thanks for your time. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned about this phrase: "Though often depicted in popular culture as herding animals" It comes close to being a weasel phrase. However, I don't really think there's a better way to state it, so see if you can find something in your sources that specifically backs up that sentence.
  • Hooray for references in Popular culture! Try to make sure that section maintains an encyclopedic tone. The first few sentences are a bit odd. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your second look, Cryptic. Some sections have been altered to remove weasel-speak and replace them with a more encyclopedic tone. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the automated review, Ruhr! I fixed everything I could find, using an automatic search tool. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome - keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch 13:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occlusal trauma[edit]

I think this is an excellent article about occlusal traumatism, discussing both primary and secondary forms extensively with examples provided and concepts explained adequately. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has zero citations. Snottywong 19:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is brief, but well-written. However, as stated above, it needs inline cites. Also, the italicized sections are not particularly helpful. A picture would be useful. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Academy for Science, Mathematics and Technology[edit]

I'd just like some general feedback on how I went in writing this article. Thanks. ~ Giggy! Talk Contribs 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Gibson[edit]

I have completed a beta rewrite of the article on Deborah Gibson, taking into consideration the various complaints about the preexisting version as of March 2007. What items in the beta still need to be added? amended? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. - B.C.Schmerker 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to run the semi automated peer review script on your article but I think Peer Review is only for articles in Namespace, not Userspace and it would not work, sorry. Ruhrfisch 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political history of medieval Karnataka[edit]

The Political history of medieval Karnataka covers the political developments that transpired in the region known today as modern Karnataka state, India in a time period popularly known as the "Classial Age" of Indian history. While many FAs about the famous dynasties that ruled from this region have been documented individually, this article pieces together the flow of history and the transition of political power from one empire to the next, providing information that would otherwise not be apparent. Apart from the large empires that ruled from Karnataka, the article also discusses the earliest native Hindu Kingdoms and the much later Muslim Sultanates of the region.

Please provide constructive feedback about the format and presentation of the article which has already been through several rounds of copy edits. ThanksDineshkannambadi 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oklahoma[edit]

The is the 4th PR for this article. It's been awhile since the previous PR but I was going to try to get this FA if it is ready and would appreciate any and all feedback. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be on the look out for weasel words and peacock words: "By far, OU's most famous and storied athletic program is the football program", "a long and bitter rivalry", "This rivalry is often thought of as a contest of state pride". Pagrashtak 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks pretty good to me. A few comments though. I think the Academic profile section could be expanded some. For example rather have the grab bag of majors at the beginning of the section, there could be a longer discussion of each College which would discuss the range of majors offered by that school. Some indication should be given on the range of graduate programs as well. It would be a good thing to get a better idea of the range of sports the atheletic department competes in. At bare minimum a statement along the lines of "OU competes in X NCAA division IA men's sports and Y women's sports. Even better would be a complete list for both men and women, although space restrictions might preclude it. I think some mention should be made of the 47 game winning streak the football. There are four structures on campus that on the NRHP (Beta Theta Pi House, Bizzell Library, Casa Blanca (Alpha Chi Omega Sorority House), and Boyd House) perhaps these could be mentioned, although again space restrictions might preclude this. The second paragraph of the Norman Campus subsection of the Academic profile section starts oddly. "More OU-Norman students (37%) are in the College of Arts & Sciences." I'm not sure what this means. More than what? The Lloyd Noble Center is mentioned at least twice, without defining what it is. I'm not sure where would be the best place to define it would be but readers shouldn't have to leave the article to figure that its a basketball arena. The section on Student organizations starts off with
There are over 350 student organizations at Oklahoma. Focuses of these organizations range from ethnic to political, religious to special interests. For example, the College Republicans at OU has over 1,800 members, nearly 10% of the Norman campus undergraduate population. In addition, OU has around 20 organizations related to Christian ideals.
By focusing on these 21 out of 350 groups, it feels as if the article is trying to imply something without actually saying it. Either the paragraph should say what it implies (with proper referencing) or it should be dropped. (How large is the College Democrats, and why give percentages of undergraduates, are graduate students not allowed to join? Why the focus on Christian groups?) Most of these points are minor, and some are probably optional. The History section is quite good, as are the discussions of the libraries and the museums. I love the picture of Bizzell with the lightning. Dsmdgold 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was fast. Good work Dsmdgold 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Grebel University College[edit]

I realize that a lot of people on wikipedia probably won't have heard of Conrad Grebel, but if you could give any advice on what sort of information should be included/excluded, that would be great. Ctimbury 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this article is nowhere near WP:FA status, or even WP:GA, so I'll give you some advice on how to get started. First off, expand the article. Write a section on the school's history, how & when it was founded, who the major players were in starting it off. Secondly, some pictures of the school would help a lot. Make sure they're of free license. Third, information on athletics (if there are any), more info on student life, etc. Make sure to include citations and references to any and all sentences that need it. I could think of a lot more, but it's apparent that you're asking for advice on how to start this out, so I won't overwhelm you. Good luck, and maybe you'll build it up to a featured article soon! Anthony Hit me up... 15:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette Valium[edit]

Does the article qualify for at least a b rating? Martiial 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haus[edit]

It's in the ballpark for B-class, but I think it just misses. First off, good use of the infobox and persondata. The first thing to do is to cite as many of the statements in the article as you can. I put in an inline citation and references section to get you started, and you can find out more at WP:CITE#HOW.

The next thing I'd do would be to fill in some information from 1959 to 1980. By that time, I think you'd have all the pieces on the board and would be able to write a solid lead per WP:LEAD. After that, I'd take a look at a few articles in Category:B-Class biography articles and compare and contrast -- you'll probably have a solid b-class article and can start looking at WP:WIAGA. Good luck! HausTalk 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moorvis[edit]

In addition to the fact that there aren't really enough references to the sources, I think this article could be improved by:

  • More wikilinking
  • Samples of his work to illustrate his style
Martiial

Thank you for your comments!

Yannismarou[edit]

IMO, it doesn't, because it has almost no citations and references, and the biography is incomplete with important chronological gaps. Enrich your articles with sources, cite properly, and you'll achive not anly B-Class but also higher quality ranks! Some additional suggestions:

  • Anything about his personal life? What was going on in his life before 1981?
  • "Valium also completed The Survivor, a monumental painting centered around a Joseph Goebbels family picture that was shown at Gallery Clark[1]" Avoid external jumps like this one. Make proper inline ciations, using Template:cite web and Template:cite news.
  • "Influences: * Benito Jacovitti ..." Couldn't this be a section with proper prose, where you'll analyze his influences? I also find "Fellow artists" listy. Add them in this "Influences" section I propose, telling us which are exactly their artistic affialiances.--Yannismarou 12:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plug-in hybrid[edit]

How can this article be made more accessible to the general public and policymakers who might be deciding whether to offer incentives? BenB4 16:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's pretty good now, thanks to your ad hoc improvement drive. I'm going to nominate it for GA. James S. 12:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's improving fast, although the technology section is still jumbled and inaccurate. I think it will look better in about a week, with more refs to technical papers. Jack Rosebro 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "History" section should be incorporated into prose. Right now, it reads like a timeline or a list. Perhaps Timeline of hybrid technology or even Timeline of plug-in hybrid technology would be a suitable article, but I don't think it's good to have in this article. For instance, the 2001-2005 section shouldn't be sub-sectionized, and the 2006 section should not have a separate paragraph for each date. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Powertrains" section needs sourcing, as does the "Improved fuel efficiency" section under "potential advantages". – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "See also" list is huge. Almost all items should be incorporated into the text, and many of them already are (and therefore shouldn't be in the "see also" list). – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Peres[edit]

Have looked through the article and think it could be a Good Article candidate. Flymeoutofhere 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oneworld25[edit]

This article needs more information on his race against Netanyahu in the 90s. The section about the Lebanon war needs to be expanded or deleted. It seems to me this article suffers from recentism, there is lots of info on his election for Labor Party Leader in the 2005, but not much on his terms as Prime Minister. --Oneworld25 23:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WindsorFan[edit]

It's very well written. However, apart from the above comments, there are only four inline citations ("In Peres's own words" needs a citation after the quote, for example and "Peres was at one time considered something of a hawk" is a bit weasel-ish). The family life section could be fleshed out some more and there are some minor issues such as full dates not being Wikilinked. WindsorFan 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's like 1000 years old, right? Aren't there any pics of him from the 1940s, 50s, 60s, etc? Kaisershatner 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I think the article is not ready for GAC. It needs some work for GAC, more work for A-Class, and a lot of work for FAC! Are you ready to go for it; a personality like Peres is a great challenge for a great article! Don't you think? These are some tips (a new review may be needed after the implementation of this review's suggestions):

  • "He became Vice Premier". You tell us that twice in the lead. The same with "having led the Labor Party for many years." Don't repeat yourself in the lead. ANd this one-sentence stubby paragraph at the end of the lead is not nice.
Re-worked. Flymeoutofhere 15:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also do not like the chronological order in the lead. First paragraph all his important offices. OK! Then, his career between 2005-2006, and finally his career between 1934-1956? For a reader not knowing well Peres's career this is confusing I'm afraid.
Re-worked. Flymeoutofhere 15:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations go after the punctuation mark; not before, and not with a gap between the pm and the citation. You are inconsistent. And you article is overall undercited. Check WP:CITE, and fix properly the online sources you have as citations, using Template:cite web and Template:cite news.
  • Per MoS do not wikilink single years. Only year-month-date.
  • "Peres' efforts went superbly well with..." Maybe POV.
  • "Family life" is stubby. Expand or merge with "Early life". And "Peres is a relative of actress Lauren Bacall (born Betty Joan Perske)" is: a) uncited, b) is this such an important information for Peres' biography? And, if yes, I think it should be in "Early life"; not in "Family life".
  • "he was implicated in the Lavon affair with Moshe Dayan." How was he implicated? Give us some info. Don't keep us in the dark!
  • "He had been Rabin's chief rival for the post of Prime Minister after Golda Meir resigned in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. Peres continued to challenge Rabin for the leadership of the party. While again narrowly defeated..." An example of choppy prose.
  • I compare this "Peres has never won a national election" with this "However they won more seats than any other party in 1984 and Peres became Prime Minister...", and I wonder if these assertions are in harmony with one another.
  • "Political career" is a huge section. You could divide it in some sections, offering more info in each of these subsections. But reasearch is necessary in this case.
  • "After two years they would trade places. After leaving the Premiership in 1986 he became foreign minister. In 1988 he led his party to yet another narrow defeat. He agreed to renew the coalition ..." Again choppy prose.
  • "However, Peres remained active in politics, serving as Rabin's foreign minister from 1992 and briefly succeeding him after his assassination in 1995. During his term". Mmmmmm ... This is one of the most important periods in Peres's political career and you summarize it in one sentence?! Tell us more about the negotiation with Arafat, his collaboration with both Arafat and Rabin, how this triangle worked etc.
  • "Had he won, as was expected, he would have been the first ex-Prime Minister to be elected President. Instead, he lost in an upset to Likud candidate Moshe Katsav." What were the causes of this "upset", as you call it?
  • "Shimon Peres is one of Israel's most durable politicians and is currently the longest-serving member of the Knesset." Misplaced assertion, and I think I already read that in the lead.
  • "His bitter exchanges with opponents began when former Prime Minister Barak began backing the holding of primaries early that year, as Amir Peretz and Haim Ramon, two staunch anti-Barak Knesset members vowed to support Peres at any cost to defeat Barak. In a bizarre change of events, Peretz soon declared his own candidacy, a move viewed by Peres as the greatest betrayal." I think better prose, and clearer narration of events is needed here.
  • The last for paragraphs of "Political Career" are terrible! I don't understand what is the purpose there: assessment of Peres's overall career? Analysis of certain particular events? I do not know ... In any case, restructuring is needed here.
  • "More recently he has been seen as a dove" By whom? And the whole "hawk"-"dove" analysis there for me who follows the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict for some years is far too simplistic. And why don't you put this info about PLO talks in the correct chronological order above in "Political career"?
  • "Peres was perhaps more closely associated with the Oslo Accords than any other Israeli politician (Rabin included)" How excactly? By doing what? I also raised this issue above. Put this misplaced info in its proper chronological order and analyze.
  • "Peres' image is an unusual blend of visionary dreamer and ruthless and opportunistic wheeler-dealer." Again simplistic and vague. Who and why says that he is a "visionary dreamer"? Who and why says that he is "ruthless and opportunistic wheele-dealer".
  • I would also like to have further analysis of the Peres-Sharon relationship, as well as of the Peres-Arafat and Peres-Rabin relationships (I have already mentioned that issue above).
  • "Often, Peres acts as the informal "spokesman" of Israel (even when he is in the opposition) since he earned high prestige and respect among the international public opinion and diplomatic circles. Peres advocates Israel's security policy (military counter terror operations and the Israeli West Bank barrier) against international criticism and de-legitimation efforts from pro-Palestinian circles." IMO vague and unsourced statements, proper maybe for "The Economist" but not for "Wikipedia". Source, rephrase, work on these assertions, having in mind that this is an encyclopedia.
  • "Awards"+"Interests"=Trivia! "Interests" should be part of the sections about his personal life, and "awards" could be easily merged in "Political Career".
  • "Quotations" is listy. Incorporate the quotes you think as useful in the main text (and cite them), and remove the rest of them.
  • "Katzav was chosen over Peres in 2000 by the Knesset to fill the largely ceremonial role." You already tell us that in the main prose. Why do you repeat the same thing in the note? And this "Katzav is now facing serious legal charges and his seven year term expires in mid-2007." could also be placed in the main text.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 12:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quadell[edit]

A quick note: some of the quotes ought to be incorporated into the text using {{cquote}} or something similar (see here and here for examples of how this can be done), but other quotes belong on Wikisource, not in the article itself. Also, there are lots of redlinks: Vishniova, Kibbutz Alumot, Labor-Zionist youth movement, etc. etc. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia[edit]

Previous peer review (May 2006)
Previous peer review (Sept 2006)
Previous peer review (April 2007)
Previous peer review (Dec 2006)

Texas A&M University[edit]

Any suggestions as to how to improve this article to the FA standards are welcome.BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WindsorFan[edit]

A really interesting read! Just a couple of things:

  • The first paragraph of 2000-present is unreferenced and 'not satisfied with' seems accusational and flippant in tone.
  • The Campus lead has only two references. Is there a source for 'The area east of the railroad tracks is known as "Main Campus"' and the other 'known as' parts?
  • Can you prose-ify Student media?
  • Check full dates are wikilinked and single years, months and days aren't. WindsorFan 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! I've referenced the first paragraph of 2000-Present and reworded its opening sentence. I also added references to the campus lead and turned the student media bullets into prose. Karanacs 17:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from user:Gopher backer[edit]

Generally this seems pretty good. I like the structure and there are some good images. I'm not the prose authority so I'll just look at other things...

  • I might be wrong but I believe that if a Ref is in English, you don't need to specify that (since this is English Wikipedia). I could be wrong on that though, it's something to check into.
  • By my count only 86 of the 98 references are of the Cite variety. For consistencies sake you'll want to get the remaining ones to match that.
  • Ref # 40 (Texas A&M Leads World in Cloning Animals". ABC News.) is a dead link
  • Ref # 66 (^ http://library.tamu.edu/portal/site/Library/menuitem.4671eb1f54acfda343aecb5419008a0c/ ) is also dead
  • Ref # 85 looks like it's messed up ( [NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Championship#Tournament_format Texas A&M Basketball's Championship History]. Texas A&M Athletics. Retrieved on 2007-04-04)
  • I don't quite understand this, but I've seen a lot of FA reviewers not really be too impressed with Youtube or Myspace as references, so if you could find something else for #'s 95 & 96 that would probably be best (maybe since they're in the popular culture section they'd cut you some slack though)
  • Ref # 97 (RamonesRussa1 (JPEG). MyPunkCollection.co.uk.) leads to a forbidden link for me.
  • if possible, maybe try to add another image each to the History and Academics section
  • I'd suggest putting a &nbsp; in between a numerical amount an its measurement, i.e. 100&nbsp;miles and $1&nbsp;billon.
  • Also, be sure to add metric measurements in parenthesis after the original value, i.e. 138&nbsp;ft (42.1&nbsp;m) tall.
  • I still at least one date that isn't wikified (September 16, 1999)
  • Consistency: 1) in one spot I see "by 1918 forty-nine percent of all graduates" and in another spot I see "The middle 50% of the freshmen" and 2) in one spot I see: " 5,200 acres (21 km²)" and in another spot I see "with 2.5 million square feet of". I'm not sure if one way or the other is preferred, but I'd find out which on you prefer and go with that. 3) I see one that is listed as "On 9 April 2007, Mark Turgeon accepted". Not that it's wrong, but I think that it should probably match the format of the rest of the dates in the article.
  • I might think of getting rid of the bullets in the Notable Buildings section. At least on my browser, most of them are cut off anyway because of the images on the left. I'm not sure that needs them, I think just the heading of the building name would suffice.

Gopher backer 01:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up[edit]

Thanks for your comments!

  • I've revamped the citations to follow your suggestions:
    • No need for (English) in the citation template (you are right)
    • All citations should follow same format
    • Fixed dead citations
    • Fixed Ref 85
  • I've also worked on the measurements in the article. I used the conversion templates to list both standard and metric units, which should also standardize the way the units are formed
  • Fixed the 9 April 2007 date to follow the format of the other dates in the article
  • Removed the bullets from the notable buildings.

We're discussing whether to take out the popular culture section or not. If it stays in the article, we'll see what we can do to clean up those citations too. Again, thanks for your time! Karanacs 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review[edit]

I am posting the automated suggestions here, with my comments. Karanacs 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.[?]
    • Found a few I missed before. Fixed.Karanacs 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
    • The university seal is the most appropriate image. Other FA university articles have also included their respective seals in the infobox.Karanacs 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
    • They are pretty concise already.Karanacs 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 21 km, use 21 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 21&nbsp;km.[?]
    • Found one instance where proper convert template not used for a measurement. This has been fixed.Karanacs 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
    • All full years now linked.Karanacs 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • 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.[?]
  • 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.
    • arguably
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
    • Fixed. Karanacs 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Fixed, I think.Karanacs 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Booking Offices of America[edit]

Article on a Hollywood studio of the late silent film era, predecessor of RKO Pictures. Some interesting history involving Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the future president. Any comments/observations/suggestions would be helpful.—DCGeist 07:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well written, well illustrated, and well sourced. But: the lead needs cites, and should probably be a little longer (see WP:LEAD). Besides that, I think it's already GA-quality. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. In fact, the lead should be a summary of the entire article, and should generally be free of citations. As long as everything stated in the lead that needs a citation is cited in the text of the article (as it should be), there's no need to cite in the lead. As for the lead's length, you're right, it could probably stand to be a bit longer. If you (or anyone else) has a thought on what facts should be included up top, let me know. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding cites in the lead, I tend to agree that they're superfluous, but I could have sworn that WP:CITE required it. Well, it doesn't now, so that's all good. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead expanded per comment. Love to hear any other thoughts.—DCGeist 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little things:
    • Wikilink "American" and "British" in the lead to their respective countries.
    • "established a 13.5-acre studio in L.A.'s fortuitously named Colegrove district" Uh, ok. Is the "fortuitous" bit necessary?
      • I think so—just to avoid anyone assuming there was a substantive connection between the name of the neighborhood and the name of the company (as I, for instance, originally thought was possible).—DCGeist 06:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The father of the future president" You know and I know who Joe Kennedy is, but you should edit it to say "the father of future President of the United States John F. Kennedy."
    • "in such two-reeler comedy series as 'The Pacemakers'" Might want to explain what a two-reeler is, or just change the link title to the default name "short subject".
      • Explanation provided.—DCGeist 07:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The bid was initially rejected, but in February 1926, FBO's owners decided to take the money; the studio was now Kennedy's" Remove "the studio was now Kennedy's"; it's already clear enough without it.
    • "Kennedy swiftly addressed the company's perennial cash-flow problems" The problems with funding should be mentioned earlier in the article because it's not clear that the company had cash-flow problems before Kennedy bought it.
    • "The majority of FBO/Robertson–Cole pictures were produced at low cost, during either the silent era or the transitional period of the conversion to sound cinema; the vast majority of the studio's silent productions are thought to be lost, with no copies now known to exist." This can be two sentences.
    • "Partly in consequence, many of FBO's star actors are barely remembered today: Pauline Frederick was the major headliner of the early R-C days; Evelyn Brent was FBO's most prized non-Western star" turn the colon into a period, and add an "and" to link the Frederick and Brent clauses.
    • "Ralph Ince, younger brother of the famous Thomas H. Ince" Why is Thomas H. Ince famous?
      • Profession provided for clarification.—DCGeist 07:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very enjoyable article overall. I've got no major concerns. WesleyDodds 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All points addressed. Thanks much!—DCGeist 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PR instructions, articles aren't supposed to be at peer review and WP:FAC at the same time. Please archive the peer review, and replace the talk page template with oldpeerreview, so all the pieces will be in place for GimmeBot convesion to ArticleHistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—DCGeist 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)[edit]

This article is the latest collaboration with User:The Rambling Man (TRM) and the Cricket WikiProject. It's extensively referenced, well illustrated and hopefully on track for FAC. As ever, TRM and I welcome all criticism, particularly if specific. --Dweller 11:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The captions of the pictures are kind of pov, so just needs a little re-captioning.--THUGCHILDz 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tamed the captions down a bit, thanks. The Rambling Man 06:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume it is open season, then? :) I have done a light copyedit, but this is looking very good. I have left a few hidden comments and questions inline in the text. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As always, many thanks for your time and effort...! The Rambling Man 12:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few things I've noticed:
1: The following paragraph, is it a quote? "How was I to know that I was about to cross swords with the greatest cricketer that ever set foot on a cricket field ? ..." (cut it short to save space, it's the 4th paragraph in 'Youth and early career') If it is, it could do with quotation marks. Not sure of the source, though.
Yes, it is a quotation from him so I've added quotation marks. I don't really want to cut it down because it highlights the start of his "rivalry" with Bradman.... The Rambling Man 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant cut it down on this page specifically, not the actual article. :) AllynJ 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced it a bit, removed the imagery and stuck more with the confrontation, hope it's okay now. The Rambling Man 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2: Ref 35 could do with accessdates via {{cite web}} (although this has been noted by ALoan I believe, and is currently captioned out).
I've hopefully used the suggested citations and made proper citewebs and distributed them correctly across this paragraph. I've also added a final sentence showing O'Reilly's deep-down respect for the Don. The Rambling Man 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3: "Bradman later noted after their deaths that his team was much more united after their departure." - this suggests he noted something after he died, which doesn't make any sense. Was it written before he died and only discovered after? Was it after O'Reilly died but before Bradman died? I'm not sure.
I presume "their" refers to Fingleton and O'Reilly, as it does in the rest of the paragraph. JPD (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't like this sentence and I can't find a reasonable citation for it either so I'm removing it for the time being... The Rambling Man 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the one remaining {{fact}} and a number of redirects that need bypassing (which I'll probably do myself in a minute or two as they're a pet hate of mine :p) it looks good and reads well, and is well sourced (except possibly the ESPN link - but that's been noted too). Good work guys. You're not far off. AllynJ 15:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One note on the redirects, it's better to leave them than to just edit the article to correct them - I've been told off before, you can find out more here! The Rambling Man 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ESPN link removed, and now off to find the final {{fact}}... thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. I believe that's all your comments addressed! Thanks again. The Rambling Man 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Canadian Air Cadets[edit]

previous peer review

Miranda Otto[edit]

I have again expanded and improved this article on the Australian actress. I plan to renominate it for FA status in the near future. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All 03:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro needs some tweaking. It should be a better summary of the article. (And don't repeat Australian Film Institute.) The theatre section could use some expansion. How long did those plays run? What city where they in? The "Early life and education" section could use some work--it is vague in places. How exactly did her father influence her? Where did her mother live (at least in relation to Sydney, where her father lived)?
Overall this is a nice article, and a big improvement over its previous incarnations. I thought it was informative. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look over the article again within the next few days and try to incorporate your suggestions. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 03:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)[edit]

I would like any ideas to improve this article base on grammar and comprehension, leading the article to GA and FA status. -- JA10 T · C 21:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing looks generally fine. This article needs more images (appropriate ones!). The one real picture in the whole article is a crooked image of a "bridge" that shows two lanes of road, half a sign, and part of a car bumper. An "appropriate" image there would show the entire bridge, or at a minimum, the image would clearly be showing a bridge-like structure. I would suggest removing the image in question and placing ~3-5 appropriate images throughout the article. Nswinton 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, I should go outside today to take the pic of the whole bridge and other pics when I have the opportunity. -- JA10 T · C 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan[edit]

After much work and effort, this article has been brought up to Good article status. Much additional text has been added and ample sources have been included to document the material. I would like to improve the article further to consider featured article status, and I am looking for any and all input on ways to improve the article to pass muster. Alansohn 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great panorama pic! I can't quite put my finger on it, but parts of this article give me a feeling that the author's native language is not English. Some of the sentences seem kind of "unnatural"... Could be just me I suppose. Matt 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 39[edit]

I'd like a general overview of the page, ultimately leading to FA status. --myselfalso 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyAlbert10[edit]

An advice I would give you is to look for as many references as you can get on the article for FA status, although 20 is enough but the more the better. PennDOT has a lot of data on traffic counts 1 and historical maps 2. Other current metro area maps 3 and current county maps can be used as a reference for the route description. Oh and check the lead, I might have some grammar issues due to fact that I'm not good at that. Good luck on the FAC. -- JA10 T · C 22:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwin60[edit]

Please, please, cite more sources! I'm especially concerned with the mileposts, because these need the most verification. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll takecare of it since I filled the new four digit mileposts. -- JA10 T · C 12:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has been taken care off but its chances are better with more references. -- JA10 T · C 12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second semi-automated peer review[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha[edit]

This page has been extensively re-written to make to more encyclopedic in tone and to provide references. Any input would be helpful, but in particular it would be interesting to know if the article currently covers all of the issues that people normally think of in connection with Ganesha, and if the article seems readable and interesting to non-Hindus. Buddhipriya 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnyw[edit]

As a non-Hindu, and reasonably uneducated in that aspect, I stumbled over the following bits in the article, I hope it helps:
  • lead paragraph: "divali puja" is unexplained  Done English terms are now used, with puja as a link to the article on that topic
  • the stories about his creation are only mentioned in the beginning, they could be elaborated on, (at least I wanted to look them up after reading these short hints at several different stories.)  Done A prominent link to the article for stories about Ganesha now appears at the top of the page.
  • what stories revolve around him? what are the most well-known legends revolving around Ganesha, in particular relating him to other Hindu gods..  Done A prominent link to the article for stories about Ganesha now appears at the top of the page.
  • this leads to: since I know so little about Hindu gods, I try to orientate myself on the ones I know a little, like Shiva or Vishnu. Maybe a tiny subsection following the lead summarizing of how gods play a role in Hindu belief and his standing in this belief system could help.
That's all, I hope this helps..Good luck and keep up the good work! --Johnnyw talk 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestions. The issue of stories is that we have another page for them, because article length was becoming a problem. Perhaps making a link to that more visible in the lead and some reorganization will help. I added a link to the page for the various myths in a more prominent way, which may address your second and third points. Buddhipriya 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sd31415[edit]

This article is nicely referenced and covers many aspects of Ganesha — it definitely can become featured. Several comments:

  •  Done For all sections: Try to reduce the number of one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
  • Introduction: Great first image.
  •  Done Introduction: Sanskrit işţadevatā → Sanskrit: işţadevatā
  •  Done Introduction: Possibly merge He is called by many other names, including Ganapati. The Hindu title of respect 'Shri' (Sanskrit:श्री; śrī, also spelled Sri or Shree) is often added before his name. into the first paragraph.
  •  Done Etymology and other names: Hindi Ganesh → Hindi: Ganesh and link to the article Hindi.
  •  Done Etymology and other names: Vignesha ("Lord of Obstacles") → Vignesha, meaning "Lord of Obstacles",
  •  Done Iconography: '''Common attributes''' → === Common attributes ===
  •  Done Common attributes: Bolding isn't needed, in my opinion.
  •  Done Worship and Festivals: Worship and Festivals → Worship and festivals
  •  Done Worship and Festivals '''Ganesh Chaturthi''' → === Ganesh Chaturthi ===
  •  Done Association with Aum: Courtright → Paul Courtright
  •  Done Association with first chakra: A short description of the first chakra?
  •  Done Married or celibate?: Married or celibate? → Consorts
  •  Done Sections: You could organize his associations like this:
== Associations ==
=== Aum ===
Text
=== First chakra ===
Text
  •  Done Married or celibate?: Add spaces after Sanskrit. For example, Sanskrit:उच्छिष्टगणपति → Sanskrit: उच्छिष्टगणपति .
  •  Done Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi as "wives": Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi as "wives" → Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi
  •  Done Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi as "wives": In the Matsya Purana Gaṇesha is identified as the "owner" of riddhi (prosperity) and buddhi. → In the Matsya Purana Gaṇesha is identified as the "owner" of Riddhi (prosperity) and Buddhi (wisdom).
  •  Done Ganesha's rise to prominence: Ganesha's rise to prominence → Rise to prominence
  •  Done References: Try using {{Reflist|2}}.
  •  Done Further reading: The sentence There are many books about Ganesha. may not be necessary.

Great work! Hope my suggestions help. Happy editing, [sd] 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this helpful review. I have implemented all of your suggestions, so please take another look and feel free to give additional ideas. Regarding the first chakra, we have tried to keep details at a minimum as that particular topic seems to be a magnet for unrelated content. Buddhipriya 01:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notes have to be formatted for the article. For example: Author Name, Book Title, and p. # → A. Name, Book Title, # (following the example of El Greco). Any note coming from a printed source should have a page number (for example, #2 and #4 does not). Anyone wanting to find more information about the cited source would go to References section and look for the source using the name and title of the book (right now, #7 Flood, Gavin. op. cit. p. 215. is cited but the author isn't found in the References section). Hope this helps! Happy editing, [sd] 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)  Done The reference to Flood is now in the References list. Thanks for continuing to educate me on formats! Buddhipriya 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Thank you for considering my suggestions--Redtigerxyz 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too much importance is given to Ganesha's Consorts topic and can be shortened(or seperated altogether). a brief intro to Ganesh's consorts can be given and a link to the seperated section could be provided.

A move of the section on consorts is in progress but may take another day to complete in order to be sure that all references move correctly. The consorts sections will be replaced by a section on Family. The original consorts section now resides at Consorts of Ganesha but not all of the original material has been removed from the primary article pending some further summarization of key ideas. Buddhipriya 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A Section on family was a good idea. i think, consorts section in ganesha can be curtailed. a seperate mention of his sons and supposed daughter should be made.--Redtigerxyz 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done Sd31415 is still working on the copyedit which may shorten the section further, but the creation of the article for Consorts of Ganesha is completed and there has been a condensation of the ideas on the main Ganesha page.

  • a brief introduction can written about all topics in 'see also' with link to the articles. as in Hinduism article for Brahman, Atman, Ishvara etc.

In looking into this suggestion I found that WP:LAYOUT says that See Also "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article", which is a suggestion that I find unhelpful. This format guideline seems unhelpful to me because in a long article like Hinduism or Ganesha it is a service to the reader to have a quick summary of internal links at the bottom. I am going to raise this question on the talk page for WP:LAYOUT to try to get more input. Currently in the See also for Ganesha we provide short summaries of what each link covers, which I think is good. Buddhipriya 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha is not a Vedic god, as is noted in the section on "Rise to prominence". The lead currently has the sentence: "Their principal scriptures are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, all of which identify Ganesha as the Supreme embodiment of Brahman." Perhaps we can adjust the language in the history section to explain the timing of his arrival on the scene further. Buddhipriya 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

but he appears in Rig Veda( may be later added). The rise to promience section know takes care of this suggestion.--Redtigerxyz 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Rig Vedic references, I suggest that you take that issue to the talk page for the article so the references you believe to be there can be examined. All of the academic sources are in agreement that the figure of Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Rig Veda. It is true that this claim is often made, which we address in the section on Vedic and Epic periods. The time periods for these sources are important, as the Rig Veda predates the first known appearances of Ganesha, as the article describes. It is also true that some people often claim that the use of certain phrases referring to "leader of the group" that appear in the Rig Veda are references to Ganesha, but these claims are rejected by academics as the article explains. Buddhipriya 18:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


  • a section about Ganesha's temples as sub-section to worship of ganesha with link to ashtavinayak

Currently there is a link to the aṣṭavināyaka temples from the Etymology section which mentions the name Vinayaka: "This name is reflected in the naming of the famous eight Ganesha (aṣṭavināyaka) temples in Maharashtra." I am not sure whether to move the sentence away from the discussion about the name Vinayaka in the Etymology section. There is another possible tie-in related to this name in the Rise to prominence section as he acquired the name due to his prior role with the Vinayakas. Do other editors have opinions on what to do with this suggestion? Buddhipriya 06:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • also the main story of ganesh's birth can be included in the main article.

There is no "main story" of Ganeshas's birth, so it is difficult to know which one might be used. Currently the article says "While he is popularly considered to be the eldest son of Shiva and Parvati, in Puranic myths there are several different versions of his birth. In some stories he was created by Shiva alone, by Parvati alone, by Shiva and Parvati together, or in a mysterious manner that is discovered by Shiva and Parvati." There are six footnotes on those two sentences due to the complexity of the variations. That is actually an oversimplification, because in each of his various incarnations there is some variation in the birth stories, and Ganapatya consider Ganesha to be svambhu (self-created). Buddhipriya 18:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • 'Ganesha and his mouse' section deleted from the article, should be reincluded with its statements verified.

I am not sure what section you mean, as the only sentence in the article that mentions the mouse is "He is often shown riding on, or attended by, a mouse." That is referenced (another reference can be added if needed), and a picture showing him riding the mouse is on the page. Someone moved the picture away from the sentence, which I will now move back to illustrate this very well-known attribute. Buddhipriya 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done I did a bit of reorganization and added more citations to create an actual section for the mouse. Take a look and feel free to make additional suggestions. Buddhipriya 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

i was refering to this section.

'According to a Purana story, the Ganesh rat was actually the Gandharva or celestial musician called Krauncha. One day, at the Indra's Court, Krauncha insulted the Sage Vamadeva by absent-mindedly walking over the feet of rishi (aother version says, by absent-mindedly kicking the rishi) who cursed Kraucha transforming him into a big rat.However, after the sage had calmed down, he promised Krauncha that one day, the Devas themselves would bow down before him. This rat went in the ashram (hermitage) of the Sage Parashara and caused a lot of damages. The Rishi invoked Ganesha to safeguard the ashram. Ganesh appeared ,trapped the rat with his lasso and made him his Vahana (mount).

According to one interpretation, Ganesha's divine vehicle, the mouse or mooshikam represents wisdom, talent and intelligence. It symbolizes minute investigation of a cryptic subject. A mouse leads a secret life below the ground. Thus it is also a symbol of ignorance that is dominant in darkness and fears light and knowledge. As the vehicle of Ganesha, a mouse teaches us to remain always on alert and illuminate our inner-self with the light of knowledge.

Both Ganesha and the Mooshak love modaka, a sweet dish which is traditionally offered to them both during worship ceremonies. The Mooshak is usually depicted as very small in relation to Ganesha, in contrast to the depictions of vehicles of other deities. However, it was once traditional in Maharashtrian art to depict Mooshak as a very large mouse, and for Ganesha to be mounted on him like a horse.

Yet another interpretation says that the mouse (Mushika or Akhu) represents the ego, the mind with all of its desires, and the pride of the individual. Ganesha, riding atop the mouse, becomes the master (and not the slave) of these tendencies, indicating the power that the intellect and the discriminative faculties have over the mind. Moreover, the mouse (extremely voracious by nature) is often depicted next to a plate of sweets with his eyes turned toward Ganesha while he tightly holds on to a morsel of food between his paws, as if expecting an order from Ganesha. This represents the mind which has been completely subordinated to the superior faculty of the intellect, the mind under strict supervision, which fixes Ganesha and does not approach the food unless it has permission.' --Redtigerxyz 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to move discussion about what should be said about the mouse to the talk page for the article. The above material has no sources, so building additions to the mouse section is certainly possible but should be done by locating additional solid citations. The above material is typical of devotional materials that often speculate on meanings of things but there are multiple possible interpretations. Buddhipriya 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the most common names of ganesha with meaning like ganapati, ekdanta, vakratunda etc. as in Shiva article.

This is an organizational issues, as the names that are descriptive epithets such as Ekadanta are currently connected to the sections which explain those characteristics. For example, on Ekadanta, see the sentences in Attributes: "He has a single tusk, the other being broken off. The earliest Sanskrit name that we know of that was used to refer to Ganesha is Ekadanta (One Tusk), referring to this distinctive attribute. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta according to the Mudgala Purana." Perhaps the best place for names would be under the Ganesha Sahasranama, which is currently linked under the section for Etymology and other names. Some of the most well-known names also show up as specific incarnations, which can be found under the links to the Mudgala Purana and Ganesha Purana. [User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 18:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for these suggestions. I will review each of them in more detail in the coming week. Buddhipriya 16:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Abecedare[edit]

I think this article is in very good shape and has the likelihood of becoming one of the rare Hinduism FA articles. Below are some points that I think will possibly be raised during the FA process, so it will be good to address them before.

  1. The lead of the article should present a short summary of the main points for the reader, i.e. rather than going into the details of any one point, it should present a preview of the remaining sections. Currently the lead is spending a lot of word-space in establishing that he is "worshipped at the start of ceremonies etc" and that "he is the lord of obstacles". Much of this content IMO be moved to the Worship and Festivals section.
  2. Since the article is on Ganesha and not on "Ganesha in Hinduism", it should at least contain a short summary of the Ganesha outside Hinduism.
  3. Similarly, since Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha is considered important enough to merit an article on its own, the topic should at least be mentioned in the Ganesha article. Note that the anecdotes themselves need not be repeated, but a couple of sentences can be added (possibly in "Family and Consorts" section ) informing the reader that (1) there a number of anecdotes relating to Ganesha's birth, consorts and tusk and (2) where these anecdotes arise from (epics, puranas, later works, ...?)
  4. This is not related directly to the Ganesha article itself, but since the same editors are involved in the "Mythology", "Consorts" and "outside Hinduism" articles, I'd like to point out that the {{Main}} template should be used in the Ganesha article to point out that those sub-articles are the main articles on the sub-topic, and not the other way round! Also, it would be good to add a lead section to Ganesha outside Hinduism and Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha pages.
  5. It will be useful to have the article "professionally" proofread by, say, someone at the League of Copyeditors.

Looking forward to seeing this article on FAC! I request that any responses to my comments be posted below, rather than interleaved with the message itself. I have numbered my points, so that they can be easily referenced. Abecedare 17:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued help on this article, you have been one of the editors who has improved the article a great deal already. I think all of your suggestions are great. Why don't you just begin making the changes yourself if you like. I am not sure I know Wikipedia templates well enough to completely understand how the Main template, etc., should be used, so if you could just fix those things first it would be great. I can take care of the other points over the next few days. A problem with the articles on Mythology and Outside Hinduism articles is that they are poorly sourced and contain some unreliable material. I would be cautious about importing anything from them. It would not be hard to get some well-sourced summary statements from WP:RS for those things rather than draw from the Wikipedia articles. Buddhipriya 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1:  Done At least it has been shortened by moving content to sections in the article body. Is it too short now? I do not have a good feel for what summary style looks like, and tend to consolidate material that is repeated in a lead. Buddhipriya 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the India article provides a good example. Note how its lead summarizes points from the History, Geography and Demographics etc sections. It is a good featured article, and some of its sub-articles are FA themselves. I will be busy the next couple of days, but will try to be of help soon after. Abecedare 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the lead is too short now — the lead section should be around three paragraphs (more). Happy editing, [sd] 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2:  Done I wrote a section on the expansion and added the theme of his connection with the trading community, which explains why he got around so much. :) The fact that he was the god of traders, who travelled for business, explains the question which someone asked a while back about why Ganesha is so popular outside of India. Anita Thapan's book goes on and on about the trading connections, which are very extensive. The other two key ideas for his transfer were Buddhist connections and direct Hindu migration. Different countries were influenced to a greater or lesser extent by these three forces. I thought it was best to build the article from scratch as the existing article on this topic has uneven referencing. The books I cited in the new section contain a great deal of additional detail that could be put into Ganesha outside Hinduism but I do not work much on that article, as it has been difficult to get editorial agreement on how to approach referencing. Buddhipriya 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3: The article on Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha was created largely in order to cast out unreferenced tidbits from the Ganesha article because it was too long. That article is still poorly sourced and badly organized, but eventually it should be cleaned up. In the section for the Puranic period in the Ganesha article we make the point that virtually all of the stories that are in popular play about Ganesha date from Puranic times, and there is a link to the mythology article there. I am not sure quite what to do with possible reorganization of the existing content to make the point which you raise in your suggestion. It is a good suggestion but I am scratching my head on how best to deal with it. The strategic issue that I feel is important is to show a progression in the historical development of Ganesha, with the mythology not being confused with ethnographic materials. Can you help sort this out? Also note that there is a link to the mytholgical anecdoes at the top of the article. Buddhipriya 21:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 4:

Point 5: I have placed a request for proofreading at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading as you suggested. Buddhipriya 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here, Galena will copy-edit Ganesha, "in stages." Buddhipriya 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Games[edit]

This article was once a featured article, but because of problems with upkeep, it was delisted. I plan on looking the article over again thoroughly before renominating if for FA and I'm looking for suggestions as to what should be done about the format of the article. I think it's in fairly good shape now, but there are just some problems with the flow (it seems that facts are just thrown into sections without good linkage) and maybe the sections. There is also a definite problem with the lead, too! So if anyone has any suggestions, please feel free to note them here or edit the page accordingly. Thanks a lot. └Jared┘┌talk┐  14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man on the Moon[edit]

Seeking review of references, content, layout, its compatibility with WikiProject:Films, ect and looking for suggestions about how to improve it. I'm hoping to nominate it as a WP:GA eventually. --Wasted Sapience 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis, Minnesota[edit]

Hello. I would like to be sure the article size at over 60k, use of templates, and references and footnotes are all right. If there is a city model we would use it. WikiProject Cities looks good. Thank you. -Susanlesch 02:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding size - other FA city pages range from 59 to 90kb. The Famous Minneapolitans section is quite long for what it is. I would create a List of famous Minneapolitans subpage (such as List of people from Minnesota), and add only one paragraph on famous people and mash it in with Pop culture, or you could just provide a "people" link in the Mlps nav template. From my experience "Famous X" sections are quite the spam magnet and moving that section to a subpage will help keep the main article stable. -Ravedave 03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, then not to worry about article size. Thank you for the reference points, Ravedave.
  • Re: famous Minneapolitans, if you are interested in the history of this section I can track down some links for you. The short story is this section hasn't been spammed in quite some time for some real reasons: 1) the article has criteria for additions to this section (plus a request to discuss first on the talk page), 2) a cap on the number of people, and 3) what was a list has been transformed into prose. Also, as you've seen in the to do list, citations will be required quite soon. Also, you are looking not at editable text but at a template, once removed from stray edits. So I think we're very safe. That reminds me, Dr. Cash's GA review asked for better citations in this section (they are for the most part there but not quite as visible as other cites) and I'll fix that right now. Thank you again. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: "References" from article talk page
  • Pardon me but there must be some mistake. Please see the article edit history. National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) data that another editor (perhaps accidentally) removed at 06:03, 31 March 2007, was restored in edit 05:36, 2 April 2007, about 12 hours ago. Is National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) data acceptable to you? And regarding the dismissal of a reference, I am sorry to have to disagree with your assessment. (And by the way, the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) for Los Angeles/Oxnard, California and Chicago, Illinois are both linking to Charles Fisk. But thank you very much for your comments. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)a[reply]
Regarding what used to be ref #21, yes the NOAA is fine for me, however the particular page linked was not [13], because it was just a landing page with no info, but I see it is removed now. I guess we'll just have to disagree on the Fisk page. Is there any reason multiple cites are grouped into single refs? I have usually seen one cite one ref. I'll try and do a read through soon for copy editing. -Ravedave 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if one looks at the edit history, the "particular page" was exactly the same links. Another editor added the landing page and I removed it after the restoration, thanks to your suggestion. Multiple cites are used in short passages where a whole lot of footnotes would render a sentence or short paragraph difficult to read. Not any easy technique, and one that I am learning thanks to a WikiProject Biography peer review. I imagine there is room for improvement and can look up the examples they gave me if you need them. -Susanlesch 05:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made my first pass today; it had been quite a while since I had read the whole article. Kudos for those who have worked on it - I think it's quite good. I certainly think the article has reached A-class quality. I have a couple of gripes though. 1) The last paragraph in Demographics compares MPLS with U.S. averages wrt race, income, etc. I think it would be much more useful to compare the city to other urban areas. Several of the categories would lead to opposite conclusions. I don't know of a good source, but if one can't be found, I would lean toward deleting the paragraph, as it's somewhat misleading. 2) I think the sentence about the 45 degree marker on Golden Valley Rd. is superfluous trivia. Is there any good reason to keep it? --Appraiser 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your work on the article is a great improvement. Thanks for identifying a good place to improve it more. The 45th parallel is gone now, as it is in Geography of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Re: demographics summary, DiversityData has data but in alpha order (requires too much original research to interpret). So I am copying one of the city of Baltimore's sources, the Brookings Institution comparision of 23 Living Cities for a high level overview. More detail can of course go into the child article Demographics of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Most everyone near the top of Google results (sorry I don't feel qualified to go deeper than that) uses census year 2000 data, except the U.S. Census American Fact Finder (what was used for the 2005 comparison to U.S. averages that caught your eye). I hope this helps. -Susanlesch 01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woops, sorry about that, DiversityData has sort options. That site may work, too. -Susanlesch 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A high level summary is in place from the Brookings Institution executive summary. Thank you again. -Susanlesch 18:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you think we are ready for FAC? Would one of you like to do the honors and rate the article again if you think it has improved since GA? I am on my way to double check that the refs are right and working. After that nomination I am thinking of working on one of the multitude of child articles (some had to be created so the city is only cited material) maybe Geography of Minneapolis, Minnesota. -Susanlesch 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right before you are ready for the FAC, the one last think you should do is go through and do a wikilink cleanup. (yeah, real fun!) Stuff should only be wikilinked one time (with the possible exception of infoboxes and the like), and it should be done the first time the subject appears in the article. (I just did a really quick glace and saw that General Mills was linked twice) Also, don't overclutter or underuse them, try to find the nice balance, whatever that may be. It's important to do this right before the nomination, because if you end up moving text around again the location of the links will change and then you could end up having to move them again. Gopher backer 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gopher backer, thanks, extra wikilinks have been removed (there were a few you are right -- unless someone wants to remove all the names of countries and U.S. states, this is done). -Susanlesch 04:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - It might be worth mentioning there were Dakota settlements in the Minneapolis area before the Europeans came. [14] [15]. I don't think the sports section needs the table of professional teams, as they are already mentioned in the text. Why are the wild and thunder mentioned? They are St.Paul teams. -Ravedave 17:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your comment. The first sentence of the article, after the lead and under History is "Dakota Sioux were the region's sole residents until explorers arrived from France in about 1680." Also, the article's first image is of a Dakota chief, captioned "Taoyateduta was among the 121 Sioux leaders who from 1837–1851 ceded what is now Minneapolis." -Susanlesch 18:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"in the region" doesn't make it sound like they had settlements in Minneapolis, just in Minnesota. The page I linked specificlly mentions some of their settlements in Minneapolis. For a culture that was around as many years as white settlers have been in the state I think more than a sentence should be used. -Ravedave 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-added "The Dakota were hunters and gatherers and soon found themselves in debt to fur traders. Pressed by a whooping cough outbreak, loss of buffalo, deer and bear, and loss of forests to logging, in 1851, the Mdewakanton sold the land west of the river and ceded the east side, allowing settlement in 1852." which was moved to History of Minneapolis, Minnesota on 10 March. A copy may be in two places now, but this is the part I know (and wrote, incidentally, based on the same Minneapolis Public Library citations you give). I think that we are fast approaching too much Dakota history in the necessarily very short History section in the Minneapolis article. -Susanlesch 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Wild and Thunder, I can only offer my opinion that their presence may answer questions (the Wild was a frequent addition to the page's table until the table moved to a template) and that they are doing no harm. One might want to know where the hockey team is in a northern city for example. Taking the question to an extreme would it mean that Humphrey Terminal could be mentioned but not Lindbergh Terminal (the main airport) because their address is in Saint Paul? -Susanlesch 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing no other replies to your comment, I looked at the U.S. cities that are featured articles and find no compelling reason to keep or remove the pro sports table -- some have them and some don't. -Susanlesch 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaffney High School[edit]

This page should be reviewed to be expanded. Admins say that the lists must also be put into prose writing. Someone help me because I cannot do it by myself. This is my hgih school so please help me do make it look good.--DvDknight 16:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestions
    • Merge the "Mission" and "Facts" sections into one section called "Overview"
    • Rename "Outstanding features/programs" to "School Programs," possibly transfer it from list form to a different, smaller, more descriptive form.
      • Renamed, but it still is a list. Rjgodoy 01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge "Awards/achievements" with "Academic achievements"
    • Merge "Extracurricular activities" with "School Programs"
    • Wikify "Business partners partnerships and sponsors," rename section to "Business Sponsors"
    • Rename "Other" to "See Also"
    • Add references.

— JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the article according to some of the suggestions stated above (I just moved sections/subsection, no actual content was modified). Rjgodoy 01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more suggestion - get rid of the long lists. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 20:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put {{cleanup-laundry}} template. It had been reverted before —no reason given— in revision as of 2007-03-31T16:13:52 [16]. I think it explicits the problem on the right place. Rjgodoy 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much, few things given too much importance which is not required like the long list on bdgets etc. --59.182.35.194 07:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Chalet[edit]

This article is about the Girl Guide and Girl Scout center in Adelboden, Switzerland. I'd simply like to make it better, hopefully to at least make GA.Rlevse 12:55, 31 March 2007

Maniots[edit]

The article is good since it contains well-edited content, as well as reliable sources. However, any other suggestions towards improving the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite nice, overall. A few minor issues, though:
  • First-level headings are not permitted in articles; all the headings need to be shifted down a level.
  • "Inline citations" can be simplified to "Citations"
  • Quotes should not be italicized (indeed, the article overuses italics in general), and longer ones should use blockquote formatting.
Beyond that, some stylistic copyediting would be helpful throughout. Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sakic[edit]

Since I failed the GA nomination a month back for reasons that I didn't see at first, I have done a lot of work cleaning up the Sakic page. However, I still think it's lacking some good, clear writing, and some information needs to be moved. I want the outside help of some users here to get the best possible result, so that this article can pass GA and possibly even FA nominations within a short time. I look forward for your input. Kaiser matias 23:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments below. Overall great start - excellent references so far. I can help out in a week or so, but right now I'm working on bringing a different hockey article up to GA or FA. :)
    • After reading once, I think it needs to be a lot more thorough to get to GA status. There are only a couple sentences about each of his seasons, and some seasons are completely skipped over. This is just a matter of looking up more sources and describing in prose what he did each season. Got some more basic information about his time in Quebec and parts of Colorado Wrote information about every season he has played
    • The article doesn't talk much about his leadership effect on the Avalanche, and I know he is considered one of the best "captains" and team leaders in the history of hockey. The article should have a sourced section on that. Yet to tackle that issue Have the first mention of him becoming a leader of the team
    • I'd like to see a separate heading for his involvement in national and Olympic teams. Completely overhauled that section
    • The info about his street and his nicknames doesn't really fit in the "Early life" heading. Changed title
    • The awards section should all be sourced, each item. Got most of them--Mus Musculus 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot of what you said, but after twelve hours and 25 edits to the article, I need to get some sleep. Any more input would be good to hear. Kaiser matias 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CloudNine[edit]

A few comments:

  • Personal life section really needs expansion and cleanup. It's a collection of one or two-line paragraphs. "Sakic is known for his prolific offensive skills and is considered by many to have the best wrist shot in the NHL" isn't even about his personal life. Fixed
  • Reference positioning needs sorting out. Inline citations are placed after punctuation, rather than before. Fixed all that
  • I'm not sure about this sentence: "During the 1986-87 WHL season, Sakic was part of one of the worst tragedies to ever happen in the CHL." It needs rephrasing - "part of a tragedy" sounds awkward. Reworded
  • With the awards section, you don't need to place a NHL cite after each award. Placing it on the first entry should indicate that all awards are cited to the NHL. Done
  • Records and achievements could be turned into prose; I'm not sure how other hockey articles handle it. Looks like other articles are the same way, so I'm leaving it

That should be all for now. CloudNine 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's definitely better. However, the personal life section still needs a little expansion or clarification; from the first to second paragraph, it seems to jump from him entering kindergarden to him being a fan favourite. 'Joe' should be 'Sakic'; for example, "His younger brother, Brian, who was a member of the Swift Current Broncos in Joe's final season" CloudNine 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to change it around a bit. It should be somewhat better now. Kaiser matias 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C.[edit]

Previous peer review can be found here

New peer review to take this article from a great state to a featured article status, as part of the article improvement drive for the Football Wikiproject. The Rambling Man 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its more or less ready for an FAC run. Occasional things from the previous peer review aren't completely ironed out, its worth going over the points that were raised there. A few minor additional things:

  • Calling the Liverpool Academy "highly commended" needs to be qualified in some way.
  • The paragraph which starts "In 1922 and 1923 Liverpool won their first back-to-back League titles" reads uneasily. The events mentioned could be linked up more smoothly, they seem shoehorned together.
  • The number of deaths at Hillsborough needs referencing, should be easy to find something to cite.

Oldelpaso 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've re-written that para to some extent, it may be able to be improved further, though. ArtVandelay13 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian explosion[edit]

After a previous peer review, I've now got a little bit of time on my hands, and am keen to prod this slowly towards featured article status. I'm going to fix the timeline soon (when I work out what's changed to break it!) and would welcome any other comments about the content and flow, in light of comments on the talk page.

Many thanks,

Verisimilus T 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJH[edit]

Nice work on an interesting topic. I have a few comments that I hope are of some use:

  • The table of contents is too long. Many of the sections are only a single paragraph in length.
  • Please use "&mdash;" rather than a dash to sub-divide sentences.
  • The use of "We" in "Duration of the process" is not encyclopedic. (See WP:MoS#Avoid_first-person_pronouns_and_one.)
  • There are a number of very short paragraphs consisting of a single sentence. Can these be merged or expanded? There are also a number of overly-long paragraphs that need to be split up for the sake of less taxing reading.
  • Several sections are lacking in citations. I look for on the order of one per paragraph for a well-documented FA. Anything expressing an opinion or something controversial probably needs a cite.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood[edit]

The article was previously reviewed, and has cleaned up considerably since then. Perhaps some insights on what remains to be done before nomination? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aiming for a GA of FA nomination in the near future? Which? Wrad 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA to begin with, and eventually FA. Why? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Nottingham[edit]

I would very much like to try and help with getting this article up to WP:FA quality. Any pointers greatly appreciated. Lan3y 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's some low hanging fruit here:
A bit more more work might be necessary for the following:
  • Go through Fawcett and Jackson (1998) and Tolley (2001) to provide inline refs for the History and Campus sections. At the moment, they're bulleted as refs, but look unused. I think if these are book-length works, they're both likely to be very relevant and quite reliable for expanding a lot of this article.
  • Image:Nottingham logo.gif needs a source, name of copyright holder (probably the University) and a detailed Fair Use rationale. The tag should be changed to {{Univ-logo}}, too.
  • Image:Nott logo.gif needs a detailed Fair Use rationale and re-copyright-tagging.
  • Perhaps create a navbox to tie together this article and its daughters? (Like Template:University College London, Template:Duke University) (Not sure about this. What do others think?)
I can't see any major problems with this article, just room for improvement. I've probably missed some basic stuff though. — mholland (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem is with the lack of referencing: much of the historical stuff is well cited, but the rest of it is a little bare - take for example the lead section paragraph on student numbers: there is no reference supplied, so I have no idea where they came from; and particularly because they are now a couple of years old nobody is likely to be able to check them against say, whatever's on the university's website. There are numerous instances of this which occur right throughout the article. There are also instances of editorial opinion creeping into the page e.g. "The University of Nottingham is a leading research and teaching university": what makes it leading, who says so? I know these are quite trivial points - the overall thrust of the article is good and all the information is there, it just needs to be tidied up a bit to turn it into a featured article. --John24601 11:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business rates[edit]

Having expanded the article up from a stub, I'd appreciate some guidance on where to go from here. As it's my first major piece of wikipedia work, I'd appreciate more experienced opinions. In particular, I'd like to know:

  • Is the article is reasonably clear to someone unfamiliar with the topic?
  • Does it go into the correct depth? (There are potentially reams of details that could be expanded on; does it hit the right note?)
  • Does the structure help, or is it a bit too sub-sectioned?
  • Explaining the billing side first, and the rating side second, is technically the wrong way round, but it's the way I usually explain the topic to people. Doing it the other way round seems to leave them bogged down in detail. Does it work in wikipedia?
  • Any manual of style elements I've missed.
  • The lead is undoubtedly weak; I've spent little time on it in the theory that fixing the body of the article will let the lead flow. All hints gratefully received.

All comments gratefully received - I'd rather a harsh comment on something I've missed than leaving it unfixed. Winklethorpe 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several sections have multiple one sentence paragraphs. Consider forming these into more complete paragraphs. The lead displays this. Morphh (talk) 3:33, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In this phrase "property could have been let for on a particular valuation", I'm not familar with the meaning of the word "let" as used here. Morphh (talk) 0:14, 06 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "An evolving systems of rates" seems like it should say "Evolving systems of rates" or "An evolving system of rates". Morphh (talk) 0:16, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 3:10, 05 May 2007 (UTC) 03:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tool (band)[edit]

After a first peer review, then passing the GA process, many good changes regarding broadness, style, etc. we are aiming at FA candidacy and inclusion on the next offline release version. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance, Johnnyw talk 11:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice: I will be on vacation from July 4th to July 13th and probably unable to respond during that time. Johnnyw talk 15:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive article, congratulations. Two things, however: 1) You will not need to submit for inclusion in the offline version, as inclusion of FAs is automatic. Or you might submit right now to get it done during the FAC process. 2) You will probably need a few print sources to go through FAC. Some people there seem to think that the net will crash in a few days, and that the only things we will be left with are silex stones and print sources. So any print magazine is good, any book with an ISBN is great. Here are a few:

Anyway, you get the idea. Enjoy!--SidiLemine 11:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! For the nice words, the info about the offline version and your suggestions. My thoughts:
  • Most sources currently used are print magazines — luckily there's an active Tool community transcribing and scanning these. But I'll guess I'll have to find some more of their ISBN# and use the right template to include that info. Since we only used inline citations and there is no comprehensive Tool bio (the closest thing right now is the WP article :), a reference section listing some "offline" articles seems to be useless. Following your suggestion I gathered what I could from Google books and included 3-4 new (traditional offline) sources.
  • The genres mentioned in the article are thoroughly sourced. Still, due to editorial reasons, some sources are placed in the beginning of the article, some in the bio, and some in the subsection about the genre allusions, all depending on the context. At times, this invites people to change the genres mentioned in the infobox at will. Would it be wise to gather the barrage of genre citations at the very beginning of the article, in the infobox and then depending on context as they are now?
  • I created a further reading section that at this point also lists a (quite unique) online source. Listing this under EL would complicate things a bit, I guess. What do you think about the "further reading" bit?
Well, all this considered, I'll go for some more ISBN'd sources and then off to FAC! Johnnyw talk 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's deserved every bit. Now about what you write:
    • I had a look at that Tool website of yours... That's pretty impressive. I wish there was such an active community about some other subjects, too. But it raises a question. Isn't that blatant copyright violation? I'm not sure at all, but if it is, you cannot point to it from here. Still, it shouldn't bother you, as you have all the right sources and can give the links in private if asked during FAC. To cite newspapers and books, I recommend Template:cite news, and Template: cite book. Template: cite web is also good as it provides the retrieval date, etc. For the mags, be sure to give the ISSN.
    • About the genre, people generally don't put refs in the infobox, althought nothing is against it. My opinion is that you should only link in the body of the article, and keep an eye on that infobox to correct any "wild" changes. If you get in a dispute, then the references will come in handy. About these refs, you shouldn't have any in the lead (WP:LEAD). The lead is supposed to sum up the article, which is already sourced in its body. So you can't have any refs in there.
    • I'm all in favour of the Further Reading section. This is sure to impress the FAC people, althought I'm not sure what is the recommended order for FR/refs/EL. I'll have a look.
Well, the only criticism i feel you might get (apart from the eternal 1a, "excellent prose", that is a permanent bug for everyone) is that you may have too much references. The article is 80kb, and that's a bit long. Remember thought, that none of these two is an actual failing criterion, so don't let them give you any trouble.
Good luck at FAC!
Sad as it may be, you are probably right about not-linking to the transcripts. Will try to find the issn wherever possible and insert them; also will rm the direct link.
And regarding the sources about the genre and in the lead: I can't find the passage that says that Leads should be w/o their own sources. The only thing that is said is "It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate. "Which probably translates to "you don't need to source what has already been sourced in the body". Will take a closer look and probably move some of the sources to the body where appropriate.
All in all: another quick thank you and off I go to work! Johnnyw talk 10:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there is nothing precisely against sources in the lead, and most FAs have one or two. But as you said, most of the material in the lead should be present in the article, and this is where the sources should be. --SidiLemine 11:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flocabulary[edit]

A relatively new article that was recently mentioned in the DYK column. I'm hoping that I can get this to GA status, but first I want to see what improvements/expansions need to be made. Thanks, --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derry City F.C.[edit]

I'm hoping to raise the status of this article to 'featured article' status and have noted that having the article peer-reviewed before trying to attain such status seems to be the preferred route to take, so help, contributions or comments on how that may be achieved would be very much appreciated. I have spent some time including information I view to be important to the development of the article, as well as referencing as much of the article to electronic sources as I can. Meanwhile, I have also been maintaining it in order to keep it up-to-date. Having looked at the criteria set down for 'featured article' status, I feel the article comes quite close to passing but would like to know are there any furter developments required, and if so, what might they be? Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 01:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IvoShandor[edit]

A few notes:

  • Make sure the lead conforms with all standards and guidelines at WP:LEDE.
  • The history section is an incredibly daunting mass of text. Consider condensing it significantly into more of a summary of the club's history, leave the more detailed information to the main article.
  • That seems like an awful lot of footer templates.
  • Your references will need to be properly formatted, see WP:CITE, WP:CITET (even if you opt not to use the templates they will give you a good idea of what info to include in your citations.
  • A better diversity of sources surely wouldn't hurt your FA chances.
  • See WP:TRIV, Trivia section should go.
  • The address and contact information is unencyclopedic, it should go as well.
  • All of the lists and tables sections are overkill, IMO, they can be merged/changed appropriately and the main articles be referenced. It is far too detailed for an article about the team.
  • The Supporters section looks mostly like original research, see WP:OR, either find citations or trim the fat.
  • You're not going to want to have any external links in the body of the text.

That's all I have for now and apt to keep you busy for a minute anyhow. I would suggest considering my suggestion as FAC is a tough place, to the benefit of the project, of course. IvoShandor 10:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso[edit]

  • As the merge tag currently topping it would suggest, some of the material in the stadium section should be moved to Brandywell Stadium. The section should provide a brief overview, see Wikipedia:Summary style.
  • Remove the Other non-playing staff section. The likes of the Logistics Manager and kit man are excessive detail.
  • The colours and crest section describes a change of colours, but does not say what the original colours were.
  • What was the crest before 1997? The speculation about reason for the change of crest is original research and should be removed.
  • Plans of Derry's to purchase a pitch ran aground using "ran aground" makes it sound as though seafaring was involved.
  • Agree with IvoShandor's comment about the supporters section, citations are needed for the claims made.
  • City Cup links to an Australian rugby league competition.
  • A few run-on sentences need breaking up e.g. Steaua Bucureşti beat Derry 5-1 on aggregate in the club's first ever European outing in the Cup Winners Cup the following year but the club made up for it by winning the 1964-65 Irish League season and going on to become the first Irish League team to win a European tie over two legs by beating FK Lyn when, after losing 5-3 in Oslo, they won 8-6 on aggregate during the subsequent season.
  • The anecdote about Carlos Puyol is not supported by the reference.
  • Days later, on 12 December 2006, it was announced that Derry City had not only been accepted into the new-look FAI Premiership for the 2007 season, but had scored the highest number of points between those teams accepted - 830 - for on-field and off-field criteria determined by the FAI's Independent Assessment Group. It is unclear what this means, or what the significance is. I assume membership of the FAI Premiership is dependent on a point score determined by the FAI, but that is from reading between the lines.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 13:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man[edit]

Hey, first off, well done on a huge and detailed article. So, previous comments notwithstanding, my opinions on getting the article to featured status:

  • WP:LEAD needs to be taken into account, two or maybe three paragraphs - see Arsenal F.C. for some tips on FA-style leads.
  • "...reasons associated with..." isn't particularly encyclopaedic. Precisely why?
  • Avoid overwikilinking - Northern Ireland is linked twice in the same paragraph in the lead.
  • My usual comment on recentism - the history section has five short paragraphs to get to the mid-80s and then seven mid to long paragraphs to get to today. Aim to even this out.
  • Heed WP:DASH for your seasons, i.e. 1994–95 rather than 1994-95.
  • Cite, cite, cite. For each claim of a win, draw, loss etc, I'd expect to see a citation, using the {{Cite web}} or {{Cite book}} templates.
  • Not keen on the list of years Derry won the league cup, I'd summarise it as the Honours section will go into this sort of detail.
  • "...financial nightmare...", "...final nail in the coffin...", "...fill the void..." etc. distinctly unencyclopaedic, perhaps neutralise.
  • Zero citations in the Colours & Crest section plus some WP:OR with the "...it is likely that the club simply wished to develop a fresh, contemporary image with a minimalist design...".
  • Do something about the merge notice, one way or the other. I'd prefer to see a section here about the Stadium with a main article wikilinked to.
  • Stadium section has too much in it, the recent developments should be summarised with the majority of detail in the sub-page. Plus, lots of citations would be required as well.
  • Supporters section has considerable original research. If you state something here as fact, or even opinion, you'd need a reliable source to cite it.
  • Images - I'd make them a shade smaller, especially the supporters one as it clashes with the blockquote you have.

Anyway, that's my opinion, nothing more! Good luck with getting the article up to FA. If you'd like any help or more discussion, just drop me a line. All the best The Rambling Man 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks all for the advice. I'll work on the suggestions whenever I get the time and then we'll see about where to take it from there. Cheers. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done quite a bit of work on this and think I have adequately cited most of the information. Maybe some more is required? I also realise I may still have to amend the format of the references.
I have read over the history section a few times and I feel that most of what is included there is vital in giving a proper overview of a club which has had a very long and complicated history - a history not just relating to matters on the field, but a socio-cultural and political one that developed off the field and extends beyond the realm of pure football. Would splitting the section into sub-sections be a good idea? If it really needs to be cut down dramatically, I suppose I'll have to find some way of doing it.
Anyhow, the stadium section has been cut down in wording, while I have developed the colours and crests sections. I have also amended all season dashes in the article. Most of the other smaller matters have been dealt with, I think. Also, I've removed some of the footer templates, the trivia section, the contact information and the section for back-room staff. Just another thing: the sub-articles are full of further information on the club; is there any content within those articles that might be essential to the club article? Are there any other major points to address? Cheers. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 05:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of referencing and structure, everything looks sound. The remaining issues are prose related. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for some useful advice in this regard. Using the Colours section as an example:
  • Specifically, the colour-change should be attributed to Billy Gillespie - it either is attributed to him or it isn't. It seems slightly off-topic to describe his Sheffield United career in so much detail later in the paragraph.
  • The amber and black scheme was not as successful for Derry City as it had been for Wolverhampton Wanderers and a re-introduction of the "candystripes" for the 1962–63 season saw the fortunes of the club improve as Derry entered their most successful spell in the Irish League. - Makes it sound as though the change in colours was directly responsible for the successful period.
  • Jerseys over the years, although in keeping with the red and white tradition, have varied slightly in the sense that certain seasons saw Derry wear thinner stripes while others saw thicker or stripes with varying thicknesses being worn by the players on the field. - a somewhat verbose way of saying "The thickness of the stripes sometimes varies".
  • Derry now wear white socks when sporting their full home rig - is rig a regional term? I've never heard it used to describe football kit before. Oldelpaso 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the use of the term 'rig'. According to Dictionary.com it can mean 'gear' or 'outfit' and is associated with the phrase 'to rig out/up' - meaning to get set up (i.e. put the kit on). I thought it was commonly used, but I'll change that anyway, and work on the other advice. Some commentators and psychologists have alleged that teams wearing red are generally more successful than others. ;) Still, I see your point. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manos: The Hands of Fate[edit]

Recently went back to work on an article I helped get to GA a few months ago. I'm thinking it might be possible FA material soon, and want to know how much more work it will need. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kath & Kim[edit]

This article has had major additions in the past few weeks and has attracted more attention from the Wikipedia community due to the announcement of a new season and a new channel in which the show is to be screnned. I know that references is one of the key points that needs to be improved and maybe some episode tables with pictures. Basicly I am asking for pointers for how to make this article a Good Article. Because this article is apart of WikiProject Australian Television, there is editors with an interest in the article to improve it. Thanks. --Lakeyboy 07:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article - each big section in the article should be represented in a sentence or paragraph in the lead. "with Kim frequently occupying the house due to her rocky relationship with Brett (all of which is of Kim's own doing due to Kim's own snobbish and childish behaviour towards Brett as well as punishing Brett for perceived wrongs by leaving him to stay at Kath's place or giving Brett the cold shoulder)," this sounds too colloquial and possibly POV. If you want to get GA, you'll need more references, especially in the section that "sounds like a review". -Malkinann 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could also make a "Reception" section where you talk about reviews, ratings, and how Kath & Kim has seeped into the real world. All of this would have to be clearly cited, mind you. -Malkinann 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article introduction has now been re-written and I just want to get an update on if it better fits the GA requirements for an introduction. Does it meet the requirements or what else needs to be included to / excluded from the introduction. Thanks. --Lakeyboy 04:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit running-on in places, and I'm not sure if Fountain Gate needs to be there. In the whole article, you need to italicise instances of the series name, and decide whether the name's Kath and Kim or Kath & Kim. In the Cast section, I'd honestly suggest that you spin it off into a List of Kath & Kim characters, and have only Kath, Kim, Sharon, Kel, Brett and Epps on the main page. You could replace the big list of celebs with "Many Australian celebrities and comedians have had bit parts on Kath and Kim. (See List of Kath & Kim characters)". -Malkinann 06:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slappy Squirrel[edit]

I'm hoping to have this article placed as a featured article on Wikipedia, but due to the regulations of the Wikimedia Foundation, it must undergo a peer review before being taken for consideration.

As such, I am hoping for feedback from any members who have viewed this page and would like to comment on it's layout, content etc. Whether it is positive or negative feedback is your own opinion, but I would like to see everybody's opinions of this article.

Crablogger 05:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, have you read the requirements for a featured article? Just for a start, this has no (zero) inline citations and no References section. Trivia sections are frowned on in general, but especially for featured articles. The list of episodes is also against style recs (put it into prose or make a table of it). It is not a bad article, just nowhere near featured status yet. Sorry, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian pyramids[edit]

The article is very stable, and the editor who created it is hoping that one day it will be fit for featured article consideration. Ronz 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The critisism in several journals and that the belive is not shared from most not to say all archaeologists should be mentioned in the intro. Controversial is a word which is nearly too weak to point out what this pyramides are about. Kampschror, Beth. (2006). "Pyramid Scheme". Archaeology. 59 (4): 22–28. “a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public [which] has no place in the world of genuine science.” in Bohannon John (2006). "Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace". Science. 314 (5807): 1862. doi:10.1126/science.314.5807.1862a. and Bohannon John (2006). "Mad About Pyramids". Science. 313 (5794): 1718–1720. doi:10.1126/science.313.5794.1718. and Schoch Robert M. (2006). "The Dangers of Pyramid-Mania". Science. 314 (5801): 925. doi:10.1126/science.314.5801.925b.. The point is also that no science journal ever printed apaper about this. The papers above do not bother to do scientific work on Lemuria and Atlantis. The Science papers and the Acheology paper should go into the article!--Stone
Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Can you clarify please? Are you saying that more should be mentioned about the criticism in the lead section, and that we should add more references to support it. Further, that the criticism is a majority viewpoint of archaeologists?
You probably didn't notice, but on the talk page there is a list of further references. All the ones you mention are included other than Schoch's letter. --Ronz 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still too optimistic about the pyramides, although at the very end it stats the article to be in tha category pseudoscience. The references are from "good" journals and they are all against the postulations of Osmanagić. They would give better credibility to the criticism and should go into the article and not on the talk page. The fact that Science publishes several articles about it makes it more important additionally. The criticism is a majority viewpoint of archaeologists! Some of the archaeologists acuse Osmanagić that he used their names as team members without permission.--16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I agree. The article gives too much weight to Osmanagic and his foundation, which may have been appropriate when there were few sources other than the foundation, but now that we have many reliable sources to draw from and the foundation has shown itself to be unreliable, much should be rewritten with the proper weight. --Ronz 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will.i.am[edit]

Great article so far! It was fascinating, and for the most part very well put together. Here's just a few nitpicks that you can take or leave:

  • The section "Osmanagić's interpretation" feels just slightly out of order (it goes from something Osmanagić said, to "but", to "nevertheless", and then to "however"). Perhaps these sentences could be ordered chronologically to help the reader follow it?
  • The last quotation in that section is quite long, and I don't really feel it's necessary (or at least not the whole thing. You can just say they're report said they found human bones, [ref] but later said they found none. Again, chronologically this might fit together more easily.
  • In the "Other interpretations" section the article has more long quotes but doesn't set them off like in the previous section. Pick one style that you like.
  • Some of the references have a space between their punctuation and the number (e.g., "blah. [14]" The space should be deleted.
  • Geological team: "Geological" does not need to be capitalized (it is in a few locations).
  • egsodynamical: I've never seen this word and can't figure out what it means from google or my dictionary. I think it may supposed to say "exodynamical".
  • there are dozens of like morphological formations: How about "similar" instead of "like".
  • "[19]" could be moved after the comma so as not to break up the sentence. "[20]" has two periods around it. "[24]" is on the wrong side of the period. "[25]" needs a period for the sentence. "[26]" and "[27]" should go after the punctuation.
  • In a preliminary report he concluded : In this sentence "He" is a little ambiguous until we get the end of the sentence. It's probably better just to say "Schoch concluded...".

A few more general notes:

  • I'm going to somewhat agree with Stone above. I might give the controversy its own paragraph in the lead and beef it up to emphasize the fact that there is a large consensus that they're just natural features. That paragraph could include some of the major criticisms, as well as the current statement about the international team of archaeologists denying they had been to the site.
  • Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation: This was never really introduced. I assume that Osmanagić started the foundation, but is he the sole funder? Also, since it's such a long name you may consider abbreviating it after its first mention in the text (e.g., just call it the "Archaeological Park" or "BPSF").

Good luck!--Will.i.am 09:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great feedback! This should keep us busy for a while. --Ronz 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IND Eighth Avenue Line[edit]

I would like some comments on what I could improve here. I know that there is one unsourced sentence that I should either find a source for or remove, and it should have a map, but, other than that, what could be added or changed? Thank you. --NE2 13:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I, for one, like the changes. I hope we can get all of the other line, service and car pages like this one. Great work!!! --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk carrier[edit]

This article is largely a translation of the French FA fr:Vraquier. After translating it, Korrigan and I got some great feedback which I think we've addressed, adding 100+ footnotes, turning a number of lists into prose, and so forth. I think its time for some more feedback. Also, this is my first attempted foray above B-class, so any advice on the procedure would be appreciated. HausTalk 18:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's very good, but why is Panamax illustrated with a Handymax ship? There's plenty of images of Panamaxes on Commons. Laïka 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback! You may be right, but let's see if the reasoning makes sense: it's a Handymax going through the Panama Canal. The thinking was that it illustrates the Panama Canal size constraints very clearly. Now if we had a Panamax bulker going through the Canal, that'd be the perfect picture, but we can't seem to put our hands on one. In any case, if the reasoning seems shaky, I'll happily replace the picture. Cheers. HausTalk 19:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This image appears to show a Panamax passing through a lock fairly clearly, but I understand your reasoning. Other than that, the article looks pretty good, but something about the "A typical bulker offload" section doesn't quite sit right; I think it may look better if the process were simply described with prose and then illustrated just by the clearest couple of images (say, Image:Velox cargo ship unloading rapeseed.jpg and Image:Grab unloaded into hopper.jpg). Laïka 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd guess that you're right -- the ship does appear to be Panamax size, but it's a Roll-on/roll-off, not a bulk carrier. There's a big ramp structure on the stern that flips down, allowing vehicular cargo to be driven on and off the ship. On the second item, I think you're absolutely right. I'll try to streamline the offload section tomorrow. Thanks again! HausTalk 00:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Museum[edit]

I'm yet to find a Museum article on wikipedia that has acheived FA status, which is unfortunate considering they represent a repository of learning likened to Wikipedia itself, in their respective genres.

I've worked extensively to expand the British Museum article since December, as it was a shambles beforehand. I would like feedback from the wider community on what works, what doesn't, where can I improve, where are the weaknesses, comments about accuracy, depth, WP:MOS observations, prose, etc, and any suggestions that anyone has would be greatly appreciated.

All comments appreciated!

Cheers --ImperialCollegeGrad 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to use couple of non-standard bits of layout; notably, starting every paragraph with a colon, which makes article feel more cluttered, especially at lower res. Secondly, I think there are probably a few too many photos, and I think the templates such as {{Prints and Drawings}} would be better at the bottom of the article. Also, I'm not too sure about the copyright status of some of the images: Image:2.Upper Floors (Rooms 36-73, 90-94).JPG for example has been copied from the British Museum website, but the template attached to the article is not valid for this particular case; the image is not +70 years old, and maps fail criterion 1 of the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. Laïka 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ham[edit]

Some points:

  • 75 KB is very long – I think the creation of some breakaway articles may be in order. The Departments of Egypt and Sudan, the Near East and Greece and Rome all have enough content devoted to them to merit their own pages – simply cut and paste from what's already here and compress the info into one or two paragraphs for the main article, as was done with the Dept. of Asia (probably easier said than done). Most of the image galleries currently taking up space on the main article could then be moved to those pages.
  • The history section is, in my opinion, at the right level of concision as it is. The title of each subsection needs to be changed in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), however. ('Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest [in] lower case'. So The largest building site in Europe (1825-50), not The Largest Building Site In Europe... Incidentally, that section title sounds like a quote – do you have a citation for it?)
  • One-paragraph sections tend to be frowned upon, so the sections on the Dept. of Coins and Metals through to Libraries and Archives may need to be lengthened. At least one footnote for each of those sections would also be a good thing.
  • Regarding the Museums with major collections of X antiquities templates: one of these has 10 items, another 12, and a third only 5. Perhaps we should standardise them so that each is a top ten?
  • According to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, the contents of such sections 'are better presented within the context of the text' than in a dedicated trivia section. This is easily done: the Secretum has an article, so simply drop a link into the Department of Prehistory and Europe section, and the Haytor Granite Tramway info could go either in the main body of the Building section or in a footnote.
  • Footnote e states that 'understanding of the foundation of the National Gallery is complicated by the fact that there is no documented history of the institution'. If by 'documented history' you mean a general study of the Gallery's history, may I direct you to The Nation's Mantlepiece: A History of the National Gallery by Jonathan Conlin (London, 2006)?
  • It would be better to conflate footnote 45 (a footnote of a footnote) into b.
  • To which book do footnotes 46 and 47 refer? There's no book by Bernard Ashmole in the bibliography.

Good work on this page so far; keep it up! Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ham 08:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Assault Weapons Ban[edit]

The entire article is badly in need of a recent peer review.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.41.28 (talk • contribs)

User:IvoShandor[edit]

  • Speaking of badly in need of, besides a signature, inline citations, this article definitely needs lots and lots of them.
  • In general the article is too listy, the lists in the body of the text should be converted to prose for a smoother read.
  • Debold the link to the main legislation in the lead.
  • Make sure the lead conforms to all guidelines at WP:LEAD.
  • Combine and merge one sentence or short paragraphs, or else delete them, whatever is appropriate.
  • This article should be jargon free, see Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions, an example of a jargon filled sentence follows, the bolded terms would probably not be recognized by anyone unfamiliar with the subject matter.
  • For example, the AB-10 was a post-ban version of the TEC-9, with the barrel threading, and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading, or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were also sold without folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol-grips.
  • Needs expansion or merged: Section: "Assault weapons ban in other State's politics"
  • A lot of weasel words: most studies, bad.
  • Lots of POV hiding around here, a more thorough read through would be required but here is an example:
  • The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was only a small part .

An important article but it needs a lot of work. IvoShandor 11:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naseem Ashraf[edit]

I saw that Naseem Ashraf was a most wanted article on the Wikipedia Project Cricket so I created this a couple of days ago, I think its a decent start so I'd like to get a peer review. -- Zainub 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Overall, the article is informative and well cited, a few modifications would really help this article though.

General observations:

  • Academic titles (e.g. Dr.) should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name (also in current form "Dr." leads to a disambiguation page).
  • Dates of birth and death, if known and Nationality should be stated in the first sentence.
  • Manual of Style (headings) states that you should "capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations"."
  • When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space. The same is true for successive ref tags, no space between the refs. See: WP:FOOT
  • I might be helpful to the comprehension of the reader to replace some instances of "he" with "Ashraf".
  • In general, when describing incidents, keep in mind that some people who read this might have no understanding or knowledge of Cricket, let alone Cricket in Pakistan.

More specific observations:

  • "Previously served as an adviser on human development to the President Pervez Musharraf, who is also the board's Patron-in-Chief." - Is Musharraf the Patron-in-Chief? This sentence is ambiguous.
  • Minister of State?-This term should be linked.
  • Link to anabolic steroid not steroid, totally different.
  • "...to protect the players from further bans in the ICC-governed event where they could have been target tested again" - "target tested"? what does this mean?
  • "But his resignation was subsequently rejected[43] by President Pervez Musharraf who was asked him to "continue his duty to rebuild the Pakistan cricket team on modern and professional lines"." Since the quote is from the cited article, the citation should follow the quote.
  • It seems like more information could be added about his career in public health.

Great start, good luck!!--DO11.10 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter[edit]

There's been some fairly significant changes, and now that it's well into it's mission, I'd like to try and do a FA push again. So, here's the nomination again for a peer review Tuvas 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 30 is no longer working! The other footnotes are nearly all from webpages, a view references from peer reviewed journals are no harm. They are available not so easy but for a longer time. --Stone 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, removed the link as it's redundant anyways. There aren't a whole lot of peer-reviewed journals at the time on MRO, but I'll dig up what I can. Tuvas 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ACTA ASTRONAUTICA 57 (2-8): 566-578 JUL-OCT 2005
  • PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE 52 (1-3): 157-166 JAN-MAR 2004
  • SAMPE JOURNAL 40 (5): 22-29 SEP-OCT 2004
  • SPIE, Volume 5167, pp. 63-71 (2004)
  • (MARCI on Mars Climate Orbiter) JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS 106 (E8): 17651-17672 AUG 25 2001
  • SAMPE JOURNAL 40 (5): 22-29 SEP-OCT 2004
Should help.--Stone 07:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophocles[edit]

A well-written article. Any recommendations towards improving it further? Deucalionite 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek military junta of 1967-1974[edit]

The article contains good content, sources, and pictures. Yet, the article deserves to be peer-reviewed in order to further enhance its overall quality. Any suggestions? Deucalionite 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrisi Avgi[edit]

Currently, the article contains good content, sources, and pictures. Recommendations towards improving the article further would be more than appreciated. Deucalionite 16:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire[edit]

The article is stable, contains good information, but requires more sources in order to further validate its content. Any suggestions towards improving the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few quick observations:

  • My understanding is that there shouldn't be any referencing in the lead, as the lead should be summarising the information contained within the article. There shouldn't be any info in the lead that hasn't been introduced (and referenced) within the body of the article.
  • There are large sections of the article without any referencing.
  • Make sure all the references are consistent in format - WP:CITET might be helpful.
  • The article is very long. Perhaps History of the Ottoman Empire deserves its own article?
  • In fact, some of the sections of this article are more detailed than the main articles they're summarising - like Decline of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe some of the information on that can be shifted across to the main article?
  • There are some very useful suggestions in the automated peer review, here. It also might be useful to look at the reasons why the article was delisted, here.

-Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Macedonian War[edit]

The article is superb content-wise and in terms of sources. However, I would greatly appreciate any input towards improving the article further. Deucalionite 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Council of Nicaea[edit]

The article is good, but any recommendations towards augmenting its quality would be appreciated. Deucalionite 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine-Arab Wars[edit]

The article is good, but any suggestions towards improving it further would be helpful. Deucalionite 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lechaeum[edit]

Any suggestions towards enhancing the quality of the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minoan civilization[edit]

Article needs in-line citations on all sections. Moreover, the article needs references for the section entitled "Other." Further refining of the text and any other improvements to the article are recommended. Deucalionite 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perseus[edit]

Article needs more in-line citations on all sections. Sections such as "The Perseids" and "Other connections" need more citations. Moreover, a few more references would be helpful in expanding the overall content of the article. Other suggestions towards improving the article are recommended. Deucalionite 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Marathon[edit]

Currently, the article is good in terms of content and citations. However, any other refinements to the article are welcome. Deucalionite 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by cla68[edit]

  • Very subjective words like "wondrous," and "tyrant," should be in quotations.
  • The prose is a little choppy, for example, the use of colons, semi-colons, and hyphens. These should be used sparingly.
  • Try not to have one sentence paragraphs.
  • Put an inline citation at the end of every paragraph so that there's no "dangling," uncited text.
  • Background, third paragraph: I'm not really sure who "they" refers to.
  • I don't think you necessarily have to mention what each historian said in the text all the time, if you specify the source historian in the footnote. For example, "According to Herodotus, the fleet sent by Darius consisted of 600 triremes,[12] whereas, according to Cornelius Nepos, there were only 500." I would say, "Darius sent a fleet of 500-600 triremes." Then, in the footnote I would say, "Herodotus specifies 600 and Cornelius Nepos 500 triremes." This way the narrative flows without the reader being distracted by which historian said what. If you do this the "Size of opposing forces" section can be greatly reduced or even incorporated into the "background" or "campaign" section. Or you could rename it as a "Prelude" section which is what I do for that type of section in the battle articles I edit. With all the "this historian said this, but this other historian says this," the story becomes a little difficult to follow.
  • Since it's the English Wikipedia, I'd probably put the quote only in English in the text and put the original Greek or other language in the footnote.

All in all I think the article contains excellent information, is well laid-out, has excellent images to support the text, and is definitely deserving of its current, A-class status. Nice work. Cla68 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747[edit]

Hi everyone,

I would like to have some feedback on the neutrality of this document. I see we are at an important moment in the nuclear programme of Iran dossier at the UN, and possibly in international affairs. I was not able to find any document (including a UN document) that would summarize the whole position of each country, so I decided to contribute to this document as much as I could and given my knowledge on this important subject, with the hope not to miss anything material from any sides. I would like to have also some feedback regarding the facts themselves (did i miss something so far?). Finally, please note this document is about the UN resolution, not about the "War on terror" or related dossiers. Thank you.

Best,

SSZ 00:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality wise it looks like a very good effort to me. Well done so far.-- Zleitzen(talk) 06:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your feedback and for your time Zleitzen.SSZ 05:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the instructions at [{WP:PR]]; articles should not be at peer review and at WP:FAC at the same time. Please close and archive the peer review. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Trinity College[edit]

Any helpful direction would be welcomed. Specifically:
Improvements to prose?
Suggestions on layout? --Sycron 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed.--Sycron 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sadhu (comics)[edit]

Well, I've extensively edited the article and developed it. I've followed generally all the guidelines indicated. Moreover, I have recently got in touch with the comic book's writer so I may actually get firsthand information (from his blog soon) that will further enhance the article. Please check and edit and develop, if necessary. I think it should be a featured article as it exemplifies a new stage and a whole new level in Indian comics. I guess only the themes section needs brushing up as it does not have references but I think the analysis is apt and is NOT original research. I'm merely reinstating what is mentioned in the comic books. Also, there's relatively no coverage on the net as of yet.Zuracech lordum 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try to find out a infobox and lot of more references needed that is the first impression, i will later point out the defects later. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numa Numa[edit]

Considering this is probably the biggest internet phenomenon there has ever been this is a pretty shocking article. I think we can get it to Ga standard at least. Buc 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review By Karanacs[edit]

  • You definitely have some citation issues here:
    • need to verify the article so that you can ensure that all of the citations are being used properly (and then remove the cleanup tag).
    • Citations should be listed at the end of sentences containing direct quotations, so that you know where the quote was taken from.
    • Need citations in the parodies sections
    • Make your citation format consistent -- preferably with all footnotes -- instead of the dual methods that are being used now.
    • Please use the proper citation format, including the name of the author, publisher name, and publication date.
  • Remove any red internal links
  • The lead is not very informative; I had to read the article to actually understand what you meant. How about something more like:

Numa Numa (or "the Numa Numa Dance") is an Internet phenomenon in which amateurs create their own music videos singing the song "Dragostea din tei" by Moldovan pop band O-Zone. The phrase "Numa Numa" comes from the chorus of the song, "nu mă, nu mă iei," meaning, roughly, "don't want don't want to take me."

The original, and most famous, version was created and posted by Gary Brolsma. His video was ranked 28th in the 100 Greatest Funny Moments, broadcast by Channel 4 in the UK.

  • when you say "brought the Numa Numa phenomenon to the US" do you mean that it was already a phenomenon somewhere else? If so, where and what is the history? If not, change the wording.
  • I would start the main article with a little bit of background about the song. When and where was it originally recorded? Where has it been released or used? How would people have heard of it before this phenomena? What is the song primarily about and is there anything interesting about the lyrics? How long is it, and in what language was it sung?
  • What about Brolsma's video was so exciting? Can you find and cite a description of what he did in the video?
  • "viral video" is jargon -- can you explain what it is or link to a page which explains the term?
  • Explain more about the New Numa Contest. Who is hosting/sponsoring the contest? How are the winners chosen? Have many people entered? If so, how do their entries differ from Brolsma's?
  • Since you have an external links section, do not include external links in the main body of the article.
  • The parodies section reads more like a compressed list. Provide details (and sources) for a few of the most notable parodies, and trim the total list. How do these parodies differ from the entries in the New Numa contest (or is there a difference at all)?

In general, the article needs to be rewritten using the assumption that people reading it have never heard of it before. If you can provide more explanation and details, the article won't seem quite as rushed, and will read a lot better. Good luck! Karanacs 15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable energy in Scotland[edit]

This became a Good Article in February and I am considering proposing it for Featured status. Constructive comments of all kinds welcome. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch[edit]

I have read the article and find it to be generally well written and well referenced, impressively so in most places. I have a few relatively minor suggestions for improvement.

1) The first picture should be moved up so that it is in the top right corner, per WP:MOS.

2) The lead paragraphs are supposed to be a summary of the article that follows. This means that they do not contain anything that is not in the rest of the article, and that every header or subheader is at least mentioned somehow in the lead paragraphs. While the lead does a fairly good job of this now, there are some exceptions. For example, Peak oil is mentioned only in the lead and not in the article body. In the article itself, Biofuels and Micro systems are headers but are not explicitly mentioned in the lead paragraphs (at least by those names).

3) It might be useful to explain the difference between watts (usually as Gigawatts) and watt-hours (as Terawatt-hours) to make comparisons between them clearer. There are a few places where the numbers being compared can get confusing. As an example of both issues, consider:

In January 2006 the total installed electrical generating capacity from all forms of renewable energy was less than 2 GW, about a fifth of the total electrical production.[4] By January 2007 wind power capacity, which has been growing rapidly, reached 1 GW capacity, and the total for renewables had grown to to over 2.3 GW[8] representing about 13% of total output in 2006.[9][10] It should be borne in mind that electricity production is only part of the overall energy use budget. In 2002, Scotland consumed a total of 175 TWh of energy in all forms, some 2% less than 1990.

I read this and think less than 2 GW equals a fifth or 20%, so total electrical generating capacity must be less than 10 GW (5 x 2) in January 2006. In the next sentence it is a year later, January 2007, and the total for renewables is now over 2.3 GW, but this is now only 13% of total output? How does output compare to capacity? My amount has grown from under 2 to over 2.3 GW, but my percentage has declined from 20% (a fifth) to 13%? Or am I comparing apples and oranges (and if so, can this be made clearer?). To add to the potential confusion, the next sentence introduces terawatt-hours and switches from capacity / output to consumption. Could total electricity consumption in TWh be given for comparison? Could total capacity / output be given? I realize that sometimes you have to compare data from different sources and apples and oranges and kumquats are the result, but if this can be clarified, that would be helpful.

4) I think the organization is generally good, but wonder if "Other renewable options" is worth a header of its own as one sentence. At WP:FAC they may also want some condensation of headers and subheaders (the TOC is long, but seems generally OK to me).

5) The table has some blank cells - are these zero or not available or what? Can you make it clearer what the blanks represent?

6) Could {{main}} or {{see}} be used for some of the energy sources? (i.e. add them to the top of the section to get "Main article: Wave power" or "Further information: wave power").

I hope this helps and please let me know if I can be of further assistance (and when it is at FAC). Ask if there are questions or my comments are unclear. Ruhrfisch 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - after I left the above comments, I saw the note you left on the article's talk page. Sounds as if apples and oranges are all that there are in many cases. You might then want to be more specific in your cites (According to A it is 4 GW, while B says it is 8 GW...) or even cite ranges (It is estimated to range from 4 to 8 GW (with notes to A and B)). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

1) The first picture should be moved. Done.

2) The lead paragraphs are supposed to be a summary of the article that follows. Done.

3) It might be useful to explain the difference between watts (usually as Gigawatts) and watt-hours (as Terawatt-hours) to make comparisons between them clearer.

I have added a footnote to explain the GW/TWh difference.

I read this and think less than 2 GW equals a fifth or 20%, so total electrical generating capacity must be less than 10 GW (5 x 2) in January 2006. In the next sentence it is a year later, January 2007, and the total for renewables is now over 2.3 GW, but this is now only 13% of total output?

Electricity is only 20% of all energy use, which is alluded to in the following sentence. The on-line reference has gone Awol. I will check it later and maybe amend the wording. Done.

Additional comment - after I left the above comments, I saw the note you left on the article's talk page. Sounds as if apples and oranges are all that there are in many cases. You might then want to be more specific in your cites (According to A it is 4 GW, while B says it is 8 GW...)

I am reluctant to try, partly because some sources quote TWh, some GW etc. and the comparisons would then have to make all kinds of explicit assumptions about the relationship between the two.

4) I think the organization is generally good, but wonder if "Other renewable options" is worth a header of its own .

Moved to become a subsection of next section. Realistically. I think the only way to reduce the headings is to make the article shorter.

5) The table has some blank cells.

New note after the table refers.

6) Could {{main}} or {{see}} be used for some of the energy sources? Done.

I hope this helps.

Indeed yes. Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome - glad to be of assistance, Ruhrfisch 02:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tepper School of Business[edit]

Any advice on improvements would be appreciated in order to move forward as a featured articlePadreNuestro 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DO11.10[edit]

I can see that a lot of hard work has gone into this article, especially since it was just recently rewritten (in late February). Here are a few suggestions that I think might help this article get to a GA, but I would recommend a second peer review before going to FAC.

  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Link directly to Nobel Prize in Economics, also the descriptions of the prizes are full of jargon and buzz words, the section seems like filler, I would just take it out except for the last sentence, which shows that that the school still produces Nobel prize winners.
  • Missing a lot of needed wikilinks: “MBA”, “Pittsburgh”, semester, Master of Science, Ph.D, Pirate games, whitewater rafting, resume, …
  • Some jargon: “flex-time”, capstone course, derivative trading, stipend, best practices, … etc…
  • “At the time of its creation, MBAs were perceived to have too little math skills, while the Ph.Ds traditionally hired as quantitative analysts were deemed to have too little experience in finance.” - Who thinks this?
  • “…in one (or more) of the remaining functional areas of business”. Remaining from what? What is a functional area?
  • Student life - this section reads like a school recruitment brochure. How about including some statistical data on the students who attend (gender, race, age), especially because the text later states that it is the #9 Top School - For Recruiting Minorities. Image:DodgeCMU.jpg feels like fluff. “irreverent”, weekly student newspaper - this is POV. Also this article fails to mention anything about the cost of attending the school, this information seems really important.
  • Career development needs an introduction that sets up and leads into the graphs. “Top-employers” is vague, what do you mean by “Top”.
  • “Research Centers[44]”- I don’t know if it is strictly forbidden but I don’t usually see footnotes in section headings.
  • Rankings: Requires non school-sponsored citations for all rankings listed. “Average MBA GMAT Score Progression from 1998”- I find these graphs highly misleading, to mean anything they would have to include the average GMAT score around the country, as all scores may very well have gone up by a similar margin. The Y-axis is very small, and the numbers are difficult to read. Same situation with: Average MBA Salary Progression from 1998, needs a comparison to other MBA grads around the country.--DO11.10 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments on this page! Its nice to get a second set of eyes on it, and I think you gave me some good ideas. Check back in a little while and you'll definately see some of your recommendations implemented. PadreNuestro 05:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I will check in every now and then. Please don't hesitate to contact me.--DO11.10 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages[edit]

I've worked this article up from Start-Class, and have nominated it to be a good article. I intend to pursue FAC, so please offer criticism of anything you feel is not of featured standard. Pagrashtak 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons[edit]

I've worked this article up from Start-Class, and have nominated it to be a good article. I intend to pursue FAC, so please offer criticism of anything you feel is not of featured standard. Pagrashtak 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For starters, the lead is probably too long - can at least a paragraph be broght down to the body of the article? Also, this article is in bad need of images. Long stretches of text with no images to break it up makes it intimidating. Nswinton 22:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what I could cut out and still have the lead serve as a stand-alone summary of the article. Nothing can be moved into the body text, as everything in the lead is already mentioned in the article, with the exception of release dates. Pagrashtak 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin (film)[edit]

Based on The Lion King's article, I've made some edits in a period of 5 days in order to turn Aladdin into a GA[17]- and it passed. Now, I need to know what's needed in order to improve it to an FA (despite turning the "Characters and voices" prose instead of a table, I'll take care of this later) igordebraga ≠ 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a picture of the DVD and video covers. The article should also be moved to Aladdin (film) because there are no other Aladdin films are on Wikipedia, and the page currently redirects to Aladdin (1992 film) anyway. Aladdin is my favourite children's movie. --thedemonhog talk contributions 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC) -- done.'[reply]
Comments A couple of preliminary comments (I haven't taken the time to read the whole thing yet, but I will) review WP:DASH, I fixed one dash as an example. Also refs go after punctuation per WP:CITE, I fixed a ref as an example also. Quadzilla99 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work, a couple of minor comments.
  • This: "Voice actors included Robin Williams as the Genie. Although this was not the first time in which a major actor provided voice-over work for an animated film, it was the first major American animated feature film in which particular attention was paid to a celebrity cast member, such as a major movie star, in the film as part of its promotion. This has led to a subsequent increased attention to the casts of later productions, such as Toy Story and Shrek, as a major element of animated film marketing." Could use a cite. -- still searching for the cite
  • Why are these things in quotes?:"The film begins with a merchant in the mystical city of Agrabah, telling the story of a magical lamp and how it changed a young man's life ("Arabian Nights")." and "Meanwhile, the street urchin Aladdin is fleeing guards with his pet monkey, Abu, after stealing a loaf of bread ("One Jump Ahead")." It should be linked if it's something the reader needs to know and is the subject of a wiki article, also if it's a book or movie title it should be in italics. I'm confused. Quadzilla99 05:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see they are song titles, I'm not sure if that's the right way to format that. Quadzilla99 05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
done.
  • Refs should go after punctuation per WP:CITE, I fixed a couple, probably be a good idea to check them all. -- done.
  • "This late release, coupled with Disney's purchase and re-editing of the film through Miramax, has sometimes resulted in it being ironically labeled a "copy" of Aladdin." This could use re-wording, "...Miramax, has sometimes resulted in it being ironically labeled a "copy" of Aladdin." is a little choppy. Quadzilla99 06:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC) -- (I think) done.[reply]
  • "Aladdin was followed by Disney's first direct-to-video sequel, The Return of Jafar in 1994. The sequel was followed by the animated television series Aladdin, that run from 1994 to 1996. Also in 1996, the Aladdin story was concluded with another direct-to-video film, Aladdin and the King of Thieves." —Might be helpful to mention which (if any) cast members were in the sequels. -- done.
Okay that's what I found. Also, I gave a little copyediting, but it still needs a little more. Good luck! Quadzilla99 06:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Aladdin (soundtrack) is the main article for the music section. The section introduces the music of the movie, and the soundtrack is only a product containing the music. Chris1219 06:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, since the only song that has its own article is "A Whole New World", I decided to include sections about the other songs in the soundtrack (instead of making short articles about each one). igordebraga ≠ 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic language[edit]

I think this article needs a peer review because there are many ways in which this article can be improved to bring it into line with other language articles, and also I think the article needs a to-do list produced on the talk page so that we can move forward. There is still much to be said about Icelandic, perhaps we can have some translation efforts from the German and Swedish articles, which seem to be more comprehensive in some areas (like preservation of the language). Thanks. Max Naylor 10:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michkalas[edit]

Nice work so far. These are some remarks I would like to make.

  • A good idea is always to refer to WikiProject Languages/Template. This gives some good advice as to the ordering and the names of the headings. It makes also clear that a section on "Vocabulary/Lexis" (this is different from examples) is missing.
  • Per WP:SS, it is important that the main article on a subject is comprehensive and summarises adequately the more specific articles. In that respect, the sections on alphabet/writing system and grammar should be expanded copying information from the more specific articles. In general, the level of coverage of the various sections an article should be balanced. Now there is a long enough phonology section, but the other sections are short.
  • The lead should also be expanded. See WP:LEAD.
  • A photo will be a plus for the article (for example, a manuscript from the Middle Ages).
  • Use inline citations to make information in the article verifiable. See WP:CITE.
  • You can check Bengali language, probably the most recently promoted FA article with a modern language as its subject. Compare it with this article and also check the comments when it was a FA candidate. See also Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
  • In my opinion, the subheading "preservation" (and the heading of the relevant article, BTW) is not really descriptive. "Linguistic purism" is much more accurate. Just to take it literally, making new words in Icelandic for things inexistent in Old Norse to replace loanwords is not preservation by any means. --Michkalas 20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Isotalo[edit]

Michalkas has good overall pointers, but I'd like to add a few myself:

  • The phonology section is very technical. Just look at the first sentence: Icelandic has an aspiration contrast between plosives, rather than a voicing contrast, something relatively rare among European languages. Anyone who isn't very comfortable with phonetic terminology will have to look up almost every other word. I would recommend moving the current section to Icelandic phonology and writing a summary that would appeal to people who aren't hobby linguists.
  • The tourist phrases in the "Examples" section aren't really befitting an encyclopedic article. I would recommend replacing it with an excerpt from one of the sagas or maybe a poem by some famous Icelandic author.
  • Sound samples are always great for any language article.

Peter Isotalo 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Tower[edit]

This article is already a Good Article. What does it need in order to be near or at FA quality? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow (comments)

Great article, it's very close to FA quality in my book.

  • I made some minor hopefully non-controversial copyedits.
  • A number of paragraphs in this article don't have or end in inline citations; they need them.
  • "an historical" -> "a historical" because "historical" begins with a consonant-type sound. (I had to look this up).
  • I found one caption which I think needs to end in a period, and changed it, but now I'm not sure. Anyone more experienced with WP:CAP want to comment? Which of these captions are complete sentences?
  • Should "technological education" be "technology education" or somesuch?
  • One women gave over $340 million? Wow. The reference backs this up, but this sounds like a fantastic figure.
  • Should instances of 'T' be "T" instead? I can't find the style rule here, but there must be one. (There are one or two places where T is bare also).
  • "Modern usage" -> "Modern use" in that section heading.

- Merzbow 06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquinas College, Perth[edit]

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines[edit]

While this article isn't ready for an FA review (I still need to expand the Vietnam section) I think there's enough here for an overall analysis. In particular, I'm interested in A) what the article needs and B) what it doesn't need. I know my Medal of Honor/Navy Cross tables are going to get axed, so if anyone has an idea on how to convert that into prose I'm all ears. Palm_Dogg 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IvoShandor[edit]

A couple of quick comments, more to come later.

  • The America's Battalion section is mostly blockquoted from a source. I would recommend paraphrasing that and then either incorporating it elsewhere or expanding it enough that it merits its own section.
  • As for the tables on the Navy Cross and MOH recipients I would do a couple of things. The first thing I would do is create a main article, something like List of 3rd Battalion/3rd Marines who received the Medal of Honor and just put my tables and affiliated references there. Then you can come back to this article and sum up the most important few in a paragraph or two and just reference the main article:
    See also: List of 3rd Battalion/3rd Marines who received the Medal of Honor
    .
  • Since we are on the subject of awards, most of the awards in the "unit awards" table (which should go as as well) are not unit awards unless there is something I am unaware of regarding the Marine Corps and unit awards.
  • The lead should conform to length and other requirements found at WP:LEAD.
  • 3rd Battalion won its first Medal of Honor when Private First Class
  • I haven't read the whole article but suspect it is in need of copy editing. I don't believe MOHs are "won" per se, more like received or earned.
  • Contradictory: 3/3 did not see major action again until the fall of 1966 when it moved north to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), but continued to conduct regular combat operations against the enemy. (EDIT: Or at the least, very confusing. IvoShandor 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

These are just at a glance. I will analyze the article more thoroughly when you respond to the points above. : ) IvoShandor 11:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responded to above-mentioned points. I haven't been able to make the Medal of Honor page yet, but have pulled the table anyway. Regarding the Unit Awards, I want to keep that since it pertains directly to the battalion. However, I have added a few sentences explaining what it means. Palm_Dogg 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While that is helpful it just confirms what I was saying. Your source indicates that the unit won "streamers" which are attached to guide ons I believe. What you have pictured are award ribbons for individual personal medals. IvoShandor 03:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! I'm an idiot. Replaced the ribbon images with streamer images. Palm_Dogg 12:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all have those moments. : ) IvoShandor 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably noticed but the text still refers to the medals. IvoShandor 12:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the tree said to the lumberjack, I'm stumped. They're obviously refering to the same thing, the problem just lies in the actual Medal pages. Palm_Dogg 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivasa Ramanujan[edit]

I did not read the article, but you cannot have a cleanup banner at the top of the page if you want to be a featured or good article (in case you did not already know). --thedemonhog talk contributions 06:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't Wikilawyer. Both serve the same purpose: "Please read this and see if it's all right." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article lacks inline citations. See any featured articles to understand how inline citations work. You can use specific templates such as Template:Cite web, Template:Cite journal etc. There are some links to external websites within the text, these should be converted to inline citations. I have not the article, but on a quick glance, the content seems to be fine. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sopoforic[edit]

As User:Dwaipayan noted, the article lacks inline citation, which will be necessary for the article to become featured. Additionally:

  • The "Mathematical achievements" section needs probably more text and less math.
  • The "Theorems and discoveries" subsection should explain why those discoveries were important, rather than just including a list.
  • The "The Ramanujan conjecture and its role" subsection claims that this conjecture was very influential on later work, but doesn't explain how. Also, it is probably too technical.
  • The "Ramanujan's notebooks" subsection in particular needs citations.
  • The "Other mathematicians' views of Ramanujan" section is only a collection of quotations. It should be written as prose with quotations to support it where appropriate.

The article needs a bit of improvement in other areas, but it is probably not productive to go into too great detail just yet. Adding citations to the article will probably change it quite a bit (as sentences are rewritten from sources, etc.), so any particular comments on style and such may not be helpful.

I agree that it would be excellent if this could be a featured article, so I hope that these comments will be helpful. --Sopoforic 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chan-Ho Suh[edit]

My comments will be more or less about the content.

One paragraph on his life in England? No insights into the complex relationship between him and Hardy? These are big omissions.

The article seems to spend too much time dwelling on ways to prop Ramanujan up -- the number of theorems he proved, quotes about whether he was "Nobel-prize class", etc. The best way to show the brilliance of Ramanujan is to let is show naturally in the prose, e.g. in descriptions of his accomplishments.

His style of work and notebooks needs to be better described. It's not clear to someone not familiar with him or his notebooks how peculiar they look. Also, it's not necessary to be so defensive in saying Ramanujan knew the proofs of his results. It's clear he had a deep understanding of mathematics, not to mention, his idea of proof was always nonstandard (for example, Kanigel describes Hardy trying to teach Ramanujan what a proof was) but may not actually be that peculiar compared to the way some outstanding mathematicians of today work.

The parts on his early life look good, although I note some omissions. For example, he learned about infinite series from a particular book usually used to study for tests like the Tripos. The biographer Kanigel attributes Ramanujan's style of writing lists of theorems (with no proofs) to this book which had a similar format.

Oh, and there definitely needs to be more mathematics in the article. It was a big part of his life and we would be amiss in restraining ourselves to a mere list of items. "More math" doesn't mean more formulas and less words (although Ramanujan discovered some very nice ones, like the continued fractions for pi); one can explain the basic mathematical gist (say in some particularly nice base cases) with some elegant prose. --C S (Talk) 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cobranet[edit]

This article has recently attained GA status, and I am essentially the sole contributor to it. Would love to get some feedback from others on what else I can do to it to get it to FA. Thanks. - Snottywong 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions. They're minor, but I hope they help:
  1. A few too many external links near the end. Get rid of some if you can.
  2. 3 of the 4 categories this belongs to are redlinks. Try to fix them. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I fixed the category red-links... I just had some erroneous capitalization in the link. As for the external links, I'm not sure what to do about them. I can just delete them, but the only purpose that would serve would be to remove accurate information from the page. I could link to wiki articles on the companies, but the vast majority of them would be redlinks. I'll see if I can clean them up somehow.... Any other suggestions on what to do with them? Snottywong 11:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried collapsing the list of external links into a navframe. I think it might work. Let me know what you think. Snottywong 13:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Museum Munich[edit]

I created the article. Any feedback or edits are welcome, esp. if you can add sources. --Heikoh 11:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh[edit]

This article, while the centerpiece of a great partisan battle, has turned out to be rather readable and comprehensive. However, when noticing people being frustrated at all the 'consensus' required before someone even breathes on this article, I thought that maybe it was time to get a fresh perspective from the community. I think this article could be featurable in the near future, and wanted the wider community's thoughts on it and suggestions for improvement. But this is very much a search for a 'fresh perspective', as all of us who work on the article are so involved with the trees that we cannot see the forest. --Golbez 09:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance[edit]

I found this article in a fairly shabby state considering its importance. I joined Wikipedia for the purpose of improving it, and I've been working hard since the beginning of April. I've added some 39 40 references and expanded and refactored it considerably since that time (some work done under username Tommaisey). I'd like it to acheive FA status, so any tips are much appreciated. mais (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, diff since the major blitz, if anyone's interested. mais (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is good so far. Even if you may have to wait ages, I suggest GAC. Alientraveller 16:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thus one could almost nominate at GAC, then proceed to make better a given article. This one is good, with healthy prose and good amount of references. --Phoenix 04:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

It's now sandwiched between two featured articles, so I'm looking to take it to FAC sometime soon. I'll probably expand the Critical reception section a little, but I was wondering if there's anything else that should be done before it goes to FAC. ShadowHalo 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter fandom[edit]

The main concerns at the article's failed FAC were that the article did not correctly describe the extent of the fandom, and that at times it confused the "fandom" with the "popularity" of HP. I feel that I've cleaned these parts up since then, and I hope that, after the results of this PR, I can resend the article to FAC. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

review[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
    •  Done Though the lead is slightly shorter than three or four paragraphs, it still adequately and concisely summarizes the rest of the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
    •  Done No applicable infobox.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
    •  Done There is no trivia section.
  • 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.”
      •  Done Removed redundancies.
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: haven't, isn't, weren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • 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, DTGardner 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Hustle[edit]

Kung Fu Hustle is currently a B class article. I've made substantial improvements to it, including:

  • A new Production section.
  • Multiple references for the lead, release information, soundtrack and reception sections.
  • Trimmed the plot down to less than 900 words, improving the prose.
  • Removed the trivia section, and rewriting the Parodies and References section in paragraph form.

My goal is to improve the quality of the article to FA quality. Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers.--Kylohk 13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film has a simple plot, so I suggest cutting down to 700 words and losing the middle image. Alientraveller 16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the MOS for films and have to agree with you. Therefore, I've deleted content related to two non-essential scenes, and that lowered the word count down to 677. Any other comments?--Kylohk 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions by Wisekwai[edit]

A lot of work has gone into this article and it has definitely improved. Great work on a great film! Here are some suggestions that I think will improve it further:

  • In general, I think more wikilinks are needed, especially on titles of other films, people (like Yuen Woo-ping, Jackie Chan, Buster Keaton, etc.) and influential characters such as Bugs Bunny, Road Runner (note, two words, correct link), as well as technical terms (like CGI, and perhaps even ordinary objects that are significant in the film, such as axe and ice cream.
  • All film titles should be italicized.
  • I feel very strongly that better quality images are needed. Perhaps some unwatermarked publicity stills could replace the screenshots? The screenshots are generally too murky and blurry to be useful.
  • In my experience, this should easily become a Good article. It will need more work and references to make it to FA status. — WiseKwai 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I've taken your points into account and added the Wikilinks to areas I deem to be worthy of attention. I have also italicized all film titles. Also, I admit that I never noticed those watermarks. I guess I will go and borrow the DVD from a relative and take several screenshots with the PrintScreen. Thanks for the quick response.--Kylohk 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions[edit]

I've been back through the article and have done the following:

  • Some light copy editing and condensing.
  • I introduced some more wikilinks and corrected some others.
  • I expanded the infobox to include fields that were missing, such as cinematographer, music, etc. The release dates were expanded to include the premiere and two other major English-language markets.

On reaching FA status, I would suggest the following:

  • Try for Good article status first. That review will mean more critical eyes will see this article and be able to help improve it.
  • Consider running the article through the Automated Peer Reviewer.
  • Consider submitting the article to WP:LoCE, the League of Copy Editors.
  • Perhaps the production section could be expanded a bit? Perhaps the casting notes section could be moved into the production section, which could cover the film's origins, its influences, the actual production and techniques and the marketing.
  • Are there any books written about the film or Stephen Chow? Such "hard" citations will go a long way towards ensuring it reaches FA status.

And some nitpicky stuff:

  • Should the article be written in British English or American English? It being a Hong Kong film, British English would make sense, although there is nothing wrong with American English. Currently, both usages are present, with words like "programme" and "realizes".
  • The way the dates are stated strike me as clumsy. It would read much cleaner without the superscript "nd", "th", etc. Also, if a full date is stated, it should be wikified, but partial dates are not wikilinked. — WiseKwai 05:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Books on Kung Fu Hustle? There will be a big challange, but I will try and find them. As for the British spelling, I've fixed it once more, and narrowed one of the screenshots. Cheers.--Kylohk 10:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking good. Sorry that I wasn't clear on the dates. I think the "nd", "th", "st" on the numbers in the dates, superscript or not, are unnecessary and add clutter. It will look cleaner, but will still read the same, and will be easy to wikilink. — WiseKwai 10:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New update[edit]

I have made more changes to the article as follows:

  • Casting notes has been moved up as a casting section on Production. Detail about 4 of the actors is written out with sources.
  • Filming received its own subsection in Production, and an interview which I found with the CGI company is used as a reference for CGI production.
  • A fair use image about the CGI construction of the Buddhist Palm has been added to the production section.

I believe that the article should more or less be ready for a GA nomination. Cheers.--Kylohk 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Candidate[edit]

The article is now a Good Article Candidate. Please go and have a close look at the article. If there are no problems, feel free to promote it.--Kylohk 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next step: Featured status[edit]

I'm pleased that the article has passed the GA. Now, it's time to aim higher, to featured status. Of course, any feedback is appreciated.--Kylohk 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Commander[edit]

General suggestions for improvement are needed on the following:

  • Lead section.
  • Gameplay section.
  • Prose. I have tried to improve the general style, but some things are never caught by the writer. Specific suggestions are appreciated.
  • Anything else!

Very specific requests for comment:

  • Is the style of citing Rorie (2007) currently employed(see references) the correct one?
  • I have attempted to keep the infobox as short as possible, because it extended far into the gameplay section. The system requirements were moved to the Development section because of this effort, and summarized in the infobox.
  • Is the otheruses template needed?

Known issues:

  • An actual in-game, non-promo, screenshot is needed. I am trying to obtain one.
  • The Factions in Supreme Commander article is an awful in-universe game guide article. On hold with the motto "first things first".
  • The cquotes in the Reception section have attracted some controversy, mainly because it is not a style often employed in Wikipedia. (Though very common in newspapers and other sources) Unless a fitting image can be found, I would like to keep them in.

--User:Krator (t c) 11:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --User:Krator (t c) 14:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the oversight on my part. — Bluerで す。 14:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be a section about modding and the software such has map editor and so on. They are some things which cant not be added in wikipedia but can be added in wikia which is available on external links. Right now only things that should be added is modding information. --SkyWalker 09:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vagrant Story[edit]

This is currently a Good Article but we're aiming to eventually get it to Featured Article status. Any recommendations for improvement would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. — Bluerです。 なにか? 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/May_2007&oldid=213537881"