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 (~~~~).
the coverage of U.S. nuclear power stations on Wikipedia is woefully inadequate and this article, which was just expanded, is really the first attempt on Wikipedia to cover nuclear power stations in the Unites States in any kind of encyclopedic and detailed manner. My main concern is about any missing data, any technical information or data that an expert would be appalled at seeing missing. The article was written by a non-expert with some background in chemistry and nuclear power through the military and through university. Any opinions would be appreciated.
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really need a review or two here. I will return the favor. Thanks. IvoShandor 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good so far. I am also not an expert but here are some thoughts for improvement / clarification:
Images: there are four images which are basically of the cooling towers. Is there any way you could crop one or more of them to get more detail of the reactor buildings (or somehow get a closeup)? The black and white image in the infobox has some detail of the reactor containment structures, or the bottom color image from August 2005 is decent. Also, can these image captions be tweaked a bit? Two are just Byron Nuclear Generating Station and the date. Perhaps add "as seen from the southeast" or "as seen from near Dinkytown, IL" or "this is close to the station as one can approach now". Also would it be possible to add an image of the basic operation of the PW reactors such as Image:PressurizedWaterReactor.gif?
General - can you add metric units where none are now (2 miles west of the Rock River... was the only one I found). Be consistent about the names - is it "Unit 1" or "Unit One" (same for Unit 2 / Two)? Is everything in the lead found in the main body of the article? For example power to northern Illinios (capitalization?) and Chicago?
History - Can you add directions as well as distances (relative to Rockford, Bryon, etc)? What was the third group opposing construction? What will happen when the licenses expire (assume it will be decommissioned, maybe add a sentence or two on possiblities there).
Facilities and output - are the cooling towers numbered? If so, could this be added to a caption? What is the volume (capacity) of the cooling towers? Any information on the temperature of water entering and leaving the cooling towers (or the max. temp. at which the water can be discharged into the Rock River)?
Groundwater contamination - Braidwood contamination is explained, Dresden is not. Maybe mention here how many total nuclear power plants there are in Illinois for context (three problem plants is all, half, a few?).
Safety (and Security) - would it help to start this section with a few sentences on the NRC and its inspection levels (green, white, others?)? Would it also make sense to combine the Security section with this one, as it is fairly short now? Can you give any information on security before 9/11? How large was the security zone? Is there really no security zone there now? Can this be clarified?
Finally, I will see if I can do a few copyedits that are easier just to do (being BOLD and all that) than to describe here. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woo. A peer review. I will incorporate your suggestions Ruhr. Thanks. IvoShandor 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the copyedits and found that there were two broken refs in the safety section. I think I fixed them, but you should check (the first broken ref caused info about the NRC color coded inspection categories to not show up). I have a couple other suggestions - there are a fair number of entries in the infobox that are now blank which seem to have information in the article, so the infobox could have more info in it. There also seems to be some repetitiveness in the groundwater contamination section. Were there two Feb. 2006 reports? If not, can there be some consolidation there? Also, the new law is described in the sentence before the Illinois EPA action (in terms of Byron and Braidwood), then the whole new law is described again in more detail in the next paragraph, with reference to Dresden too. Again, there is probably a more efficient way to tell this. Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the asking for expansion finds only me listening, me new wikipedian. I'll patch below the proposal I put in the talk page.
Hi! As I wrote earlier I am expanding "St Mark's Basilica". My purpose is to save as more as possible of the present chapters, but most of them will be slightly changed to allow additions. I would like to change the section "Early history" to "History", adding a few details but especially moving there historical chapters inserted later in the article. I think this is necessary in order to unify the following sections ("The present building" and "Decoration") in an "Architecture" section divided in "Exterior" and "Interior", as in the article on it.Wikipedia [1]. Since this is my first contribution at all for wikipedia, please help me.
Stefano Remo 19:06, 30 August 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.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 inch, use 4 inch, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 inch.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
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 will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
Well, I have been probably bold enough, the article is completely changed. I am going to add a picture gallery. Please check! --Stefano Remo 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting peer review on this article. It's an older cartoon series on Cartoon Network, no longer in production, yet still on the air. The article itself should be fairly stable, but would like to get the highest quality possible, shooting for GA. Pretty much open to any suggestions, comments, and what-have-you. I know that's a fairly wide open request...
I prefer wide open requests, so I can write about what I like. Here are a few things I would do to improve the article-
The article is seriously lacking in references. That seems to be the main problem here. Every statement should be referenced.
Remember about section titles- they should only be capitalised if they are proper nouns. Some titles seem to be capitalised when they shouldn't be.
Is it 'Red Guy', 'the Red Guy' or 'The Red Guy'? You seem to alternate between them within the article.
The character listings are a little patchy, grammatically, and could do with a copyedit. Some examples-
Slappy McCracken is missing a space.
Photo-Realistic Beaver has a capital mid sentence.
Ditto for Blind Mud Puddle Johnson, which also says 'he's', instead of just explaining who he is.
Some say (voiced by...) others just have the voice actor.
Others.
Whenever referring to the name of the series, it should be phrased as Cow & Chicken. Note the italics and the &. An example of when it is not can be seen in the last line of 'History'.
"Cow and Chicken are a brother and sister who are a chicken and a cow" this implies the cow is called Chicken and the chicken is called Cow, which I know is wrong, because I remember my younger brother watching this.
Episodes should always have speech marks around them. Note the last line of the section on Chicken.
The last line of 'DVD releases' is missing a full stop, which should go BEFORE the ref.
Despite using only a few references, some of them are unreliable. Both h2g2 and IMDB rely on user-submitted content, and so are counted as unreliable.
I am happy to review further, drop me a line on my talk page if you would like me to. J Milburn 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been proposed for review at WP:SPR and also transcluded into WP:PR so the debate will be in one place. However, it awaits a comment from the nominator on what kind of review is required. --Bduke 02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of nominating the article for good article; I want to know if it meets the standards both in content and in style for a scientific article. I would appreciate any comments on it. I have spent so many ours with the article that I think a third party review will be very interesting. I know its not very specific; thanks anyway.--Garrondo 08:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks APRt 00:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article (about one of the world's most important seas) was recently "Collaboration of the month" over at WP:ACID and thus has seen much improvement. A couple of times now people have requested either a peer review or a GA nomination, and I think a review would be extremely useful for the editors to further spruce up the article.
The lead section is too short to be a proper summary of the article. Someone along the way added another paragraph, and it flows much more smoother than a while back.
More citations may be needed in many parts of the article. As an example, the 12-nautical mile territorial claim documented in the "Political status" section.
In the "Basic data" section, I'd like to have a basis for comparison on the salinity. Could the article list the typical North Atlantic and Mediterranean salinities?
Of the major oceans, the North Atlantic is the saltiest; its salinity averages about 37.9 o/oo....- in parts per thousand, for which the symbol o/oo is used.[1]
In the Mediterranean, the seawater has a salinity of approximately forty (parts per thousand), while the Atlantic Ocean, on the other side of the Strait of Gibraltar, has a salinity of thirty five (ppt).[2]
Even though the salinity is added above, the Basic Data section has already been updated. SriMesh | talk 23:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the bulleted list in the "Water circulation" section converted into a table so that the reader can more readily compare the flow rates of the different rivers. Right now the rates are not aligned in a column.
In the first sentence of the "Coasts" section, shouldn't the jagged coasts be the "eastern" coasts? Why is "East" capitalized (in both locations)? Is it a name?
Not done Some measure of the shipping tonnage passing through the sea would be informative (in the "Marine traffic" section) to demonstrate the relative importance of this body of water.
"Culture and languages" has a caption for a deleted image.
Wherever possible it would be good to show the author, publication date and publisher in the citations. At least three of the citations are empty (7-9), and one (48) is showing a URL rather than the title. Tried to fill out the citations as fully as possible for author, publication date and publisher. The citations 7-90 and 48 were fixed.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put a strike through on the items completed thus far that I could see....SriMesh | talk 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on this article off-and-on for over a year now, and think it's about time for some peer review. It failed WP:FAC a while back and has improved a lot from the comments made during the process. Suggestions and edits--especially with regard to accessibility to lay audiences, completeness of the article, context, etc.--would be much appreciated. --David Iberri (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for about 2 months now, have turned it from a stub to atleast a B grade article and have added about 30+ sources (it now has exactly 40 sources, including interviews). I just want some feedback and maybe to get this to a GA/FA status.
The release was well received and brought Soilwork to the forefront of the melodic death metal scene, alongside label mates In Flames.[8] - According to whom? Which critics praised the album, and which critics believe the album brought Soilwork to the forefront of the melodic death metal scene? LuciferMorgan 13:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He would be replaced a week later by Richard Evensand.[14] - Future tense needs replacing. Possible alternatives are "He was replaced a week later by Richard Evensand", or "Richard Evensand replaced him a week later". LuciferMorgan 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In early June, Henry Ranta would leave the band, to focus more on his personal life. - More unnecessary future tense, an "would leave" can be replaced with "left". LuciferMorgan 13:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Natural Born Chaos was released in early 2002, to much acclaim as well. - According to whom? Which critics acclaimed the album, and what did they say? LuciferMorgan 13:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon changing the band their name in late 1996 to Soilwork they began to make music more influenced by melody.[2] The article fails to mention why the band name was changed, and this has been mentioned in interviews. LuciferMorgan 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The album names should always be italicised- that includes in the section titles. You've missed a few.
In the Stabbing the Drama section, the first instance of the album name isn't linked, but the second is. I'd switch them around, and preferably even mention the album name in the first sentence of the section.
The singles section- each single should have quote marks around them. "Song" from Album by Band.
The album will be released on October 19th on Nuclear Blast Records. Would be nice if there was a reference for this.
with Devin Townsend (Strapping Young Lad) Being a little tired, I read this as the author saying that Devin Townsend is a strapping young lad, which made me laugh. Perhaps with Devin Townsend (of Strapping Young Lad).
The band later pulled out of the Turkish dates, due to terrorist attacks and bombings that had recently occurred to tourists there. We may have a more specific article about this, but I can't find one in my 30 second search. May be worth looking for.
The logo lacks a fair use rationale- a quick-fail criteria for a GA candidate!
You talk about the chart positions of some of the albums in the prose, but then don't mention them in the discography section.
In September, Soilwork toured Japan with Children of Bodom[17] Merely days after a short mini-trek tour through Japan, Soilwork also toured Australia briefly.[18] You've missed a full-stop there.
Generally a great article- obviously, my comments are very minor things. I'll take another look when you have worked on mine and LuciferMorgan's suggestions. J Milburn 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with LM to recast sentences using the future tense "would", i.e. would give, would meet, would leave.
They also toured throughout the United States for the first time. First with bands Hypocrisy, Scar Culture and Killswitch Engage during the summer,[10] then alongside label mates In Flames during the fall.[11] The latter "sentence" is not a sentence - it contains no subject and no verb. Would combine these two statements somehow or recast.
Lose red links - either create articles for them or unwikify.
The bass and vocal tracking was recorded at Studio Fredman, the same place the album was mixed at.[12] Redundant - why not say, ...was recorded and mixed at...
Merely days after a short mini-trek tour through Japan, Soilwork also toured Australia briefly.[18] "short" and mini-trek" are redudant. Choose one or the other. "also" is also redundant - would simply remove.
Later that year, they again toured North America with Chimaira, As I Lay Dying and Bleeding Through.[19] Fix link: [As I Lay Dying (band)|As I Lay Dying]
Agree with JMilburn that albums italicized, songs in quotes. See WP:MUSTARD
Section: Sworn to a Great Divide - It is assumed that this all pertains to this year - but the year 2007 should be mentioned as this being an encyclopedia - this may be current information now, but will not always be.
Section: Session Members - there are some capitalization inconsistencies.
References: ref #6 needs a publisher (fourteeng.net), ref #7 needs a publisher (soilwork.com), ref #8 needs a publisher. This article relies pretty heavily on Blabbermouth.net - and all of those refs need publication dates. Ref #29 - ^ Billboard albums. All Music Guide. Retrieved on 2007-07-23. Can be more specifiic as this pertains only to the album Stabbing the Drama.
I found the sentence structure to be rather short and choppy in areas. Otherwise, this article definately has potential. Good work so far. ♫ Cricket02 07:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 14th, there should be no 'th' just September 14
Consider adding years in the titles so we know what the period is for example 'Formative years - 1995-2000' as done in Slayer and Megadeth
In March 2007, Soilwork began work on their seventh album.
Sworn to a Great Divide
In early March, Soilwork began laying down the tracks for their seventh album, Sworn to a Great Divide. The last sentence of the section is the exact same as the firs sentence in this paragraph. I suggest remove the part in the previous paragraph.
Don't wikilink solo years such as 1995 make it just 1995
of late 1970s, early 1980sBritish - There is no point in any of these wikilinks. The first two won't mention the band at all and the link to UK is pointless.
Upon changing the band their name in late 1996 to Soilwork - guessing you edited this sentence and left a word in there
to record their third full length album, A Predator's Portrait. The release was well received - by whom? can we get some quotes/opinions from critics please
with Italian melodic death metal band Disarmonia Mundi. - pointless link so Italian people
The additional information under band members either needs to be removed or written like an encyclopedia. It sounds like notes ' filled in...also plays...quit due to...
In the discography section what chart is it? I'm guessing Billboard 200 as chart positions were mentioned earlier about the independent chart.
I'll add more later. M3tal H3ad 10:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created a Soilwork template and added a picture by someone who was kind enough to release it under a free license. I know it doesn't show all the band but it would be really hard to get all six members in one photo with a free license. I suggest naming who is who for the picture caption as i don't know any members. M3tal H3ad 11:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's not much advice left for me to give since the above editors have already presented a lot of the same concerns I have, but here's a bit:
Fansites should not be used to cite biographical info. If the info cited is true, it would be much better if it were cited from the band's website or an interview with the band.
The band members section is too spammy. There is so much info in there that is irrelevant to Soilwork.
There's a lack of consistency throughout the article. The band's three newest albums each have their own subsection but the other albums don't, they're just thrown into other sections. It would be preferable if time periods were used for the history section or album periods (each album gets it's own subsection).
The lead section is supposed to be an introduction/overview of the article and should not include exclusive information. Any information provided in the lead section should be explored in greater detail within the body of the article. Currently, the lead section is more of a musical style/critical reception type section.
Generally, there are a lot of formatting/wiki issues throughout the article that I've been meaning to fix myself, but I keep getting caught up in other stuff. Sooner or later if no one fixes them I'll get to it though. Other than that, the above peer reviews present a lot of valid issues that need fixing. --Leon Sword 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can become a featured article really soon. I just want to know what parts of it should be cleaned up and I would greatly appreciate any subsequent copyediting.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a candidate for including in the Wikipedia for Schools, yet is still a start-class article with mediocre formatting, no citations, and little coverage of such a broad and important topic. Animated cartoon, and many of the history of animation articles also need to be peer-reviewed, although I would like to start with this one first. --FuriousFreddy 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because its just been assessed as being a high B, and would like to know what can be done to bring it up to GA standard, and eventually make it a FA
Thanks, Jac16888 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the assessment comments you can begin improving the article by converting the lists of cast and crew into prose. I also strongly recommend starting a critical response section.--Opark 77 16:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by converting the cast and crew into prose, you do mean into straight paragraphs right? Surely that would be a detriment, as it would make it harder to read, and go against the standard for lists of cast, which generally are just that lists.--Jac16888 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct actual sentences and paragraphs instead of bulleted lists. It would definitely not be a detriment to the article. You can't get to FA status with long lists like these. Prose makes the article far more readable. If you want to list the cast for functional reasons then do that in a separate article. To someone who has never heard of scrubs a list of cast members tells them little and is quite boring. Introducing the actors and characters one by one with a brief description tells an unfamiliar a lot more in a more digestible manner.--Opark 77 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i've tried to do this for the main cast, what do you think? If its ok i will do it for the supporting cast section too--Jac16888 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit had since been reverted so I've had a go myself. I've used your prose but have completely removed the bullet points in favour of a paragraph per character.--Opark 77 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the revert was to rewrite the material in an encyclopaedic manner; unfortunately, I didn't get that far yesterday. (Sorry!) I've now rewritten the entire section in paragraph form. Please check it out and see how it flows. --Ckatzchatspy 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is very short considering the length of the article. Check out WP:LEAD for guidance in expanding it or have a look at some of the other featured articles associated with WP:TV at this link [2].--Opark 77 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i have attempted to to do this a bit, but looking at it, it seems that the synopsis section here actually seems to contain much of the information you might find in the lead section of an article, should i just move it up above the TOC, although having said that, the article is actually missing a Plot section, which, i'd appreciate it if others editors attempted , it's something i'm not great at.--Jac16888 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that seems reasonable.--Opark 77 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've re-read the synopsis - it is mostly an attempt to describe episode structure. Perhaps you could summarise this in the lead but a lot of it is very specific for the intro. I found another useful link for guidelines on what to put on the lead - Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs.--Opark 77 09:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At present the article has a very fragmented feel, like a scrap book of everything connected with the show thrown onto one page. Credit for the amount of references, but I wouldn't rank it as a high B -- much work needs doing before GA.
There are too many lists and short subsections. 'Production details' should be expanded. 'Crew' is a meaningless list. The most important personnel should be integrated within the production section in context.
The music section is very long, and the section 'Featured musical contributors' is unnecessary. Since music does play an important role in the show, perhaps a daughter article might be best, so that the material in the main article might be cut down and more manageable?
At one point, some editor copy and pasted the whole music section into a seperate section, which was promptly AFD'd and redirected back to the main page, the music section doesn't have enough notability for its own article, see here--Jac16888 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame. I'd still lose the bulk of it from the main article. Obviously talk about the theme song, but lose the paragraphs on individual artists. The JPStalk to me 08:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the bitty-feel, there are many aspects that I'd expect to see on a fansite, not an encyclopedia. For example, the title of the section 'Around the world' is informal, as opposed to 'International broadcast', or similar. 'Cameo appearances' is unnecessary as is Charlie Brown's Christmas.
Hope this helps. Good luck. The subject certainly deserves a GA article. I hope that some of those doing the monkeyesque redirects can do something more challenging and really improve the encyclopedia by actually contributing to writing this. The JPStalk to me 21:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every paragraph should have at least one citation, even if it's a repeat of the citation for the following paragraph. It keeps the article from looking like it has uncited text.
You don't need to put citations mid-sentence, you can combine them at the end of the sentence.
You don't need in-line citations in the intro if the same information is repeated with citations in the main body, which appears to be the case here.
You don't have to have citations next to each other, you can combine them into a single citation.
The information that gives Mountbatten's opinion on something, such as the naval skills of the Turkish navy, should make clear that this is Mountbatten's opinion, not necessarily a generally recognized fact as the text appears to indicate.
Quotes that are four lines or longer should be blocked (placed in an indented paragraph-see the WP:MOS).
The last paragraph in the "final years" section needs a citation.
Identical citations can use the "refname" citation format to combine them in the footnotes section. Instructions on how to do it are here: [3].
All in all, a well-written, informative, and enjoyable article to read. Nice work. Cla68 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! DrKiernan 07:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a peer review for this article because i have recently spent a few days completely re-writing the article and I am now thinking about submitting it as a good article candidate. Thanks, Childzy ¤ Talk 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont suppose a real person would have 5 minutes to browse through the article? The automated doesnt really help much. Thanks --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent when using F.C. e.g. He began his career with Darlington F.C in 1994 and has since gone on to play with larger Championship clubs including Burnley and Leeds United has "Darlington F.C" but "Burnley" and "Leeds United". Also, Darlington aren't/weren't a Championship club.
For references, use a template such as {{cite web}} instead of plain URLs.
Ensure a thorough spell check is performed - the first section has "Beginings" and "season's"
What type of striker is Blake? Is he a burly target man? A "fox in the box"?
Why did he go on loan to Forest?
Using so many quotes breaks up the flow a bit, particularly by putting them on separate lines.
*Moving up north to Burnley - A touch informal, and Burnley is almost due west of Bradford anyway.Y--Childzy ¤ Talk 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Jewell made a bid at Wigan because he had worked with the player at Bradford.
A few sentences need breaking into two or more separate ones e.g. That summer long time Burnley manager, Stan Ternent, left the club and was replaced by Steve Cotterill and under the new manager Blake continued his prolific goal scoring with 13 goals in the run up to the January transfer window.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This binary star system was the first to have it's distance from the Earth estimated. There is speculation about a companion planet, but this is yet to be confirmed. The article seems fairly complete, so I am wondering what else needs to be done. Any ideas?
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good article, probably A class if I had to grade it. The data and references are first-rate, and the text, despite some jargon, is readable. I wonder if there is any further historical perspective to add: I see no mention of this pair of stars cited between the early 1800s and 1942. Such citations are difficult to find, but could help expand a perspective on the history of this star pair in the study of astronomy. It also could be further emphasized that 11 light-years is quite close to earth for stars. ShalomHello 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll see if I can find anything of interest in the time frame you mention. (Note though that the text does mention it was discovered that this system is part of a moving group in 1911.) — RJH (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the article deals with an important (and controversial) event in the Cold War and Latin American history, and needs to be brought up to good standards. I would like feedback on possible room for expansion (questions which are unclear to a third-party audience), dealing with RS (it relies heavily on one author, for example) and potential stylistic issues. Basically: if you're not Brazilian, and you're reading this article, what would you be interested in reading about in this moment in history and how do you think the article can better help you understand it?
I've worked on it quite a bit recently. I've shortened the lists, added pictures, etc.
I really need more suggestions though. I'm trying to get this article up to GA status.
Connör(talk) 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the whole article, but I am impressed by the lead section and the background on real umlauts. Consider breaking the main section on gratuitous heavy metal umlauts into subsections. This article may indeed be ready for Good Article status. I think it's also on the list of unusual articles. ShalomHello 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has benefitted from some recent work, and is related to a timely topic -- biofuels. Jatropha is a genus of (mostly) weeds with oily seeds that may prove to be a good feedstock for biodiesel. Work is going on right now to develop processes and determine economic feasibility. --72.94.157.91 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like someone to check that It's ok on NPOV, especially in relation to references to (a) websites critical of adverts the subject has appeared in and (b) companies using articles by the subject as product endorsements.
I know that the article is in desperate need of some flesh, and also that it's link heavy.
I've moved the request to the archive (i.e. withdrawn the request) as feedback would be a more appropriate mechanism than peer review at this point. Hopefully this will in a small way reduce the peer review backlog too. DMcMPO11AAUK 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in a lot of effort recently into improving this article's reliability, by introducing sources to unsourced claims, and other minor detail fixes that make a huge difference. I would like some feedback about how the article is written, what can be changed and what can be added to the article to promote it to FA. More references is probably an issue, but I'd like to hear more comments about the prose of the article, other wording issues, etc. Kind regards, Sebi[talk] 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it was requested by User:Reinoutr during a FAC. Thanks, Kmarinas86 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added an article about anti-stuttering devices. I would appreciate anyone checking it over. The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something. For example, the article should have a picture of an anti-stuttering device, but the only pictures I have are of my company's devices. Also the list of companies in the final section should have links to the companies' websites, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia policy forbids or just discourages links to commercial websites.--TDKehoe 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate honesty in stating your conflict of interest with this article, which I think generally is a useful addition to the encyclopedia. However, I am very uncomfortable with the inclusion of so much information about your products (which make them look good) and one other product (which makes them look somewhat bad) and very little about the others. In my mind it would be appropriate for each of the products to have entries of approximately the same length and containing approximately the same type of content, (ie very brief description without all the efficacy data) which would help avoid accusations of advertising and COI editing.--Slp1 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to improve this article as much as possible to bring it to GA (or even FA) standards. Most of it has been a solo work. I've added a notes and references sections (which was missing before), actual citations from the creators, references to its reception in Japan, ISBN numbers and publishing dates of the original Jump Comics volumes (which could branch off to a separate page, since there are so many different reprints of the series). I've also removed the "References in other works" section (as well as a previous Trivia section), which I believed didn't add anything to the article. I'm still not completely sastified enough though and I want some suggestions. For example, should I use a cover from the Jump Comics edition (which is the one at the moment), an English cover or the eBook edition that I was previous using? I also feel the lead section might be too long as well. Jonny2x4 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
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.)
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.”
For about a year now, I have been working on a series of articles about Mary Wollstonecraft so that I can submit a featured topic about her. All of the other articles on her works are already FA or on their way to FAC - this is the last one that needs to be prepped. I would therefore appreciate constructive criticism regarding this article's organization, prose, and accessibility. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 11:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, you've got writing FA's down to a a science. :-) I have no doubt this will pass, it's excellent. But I can still suggest a few tweaks:
I'd wikilink "constitutional monarchy" in the header
Most of Burke's detractors deplored his support of the French queen ... Wollstonecraft, however, - This is not clear that Wollstonecraft attacked his support of the queen too; when I first read it, I thought she didn't bother with that. The Burke quote occupies too much space in the header, I'd move it down to the text body. Since that quote isn't the main focus of Wollstonecraft's attack, or even the part that makes her text unique among the 70 or so others you mention later, I think the quote is an unnecessary extra in the header. You can put one sentence that she does attack Burke's support of monarchy too, but one reasonable possibility for the header is going straight from "the language that Burke used to defend and elevate it" to "By redefining the sublime and the beautiful".
I have removed the 'however" to avoid confusion. Wollstonecraft does attack the queen passages quite a bit (this was supposed to be conveyed in the "Sensibility" section), so I'd like to leave that quotation in, particularly so readers can get a flavor of Burke's writing right away. It's only 1.5 lines. It is Burke's treatment of Antoinette that galvanizes Wollstonecraft's feminist response. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
she believed in progress and derides Burke - same tense probably better. Maybe "supports progress"?
The past tense goes with "influenced by Enlightenment thinkers" - she no longer believes, since she is dead, but she derides in the book, because we can still read it (it is called the "literary present"). Somehow, the other way just doesn't sound right to me. Maybe I should just redo the whole sentence to avoid the problem? Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
opposed to government corruption and war because it only profited ; critiqued monarchy and aristocracy because they believed it drew power away - unfortunately, "monarchy and aristocracy" or "corruption and war" are two subjects joined by an "and", so can't be "it". "they believed these", perhaps, or even a different phrasing?
Reworded. Don't know if it's there yet, but I think it's better. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the English civil war - needs capitalization to differentiate; there were lots of English civil wars, but you seem to be referring to the one with the Cavaliers and Roundheads, which is the English Civil War.
Wollstonecraft wrote frantically while her publisher Joseph Johnson printed the pages. Halfway through the work, however, - This is confusing, I'm not sure what you mean by "printed". Did he really typeset the plates and make thousands of copies while the latter pages were not even written yet? Why? Did he release the earlier pages separately from the later ones? Or if you mean something else, please specify.
Yes he really did print the pages - this is how political pamphlets were written and printed at the time. It was important to print them fast, so they were printed as they were written. They were not released as they were printed, however. You read the passage correctly. How can I make this meaning clearer? Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin, in his Memoirs of Wollstonecraft, describes it as “a temporary fit of torpor and indolence” - but later you write "William Godwin... in his Memoirs of Wollstonecraft, he dedicated only a paragraph to the work" -- is that really correct? He didn't describe the book much, but did describe the pause in its writing?
Yes, Godwin spends more space describing the writing of the book than the actual contents of the book. He says that what will interest the reader is this story about her stopping in the middle, etc. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18 December - wikilink so {{WP:DATE]] will work consistently. I have my date preferences set to American style, so to me the text shows: "Published anonymously on November 29, 1790,... Only three weeks later, on 18 December".
the most famous reply, Paine's Rights of Man - was this at all influenced by Rights of Men? Were they compared? The title seems rather similar.
Paine's book may have been influenced by Wollstonecraft's - Paine and Wollstonecraft knew each other through their publisher, Johnson. The phrase was common at the time. The scholarship on Wollstonecraft's book does not emphasize the comparison, however. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mirroring Burke's Reflections, the text follows the associations between topics made by the author - which author? Does it follow Burke's Reflections, topic by topic, or does Wollstonecraft have her own pattern of topics that has little to do with Burke's ordering of them?
Clarified (I think). Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorses a commercial society ... For her, commercialism... However, several years later, she would question the ultimate value of commercialism- can you find a wikilink to an article that goes in greater depth on what "commercialism" and "commercial society" means? It seems an important concept to this article, yet demanding more scope than can be afforded here, so crying out for a wikilink.
I've linked to commercialism. I am loathe to link too many things here as Wollstonecraft was not primarily an economic writer and connecting her to specific economic theories would be disingenuous, I think. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although not a communist, she did desire a more equitable distribution of wealth - ouch, that's a heavily charged sentence, and ahistorical. Surely the concept of communism as such wasn't in discussion at the time, so I doubt anyone would have asked her whether or not she was one. Perhaps you mean anarchist, or some other older concept?
Sapiro, my source, uses the word "communist" - it's not "Communist". "Anarchist" is quite different than communist - the thrust of the sentence is that she didn't want land to be divided perfectly equally. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Sensibility section seems very similar to the Political Theory section. They each discuss Wollstonecraft's attacks on Marie Antoinette, her support of Richard Price, "false feeling" in one and "insincerity" in the other... Duplicate repetitive unnecessary redundancy repeated over again? :-) Either emphasize the differences, or combine. By the way, I like the contrast of the two pictures, of Marie Antoinette, smiling, in a beautiful gown with feathers and roses, and immediately below, of Wollstonecraft, merely serious, but in contrast almost scowling, in plain and dark clothes, crouched over a book.
They do use the same examples, but I do not feel that they are discussing precisely the same topics. The "Political theory" section uses Antoinette to discuss Burke's defense of aristocracy and uses Price to discuss Wollstonecraft's defense of the middle class. The "Sensibility" section uses Antoinette to discuss the "false" vs. "true" feeling binary, a major point in the text, which is related to, but not the same as Wollstonecraft's promotion of a society constructed around "universal benevolence" (something she gets from Price, as I mention). The themes of this book overlap quite a bit, but I think that these are separated enough to be distinguishable. I actually chose to use the same examples to try and make them clearer. Perhaps that was not the best choice. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After the first edition sold out, - any information on how many copies sold, either total or in the first edition? To compare to Burke's 30,000 copies in two years, and Thomas Paine's 200,000?
We don't have Johnson's records from this time. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While most of the early reviewers of the Rights of Men ... criticized the work's emotionalism - Did they only criticize emotionalism after finding out the author was female, or were there any criticisms in that vein even when the author was anonymous? "Early" seems to imply the latter, but other parts in the article would seem to imply the former.
The criticisms of the emotionalism increased. How can I make this clearer? Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as Johnson contends, - you probably need to specify Johnsons here, as one was her publisher who drove her to write the second part under discussion, and another seems to be a modern feminist reviewer.
Added first name. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had only a little time to brood over A Vindication of the Rights of Men, so these will be just preliminary pensives. I really liked the article the first time I read it, but now I'm beginning to fear that this will be a tricky article. I hope that won't be true but in any case I'll try to help out as (if) I can.
I agree that VRM is tricky - that is why I left it to the end. I wanted to have a lot of practice before I started it. However, now I am thinking that was not a wise decision. I should have started the article long ago. Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The present article describes Wollstonecraft's arguments very well; I wouldn't change those parts, but I think they would benefit from being organized more strongly and set off with other material. In particular, I feel that the chronology of the French Revolution, other responses to Burke, and Burke's arguments should be described more fully. You often introduce Burke's arguments by juxtaposing them with Wollstonecraft's; I wouldn't change that, but I would include a section dedicated to outlining Burke's arguments all in one place — twice told is thrice learned, no? The other responses to Burke and various people's responses as the French Revolution evolved might make a good final section, returning to the opening historical perspective and closing the circle. The present article is relatively short (~34 kb), so it has some room to grow.
What you are describing is the article I plan to write (sans focus on Wollstonecraft) for the Revolution Controversy, but I agree that this article needs more of a focus on Burke. I am thinking that the "Historical context" section should be restructured:
Revolution controversy
Burke's Reflections
Composition and publication of the Rights of Men
That will give me more space to expand on the larger debates as well as Burke's argument. I think that trying to outline the French Revolution is just too much. That is the glory of wikilinks. What do you think? Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems good! I'm just worried that many people might not remember the course of the French revolution, and the descent into the Terror. It seems as though the Revolution controversy was, at one level, an argument between two visions of human motivations and the practicalities of government. It's be nice to depict that argument, perhaps with a stray reference here and there to older works on both sides of that topic — say, Machiavelli's observation that democracies are short-lived or some insights from Socrates and Aristotle — which might enliven the article and place the controversy in a broader context. It's just a thought — it just occurred to me that other people might find references to the Greeks boring and arcane! :(
If they don't know the history of the French Revolution, I don't think that I can tell it all to them, though. That is what French Revolution is for. Also, I agree that I need to discuss the Revolution Controversy in the VRM article, but I'm not sure that I need to go into the level of detail that you are suggesting. The amount of scholarship on the Revolution Controversy is enormous. I've read a bit of it, but there are hundreds if not thousands of books on it. It cannot be easily outlined here. That is why it has its own article. I think the question should be whether the section in the article on A Vindication of the Rights of Men provides enough context to understand the work. I think that the new, expanded section does. It does not tell the reader everything about the French Revolution or the Revolution Controversy, but that is impossible. (I don't think the references to the Greeks are boring and arcane - the question is, as always, do scholars think they are important connections?) Awadewit | talk 06:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a humbly offered suggestion that might clarify what I was thinking of. You might structure the "Historical context" section with a converging funnel shape auBilly Budd, beginning by sketching the big picture of England and France in the 1780s, with their traditions and power structures, then confining attention to the French Revolution and its chronology (say, up to Napoleon's 18 Brumaire), then confining still further to Burke, e.g., "Burke wrote his pamphlet,..., near the beginning of the revolution (1790), as a letter to a young man X who had asked his opinion of the French Revolution...", then outline the letter's major arguments and tenor. My basic concern is that the present article doesn't really describe what Wollstonecraft was responding to; it seems like fighting with shadows. Admittedly, I haven't finished reading Burke's letter. I just started reading it yesterday and couldn't finish it before falling asleep; I was tired!
I'm not really sure what you are referring to in Billy Budd - I don't see any figurative funnels there. I think that your idea sounds wonderful - if I had 100-200 pages or more. I've actually read a lot of examples of what you are talking about (this period in history fascinates me) - there is simply no way to discuss all of it concisely as well as VRM. Entire books cannot even do it justice. Let's work on getting the immediate historical context fleshed out before getting to Napoleon (who came to power after Wollstonecraft died)! (By the way, teaching these texts is very difficult, because you have to provide so much historical context to the students. The first time I read them, I was a bit adrift. I'm not sure there is any way to completely avoid that - these texts are grounded in historically-specific debates.) Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is just me, but I had a strong sense of an hourglass shape in Billy Budd. I felt as though the scope of the novel became inexorably ever more constricted, beginning with society, then the navy, then a ship, then a room, then a person, until it focused on a single hand; to me, it seemed as though the author was showing the funnel of causes that culminated in the killing. Afterwards, the novel's scope gradually rebroadened to the person, the room, the ship, the navy and the society, as it showed the ever-widening consequences provoked by the killing. To me it seemed like the work of an old person, being so formal in structure. I usually don't think consciously about novels I read, beyond trying to understand the feelings and motivations of the characters, but Billy Budd was an exception.
Yes, let's work together on it, although I'm afraid that you won't be able to rely on me to contribute much. I'll do my best! :) By "sketch", I really meant tracing the great tides of the revolution; we might mention the royals, since their fate is so central, but others such as Robespierre needn't be mentioned to keep it short. I also agree that Burke deserves the "primo don" position, and we should lavish space on his arguments. Some pertinent ones to the responses (in the short section I read) might be
his repeated and scornful caricature of Price et alii as academic theoreticians of government who have no practical understanding of what motivates people, what it takes to run a government, and what some of the common pitfalls to be avoided are;
his criteria for the success of a revolution; and
his apodictic rejection that royalty derives its powers from the people governed. Willow 19:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by "we" was me writing and you reviewing. :) With Burke's argument, I have tried to give the outlines as I have seen it summarized. I have used Butler's book, but as I read about Wollstonecraft I took note of Burkean summaries and this is pretty accurate consensus summary, in my opinion. Someday I will work on the Reflections on the Revolution in France article - perhaps then I can write an even better summary. Awadewit | talk 06:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one other point that I need to mention as a sincere reviewer, although I can't really suggest anything specific to change. For me, the present article has an air of being perhaps too sympathetic to Wollstonecraft. I didn't notice it at first, perhaps because it matches my own thinking, but I seem to sense it now and worry that others will think likewise. It might be just me, though, since I was conscious of being overly sympathetic to Dorothy Wrinch in the Cyclol article, which feels somehow parallel.
I will go back and look for that. Like you, I am sympathetic to Wollstonecraft's position rather than Burke's. That may have come through. Most scholars are as well and they can say so! Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed a bit of diction here and there, but I honestly couldn't find much. Perhaps you could point me to some spots? I did everything I could to actually quote the most flattering passages. :) Awadewit | talk 06:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying my best to give you a thoughtful review, Willow 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And doing a mighty fine job. :) Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article on a ground breaking Hollywood actress with many awards and more controversies. A lot of people has put a lot of effort into it. It has gone through tremendous surges of changes, of which the recent versions of 28 July 2007, 3 March 2007 and 14 December 2006 may be worth taking a look at. A lot many suggestions I could make on the current version are there in these previous versions. This pretty important article shows all the possibilities
of becoming a "good" or even a "featured" article. Please, take a look. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but is it possible that someone takes a look at the current and three previous versions to provide a specific review? Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that strikes me here is the whole tone of the article, as if it was written by a mass of fans. It really needs someone to edit the entire article, top to bottom - there are things out of place or over-emphasised, and a fair bit of peacock terms. In all, not an encyclopedic article, even though the information is in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 2:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Can someone cite a few examples from the article where the out-of-place stuff are or what kind of stuff is overemphasized? The rest, as well as the peacock terms can be figured out from there. Some more critique and review would be appreciated as well. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some specifics then:
Introduction: having a star at the Hollywood Hall of Fame is merely a detail and doesn't belong in the introduction, unless it's her biggest honour. There should be an "awards and honours" section it could go into. Also, the detail about her gravestone can go into the "Death" section - again it's too minor a matter for the introduction, unless it's a big part of the Jayne Mansfield mythos, and I don't think it is.
Y Added "Recognition" section, rewrote the intro. In fact, one of the earlier versions had a "Recognition" section (mostly helped by my poor self).
Reference 1 is to the IMDb, which Wikipedia does not accept as a reliable source. Please find another source.
Y It is no more the first citation.
early life: a few minor problems with links, which are easier to fix than explain. I'll do it after this. The only one that needs discussion is the Paul Mansfield redlink - relatives and friends of notable people do not usually justify getting an article in themselves (although there's an exception for royalty]]. Is Paul notable outside of Jayne?
Y Paul is not redlinked anymore.
Acting career:"good roles dried up for Mansfield after 1959, the year after she married Mickey Hargitay, a Hungarian-born bodybuilder who had been Mr. Universe 1955." This makes it look like her marriage to Hargitay interfered with her career. if it did, it needs citing; if it didn't, it must go.
Y Removed.
"(In Kenneth Anger's book Hollywood Babylon II, a photo from an unknown source reveals a shot from the movie's set in which Mansfield displays prominent pubic hair.)" This is irrelevant to her acting career if it wasn't in the film. The Hollywood Babylon books appeared long after she died, so this reference has no place in the section, or even (in my opinion) the article.
Y Removed.
"Celebrity and publicity stunts" - a bit awkward as a title; as the content is just publicity stunts, then maybe the title should just be "publicity stunts".
Y Reworded.
"(the line was written for Paar by Dick Cavett)." - this is irrelevant to JM and should go.
Y Relevance established.
"Mansfield was compared (sometimes unfavorably) to the reigning blond bombshell of the period, Marilyn Monroe" - "blond bombshell" is unnecessary. and, er, Monroe wasn't a blond, but a blonde :D.
This needs a bit more thinking for me, I guess.
Y Reworded.
"But her reliance on the racy publicity that had set her path to fame would also prove to be her downfall. Fox didn't renew its contract with her in 1962." - if her racy publicity led to her failure to renew her contract then it needs a citation; there could have been other reasons, such as her films being flops.
Yes, this needs a citation. I'll see what I can do.
"(whom Mansfield considered her professional nemesis)" - another statement needing a citation.
Yes again. This article needs a lot more citations. I guess, I should ask people who are in the ownership of those Mansfield bios to take a look.
career outside film - the part about her conversation with Queen Elizabeth is actually pretty boring and can go. Our Brenda has many, many frivolous mini-conversations with celebrities she sees for thirty seconds at official functions etc, and this is just another of them.
Y Removed.
The "Nightclubs" paragraph has half a sentence about singing in nightclubs, but the rest is about her personal troubles. Move this to the "Personal life" section, or rewrite so that it's about her nightclub work.
Y Reorganized.
The "Television" subsection could be expanded, it's not much more than a list of what shows she was in.
Let me see what I can do, though I can't see much happening any soon.
Recordings - is it just me or are the two statues in the picture looking at each other with expressions of "is this what we've come down to?" :)
You can't blame them. Really.
Personal life - much detail about her sex drive and her many affairs. should be cut down except where they affected her marriages or public image.
May be that celebrated sex-drive was her personal life. There was a nice quote on one of the earlier versions to that end. I need more advise on this.
The acting success of Mariska belongs in her own article, not her mother's article.
In fact, the whole Mariska article needs to develop as there should be a new page on Jayne Marie.
The paragraph about her pink mansion is way too long, and maybe not even necessary at all. Certainly the list of people who owned it afterwards can go. After all, it's on Sunset Boulevard, where pretty much every house has been owned by a succession of celebrities.
Y Shortened the Palace part, but theres still a rambling list of all things pink in it. What to do? Remove?
In the final paragraph: "(Mansfield: "The real stars are not actors or actresses. They're personalities. The quality of making everyone stop in their tracks is what I work at")" a two-sentence quote interrupting a single sentence is bad English and should be re-positioned within the paragraph. The second quote is preceded by "Or perhaps this quote sums it up best:" - some editor imposing their POV. We can't have everybody's favourite quote. personally I suggest rewriting the whole paragraph.
Y The whole paragraph removed.
Death - "Her gravestone is a beautiful carved heart" - spot the word that can go!
Y It is gone.
Popular Culture - these sections are cruft magnets and need regular weeding. So what if she was mentioned in a song by some band? Get this down to 3 or 4 references, and watch the article to ensure they don't start creeping back in.
I guess, this section could very well be split into an article on its own. Then I can put a {{dynamic list}} tag on the top and pray for the best when keeping an eye on the new article. I have been thinking of doing this a long time now. A little encouragement would immediately take me there.
There's been a drive recently aginst "...in popular culture" articles, with many being deleted - mainly because they were simply lists of every occurence of the subject in songs, cartoons and films etc. So make sure, if you do start an article, that it's not just a list of trivia, but a discussion of her influence and the variety of uses of her name and image, with just enough examples to illustrate the topic. Totnesmartin 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it dosen't fit into an existing article and can't survive on its own, may be it was never ment to be! Taking another look at the prospects right now. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y Well, reading the essay WP:POPCULTURE, I suddenly became bold and have finally done it. Wheeeeee. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally (at last!) There should be a section on her legacy and influence - have any actresses or meodels based themselves on her, or were inspired to act/model by seeing her? This would be a good section to have.
Y I have brought back the part on her estate from a previous version. I'll check if anyone followed her footsteps.
I'm sorry if this sounds like a list of complaints (we Brits love a good moan), but acting on them will shape up the article immensely. If you want more help, then I heartily recommend WP:ACID.
Hope this all helps! Totnesmartin 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, us Bangladeshis can beat anyone at moaning anyday! :D I am working on your comment already. Some parts been done, others will be, I hope. Thanks for this enormous amount of help. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody can outmoan the Brits? Blimey! :) Totnesmartin 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Now, I think I'm getting kind of familiar with the tremendous help you're rendering here. Can you please take a look at the peacocks dancing around in this article? There are way too many I'm afraid, and I'm not too good at locating them. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation! Can someone identify the places where an inline citation is a dire necessity and tag those lines with a {{fact}} tag? Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made some sample edits to get you started; there are a large number of MOS issues, including WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE. Solo years should not be linked, full dates should, and emdashes are not spaced on Wiki. The citations are not fully formatted; see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C I'm getting to the style issues soon enough, promise. But, I'd definitely like to solve the tone ans reference problems first. Doing a thorough copycheck before that may lead to some amount of wasted effort. I can already look forward to some amount of material removed, and some totally rewritten. But, please, someone guide me to some specifics. Living so close to the article for so long has blinded me to some extent, and I really need help on this. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is a fascinating subject for an encyclopedia article. However, since it is an encyclopedia article, I feel that the subject throughout the article should be "Mansfield" instead of "Jayne." In some sentences, for instance, it will say, "Jayne was known for her great acting abilities." That sounds too informal to me. Another issue: Do you really believe that she had an IQ of 163 or whatever? Do you know how rare that would be? I doubt it, and if I were writing the article, I would treat that with skepticism.
There are three Mansfields in the article - Jayne, Paul and Jayne Marie. I think its prudent to use the first name in the body, and the last name in the leade (as there is only one Mansfield in the leade). Checking for the IQ thing, but if its strongly verified, it may remain as a fact. If not... well... Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things that I hope will be added is basically a modern analysis of Jayne Mansfield. For instace, what is her legacy today? Can you find any modern reviews of her movies, for instance? I am curious to see how people view her in the 21st century. How do feminists feel about her? Which entertainers have been insprired by her through the years? I would bet that Anna Nicole Smith tried to look like her, for instance. Good luck on your journey to Featured Article status.138.67.44.69 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C Let me see what I can do about this. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a complete rewrite of this article a month ago, it has received good article status and I intend to list it as a nominee for FA status here in the near future. I would appreciate any constructive input anyone has to make the process run as smoothly as possible.
It is a very good article. One glaring inconsistency -- the article generally uses Montreal and Quebec, but occasionally refers to Montréal and Québec. All references should be changed to Montreal and Quebec, consistent with the place name articles themselves, guidelines and the consensus reached in many many discusions. Skeezix1000 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of other comments: the section on LOVE reads like an advert, and the section on Arena touring shows needs to be beefed up or eliminated. Hope that helps. Skeezix1000 13:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the above-noted spelling change. Skeezix1000 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
Per 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.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
There has been quite a lot of work done to Saint Patrick since the last peer review, and the article has been fairly stable for a while, so this seems like a good time to ask for a review. What needs added, removed, rewritten, referenced,...? Angus McLellan(Talk) 09:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought the article is so good that I have put it forward as a Good Article nomination, and as a candidate for featured article with the Portal:Saints. The article is rich in academic references but they are unusually interesting. My only suggestion is that the preamble does not fully assert his notability; the impact of converting the Irish to Christianity had an important consequences for the spread of the monastic establishments during the Dark Ages is highly significant from a European perspective. --Gavin Collins 10:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 02:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to FA standard, but I am unsure if the content and the standard of content meets such criteria. So I'd like to know what might keep this article from FA status or any other general suggestions for improvmenet. Thanks! - J Logant: 08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for feedback. I know how frustrating waiting can be for these! This article is in quite good shape, and I'm sure this can get to FA, but I think some work is needed. It looks like you were the primary author of European Parliament, an excellent article, you can largely use that article as your guide.
"Special Council of Ministers", set up to counterbalance the High Authority (the supranational executive, now the Commission Did the Special Council ever do anything significant? Did they make any decisions that are still important today? If so, this should be outlined; if they never did anything significant, the article should explain why. Its current powers are outlined by the Maastricht Treaty, but did the special council? In short, I think the history is still a bit thin.
Somebody at FAC will direct your attention to WP:DASH. I consider this fairly trivial, but it's probably better to clean up dashes now.
The section "Legislative and budgetary authority" seems to be largely about legislative procedure, rather than legislative authority. Also, an explanation somewhere of the meaning of "There are various legislative procedures used in the Union. The Codecision procedure is the most common (43 areas) which gives the Parliament and Council equal powers, in that legislation can be amended or rejected by both chambers. However older procedures, still used in some cases, give the Council greater power." would be really helpful. That left me scratching my head.
This: Although from 2007 every three member states cooperate for their 18 month period, providing greater cohesion for the agenda. is a bit unclear to me. The example that follows it only says that Portugal is the president, and doesn't explain what Germany and Slovenia are doing, or how their actions contribute to cohesion. This needs to be spelled out clearly.
The lead says, It is composed of 27 national ministers (one per state), the exact minister depending upon the area being addressed; for example agriculture ministers meet to discuss matters regarding agriculture. It's unclear to me what this means. The section on Configurations explains this a bit more clearly. For an agriculture meeting the 27 national ministers meet with the various countries' agricultural ministers and commissioners?
I'm confused by the heading Civil Service -- aren't virtually all European Union jobs Civil Service?
Under qualified majority, different states have different voting weights, as follows (of a total of 345 votes) Does this mean that the representative from Germany gets 29 votes on an issue? European Parliament very clearly explains the membership/voting. We need more of that clarity here, I think.
In whole, the article still needs fleshing out, but is definitely heading in the right direction. The article only briefly touches on what the council does at powers and functions, but as this is the primary role of the council, this really needs to be dealt with in more detail.
I've watchlisted this review and the article, and I'm happy to help with further improvements or to clarify my points above. --JayHenry 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! They're extremely helpful. I am a bit tied up at the moment but I will be getting onto this ASAP so you will probably hear from me soon. Thanks again! - J Logant: 19:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I've gone through most points but I need more time to sort out a proper expansion on history and powers & functions (isn't much in the way of history that is within reach - sometimes I doubt if anyone bothered to record it, although it did meet in secret). But on the other ones I've tried to sort it out. If points I've clarified still are a bit confusing tell me and I'll try again. On civil service: no not all, for a start the ministers forming the council are politicians making policy aren't they, the civil service are those supporting them. On dashes, I've given it a shot but I'm useless at getting the right ones. If there are still some wrong tell me please. Thanks so much. - J Logant: 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listed because the above was a rapidly changing event that was in the media spotlight. Now with the sport moving on, the furore has calmed down, the article is edit-stable and has multiple references. Looking for suggestions as to how to get it up to GA for now. Many thanks Dick G 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I remember this. At an AfD. Hehe, that was amusing. Anyhoo, back to the review...
My first thought was that, as per WP:LEAD#Length, the opening is too short and doesn't summarize the article. I don't necessarily agree with that guideline in every instance, but in this case it highlights the article's biggest flaw (point two, below):
Expand the lead; a straight cut/paste of the second paragraph in the Overview?
Done Slightly re-worked as wanted to farm off some of the content elsewhere Dick G
After doing that, if you re-read the article you basically have a very short Overview, a "rogues' gallery" of bad boys, and a very short Other developments epilogue. Insufficient actual content. Give us more! So...
Expand the Overview, by merging the Other developments into it?
Not done Only because I think it is important that the article emphasises the events during the Tour. It seems there is much less gravitas on the post-Tour developments - most of the talking/action occurred when Rasmussen exited . Thoughts? Dick G
Start the Overview with a summary of the Operación Puerto doping case. Even though it has its own article, it's mentioned on this page four times with no description at all, and therefore forces an unfamiliar reader to navigate elsewhere.
Done lifted the lead from OP article which seemed to work Dick G
Looking at the citations, there's a lack of references from continental Europe. I don't know how multilingual you are, but I bet there's a bazillion enraged op-ed pieces in Le Monde and La Gazzetta dello Sport from fuming cycling journos who've seen their sport desecrated. NPOV is a good thing, but the last two sentences are (in my eyes) insufficient indication of how gigantic a debacle this was in Europe. This can be a Reactions and criticisms section, or some similar name?
Done where most of the effort has gone. Am not multi-lingual (shame) so have had to crib second-hand references from British media but it seems to work Dick G
Once you've expanded the Overview and merged in Other developments, all that's left is the Positive/Affected riders. Personally, I'd try and merge them into the general Overview, but if you'd prefer the current sections (what I referred to as the "rogues' gallery") then that's not a problem, since they're well-written prose. I definitely think that if you keep them they should come at the end, after all the other sections.
Done as regards the latter suggestion. To merge them into overview seems to blur the chronology and would burden the Overview section which is better off as an indicative summary of how the events unfolded. Adding detail of Vinokourov's denials, Astana's voluntary suspension or Contador's protestations seems to clutter that ideal. Dick G
And as someone who always checks his layouts in multiple resolutions, well done on an article which looks good at all screen widths between 500 and 2000 pixels. That's not easy with photos down both sides.
Done wish I could take the credit but not my work unfortunately. With expanded sections the article probably needs more images. Any ideas/assistance?Dick G
Other, minor issues:
I see one day/month not wikilinked (July 31, in the Vinkourov section).
I'm not 100% on what style guides recommend, but personally I'd spell out "fifth", "twelfth", "seventeenth", where they occur; every number from 1 to 20, plus 30, 40, 50, up to 100 in words, others written in numbers (but check the Chicago Manual of Style or similar for confirmation that this would be correct).
Done in part. I am not keen on spelling out placings as I think it is ugly and unnecessary though happy to defer to any MOS sticklers.Dick G
Hope all this helps, regards, --DeLarge 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: reading over my comments this morning, I'm not 100% that I did a decent job of communicated my suggestions. I therefore created a sandbox at User:DeLarge/2007 Doping to illustrate what I meant; hopefully that'll help.
Done in part. Comments above refer to any departures from the suggested order Dick G
Also, after re-reading the article, one small issue I have is that because riders aren't excluded immediately (i.e. they're tested in stage 11, but not excluded until five stages later), it's not immediately obvious that the article's in chronological order. For example, I'd suggest changing "Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni tested positive for testosterone after stage 11, in which he finished 102nd. After finishing stage 16, he was immediately pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis." to "Immediately after he finished stage 16, Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni was pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis. He had tested positive for testosterone in a sample taken after stage 11, where he finished 102nd." That might better emphasize the "chronologic" (sic) of the page.
Done Think I've addressed this now as article is more chronological. Happy to be shown any errors or fuzzy chronologic Dick G
Further regards, --DeLarge 10:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very grateful for your time. Regards Dick G 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner -- I ended up taking about a week's holiday shortly after you posted, and I'm only just getting back up to speed.
Just to let you know that everything seems fine now, at least as far as my peer review is concerned. Obviously any GA- or FA-candidacy is likely to attract a more thorough examination, so I offer no disclaimers, ha-ha. I think what you now have is the basis for a good article -- improvements to it will come from tweaking, rather than major additions of content. The only comment I might make is with regard to the layout of the photos (ironically, my suggestions may have messed these up slightly). All the pics are in one small section of the article, and I thought spreading them out might help? Perhaps moving the Vinkourov image up a bit to where he's first mentioned (During the Tour)?
As for more images, the only suggestion might be to do a search on Flickr. There's an advanced search function that allows you to look for only CC-licensed images. While they're not all compatible with WP (we can only accept those with no commercial restrictions, or something like that), you might get lucky and find a suitable shot. Alternatively you can contact the photographers directly and ask nicely. I was able to get a photo that way once. (see Image:Mitsubishi i 2.jpg and the original image). --DeLarge 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, Mailer Diablo! The article has considerable GA potential - do nominate it for the GA drive. Once the event and the article stabilises, the article will hopefully be ready for a GA nomination; should the nomination succeed, consider aiming for FA.
The "Anti-piracy alliance" section needs references.
Consider expanding the "Anti-piracy alliance" section (although I understand if there is hardly any information available).
For the first two, I'll search for more sources. It might be more viable to shift the lot into a new article. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Transferred to new article. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph of the "Modus operandi" section, "Only a very few cases..." is grammatically incorrect. Either "Only a" or "very", or both ("Only" and "very"), should be removed.
The "Reaction" section states that "The actions have attracted international media". However, the section only discusses the reactions of Singaporean anime fans. It should mention the reactions of "international media".
International media does not appear to provide any independent opinion other than relaying what the Singaporean anime fans have already said. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of the first paragraph of the "Reaction" section appear to be a "back-and-forth argument between Odex and anime fans". As a result, the paragraph lacks flow. Please think of a better way to organise this paragraph, while maintaining NPOV.
Done Another editor cut off one portion into a new paragraph. I'll look through again where needed. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Messages include "Me too busy sueing people~" and "Hahahahah! I double-6-ed so many downloaders~ serve them right!". - this sentence is grammatically incorrect.
Kindly check for original research (synthesis/original interpretation of law) in the "Odex v. Pacific Internet" and "Legal opinions" sections.
Going through the paragraph against the original articles text again. They ideally should be 'as is' form. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Removed several phrasings in accordance to WP:AVOID. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References should always be placed after a punctuation mark, without a space in between the reference and punctuation mark. However, several references are not properly positioned. These include:
References 2 and 3 in the first paragraph of the lead section (placed before the full stop).
Reference 9 in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "Modus operandi" section (no punctuation preceding it).
Reference 23 in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "Reaction" section (placed before the comma).
References 27 and 31 in the last sentence of the second-last paragraph of the "Reaction" section (placed before the comma).
References 15 and 16 in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Odex v. Pacific Internet" section (no punctuation preceding it).
Done All fixed. Will check on reference sequencing as well. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ensure that the images (especially the ones in the Reaction section) conform to Wikipedia's (overly restrictive) image use policies.
Done I thought I got rid of that one. I'll remove the two again. It reeks of WP:OR anyway. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because its a GA article that I want to upgrade into a Featured Article, which would be my first. I just need some advice for it.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know how it could be improved. I have only recently started editing this article and would like it to eventually become a good article. I think there are too many small sections such as Notable Managers and would like the layout to be more in line with the highere quality team articles
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.[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
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.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
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][?]
There is a bias towards recent events. I'd expect the League Cup win, time in the top division and earlier events to get a larger proportion of coverage.
Is the reason for Oxford wearing yellow known?
What makes the players in the list of notable players notable?
Looking over it, I don't see anything about where Tolkien got his ideas for elves from. I know there have been studies about this, showing that he drew on Celtic and other legends while creating this race. Wrad 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I know that originally Tolkien's elves were more like fairies from popular writings of the time, but later he came to distance his elves from those. It shouldn't be too hard to find sources for their development. Thanks. --Davémon 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for comments on all parts of the article. I know that the contemporary section is underdeveloped. Any ideas on that section - and other sections?
Thanks,
Merbabu 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, at this point you don't need the expansion tag! The article is definitely a great length but what it lacks are sources. I'd recommend editors stop expanding and start finding sources for every claim and every fact throughout the article. Also, take a look at WP:LEAD to improve the introduction. Good luck! --Midnightdreary 13:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - good point. I've gone off expansion tags since the time I put it there anyway. Almost everything (if not everything) actually came from the few sources there. But I have more at hand which can fill in the in-line cites. --Merbabu 13:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely could use more sources, if you can find any further books on this topic. The Javanese focus of Religious architecture should either be explained better (was this because of greater foreign influence on Java?), or it should be corrected through example styles from other regions (probably both would be appropriate). For expanding Contemporary architecture in particular, I suggest looking for feature articles in architecture magazines.--Pharos 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try google books. They have many researches regarding this. --80.127.195.146 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed two GA nominations already. Since the last it has been improved greatly and we would like any feedback on how we can push this important article to GA or even FA status. Thanks. ornis(t) 03:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium discussed? Is this really appropriate fro a non-technical introduction to the subject? I'd recommend just removing references to this and turning the section into discussion of the conditions under which evolution will occur and when it will not occur.
Pre- and post-zygotic are unnecessary jargon as section headings. Tim Vickers 03:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is much better than the last time I read it. Kudos to the editors. My points are mostly regarding prose and organization - they are minor. I hope to see this article promoted through GAC and FAC in the next few months.
Content:
Evolution is a well-supported explanation for a given set of data, not a mere hypothesis. - No one has yet said it was a "mere hypothesis" in the article - I wouldn't weaken the statement by introducing this phrase.
I would use moths for the entire defintion section - focusing on one example is helpful for those unfamiliar with the material.
I still do feel that the Hardy-Weinberg example confuses rather than elucidates the general principles of evolution.
These fossils serve as a chronological record, documenting the emergence of new, more complex species from simpler ancestral forms. - Do all fossils document simple to complex, because that sounds like "progress".
In the "descent with modification" section, could you add some detail to the examples? How are forelimbs similar yet different?
Perhaps you could explain better why we look to embryonic similarities to classify animals and separate this from the false embryos-renact-evolution theory?
For example, siblings share the closest relationship possible, and thus have very similar DNA sequences. - wouldn't this be "nearly", since twins, specifically, share the closest?
I would remind the reader what "prezygotic" and "postzygotic" means when those terms reappear as section headings.
Paragraph structure is a weakness of the article.
EX: Darwin's explanation of the mechanisms of evolution relies on his theory of natural selection, a theory he presented in the famous text The Origin of Species (published in 1859). The modern theory of natural selection incorporates five basic ideas: - I would put all of the Darwin material in one paragraph and all of the "modern evolution" material in another set of paragraphs.
EX: Embryo section could be better divided.
EX: In the speciation section, I would begin the third paragraph with "A common criticism".
There are far too many "this" and "these" statements - they are hard to find the referents far and often confuse the prose. Try to reduce the use of "this".
The lead has several in a row.
Genes that do not help organisms reproduce may become rarer or be eliminated from the population. This is called natural selection. - According to the paragraph structure of the lead, natural selection is only the elimination of genes. This does not seem correct and contradicts later information.
EX: From this, relationships can be established between present and extinct species, allowing paleontologists to construct family trees that link all life forms.
Layout:
I have rearranged the layout a bit. I hope you think it is an improvement. I wasn't sure where to place the tree of life image, but it must be moved as it is just kind of floating around near the top.
The article could use a careful copy editor:
EX: Natural selection does not involve "progress" towards an ultimate goal; in fact, it is not goal-driven. - unnecessary second clause
EX: This reality is evident in the struggles species are currently facing as environments change because of global warming. - wordy and important elements are at end of sentence
EX: In addition, studies of the anatomical and genetic similarities between present-day species serve as additional evidence for evolution. - repetitive sentence
EX: Nowadays, many more fossils have been discovered and identified. - "nowadays" is colloquial - use a rough date
EX: The fossil record also provides examples of transitional species that provide evidence of ancestral links between species that exist today - betwen those that exist today and what?
EX: Sometimes terms are put into quotation marks and sometimes they are italicized. The style should be consistent across the article.
EX: On the other hand, if the organisms are distant relations, these molecules will be more different. - just different; there is no comparison
EX: Therefore, this implies that these two species, humans and chimpanzees, share a closer evolutionary relationship as well - Closer than what?
EX: The classic definition, used here, was developed by Ernst Mayr (1904-2005). - used here is unnecessary
EX: Sentences at the beginning of "Different perspectives" are a bit stubby.
The box at the end reads As Darwin's work spread and became better known, references to it began appearing in the popular culture of the day. Some of the better-known Victorian references to it include - Please reword this so that the inclusion of the Tennyson quote makes sense. Even if others used the Tennyson quote to refer to evolution, it was not written as a reference to Darwinism, which is what this explanation implies.
I hope this helps. Awadewit | talk 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a former FAC, but failed to meet the criteria at the time largely because of concerns over the prose. Any comments on how to improve the prose would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Golem88991 01:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on the link but I do not see the suggestions. Golem88991 04:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After adding to the article on Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, I checked the link to Mary McLeod Bethune and noticed there were no references. In attempting to search for them, I noticed that almost the entire article was cut and pasted from other sources. I am a most unlikely biographer for Bethune, but the more I read about her, the more impressed I was by her life and the more astonished I was that her article was not of a higher quality. I worked on it for several days, rewrote most of it, and referenced everything I could find. If not for the information I added, her article should be featured for her extraordinary life. Moni3 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] Thanks, DrKiernan 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wasn't aware that existed. --Moni3 11:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to eventually get this article to FA status. DTGardner 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope springs eternal, but there remains hours of work to do. There are pastel templates for lack of references, original research, and a long trivia section at the end. You need to find a group of editors who can cite in-line references and tighten up the writing style, adding section breaks and organizing the material so that it is easy to read and understand. You don't have to do it yourself: post a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to ask for help. ShalomHello 20:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently improved this article. It's currently a good article, but I'd like to get it featured. Specifically; is there anything missing, does the prose need improvement, is the language too technical and most importantly what does it need before it's ready to become a featured article. I have asked a photographer to release one of his images of the engine under a free license so hopefully there will be at least one more image soon. Thanks in advance, James086Talk | Email 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately I’d like to get this to featured status but obviously there is a way to go. Right now I’m more just wanting to know if the info that is there is ok. At the moment I’m struggling to find anything to put in the “Style of play” and “off the pitch” sections. But clearly as his career develops I’ll be able to add more.
Unfortunately I’m away for the next two weeks so I won’t be able to address any issues until then. Buc 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The depth in coverage is definitely there from my first glance at the article. I will try to fix as many phrasing and spelling issues as I can. I will not be modifying the substance, just minor fixes, so don't worry about me chopping off content. I have however, removed some parts which I found to be over-detailed or insignificant encyclopedically, but again, they won't be noticeable. Here's some of my suggestions:
The original lead overdetailed certain things which shouldn't have made the lead. I've rewritten the lead together with a couple other editors.
As a matter of style, season-by-season analyses of a player seldom finds favour with picky editors. Personally I think it's fine, but many others (from my personal experience) will prefer a more thematic organisation of the content. Something along the lines of "early career", "success with Leeds" (purely hypothetical suggestions!) could do. Or if you prefer the less fanciful, simply "Leeds" and "Newcastle" suffices. When his Newcastle career expands of course, subheadings should be added to give meaning to the content.
Another way to organise content is to divide club and international career. In several good football articles though, the preference is to integrate the content (e.g. Gilberto Silva, Thierry Henry. To me the former (for an e.g. see Cesc Fabregas) is easier to manage, but it's up to you. I say it's easier to manage because it takes quite a bit of skill and thinking to present information on his international career whilst in the middle of presenting info on his club career. See the original 2003-04 section as an e.g. -- I shall try and tie in the content for this one.
While I try to fix spelling/grammar issues when I see them, you might want to get somebody who's got solid copyediting experience to tighten the prose, and ensure logical and grammatical consistencies.
In the same vein, while I've tried to make the prose flow better, the job's not yet complete.
The whole transfer trail in the 2005-06 section can, and must be summarised. The details are not particularly important, and they make the 2005-06 section much longer than other sections.
The "off the pitch" section needs serious attention. It doesn't deal strictly with his life off the pitch, and contains many statements of opinion.
On the other hand, here's a little checklist of what I think is good (but still requires some improvements) about the article:
coverage -- as already mentioned the coverage is impressive, although I should say I'm not the best judge of what Milner has accomplished -- I support a different club heh.
citations -- although one should always check for internal consistency -- common sense and benefits other editors.
E.g. footnotes 36 and 37.
Also consider if it's possible to provide refs for games/goals mentioned. Won't hurt and perhaps necessary. After all, statistics being factual should be verifiable to ensure accuracy.
NPOV -- for the most part, save for some instances, which I will help tone down. But there are some which I can't:
E.g. "His desire, ability with both feet and confidence in the game impressed many reporters." -- people are going to ask, impressed who? Can you prove it?
Somewhat similarly, "Milner has made 28 appearances for the England U21 side and is expected to be called up to play for the national side at some piont." The second half is speculative, or original research, unless you can demonstrate attribution.
"Milner was generally seen as a successful signing despite Villa having a disappointing season." -- best to attribute (to some specific, reputable source), otherwise it's just an opinion.
"Glenn Roeder was criticised for the way he had handled the negotiations with Villa, but refused to apologise." -- source needed.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 yards, use 30 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30 yards.[?]
I've gone through it and improved grammar, made a few copyedits and added endashes. I think improvements needed are:
Quite a few citations needed, such as "His desire, ability with both feet and confidence in the game impressed many reporters", "Supporters were also excited by Milner's performance" and "Tottenham Hotspur, Aston Villa and Everton all expressed an interest in him". There's probably more.
It's already quite a long article considering his age. To avoid it from becoming too bulky, some information could be cut down or removed altogether. For instance some of the goals mentioned weren't very significant (in the 06-07 season it could say "Milner scored four goals in four successive home matches"), negotiations between Villa and Newcastle are too detailed and could just be replaced with something like "negotiations between the two clubs broke down at the eleventh hour".
I would get rid of the season headings and call that whole section 'Early career'.
I did try that, but it just didn't look right. A bit deunting and hard to follow. Also Chensiyuan said I should put more sections in. Buc 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Style of play a bit more information. Stats like pass completion rate or tackling succession could be used to back up what has been said about his passing and tackling ability. As I said on the discussion page, these can by found on Sky's Opta audit.
Off the pitch similarly is lacking in information and some of it would be better suited in the football section, such as Souness' quote and his thoughts on Under-21 racism. "He takes an easy-going and optimistic approach to football" - I'm not sure what's meant by this, it should be made clearer with a reference. Also, is this supposed approach related to his character and personality off the pitch? If not it would be better suited in the style of play section. There is some more detailed info on his interests outside of football inthe 442 interview, which could be used to add to this section.
Really don't know what eles to add to it. Buc 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the main improvements needed to be made as far as I can see. Apart from that it looks like it's shaping up to become a very good article. Good work Buc. Sir-Nobby 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some statements need citation. "The recall of Milner to Newcastle at the start of the 2006–07 season was generally received positively by Newcastle supporters" is one example. "Milner has always expressed praise for his team mates and managers" is another example.
The line from Off the Pitch, "In June 2007 he expressed hope that Uefa would take action following allegations of racism from fans at the European Under 21 Championship but that he was not in any position to suggest what the action should be" should probably be integrated into career section. Also put "UEFA" in caps and wikilink it.
"He was a season ticket holder at Leeds United before becoming a ball boy at the club." This isn't really relevant for the lead in my opinion.
Also from the lead: "His agent is PFA deputy chief executive Mick McGuire." I can't find this mentioned elsewhere, information in the lead needs to be covered further down in the article.
Use – for the year ranges (e.g. 2002-2004) in the infobox. Ditto for the stats table further down.
Overall the article looks in good shape, keep up the good work. Dave101→talk 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting this to FA status - or more specifically, keeping it there - will be a challenge; at 21 Milner is a fraction of the way through his career, making it likely the information will become outdated. That said, the article is in good shape in terms of comprehensiveness and isn't too far from Good Article level. Specific comments:
I guess I'm one of the people Chensiyuan is talking about in terms of disliking season by season subsections. The regularity with which the section headers arrive breaks the flow IMO. The substub nature of the 2007–08 season section emphasises one of the weaknesses of the approach. Dividing by club would be better IMO.
Ensure the article is given a thorough spellcheck. The latest version of Firefox has a built-in spellchecker, and similar add-ons for IE are also available.
There's a problem with the first two references - they both link to the same thing.
Blogs should not be used as references.
His earliest memory is watching them win the FA Youth Cup in 1993. It seems unlikely that something which happened when he was halfway through primary school is his first memory.
When Milner was 10 he officially joined the Leeds United Academy - implies that he joined Leeds unofficially at some stage.
Supporters were also excited by Milner's performance, having already seen the emergence of Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney at similar ages. - has a whiff of POV. Could perhaps be retained if put something like "Milners performance prompted comparisons to England internationals Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney, who also came to prominence as teenagers". Provided there's a reference to back it up, that is.
On several occasions, sentences are padded out with information we have already been given e.g. the young midfielder scored with a powerful 18 yard shot, Claudio Ranieri said after the game that the Englishman had performed like a much more experienced player - we have already been told that he was young and is English.
The style of play section has a number of POV issues e.g.Milner has always had a positive and unselfish attitude towards his team mates. A number of phrases lack attribution :He has been described as being "a good reader of the game", He is regarded as a player with a fair amount of pace - by whom? While the section waxes lyrical about his positive attributes, it glosses over weaknesses, like when defensive ability is mentioned.
The only occasion when possible dislike for him has been expressed is when Graeme Souness, his manager at the time said "we’ll never win anything with a team full of James Milners" it is possible however that he was saying because of Milner's lack of experience. - Burn this POV-ridden sentence with fire.
In June 2007 he expressed hope that Uefa would take action following allegations of racism from fans at the European Under 21 Championship but that he was not in any position to suggest what the action should be. - This sentence tells us very little about Milner.
He scored his first goal of the season in Newcastle's 2–2 draw with Manchester United on 1 January. It was a goal, scored from 25 yards away... One of several examples of tautology. Such repetition should be avoided.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this article has certainly drawn a lot of feedback! Anyway, I think the article is in a nice shape now. My only grouse is that it is a *little* bland. But at least that avoids POV problems! Good job, although I would also add that, given Milner is still young, one's got to watch out for this article ballooning into a juggernaut. I think as seasons go by, sections will be condensed naturally so it's still all good. Chensiyuan 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Leeds insisted that he would not be sold, Milner was not informed that they were planning selling him and the then chairman referred to him as "the future of Leeds"." -- this sentence does not sound right, but I can't quite correct it because I'm not sure what it means. Chensiyuan 10:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is good enough to be a featured article.Saudi9999 06:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly is the point in just saying that. One example why it isn't: "The club won the European Cup for a sixth time in 1966 defeating Partizan Belgrade 2–1 in the final with a team composed entirely of nationally-born players, a first in the competition". Not properly punctuated. And I am presuming you have read the Featured article criteria? Mattythewhite 09:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And please take a look at my comments on the previous PR. Mattythewhite 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A short introduction: this place is not for discussing about featured article, but for requesting a peer review to this article. Here is my PR, in any case.
Use stadiums rather than stadia;
Done renamed. Saudi9999 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some parts of the article refers to the team using they, some others use it. So, be consistent and use only one of them (I'd suggest the former).
The crest collection's picture looks like a derivative work featuring copyrighted logos (which are usually not allowed to be used in derivative works). I am unsure about its validity in the Wikipedia.
Be consistent also with the season notation: use solely 2007–08 rather than 07/08, for instance.
Here's all. I hope my suggestion are useful for you. --Angelo 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About Schuster's photo, I was right: it's taken from sport.es, and is therefore a copyvio, so I deleted it. --Angelo 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it's GA material, my friend and I also wanted to know what we should do if it's not. We've been working very hard on it, and the only problem we can see is the limited source pool.
Have a look at WP:Citing sources to see if you can improve the format of the referencing a little.
Don't force the image thumbnail sizes unless absolutely necessary (see WP:MOS#Images). (Did this myself)
Done Add more wikilinks, especially in the Guinea and Daffodils sections.
Specific recommendations:
Not done You could realistically cover the list of schools with a single reference to the gets.gc.k12.va.us index page.
Well, I could, but the people I've asked about refrences tell me that it's best to have a large number of specific refrences.
Not done While prose text is usually good, it might be an idea to convert some of the data in the Demographics section to a table. However, you can also add to that section to make sure it's not just a table. Don't just say how young/old/black/white/rich/poor people are in the area. Use your sources to explain why the demographic makeup of the county is the way it is, and perhaps also make comparisons with the nationwide averages, for context.
I would, and I tried, but I suck at that type of organization. I did 3 tables, but they are very poor. I'll keep on it though, but with previews.
Done I'd upload Image:GloucesterMainStreet.JPG again. It has a large area of whitespace to the right, and it's of very grainy quality. To be honest, the image doesn't really add anything to the article; would it be possible to take a photograph of the Main Street instead, so that it better illustrates the text it sits besides.
Done The number of single sentence paragraphs, especially in the lead, jumps out at me immediately. Try and rewrite it so that it's covered in 1-2 paragraphs, and get everything to flow together a little better. The same is true of the Tourism section, which doesn't need four subheadings when each section is so short.
These last two comments will involve the most work; maybe even a complete rewrite:
The lead mentions that "several notable events occurred in the city", but the History section doesn't really explain much in depth.
I only see two major references; www.gloucesterva.info and gets.gc.k12.va.us. If there's a local library, there's going to be no better sources than the books in there. Despite what you often see on WP, the best references are often not online, and your librarian will be absolutely delighted to assist you here. He/she might well have a lot more local knowledge to add as well. That could allow you to expand the History section (as above), which is where the greatest general interest will be. The more you can expand that, the easier it'll be to cut back on other sections -- the Schools section, by contrast, is way too detailed, and of little interest to any WP reader who isn't a Gloucester County resident with kids.
Hope all that helps, --DeLarge 01:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all my comments at FA have been addressed - I provided a handful of examples which have mostly been corrected but the overall points I was making applied to the whole article and these haven't been touched. Please do not use Done - I will decide when I think my point has been resolved satisfactorily. Some more examples of what's wrong with it.
From the lead: and the first Formula One race ever won by a black driver. - Why the ever? It adds nothing.
From the FAC: From the lead The race was filled with many incidents resulting in an unprecedented four safety car periods,[2] including the violent impact of Robert Kubica's BMW Sauber against a concrete retaining wall, that he escaped with a sprained ankle and concussion. - The race was filled with many incidents comes across as a bit of a weak sentence and I don't think the latter part (that he escaped with...) even makes sense. Done. - Err no, I said the The race was filled with many incidents sounded weak and it's still there. It's almost the same as saying "a lot of stuff happened".
Read it again it says "The race had many incidents". Buc 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment again. Despite the slight rewording, it still basically says 'a lot of stuff happened' which comes across as a fairly meaningless sentence. If stuff didn't happen, then it shouldn't have an article. Instead you could say "The safety car was deployed an unprecedented four times as a result of crashes including for the violent impact of Robert Kubica's BMW Sauber against a concrete retaining wall, from which he suffered a sprained ankle and concussion." - This cuts straight to the point, although the sentence is still quite long so could do with being split up. AlexJ 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the FAC: Referencing is also badly done throughout. In one paragraph we have [10][11][12][10][12][12][10][11][14] scattered throughout. This is a lot of repetition so unless absolutely necessary to go at the end of the sentence move them to the end of the paragraph. Also check that if the job done by [11] for example is also covered by [10] and [12] then remove [11]. This is a problem right through the article and breaks up the readability of the prose. * Is this part of FA criteria? Buc 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC) - Well no, it's not a requirement of FAC but criteria 1a) is a requirement. If you're not so constrained by the location of the references, 1a) becomes easier to obtain. FA should represent our best work not just ticking the boxes of FA criteria and turning down a valid suggestion to improve the article just because it isn't on the checklist goes against the spirit of what a FA is.
What happened afterwards? I'd like like to know the consequences of, for example, Kubica's accident. There's no mention of him missing the next race due to the injury sustained in this race. Have a post-race section where the loose ends can be tied up.
The last two pragraphs cover reaction to the race but I will try and find a ref for the stuff about Kubica. Buc 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More than just reaction is required, the reader will want to know events that occurred as a result of the race. Did Fisi&Massa faced further sanctions for the their DSQ for example? AlexJ 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well no not as far as I know. Buc 17:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although initial reports said that he had broken his leg, he escaped with a sprained ankle and concussion. - Escaped isn't quite the tone required here. It's a bit sensationalist for an encylopedia. AlexJ 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
causing Scott Speed to go straight into the back of the Australian's Red Bull car. again something you'd expect to hear in a magazine report not an encyclopedia. There's quite a lot of things like this in the article. It's important not to write like a magazine report because the audience may not be familiar with the sport and common parlance within the sport like this may not make sense and also we should be factual and avoid over-dramatising things. Let the facts indicate the severity of the incident for themselves.
This resulted in a red flag period, 10:33 a.m.–10:50 a.m. local time. That's not a proper sentence.
Possibly frustrated by dropping back to third, Alonso ran across the grass at turn one again on lap 15. That's bordering on OR and is pure speculation as it stands. There was nothing in the ref [25] to back it up, and personally, unless Alonso or someone close in the team confirmed it, then I feel it has no value in the article.
The ref does back it up. It says "No doubt frustrated by his predicament, on lap 15 Alonso made his second mistake at turn one, running across the grass and losing a further two seconds to his team-mate." Buc 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt frustrated by his predicament does not equal possibly frustrated by dropping back to third. You've interpreted a meaning from the reference and in any case, that's just the guy who's written the articles opinion on it. It's still total speculation. AlexJ 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both were later black-flagged from the race on lap 51. - Our audience may not be familiar with the term black-flagged.
There's a few points to start you off. Please remember that what I'm suggesting are some examples and the concept behind most of my points needs applying to the whole article not just the one example I raised. AlexJ 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: (p.s. Sorry for the delay, been busy!) (p.p.s. I haven't had time to fully read the comments above, so if anything overlaps then I apologise now.)
1. Jargon. It is creeping in everywhere, and it shouldn't really. Assume zero prior knowledge at all times. I don't regard obvious jargon to be too much of a problem, in fact it can make the text more lively, but each concept needs introducing in "proper English" the first time you use it. For example, Lewis Hamilton is referred to as a "rookie" in the lead section. As an example of what I mean by introducing it properly, you could rephrase that sentence to: "The race was won by Lewis Hamilton, in his first season in the top formula, who started from pole position on the grid; it was the rookie's first Formula One victory and the first Formula One race won by a black driver." Then you can use "rookie" as you wish from that point on. Other examples exist.
2. Punctuation and syntax. It is obvious where you have editied out previous material, as you don't seem to have gone through and actually read the edited text. Again in the lead you have "four safety car periods, It also included". Apart from not reading very well, the punctuation is so obviously wrong I'm surprised that it is there. Please proof read everything after you make changes. Othe punctuation could use some attention as well, try reading it back and actually pausing at every comma. Then you can see whether or not it it is needed. For example, the comma in the middle of "the kerbs at turn 8, to avoid further" can go. The opposite also applies.
3. More phrasing. The sentence "A test session was held on May 17 and May 18 at the Paul Ricard circuit, with the track set up to replicate the conditions of the Canadian Grand Prix for the final 2 days" has multiple issues. Firstly, you don't need to repeat "May". Secondly, where is this "Paul Ricard" you mention, I thought they were a distillery? ;-) Thirdly, the Canadian Grand Prix is something short of two hours in length, so how can a track be set up to replicate its last 2 days? As the dates of the test session indicate that it was only two days in total you could get rid of "for the final 2 days" completely. I assume that you got rid of the full test session details, but eve so, that phrase reads much more elegantly as "with the track set up for the final two days to replicate the conditions of the Canadian Grand Prix". Again, this is an example of a lack of proof reading. Finally, sums less than ten should be written out in words at all times. Check the rest of the text for similar issues.
4. Ok, more phrasing and general style points. The sentence "Giancarlo Fisichella finished in second less than two hundredths of a second behind Raikkonen, he also completed the second most laps with 111, behind James Rossiter with 131" is another good example of a single sentence containing multiple flaws. Firstly, this is the first time that we have met Fisichella, so who does he drive for? Secondly, this is the second time that Rossiter pops up, but his name is linked again. Third, the sentence covers two separate subjects (fastsest time and total laps) and so would be better split in two. Fourth, the final subclause sounds a bit odd. It would be better rephrased as "Fisichella also completed 111 laps, the second most of the day, behind James Rossiter's 131." Trying to put my finger on what is wrong is tricky, but I think it boils down to a slight sloppiness in phrasing and a tendency to "magaziney" tone. Finally, and I believe that I have mentioned this before, Fizi did not "finish in second", it is not a race. He can "end the day with the second fastest time", but as testing isn't a competition you can't be awarded a placing.
5. "During the two weeks leading up to the Grand Prix, Räikkönen and Felipe Massa released statements to the press saying that they believed that everything will be different in Canada...". Different from what? Actually, this whole paragraph is a bit of a nothing. So the two top teams both publically said that they were favourites to win, so what? It would be notable if one team admitted that they hadn't a chance, but not for them to say thay they were expecting to win. If you want to keep the paragraph then it needs a bit more substance; let's have some reasons in there. Why would conditions favour Ferrari? Why were McLaren "realistic" about "dominating"? This second point is actually also a bit odd, they most certainly couldn't be sure that they would dominate. Having read the actual source it is clear that Whitmarsh was "realistic about their potential to dominate", a very different prospect. Be careful that you are properly conveying the sense of a particular quote or reference.
Added that on request. I also fail to see the piont of it. Buc 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Pedro de la Rosa was third fastest despite his engine failing." A classic non-sequiteur. Unless his engine failed on the lap that he set his fastest time then the two points aren't directly linked. You could rephrase: "Pedro de la Rosa was third fastest despite completing fewer laps than many others owing to his engine failing early in the day". Hence, his engine failure resulted in fewer laps, which in turn resulted in a lesser chance of posting a quick time. Be absolutely sure that the points you are linking in a sentence or paragraph actually link in the manner that they are presented.
7. "The testing was stopped twice, first when Adrian Sutil's and then Jenson Button's engines failed." Ok, firstly it is either simply "Testing", or "The testing session", "The testing" sounds like a bizarre ritual that should involve burning torches and hot coals... Secondly, the current phrasing makes it sound as though the two engine failures were combined and constituted just one reason for the hiatus. A simple switch in the positions of the words "when" and "first" would cure this. Finally, each driver only had one engine go, this shouldn't be pluralised. Minor tweaks all, but improve the readability of the sentence no end. Read everything slowly to yourself, out loud if it helps, then these odd sentences (which are littered throughout this article) will stand out.
8. "end of both the 2 practice sessions" is again a it lumpy, you can say "the two" or "both two". I'd go for "the two" as the start of the next sentence repeats the word "both".
9. "the Spaniard outpaced his own team mate" is a tortology, his team mate is automatically "his own". Check through the text, there are a few other instances of this sort of error.
10. "BMW Sauber were pleased with 5th place in the first session and 7th in the second from Nick Heidfeld despite his report that the car was was "very difficult to drive", but Robert Kubica's car suffered a fuel leak resulting in him being unable to post a timed lap in the morning session and 12th place in the second session. Kubica also told the press after the fuel leak, "the car has been quite difficult to drive."" Ok, the first sentence is too long. Break it between the two drivers' comments. The Kubica section is badly phrased. How was it that his "car suffered a fuel leak resulting in him being ... 12th place in he second session". Do you see how that sounds wrong? It could result in himbeing only 12th fastest in the second session though... Make sure that any subclauses maintain grammatical continuity with one another. Finally, notwithstanding Alex's comments above, every direct quotation needs an adjacent inline citation. I would follow Alex's suggestion about leaving citations to the end of a paragraph if the paragraph is fairly general, but where a quote is involved to do need to be able to attribute that quote to a specific reference.
11. "Honda stayed behind its customer team Super Aguri in the first practice, but got Barrichello above the Super Aguri car of Takuma Sato in the second practice". Stick to behind/in front or above/below, don't mix them. Besides this, I'd prefer that you simply state that they "were slower" in the first instance, and by saying that they "stayed behind" makes it sound almost as though it were a conscious decision. Was it?
12. "ended his practice day by going into the wall at turn 7 on old tyres". Again poor; what was his car doing on old tyres, surely it should have been on a race track? Try: "After Renault put old tyres on his car, Heikki Kovalainen ended his practice day by crashing into the wall at turn seven, damaging the suspension."
13. "At the end of the afternoon practice, Mark Webber slowed down unexpectedly before turn 8, causing Scott Speed to drive into the back of the Webber's Red Bull." Add the bold, delete the italics. Really, you ought to proof read at all times, that's what the "preview" function is for. I might have mentioned this before.
14. "with a broken suspension". You can have a suspension linkage, a suspension keel, a suspension wishbone, or any number of other components, but you can't have a suspension on its own. You could also be more specific, which set of suspension was broken?
15. "Alonso ran across the grass at turn one again on lap 15" This is the second time that you have mentioned his further rallycross sessions, you need to delete the first instance (i.e. "ran off the track at turn one a further three times during the race").
That's because it was the second time it happened. I've even been told that this happened a third time although I don't remember it. Buc 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that you have repeated this information. At the moment the information reads like a countdown "he ran off and would do so a further three times; he ran off again and would do so another two times, her ran of..." etc. You only need mention an incident once. Pyrope 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. "Some belived that these mistakes were due to him being frustrated by dropping back to third". This is still weasely. It is entirely speculation and has no place here. Report facts. Delete the entire sentence.
It's a fact that some 'thought the mistake was due to frustration. Buc 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That reference doesn't show that some thought the mistakes were due to frustration. It shows that an ITV-F1 hack thought that the mistake was due to frustration. And if the sentence read "A journalist on the ITV-F1 website believed that these mistakes were due to him being frustrated by dropping back to third" as it should, I'd be thinking "Who cares!". If this journalist isn't important enough to get a byline on his article, then his opinions aren't important or significant. AlexJ 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just that journalist who thought it. Lots of people mentioned it. I guess I could try and find another report mentioning it. Buc 16:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. "Hamilton had opened up a lead over Heidfeld of nineteen seconds by lap 21". Again, this just doesn't flow properly. Try: "By lap 21 Hamilton had established a lead of nineteen seconds over Heidfeld."
18. "On lap 22, Adrian Sutil crashed at turn four, and the safety car had to be deployed, Hamilton had pitted just before this" change to: "On lap 22 Adrian Sutil crashed at turn four and the safety car had to be deployed; Hamilton had pitted just before the incident".
19. Followingon from the above sentence, the next sentence starts "At that point the pit lane was closed..." At what point? At the point that Hamilton made his stop; at the point that the accident happened; after the accident; when the safety car was deployed? When?
20. Following on... "When the pit lane was re-opened and the rest of the field pitted, Massa and Giancarlo Fisichella left the pit lane when the red light was still on. Both were later disqualified from the race on lap 51." Massa and Fisi did not leave the pits when the rest of the field pitted, it was after they pitted. You need a full stop in there, and delete the word "and". The final sentence is also slightly awkward. You could say that "both were later disqualified from the race", "both were disqualified from the race on lap 51", or that "both were consequently disqualified from the race on lap 51, following investigation by the race stewards". I'd go for the latter, it goes some way to explaining why there was such a delay.
21. "first lap afterwards" is inelegant, and could be simply replaced by the words "next lap".
22. I think that you could get more out of the Kubica crash as it happened. No mention of the fact that his feet were actually sticking out of the front of the car by the time it stopped! A compare and conrast with Martin Brundle's nasty accident in his Tyrrell, Johnny Herbert's F3 crash, or Martin Donnelly's accident testing a Lotus might be informative, all of which were similar head-on collisions, all resulted in exposure of their lower legs, and all of which nearly ended the drivers' careers (actually did in Donnelly's case). Listening to the ITV coverage you could hear the lump in MB's throat. Some historical persepctive on just how incredible his walking away was would be nice.
23. Following the short section on Kubica's crash you start talking about the subsequent safety car periods, and then you jump straight back to the accident. This is an example of the mixed up chronology that I mentioned during the FAC process. You menion in the lead that there were four safety car periods, so just treat them as they crop up.
24. Dust? What kind of dust? Hoover bag dust? Why did they put dust down on the track?
25. Make sure that only the first instance of a term is wikilinked. Super Aguri has three links, for example!
26. "while Davidson hit a groundhog on the racetrack" is a repetition from only the previous paragraph, delete it.
27. "meant that the safety car had to be deployed on four occasions", as you have mentioned more than once before.
It's mentioned in the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. "Barrichello dropped ten places on his final pit stop", from where to where? Was he leading? Did he miss out on a point finish? Your readers aren't Marvo the Memory Man, help them out a bit with some details. Tell a story.
29. "strengthened when Sato, in a Super Aguri...", another multiple repetition from up the page.
30. "...overtook the reigning world champion to move into sixth place around the outside of the final chicane, having switched to the harder tyres on his final stop". This is all over the shop. Keep relevant details together. Sixth place is not located around the outside of the final chicane, for example. You mean "overtook the reigning Word Champion [it's a title, it needs caps] around the outside of the final chicane, to move into sixth place." And where do the tyres fit in? Was this Sato or Alonso? How did the tyre compound affect the move? Was this because Alonso had harder tyres, or despite Sato having them? Were the harder tyres more grippy at this stage of the race? Again a non-sequiteur as it stands, and needs a little more flesh on its bones to make sense.
31. "Alexander Wurz drove through the field from 19th". Again, my natural facitiousness compels me to ask, what was Wurtz doing in a field? Was he driving a tractor? You also have mentions in various parts of the text about harder, hard, soft and super soft tyres. This is confusing, try to keep consistent terminology.
32. How did the safety car periods assist Kovalainen? What was special about his use of them that he managed to rise so far up the order? At the moment you state this almost as if it were a usual thing and a forgone conclusion.
This article need thorough and detailed proof reading. There are some horrible, obvious flaws that really should not be there if you are at all serious about asking people to spend time reading an article. You need to have the courtesy to present them with something which is as good as you can make it. Unless you completely flunked your GCSE English exam then there are many many errors in here which you ought to be embarassed about leaving in. Although I have given you plenty of specific sentences as examples, the general comments apply to the entire document, and are certainly not limited to those examples which I have chosen to highlight. Just because I haven't mentioned a specific problem does not indicate that it doesn't exist. You need to spend time reading this article slowly and thoroughly, do not be tempted to skim through and assume that is enough. I have just spent two and a half hours reading, thinking and writing these comments. It probably would have been better use of my time to simply do a proper copyedit straight away, but as you have shown a genuine desire to improve yourself as well as this article I thought it only fair to explain my thinking in detail. Sorry if some comments seem a bit picky or harsh, but the standard for prose in the FA criteria is that it is of near-professional quality. That is a tough ask, and will take much time and effort. I'll come back and do a copyedit when you have had a crack at the issues which Alex and I have raised here so far (and any others which subsequent reviewers make, of course!). I hope that by spending so much time slicing and dicing this text you can better appreciate my comment in the FAC that this would need a near-complete rewrite to get to FA status. There are few sentences, and no paragraphs in the entire article, that are as good as they could be. However, you have a good base to start from and an interesting and engaging subject. You could really use more historical context for Kubica's accident and Hamilton's victory and this would lift the article above the mundane. Good luck with the work! Pyrope 15:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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.
Done Within quotations. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to FA standard. I previously nominated it for FA, see HERE, but the article didn't make it. I think most of the concerns were addressed but I am looking for any comments that can improve the article. Especially the FA 1a criterion ((a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.) might be an issue.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide, Voorlandt 06:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
This article has improved a lot since the last Peer Review, and I would like it to be reviewed with a view to getting it to FA status in the near future. Thanks. - PeeJay 18:48, 9 September 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.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
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.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
For the past couple months now, I've been constantly tweaking this article; the previous version was a wreck, consisting of barely more than an incomplete discography. I've added as many references as I could find, and have constantly reworking pieces of it. My eventual goal is to get it to at least WP:GA status. There're some parts I'm still uncertain on the quality of, however. Basically, I'm looking for the following:
Are more references needed? Better references?
How can I make it flow better?
How can I expand the "musical stylings" section?
Are any other improvements needed?
Personally, I'd also like to get a better picture of the band (the only pic shows only half the band), but I don't have the resources. I would appreciate if someone could help there, too.
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.[?]
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 15 additive terms, a bit too much.
The script has spotted the following contractions: Can't, Can't, Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
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][?]
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I've recently done a major re-write hopefully towards FAC and I want to see what else needs to be done.
You've still got some work to do, but great job so far; it's definitely in better shape than it was. I have some suggestions.
Take a look at WP:LEAD and consider expanding the introduction.
History: The bold is a little overwhelming for me, but some readers may disagree. Remember though that even in subsections only the first letter of the header should be capitalized (unless it's a proper noun, of course). Actually, because the history section is relatively brief, I'd consider removing the subsections entirely and let it just run as a narrative. That might let you keep the bold terms because the (also bold) subheadings won't overwhelm it. Done You'll probably want another citation for the second half of the first paragraph under Croatan Normal School paragraph. Under "Recent years" all those sentences with dates should have in-line citations. Also, if you continue to expand this subsection, be careful of NPOV concerns: ...the university's profile and attention has increased recently as the result of an aggressive statewide advertising campaign... could be challenged (I wouldn't but you never know).
Campus: I'd recommend more in-line citations scattered throughout. I also wouldn't bold the campus center's name (I usually only bold terms that are synonymous with the name of the article). The lawn being "a popular place on campus" is either original research or perhaps another breach of NPOV. Done This is a great reason why this section needs more in-line citations.
Organization: Source this intro sentence and possibly expand the prose before going into lists.
*Students and faculty: Calling it a "unique school" is almost definitely not NPOV, if you ask me. I've worked at and attended several colleges and they all claim to offer small class sizes. My grad school averages 15 students per class, so 30 at UNC Pembroke is not small anyway. See the NPOV problem? I'd also be okay with putting those two paragraphs together into one. Oh, and remember it should be "Students and faculty" with the small f. Done
*Sports, clubs, and traditions: (again, capitalization) Why italicize "Braves"? Also, the line: Due to its legacy as a Native American school, the Braves are typically not targeted in movements to change or ban Indian team names desperately needs citations. Also, expand the other two subsections on Clubs and Traditions, with sources where possible. Done With expanding for the most part.
*General: The article might be overdoing it on pictures (they're great, though). Consider moving the free images to Wikimedia Commons and creating a category you can link to from this article (ask me on my talk page if you need help with that specific suggestion). Once that's done, you can consider which are the more vital images and be able to make them a bit bigger without so much competition from other images. Done Disagree here but two images have been removed nonetheless. I can see you've probably already seen the recommended article structure over at the Universities wikiproject. Good call.
A big problem which is sure to be challenged as you try to get to Good Article or Featured Article is the lack of third-party sources. See WP:RS for some ideas of what people may be looking for.
Well, I hope I was helpful! Good luck on continuing to improve this article! --Midnightdreary 13:33, 8 September 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.[?]
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 9 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][?]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has had a lot of improvement in the last couple months but I'm no longer sure what else could be done to improve it. I also hope to use lessons learned from this article to continue to improve other television episode articles. I'd like particular comments on how the article is doing in regards to WP:EPISODE. Any advice on what to get rid of and what to expand would be appreciated as well.
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 03:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of those lists at the bottom of the article (characters, Fansworth's inventions etc.) seem pretty trivial, and should probably be removed if you want to go to GA with this. But other than that, it does look good, and I can't see any other glaring problems. Good job. Gran2 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing but they've been around for a long while so I didn't want to stomp on too many toes. I'll try moving them to the talk page and seeing if anyone has a better idea for them. Thanks for having a look! Stardust8212 02:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a part of an improvement drive over at WikiProject Roller Coasters, I'd quite like to get this article up to scratch. I'm already aware that there's a severe lack of references and I'm already working on getting them in. What I think the article really needs is a review from the POV of a non-enthusiast, with the intention of getting this up to GA. Many thanks! Seaserpent85Talk 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good article. Here are a few minor suggestions:
Put the aviation concern into its own paragraph. Did this affect the design process or cause a delay in opening the ride?
The line "passes by the lockers." What lockers? Is this significant?
The braking fins should be discussed in the ride overview, before the section on the malfunction.
Is a picture available showing riders in the car, restraints in place?
Is a picture available showing a car in action on the track?
This article has recently become a GA, after a full re-write, a peer review, and a GA review critique. I'm hoping to bring it up to FA status in the next few weeks. It's currently 31k, has 25 sources and 9 good images. I'm wondering what kind of changes need to take place in order for it to become an FA. I'm willing to do the work myself, just need some critical eyes. Thanks a bunch! Nswinton\talk 03:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article about an important mid-20th century Americancollege and professional Canadian football player has been well referenced and cited using a variety of reputable sources. I believe the article should be rated above "B" class, and is worthy of being a "good" and even a "featured" article. I am open to any suggestions to make this article better. Sundevilesq 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 yards, use 2 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 yards.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
I've been working up the page, and have incorporated most, if not all, of Yannismarou's helpful suggestions. I would REALLY like to move this article up to a GA level, and maybe even get it featured. Sundevilesq (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello editors! World of Warcraft is one of the most popular MMORPGs in the world yet it is only a GA quality. A FA quality article would help increase knowledge of such games and would be the first MMORPG to become featured on Wikipedia. While the article is pretty good, some parts could use improvement. Therefore I am looking for someone to critique the article and provide advice on where improvements should be made to the article to help get it to FA quality. Thanks to anyone who helps :) --Hdt83Chat 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Integrate popular culture sections into the rest of the article. Some of the changes I suggested from the previous PR weren't implemented, so you might want to make some of those, if you wish. Sebi[talk] 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've integrated the separate sections in to one. How does it look now? --Hdt83Chat 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, not quite, but thanks for trying. What I meant for the popular culture sections was to integrate the whole of the section into relevant parts of the article, and then remove the section. "Popular culture" is a codeword for "trivia", and these items should be placed in relevant areas or be removed. That spot at the bottom of the article shouldn't become a dump for info that can't fit anywhere else. Sebi[talk] 05:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After messing around a bit, I've managed to move most of the pop-culture in to the article as the last paragraph in the lead section. Hopefully that looks better. --Hdt83Chat 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph of 'Early years'- is that meant to say 'disc jokey'? Presumably it is meant to say 'disc jockey'?
Typo has been corrected. LuciferMorgan 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of Hendrix songs played should have speech marks- MoS says it should be formatted- "Song", Album and Artist.
The list of three Hendrix songs now have speech marks. LuciferMorgan 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a direct quote, but we'll see who makes it to the top, lets place a bet is missing an apostrophe in 'let's'. Is this deliberate?
Do we know his child's name?
First line of second paragraph of 'Grip Inc.', album name Nemesis is not in italics.
The album name is now in italics. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second line, Solidify is also not in italics.
The album name is now in italics. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now, I will take another look later. J Milburn 19:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know both his kids names but don't know which one was first. I'll look into it. M3tal H3ad 13:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, some more points- J Milburn 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 24 is a little lacking in detail. Is that a book? Or just something he said at the festival? Can we even reference that?
It's something he said at the modern drummer festival. The video is on Youtube and since it would breach copyright i don't know how to add more detail.
Breach of what copyright? If the video was taken by the uploader, then we can cite it as a source (as long as we are certain it is genuine, I think it is reasonable to believe it is) if it was ripped from a documentary, live stream or DVD or something, we can cite that. Alternatively, have you taken a look on the Internet archives for the relevant concert? J Milburn 12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to slip between calling the drum set TAMA and Tama- I'm no drummer, so I am not sure how correct that is.
The last paragraph of 'Return to Slayer', the second set of quotation marks are not closed.
The line "Apocalyptica Lombardo enjoyed playing a duo – and asked if Lombardo would like to record a song for their next album." doesn't seem to make much sense, and that paragraph repeats 'Lombardo' a lot, too.
Thanks again for the comments. M3tal H3ad 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is, in my opinion, slightly confusing and doesn't flow well. It should state why Lombardo is notable; I recommend moving the contents of the second para up to the first, and perhaps removing the show-and-tell sentence. Your call though.
I thought Origin was meant for bands only? Noting his origin and birthplace is a little ambiguious. Also, the flags aren't really required.
Grade school is a little inspecific (I note that the grade in which he brought in his drums in mentioned above though). You may want to replace it with an age or something; grades are usually country-specific.
"100,000 years" -> "100,000 Years". "Talk of the town" is quite colliqual as well. "Word of Lombardo's ability spread" sounds a little more formal.
"This inspired his musical interest in drums, which resulted in him joining the school band playing the marching drum, although he thought the marching drum was "not for him"." Seems like a run-on sentence to me. "Musical" in this context seems redundant.
... by listening to the record repeatedly and word of Lombardo's ability spread for being able to perform the drum solo. Due to his new found popularity, he was asked if he could play the song "Moby Dick" by Led Zeppelin." To me, this sounds awkward. Could be better phrased as "... by listening to the record repeatedly. Word soon spread of Lombardo's ability to perform the song's drum solo, and he was asked to perform Led Zeppelin's "Moby Dick". (Also, who asked him? School friend perhaps?)
"Due to him arriving home at 4:00AM, his parents threatened to put him in a military school." This is unclear; was it every night, or just the once? CloudNine 13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add more comments soon. CloudNine 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I just noticed the origin in the infobox as you mentioned it - so i removed it. M3tal H3ad 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The research and references are fine, but the writing style needs significant editing to bring it up to encyclopedic standard.
The article often bumps together parts A and C without mention of part B of the story.
"With the drumkit, Lombardo purchased his first record..." implies that he got a really bad deal trading in the kit at a pawn shop for one LP! This sentence should be rewritten. Did his father include the record along with the kit?
Moby Dick reference jumps from "was not familiar with the material" to "after doing so" (playing the song with mastery, I assume you meant). Need a transitional sentence.
"...parents threatened to put him in a military school." Did they withdraw the threat? Did he have to give up late night events until leaving home?
"As Slayer's line-up was complete..." Did the band already have everyone but a drummer? The article jumps from King's own guitar collection, presumably at his home, to a full band taking the show on the road.
Hoglan appears and promptly disappears from the article. Is he really relevant?
Lombardo's wife appears without a mention of when they were married.
"Grip" section jumps from appropriate past tense into present tense discussion of events in the past.
He had to miss the 2005 Fantomas tour. Did he ever tour with them?
Should change to "Ten years after departing from Slayer..." and include the name of the manager.
The Christy quote should either cite the exact words for "blown away," or the summary should be rewritten to a less cliche term.Finnish should be capitalized.
Thanks for the comments. I agree with you on the poorly written part in some places and alot of sentences start with Lombardo did...He then.. I'll see how i can fix this up and the other things that still remain. Appreciate the comments. M3tal H3ad 11:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're very responsive to constructive criticism, and I see a lot of improvements in the article. Good job! One more minor point: when describing a purchase made in Los Angeles, you don't need to include "USD" - just "$1,100" is enough. Are you working on other articles? VisitorTalk 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Lombardo *insert verb here* has been a problem from the start and I'm slowly cutting them down. I recently re-wrote two articles, Silent Civilian and The Blackening (still needs a recording section and do-away with the "history") M3tal H3ad 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the "Recording" section - I'll try speeding things up a little. LuciferMorgan 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a copyedit of the entire article. However, the prose still needs attention and is the weakest component of the article as it stand. I recommend having another editor read and copyedit the page. The article in general seems ok, but I'm not too sure about the exensive use of reviews. Certainly there neds to be critical recognition of Lombardo's work, but since he's only a component of a complete group, single out sentences in reviews that mention him often seems like stretching the point. I'll try and offer more comments soon. WesleyDodds 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the point as regards the review, since it gives readers a perspective of Lombardo's work as a whole. I do agree the prose needs work though, but I can't think of anyone else who will copyedit the article further. LuciferMorgan 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought: could the reviews be better utilized in the "musical characteristics" section? As part of the biography they seem somewhat out-of-place. WesleyDodds 09:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure. In the biography section, it's meant to show the critical reception he has had over the years. LuciferMorgan 11:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked very hard on this article, especially to find sources (having trouble with a few). I just wondered if it could be improved, is it B-class yet? Could it make GA? Any comments would be appreciated. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be edited, revised, and improved by another editor. I've contributed a large majority of the content and feel I can't take the article much further. I think the article could be a top rated article, even a feature article, with some more work done to it.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections.[?]
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.”
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, didn't, hadn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
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][?]
I've requested a peer review in an attempt to get this article rated above "Start" class. The article is referenced, is relevant, and gives a detailed biography of an important old school hip hop/electronic music pioneer, Kurtis Mantronik. The article should rate, at a minimum, a "B" class. Sundevilesq 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Non-free use images require fair use rationales.
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
I've listed this article for peer review because… Friday Night Lights is a growing article and grow articles usually need a GA/FA sub-article to become better. I've adde references, summary, what else?
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.[?]
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
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][?]
The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
This article on the 36-year old Project Gutenberg digital library is in decent shape, but I'd like to find out if there are any suggestions for improvement. It does need some additional references. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be more on the evolving "place" and role of Project Gutenberg as many other digital libraries have emerged in recent years. Is it still predominant among them? Has its role shifted, or specialized? Also, given the type of project that PG is, we should more academic-type sources from university and library (as in brick library) publications.--Pharos 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is good but not great and I and others would like this article to be the first to be given a Good Article status for the Cartoon Network project. Just a few pointers as to what we can tighten up and expand upon. No automatic peer review suggestions please, we plan to action upon those soon. treelotalk 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actioned: As mentioned, we will be editing the article to fufil the automaed peer review.
I don't do this much, so I'm just going to run through my impressions as I have them. I like the opening, it does a good job of keeping the real world context. In the History section, the powerpuff vs. powderpuff sentence seems awkwardly worded. The character bios hold little interest from me, since I haven't watched the show. Moving on to the Episodes section, is there a story behind one episode being unaired in the USA? If so, an explanation of it seems warranted in the main article. In the DVDs section, some prose explaining what these releases are would be very helpful, since the table is a bit unclear (or possibly incomplete). Then, there are more DVDs after the Awards section. This whole area could use some restructuring. Then, references. Shrug, not much to say about them. Gnfnrf 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Midnightdreary
I don't think this article is ready for GA just yet, though I don't know what the standards are from the WP:Cartoon Network. Here's my two cents...
The intro can be expanded on. As per WP:LEAD, it should serve as a stand-alone mini-article.
Overview: I would suggest putting the Setting section as a subsection of this, as well as the info on the opening/closing sequences. The line "The show is one in a long line of cartoons that derives a great deal of humor from pop culture parody and satire" is original research. The line "It has a highly stylized, minimalistic visual look, reminiscent of 1950s and 1960s pop art" should have a cited source for a similar reason.
History: This is the article's strongest section, simply because it has so many sources. Keep looking for more and see if you can expand (see my last note, too).
Characters: I'd consider having a separate article for the main characters and only putting very brief information here. There's already a "Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls" article, which may suggest room for a "Major characters" article. Editors may notice if this section is removed, there's not much left in the article (see my last note! :).
Episodes: I'd consider taking off the bullet-style and just sticking with a single paragraph of prose here. Think about it, anyway.
I'm not an expert on TV articles here on Wikipedia, but I think right away that the whole article is sorely in need of more out-of-universe discussion. I think, say, production of the series and critical response should be a pretty weighty part of the article. For this one in particular, I'm sure you'll find information on its popularity, merchandising, etc. You have some information under "History" which could be expanded on. Make sure you've taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs and consider the article on Sesame Street (a featured article) as a sort of guide. Notice how many sources that article has (I'm guessing, though, that Sesame Street has a few more readily available sources; you might have to put some extra work in). Throughout this article, avoid single-sentence paragraphs. My suggestion is that all paragraphs should have at least three sentences; that's just good prose. Well, anyway, I hope I was helpful. Best of luck to any dedicated editors on this article! --Midnightdreary 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to get the article of Fefe Dobson to Featured Article status and I would like suggestions for what needs to be done. Rainer1 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
This is one of the few leads I've seen that is too long. Consider clipping away at it. Check out WP:LEAD to get a good idea of how it's done. In essence, it should serve as a stand-alone "mini" article for those that choose not to read the whole thing. As I understand it, it should also summarize and introduce what the article is going to discuss in more detail. You also should be careful about single-sentence paragraphs; try to always have three sentences (personal recommendation; not sure what FAC reviewers would say). By the way, using numbers in sports articles can be hard. Generally, for non-stats related info, go with writing the full word for the number for smaller numbers. Case in point, the fourth paragraph: "He is one of only 4" should be "He is one of only four..."
The problem with this article throughout is sources. This would probably not pass a good article review. So, do some digging, get some sources (preferably print sources to balance the web sources). Really, I would suggest that editors stop working on adding info to this article and just work on verifying what's already there. See WP:RS and WP:CITE for some info.
Also, throughout, there are short single-sentences paragraphs that should be expanded or merged itno another 'graph.
I'd also consider turning the "Charitable work" section into prose rather than just another list; there's already plenty of list-based sections here.
There's also a trivia section in here. See WP:TRIVIA.
Randy Orton is a bright upstart in the wrestling industry, and because he happened to start his career at a time when most wrestling fans began to blab info on their computers, there's a wealth of info on him. He's a popular wrestler, a controversial figure in his own right, and a colorful character in the ring. Although far from a mainstream celebrity or a popular influential person, his biography, because he is so well-known among today's wrestling community, can serve as a guide for the pages of other wrestlers.
Truth be known, most wrestling-oriented wikipedians lack the necessary perspective to put the details of his life in order; with the help of ordinary editors, who are not fans of the sport and who will not give value to useless details, this page can become a major success for writing articles on wrestling subjects.
I appreciate all feedback!
Sincerely,
--Screwball23talk 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been a GA for a while now and after I made a lot of changes to it I kind of left it alone for a while. It's not too far away from FA material I think, but I would like some suggestions as to how to get it on its way there. Sportskido8 15:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), favorite (A) (British: favourite), favourite (B) (American: favorite), offense (A) (British: offence).
The automated peer review is a good guide. If you can set it up in your browser it will help immensely. Once this review only returns totally irrelevant suggestions the you have probably got a good article. Hfarmer 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to check WP:DASH, because it's dead sure that it'll be raised during FLC.
The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. Reading the lead, you see that Sakic has a good wrist shot. So, it'd be expected to have a section or just a few sentences on his style of play in the article. But I found nothing. See Peter Forsberg in his style of play section. (I did it, but still) It has citations from coaches and journalists who said these things about him. I'm sure there will be a good amount of quotes on Sakic's style of play, how he didn't decline with age and such.
I am trying to get this to featured article status. Any feedback is welcome. Help is particularly needed in reorganizing it. If anyone has additional information on the history of the game, please add that as well. Thanks,
This is the second time this article has been reviewed. I removed the original research that was discussed in the first review, and sourced alternative analysis of the ballad. Although I still have significant grammatical editing to do, content-wise do you all think this article meets the FAC?
I'm purposefully reviewing this without looking at the previous peer review so if I'm repeating some of what was said there, that's why! I'm also not familiar with the poem so I'm giving this a complete set of fresh eyes. :)
First mention of the poem should be in italics. According to Manual of Style on titles, long epic poems should be italicized (not in quotes). You do it right later on, but the first mention is possibly the most important spot to get it right. Generally, the intro can be expanded anyway. It should stand alone as its own sort of mini-article for people with low attention spans. See WP:LEDE. I'm curious about this odd line, "usually considered an epic poem." Is there debate? Should the article discuss it? Also, are the exploits of King Alfred 100% accurate or fictitious? The word "fictionalized" or even "idealized" or "romanticized" can give whole new meaning to "exploits." A quick line about the author (i.e. "English") might also help, as would Wikilinking directly to his article rather than a redirect. An image of the original publication or an early illustration for the poem would be fantastic here too but I'm not sure how likely that would be.
Your "Summary" section should probably come first. I would consider (though I don't feel strongly) to divide the Summary section not into subsections but just into bold headings (the difference is in text size and also how it affects the Table of Contents; as it is, the TOC is really long and hard to navigate, but that just might be my problem, not yours). I'd also consider swapping the
I would suggest the "Analysis" section come next. I would make a similar recommendation about subsections vs. bold headings here. Whatever you choose, make sure the two sections match! This section is the one that needs the most work. First, it should be your most referenced section or it violates the original research policy. Quoting the poem here is also very problematic and, really, very little analysis is actually offered. You have a couple options, I think. First, you can really expand the crap out of the analysis on each part, just as you currently have it set up. This would mean lots of sources, and lots of equal weight given to each section. Option two would be to collapse it all together into one overall analysis of the entire work all at once rather than in sections. This might be an easier way to go until you know the analysis is strong enough to stand in its many parts. As it is, I'm having trouble figuring out the different between Analysis and Summary sections.
As for the full text of the poem itself, just rely on Wikisource. There actually is a way to link each of the summary mini-sections to their corresponding original text in Wikisource if you want to have direct links for each section (rather than just one hard to find box amidst piles of text in the article).
I'd then add the "Technical Features" section after this, though I'd change the name. It currently sounds like a vacuum cleaner or something! :) Maybe "Poetic structure"? Either way, remember to only capitalize the first word of section headings unless it's a proper noun. You should definitely expand this section, though. This might be the place to add discussion about its "epic poem" status, if such a debate exists. Look at a recently-approved good article on a poem, "The Raven" (shameless plug), for some possibilities.
"Influence on other works" could be renamed to "Critical response and impact" (based on the suggestion of the behemoth Wikiproject Novels; WP:Poetry doesn't seem to have recommendations for structure of articles). This would definitely be expanded to include (sourced) quotes about the poem's historical value, contemporary and more modern responses, and definitely other works inspired by the poem. It's a good start there, but it could be much bigger.
I hope this was helpful. Best of luck on this article! --Midnightdreary 13:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response by APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. It may take me a while to put all your reccomendations into effect. Here's a question:
I paraphrased almost an entire single article for the analysis, and referenced it in the heading (as well as noting that it was paraphrased). Why exactly are the qoutations problematic? I included the same passages that were present in the original document. I know the analysis isn't that extensive and not very concise or clear, but that's what was present in the original. I was only able to find a single relevant document in the Thomson Gale Literature resource database (from our public library) so I didn't have to much leeway. Should I check other sources to find more documents? Should I incoporate those documents into the existing structure or include it as a separate section?
Thanks, APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... consider this: If you're entirely analysis comes from only one source, it's hardly a well-rounded view. I think part of the policy on NPOV would suggest that's pushing a single bias rather than showing a broader view. I also think the heavy quotations of the verse make the section incredibly long but lacking in substance. Don't you? Also, think of it this way... if another editor comes along and adds some additional sourced information spliced into the middle of your sourced material,it gets hard to figure out what source applies to what analysis. Well, consider it anyway. I wonder if anyone else out there in Peer Review Land would like to offer an opinion... --Midnightdreary 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If your sources for the article are online, could you please link them? -Malkinann 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't post a link because it was in a limited-access database. I think you should be able to find the article in most databases or maybe from the journal Thought.
Do you think I should change it from a book-by-book analysis to a topic-by-topic analysis? That would make it easier to include other sources (if I can find more-the book is not well known). There is a little analysis in the book itself (as well as reviews of it when it was first published, which I may be able to use). I also have a homeschool study guide for it, which has a few excellent interpretations but I don't know if it was really "published" or just printed off someone's personal computer for sale.
I agree that the quotations make it long and cumbersome, but I also think they help illustrate some of the points made. However, this probably isn't necessary. Are there any guidlines or additional opinions?
Thanks, APAULCH 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do they have a DOI, ISSN or ISBN? As it is, googling for thought academic journal gives me 18,100,000 hits. I'd also recommend that you take the citation from out of the section title - it looks like the source is referencing your section title, which isn't the case.-Malkinann 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think arranging the analysis thematically is a pretty good idea. It'd probably be easier to read and might make it look a slightly less daunting size. It might be worth seeing if anyone has written a critical biography of this author; that would be one additionally source to start to balance the one that's already used heavily. --Midnightdreary 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any numerical ID. The volume info is Thought Vol. LXVI, No. 261, June 1991, pp. 161-78 APAULCH 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out which? I thought the one in the lead is paranthesised already. Chensiyuan 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bole2's already done this. Mattythewhite 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first parapragh of "Early career" includes only one paragraph. It'll need a lot more.
I'm not too sure on him being referedd to as "the young player" or the "13 year old" - reads like a newspaper.
I disagree with that :) I didn't write that part but it sounds fine to me. But I see it's been edited anyway. Chensiyuan 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More endashes are needed for seasons.
The reference after "This combined with his pace" needs moving to the end of the sentence - but the claim the whole sentence makes needs a reference itself.
Reference should be used for statistics. And for Honours, theres a lot of them!
Will try to look for reliable sources because soccernet only provides for up till 1999 I think. As for your comment on Honours, do you mean the list is too long or the list is unreferenced? Chensiyuan 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its in a very good state. Not too far off a FAC now. Mattythewhite 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a relatively unknown composition of a fading genre, I'd like to get feedback on what improvements can be made to get this to the highest possible quality. ALTON.ıl 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read it all, but I think it's on a firm trajectory towards FA. Well done. Needs a quick run-through to fix a few little things in the prose, that's all. "marks a significant point analogous to Schubert's first Moments Musicaux,"—surely the pause isn't analogous to the whole of the Schubert piece, but a pause in that piece. "The legato throughout the piece is made difficult through the melody that interchanges hands in the Con moto, and ...". This is from the performer's, not the listener's point of view, I guess. Difficult legato ... Hmmm. And better "difficult to play because of the interchange of the melody from hand to hand ...". " the complex musical style contained within this hybrid require successful rehearsals and strategic techniques"—Sorry to be picky, but much good music requires these. And in any case, it's unclear what strategic techniques are. Bit vague; perhaps remove as not wise of the original source to include; or perhaps it is explained there, but in too great a detail to include here.
I do wonder about the Commons audio files: doesn't sound like a Finale output; are you sure? Pity they're so short and end with a sudden yanking out of the texture. Tony 13:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are, trust me (but I did mess with them in Audacity). I thought that there might be a problem with copyright, but I think the vast majority of photoshopped works licensed as PD on commons validates my assumption that my work on Finale is PD as well, if I so wish. If you're saying they're too good, then I guess technology has progressed since they use that Personal Orchestra now. If you're saying they're horrendous, then I guess technology will never get the same level of skill that humans can get. Also, they're short because I don't really want to write out the whole score, right now the output isn't worth it. ALTON.ıl 20:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alton, you have a very good article here and I would suggest you take to FAC as it is. There's nothing I can see that needs immediate attention and wouldn't be able to corrected during a FAC. Centy – reply• contribs – 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the opening sentence: "Six" isn't a very french word. Ceoil 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but I think that is actually the French word: 6 at French pedia. If that is so, I suppose it should be made more clear. ALTON.ıl 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 1 - 10 in French is un, deux, trois, quatre, cinq, six, sept, huit, neuf, dix. Centy – reply• contribs – 10:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for your edits to the articles and the suggestions. It's at FAC now. ALTON.ıl 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current GA. Article failed at FAC a few weeks ago. I think images, referencing and completeness are pretty good, it's really everything else I'm worried about ;) Having said that, comments on anything are more than welcome. Thanks. Chwech 19:37, 1 September 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.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
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.
correctly
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Some stuff dealt with, others not applicable (there isn't an infobox that will work here). I haven't found correctly and don't in the article but when I do, I'll see what can be done. Chwech 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, "correctly" was not a weasel term and "don't" was used as part of an unseen note to editors. Chwech 17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for comments on the entire article. Sorry to not be more specific, but I guess I'm looking to improve everything that I can with it. I can be more specific, now that I think about it. Ultimately I'd like to get this to FA status, so any suggestions for how to improve with that goal in mind are what I'm looking for. Thanks, JCO312 21:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sentences seem a little on the terse side, which (to me at least) hinders the flow slightly. But overall the article seems fine. I only have a few suggestions:
The lead is rather short. Could it be expanded to include a second paragraph?
Can the long paragraph in the lead of the "Personal life" section be split into two or more smaller paragraphs.
The article has plenty of references, but I have to recommend using the {{cite}} templates throughout for consistent formatting and information completeness.
I hope this was helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attempting again for a push to FA, and I think that I've included nearly everything I can that is verifiable, but my main concern is the dreaded 1a), so I would like opinions on ways to improve the text of the article. Will(talk) 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a stab. I go over the M62 a lot, on Thursday I'm en route to the Leeds Festival - if I remember, I'll stop in the layby at the summit and get a photo or two. It would be good if there was a more-zoomed-in image of the route rather than (or in addition to) the little line on the whole UK map. Neilム 09:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Map Done, I leave the photos to you (or grab some off Geograph) Will(talk) 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, there's nowhere safe to stop anywhere near the summit. Neilム 13:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what's the height of the summit? Some like CBRD give 1442ft, others like LMARS give 1221ft, and I can't remember which one it says at the summit. Will(talk) 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much of the route is mountains and how much is flatlands?
I recommend merging the timeline chart into the route table: simply add a column for "opening date." VisitorTalk 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about one of the handful of asteroids to be visited by a spacecraft, and the largest thus far. I've tried to expand the content to cover what is currently known based on scientific publications. Is there anything else that you would like to see presented? Do you have any suggestions for improvements? Is it too dry and academic? My goal is to bring it up to GA status. Thank you!!! — RJH (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snake scales is presently a GA. I would be grateful for the following kinds of feedback -
Ideas to improve the article.
MOS issues to improve the article.
Hints to bring it up to featured article quality.
For your info: the snake scale names in the sections dealing with nomenclature were bolded intentionally for maximum utility for readers to help them follow the annotated sketches effectively.
The first think that strikes me is the essayish tone of the article. it has a unique "voice", as if written by a single, well-informed editor - and in fact this is almost the case. It would need some rewriting to resemble a typical WP article, as well as some tweaking of the explanations - for instance, the fairly well-known Dorsal is explained in the article, but the obscure Mental groove isn't. There are some other problems as well, such as the opening statement that scales are important to snakes because it classifies them as reptiles - it's not important to a snake' how it's classified by us. So yes, this is a good article but it needs style editing. The picture at the top is beautiful.
I can't comment on the scientific accuracy as it's outside my area. 11:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your observations. I am beginning work on this. AshLin 03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the opening sentance of the lead.AshLin 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added explanation of the 'mental groove' and 'gular scales'.AshLin 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking here. We're mainly looking for many more good references and sources, as well as expanding a few key section. I will add more information when I log in from home. Reason turns rancid 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on this. I love seeing these kinds of articles getting GA status. Here's some advice that I hope will help the continued improvements to reach FA status. Feel free to take a grain of salt before or after reading. :)
First, I think the images are a bit heavy. Maybe cut back a bit (why two examples of safety glasses?). That's just a personal opinion. Without a doubt though you'll need to expand the number of sources before the FA review. Throughout, there are also some very short paragraphs (sometimes single sentences) which can/should be incorporated into other small paragraphs. A good rule of thumb is a bare minimum of three sentences per paragraph.
Your lead is great; one of the best I've seen during my recent peer reviews. If you haven't in a while, double-check WP:LEAD to make sure this matches up.
The History section is a good section overall, definitely appropriate weight without overdoing it. Consider expanding the first subsection on Precursors. If nothing else, this might as well just bunch into one paragraph. I'm a little confused by "suspected" use. Maybe explain this better and how the emerald fits in. The next 'graph, "was secret to the Egyptians" might not be saying what is intended; it seems to be a non sequitur to suggest those poor Egyptians didn't know about glass. You may also want to source the term "reading stones." Under "Invention of eyeglasses," I'm compelled to suggest starting with the first pictorial depiction of glasses even if it's not chronological, along with the depiction from 1403. So, maybe mention the artwork and follow with, "but the invention dates back to..." It will also help the section transition into the other theories about the original invention. This is a bit counterintuitive, I know, so feel free to ignore this suggestion. Overall, though, this whole subsection is a bit disjointed to follow. Oh, I'd also suggest changing "legendary" to "apocryphal" in reference to Roger Bacon. I'd also add more sources throughout this subsection. Especially the longer 'graph starting with, "Many theories..." and the one "These early spectacles..." The Later developments subsection also needs much more in-line citations.
From here on, the article definitely has a major problem: I would recommend not even considering sending this article up for FA review until you add citations like crazy to these last few sections. Otherwise, it comes across as original search, no matter how true the information is. Check for sources on those main pages, maybe. Lines like "Nylon frames are usually used" or "Sunglasses are often worn just for aesthetic purposes" can easily be disputed. I also would suggest taking a moment to consider where the weight in the "Types" section falls heaviest. My guess (huuuuge guess) is that most people are interested in corrective or prescription glasses so it would make sense to have more prose there than in, say, sunglasses. I also personally don't like self-referential lines like, "the safety glasses pictured at right..." (or whatever the line is); you never know what editor will come by and edit mercilessly and leave that line nonsensical. I'm sure there's some sources you could find for the Fashion section as well.
Overall, though, the prose in this article is great and very readable; I'm quite impressed by that. I think the major concern is just a lack of sources throughout. Other than that, a great article and it's definitely on its way somewhere. Best of luck! --Midnightdreary 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the HdB page from start-class through a successful GA review. It has been thoroughly combed over by the inestimable Awadewit, and I'm interested in submitting it to FA candidacy. I've worked really hard on it (to which he can attest), and I've got my eyes on the FA star. Thanks in advance. — Scartol · Talk 01:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Balzac. Haven't read anything of his besides Père Goriot a few years back, but it was the only good novel I read in school that year... I admit my experience with biographies of high quality is somewhat less than my real areas of expertise on the wiki, but I'll try and throw in some good comments at least.
References: this is just me, but I can see some FAC reviewers wanting more references. Six references isn't too much. But I can't say too much about their quality.
Lead: to me, it seems a bit disjointed. The first paragraph is fine, but the next three seem to sort of "jump". While they do summarize the rest of the article, they appear awkward, like you threw them in after reading over it once. Perhaps merge the last three paragraphs into one, which flows better? It's especially jarring since the rest of the body prose is excellent.
Other than those minor and extremely subjective suggestions, I have nothing more to add. The flow seems fine, and the layout and organization roughly corresponds to other writer FA's, so it doesn't look like anything is missing. If this comes up for FAC sometime, I'll be sure to chime in my hearty support. :) Happy editing, David Fuchs (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly. I agree that the lead is a bit jerky, but I'm at a loss as to how to rewrite it. I think I may be too involved at this point (even after a bit of a break), so if anyone has ideas, please let me know. If the sources provided aren't sufficient, I'm at a loss; it's all the local library had on the man, and I think we can all agree that the information paints a pretty detailed picture.
Actually, on my most recent re-reading, it seems to flow more smoothly than I remembered it. But of course I'm not an objective judge. Other folks? — Scartol · Talk 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great article. The biography is really top notch, reviewers at FAC are much pickier than I am, and they might have isolated suggestions, but everything you need about his life is there. You could probably break the bibliography into a second article, if you so desire. Right now, it takes up about half the table of contents.
My only suggestion is to have more about his place in French and world literature. What are the hallmarks of Balzac's work that mark it as realism? Why do some argue that it's naturalism? What was his influence on Zola? On Flaubert? Books on French literature, on realism, or on respective authors that he has influenced should have good bits. (This will also help improve the sourcing—unfortunately David Fuchs is right, reviewers at FAC are going to want to see more sources. You can also use Keim and Lumet, and the anthrapoetics journal articles as sources, rather than external links.)
I think this is very close to featured article quality, it might pass as it stands, but I think that more about his place in the western literary canon will be the clincher. And, as a side note, I just learned about the ability to link references like in the Charles Darwin article. I'd be happy to help implement that nifty linking here, if interested. --JayHenry 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some more thoughts on sourcing: when presenting an article with relatively few sources you'll want to have evidence that they're exceptionally good sources. A simple link to a review attesting that they're good, especially comprehensive, etc. should help quell concerns. When you say local library do you mean the 10th largest research library in North America? You probably can't check books out, but I'll bet you can get in and make photocopies. No students will be there on a Saturday morning in September, and in just two or three hours you can probably find a few really good books, skim their introductions for relevant material, take some good notes. Make a copy or two if needed. Some people (me) really enjoy this sort of thing, others not so much. If you think you might enjoy it, it will definitely help push the article across the FA threshold. --JayHenry 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more quick thought -- a little bit more about his place in world literature might also be what's needed to really make that lead pop. --JayHenry 01:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is modeled after the various Simpsons episode FAs and I think this page is looking pretty good, although some of the prose could be better. -- Scorpion0422 03:56, 7 September 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.[?]
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.”
After making this article DYK quality a couple months back, I want to know what needs to be done to make this either a GA or at least a B-class article. All comments welcome. Wizardman 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I notice is the lack of information about his life outside of MLB. What was his childhood like? Who were his parents? How did he get into the major leagues? Did he ever marry or have children?
The last two sections (alcoholism, post-playing) are also quite short, could they be expanded a bit or worked into an overarching biography section perhaps? A few more sentences in the intro wouldn't hurt either, especially if/when this additional information is added. -Bbik★ 18:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right on the lack of information on him outside MLB. That's because I can't seem to find any info on it. My college does have a copy of the book "Alcoholics Anonymous comes of age," which I believe has come of the information you're looking for in mainly the alcoholism section. Post-playing I might should be able to expand as well, since BR Bullpen has a decent amount of info there (too bad it's not a reliable source). Thanks though, I'll improve where I can and let you know when it's done. Wizardman 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit, I got a wee bit more information I could add, but a search for waht you asked for came up empty, sorry. Wizardman 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, only so much you can do, in that case. Unfortunately, I've been bouncing between insanely busy and exhausted lately, but if I find a few free minutes, I'll see if I can come up with a few more suggestions for you. No guarantees that'll be any time soon, though! -Bbik★ 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent much time expanding it, adding references and extra information and would like to see it qualify as a GA. Any recommendations would be greatly appreatiated.
This article just passed a GA review. As the sole major contributor, I would like to get wider constructive criticism and suggestions to ready the article for an FA nomination. Thank you! --Melty girl 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration on goal for review: I think it's a pretty strong article, and is comprehensively sourced. All comments are certainly welcomed, but reviews concerning its overall quality and tone (as opposed to comments only about small details) would be particularly helpful feedback-wise. Thanks. --Melty girl 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Wow, this article contains lots and lots of inline citiations -- good job! One thing that some of the facts lack, however, is in-article context. For example, look at the last sentence of "early life," "But at this stage, performing meant dreams of being a rock star." which doesn't have any quotes. As a reader, I don't know who is saying this, and it seems like the writer of the article is editorializing. It's quite possible that this is a quote, but it should be clear to the reader what is being quoted, or the statement needs to be more neutral. The last sentence of the next section, "From music to acting" also lacks context, and in this case it also lacks a source. I think the article needs to be gone over with a fine toothed comb to pick out statements with an editorial tone, and to clearly attribute all opinions. The wealth of citations also break up the flow of the text, but I think most of that could be fixed by linking the words of the text together; by copy editing. I'm also not terribly happy with the lead section. At first I thought it might have too much information, but on a second look I think it's simply that it needs better organization. Maybe the lead isn't the place to put essentially his entire filmography, but if it is, the filmography paragraph needs to be separate from the rock musician paragraph. Enuja 05:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving the article a read and offering feedback, Enuja. Many questions...
About your concern re "...dreams of being a rock star." This is a sourced fact. According to Murphy, at this stage in his life, he dreamt of performing as a rock star, not an actor. The citation provided backs up this fact. I don't see it as editorializing, because it's a fact about the subject's life according to the subject, not an opinion (i.e. "he would have been a great rock star!"); it merely relates the fact that that's what he says he wanted to be at the age when he first performed for an audience. Can you elaborate about why this seems like editorializing to you and suggest how it might be changed? I'm confused, because many FA articles I've read make statements of fact like this without constantly using quotations like you seem to be suggesting must be used, and as long as there are citations, it's considered verifiable. In fact, many people seem to complain if there are too many quotes. Do I simply need to keep writing variations of "According to Murphy..." and that's what's missing here? Sorry to be verbose about this, but I'm honestly confused, so any elaboration you can make would be helpful.
About the citations. I'm a bit confused here too. You first congratulate me for providing citations, then you say it breaks up the flow of the text. I strove hard to provide a citation for every fact introduced, which I thought was necessary for verifiability. So I'm not sure how to do that without inline citations. What did you mean by "most of that could be fixed by linking the words of the text together; by copy editing"?
I followed WP:LEAD and summarized the article, which is a bit long, and that means the lead should be proportional to that. It isn't his whole filmography -- it's only the career highlights. Also, I think it would be strange to make the one and a half sentences about his brief stint as a rock musician into a whole paragraph, and I don't think it deserves more length than that, since he's a professional actor. The lead is in three paragraphs: 1) the 1-2-3-4-5 basics as per WP:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph, 2) his performance career highlights, 3) a bit about his relationship to his industry and to celebrity. How would you suggest either strengthening that scheme or changing it?
Thanks so much for your feedback. --Melty girl 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was unclear. Yes, I do think you need to keep writing variations of "according to murphy" because, without reading the source, I didn't know if Cillian said more recently to a reporter that he was still dreaming about being a rock star at that time, if Cillian wrote at the time that he was still dreaming about being a rock star, if friend reported that the was still dreaming about being a rock star, or if a writer in a chatty, editorial "news" article said he was still dreaming about being a rock star.
What I think breaks up the flow of the text is that the format seems to follow the sources instead of the sources following the text. One format I see too much of is "Sentence with fact. (citation) Sentence with fact. (citation)" Instead, the information needs to be broken down and re-arranged in order to make smoothly flowing text, with sources sprinkled wherever the fact happens to come, instead of usually at the end of a sentence. And one source can even cover more than one sentence. Look at this sentence " In 1996,[12] The Sons of Mr. Greengenes were offered a five-album record deal by Acid Jazz Records.[14]" I assume that any source that says who offered what record deal also says when it was, so sources 12 and 14 should both be at the end of the article. The copy editing that I'm suggesting is to re-write most of the sentence, keeping all of the information and citations, but just moving everything around.
If you think that every movie in the lead needs to be there, and that the middle paragraph shouldn't be split, there needs to be a way to make that paragraph flow better.
Don't feel bad about not understanding me; I was afraid of getting kicked out of a computer lab, and I was working very quickly, and think my writing suffered. Again, sorry about that. Enuja 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about your writing! Thanks so much for getting back to me.
Thanks for clarifying about "according to Murphy" and clear attributions. I will need to go through the article carefully like you suggest and address these. (As I am in the process of moving, that may take a few days!) I did, however, fix the two specific problems you pointed out.
I try to write for the clearest prose, then put the citations after the text they support. Writing with the goal of citation placement seems counter-intuitive to me. I tried to write well, then I did exactly what you suggested above as a practice: the "sources are sprinkled wherever the fact happens to come." Let me address the example you give: "In 1996,[12] The Sons of Mr. Greengenes were offered a five-album record deal by Acid Jazz Records.[14]" The reason for the placement of these two citations is this (your assumption is wrong): the first source states what year his band was offered a record deal, while the second is the only article ever to specify which label offered them a deal and that it was for five albums -- but it doesn't mention the year! That's why I needed two citations. If I put them both at the end, it might seem like inexplicable double-citing, while choosing one would not fully verify the sentence. But putting the first citation after 1996 signifies that it verifies the year, while the second one supports the remaining clause. I don't see a way to rewrite the sentence and still make this sourcing clear or make the prose better -- and I actually don't find it difficult to read this sentence in the first place. The more citations in an article, the more reliable it is, right? The eye has to learn to read past them no matter where they're placed. Isn't it better for the prose to be the best it can be, then have the citations "sprinkled" in where necessary?
I'll have to give the middle paragraph some thought. I'm not sure precisely why you feel it doesn't flow, but I'll mull it over. Thanks! --Melty girl 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that certainly seems like the only way to handle record deal citations, as long as you know the two sources are referring to the same deal. I do disagree with "the more citations in an article, the more reliable it is," however. To me, it's "the more reliable and complete the sources, the more reliable the article." Hopefully I'll go over the article in more detail and edit it a little for flow in the next few days. Enuja 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with the distinction you've made re my comment about sources. That is a much better way of putting it. Looking forward to your edits. --Melty girl 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 year has passed since this article's last nomination for FA status. I believe the article has improved a lot since then, and I would like to see if it can be improved further and if it is FA material. This article previously underwent a Peer Review, which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Puerto Rico/archive1. --Boricuaeddie 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I would really like feedback from uninterested parties on this topic. The article is all about the controversey surrounding a given scientific theory of transsexualism, where the controversey took on a life of it's own. For example, there are people who would take vehement offence to the use of the phrase "scientific theory" in relation to this topic. Hence I feel a need for a peer reivew by uninterested parties. I have tried to be neutral and as fair as possible to everyone. I want to know if others also think this article is truly NPOV. I also want to know if there are any suggestions on how I could describe the ad hominem arguements, in a shorter form, while not seeming to take sides. So far I have used quotes, perhaps I should summarize and paraphrase? Any suggestions at all would be taken and followed.
After first peer review spin-off articles based on main sections were created and article sections summarize spin-off articles. Following spin-off articles are listed also for the peer review:
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale geology, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale reserves, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale extraction, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale economics, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale industry, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including History of the oil shale industry, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Environmental effects of oil shale industry, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
I've originally started this article to fill a red link, but then I started taking interest in finding sources, so it progressively expanded to reach a respectable 30KB. I've attempted to source it the most carefully possible, and it seems to be mostly ok on this side; what worries me most is 1) the absence of images 2) the prose, as I'm no native 3) I've been quite extensive in the description of the constitution as approved in 1996, maybe too extensive; what do you think? Any suggestion, even brief hints, would be immensely appreciated. Thanks in advance, Aldux 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speak a few solid days getting this to GA, and now I need some opinions to take it further. Mainly on the layout of the career, if anyone has any sources to expand the early and personal life sections, and the prose (which I think needs work), and anything else. Thanks. Gran2 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hurray for Hank Azaria! I've loved The Simpsons and Mr. A for years, and I'm delighted to see him get such a thorough, well-written page. The structure of the Career section could use some work; see below.
Here are some notes, in order of their appearance in the article.
"as she could speak both English and Spanish" – how about "as she was [is? she still alive?] fluent in Spanish and English…"?
Done.
Give an example of how they loved showbiz? We already have the bit about his mom; maybe just say "Their love for show business…"
He just says that they love all forms of showbizness and that they most have seen every movie ever made.
Link up Forest Hills (and indicate it's in Queens)
Its already linked once in the same section.
"…whom he became good friends, Azaria noted that…" this comma should be a semicolon
Done.
"…better than I was…" better at what?
I think you've mistyped the quote or something, because it has always said "Oliver was a better actor than I was."
Nice tidbit about the Italian TV promo gig
First two sentences of Early career both start with Azaria. Make the second one "he"
Done.
Give names of clubs in which he performed standup?
Sources don't mention them.
Personal beef: I don't like the word "regardless". "Still" works fine here.
Done.
Give the events leading to his being a part of The Simpsons in chronological order. Explain his role in Roger Rabbit, then explain how he got the replacement gig as Moe, then tell us who called him for the audition, etc.
I don't understand, surely it is anyway?
Can we get a source for the Groening/Simon story of "make it more gravelly"? It's a good story, and I'd hate to see it struck for lack of citation.
It is sourced, the whole paragraph uses the same source.
The first Simpsons paragraph is a bit long; find a way to break it in two.
I've tried, but it really only works as one.
"As well as Moe…" Personal beef: I'd prefer "In addition to Moe…"
Group his basing Simpsons characters on real people all in one place. That is to say, move the bit about Pacino to the later ¶ and then you can follow through with Sellers and Robinson.
Pacino is relevant in above paragraph, and is recapped before the others as well.
"…who Azaria thinks has a similar personality to Apu." This is pretty obvious, I think. It's demonstrated by the fact that he used it in his voices.
Not necessarily, he could have just taken the voice. For example, Wiseguy doesn't really act like Charles Bronson, he just sonds like him.
The laundry list of the other characters is great info, but each sentence takes the form of: A is based on B, while C is a voice he chose for reason D. See if you can't get more sophisticated with your sentence structures.
I'll look into it.
I love the line about Grimey.
The behind-the-scenes stuff about The Simpsons is good, but it would work even better (for me at least) if we had some actual quotes. Give an example to back up the Groening praise?
Groening doesn't give any examples in the source, he just says it.
"As with rest of the principal cast…" I'd say "Azaria, with the rest of the principal cast…"
Done.
"…he stop working on commercials as he found them…" should be "He stopped working on commercials, as he…"
Done.
Career section structure: I'd give two ¶s on "Early career" – one for the first ¶ as is, and one about commercials and Roger Rabbit. Then just make a Simpsons subsection, followed by one for "Other voice roles". Then one for "TV and film", and one for "Stage productions". (Or, if there's not enough for a separate stage subsection, combine it with TV and film.)
I think that would be going a little to overboard on the sub-sections.
Give a year for Nobody's Perfect. If the year of the award was different, give it too.
Done.
Comma needed after Holy Grail.
Done.
"After beginning a relationship in 1994, Azaria married actress Helen Hunt…" To make this less confusing after the previous sentence (about an earlier relationship/engagement), I'd say: "In 1994, Azaria began a relationship with…"
Done.
"Hunt had appeared in Mad About You with Azaria," better to say that he had appeared with him, insofar as she was a star of that show.
Done.
"In early 2007, Azaria was spotted having dinner with singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow." Murrrrpmmhhpphh.. Feels like something that belongs on Access Hollywood, not Wikipedia. If it's not an actual relationship, maybe it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
If I can't find any more sources for it, I'll remove it.
"He has won four Emmys out of a total of seven nominations, he has won one Screen Actors Guild Awards, being nominated four times, and has one Tony Award nomination to his name" – I'd reword it as: "He has been nominated for seven Emmys and won four. He has won one Screen Actors Guild Award and nominated three other times, and has been nominated once for a Tony Award."
Done.
No comma needed after the word "image" in the caption of the Simpsons screenshot.
Done.
I hope this is helpful. Again, nice article. Good luck with it, and drop me a line if you have any questions. — Scartol · Talk 21:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done most of the stuff, I disagree with some of your structural propsals, but will consider some form of them. I've gone through each of your points to explain what I have done. Thanks for the review. Gran2 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review on the advice of an editor at requests for feedback. Basically I want to know where to go next, I've improved the article a lot in the last month or so and I want to keep momentum. I know there is no picture, but I'm stuck as to where to get one (i was planning to take one on saturday but she didnt turn up). Aside from that any suggestions are welcome. Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place for this or if anyone feels this is a waste of the process. Cheers, Jdcooper 12:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is on the oldest shows that the project I'm connected to has and I would like to have this article worthy of at least Good Article or better status. Any advice on syntax or length would be appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have kind of hit a brick wall for improving it. Not because I think it's great, quite the opposite, but I just need more input. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I hope that John Mayer can some day be a featured topic.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it generally conforms to WP:SONG, but I don't think it's perfect, and would welcome input from the community. Since this song has had a wonderful year of notability, I think it would also be good for this article to have a higher standard of quality.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made significant improvements to the page and I am looking where I can go further, beyond charting the progress of the character through the 40 books. I'm strongly considering adding detail from The Wishing Horse of Oz.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it into shape for Featured Article status. Since it's about a fictional character, all the annoying but vital aspects of WP:WAF apply, so I guess the question is how does it do in terms of out of universe. One note: I know the "...in other media" section is too brief right now, but anything else, point out here.
I love the first few sections. It would be nice, though, if the lead were rewritten to actually pay attention to those sections, as opposed to being primarily a lead for the in-universe material instead of the (very good) out of universe material. Then we come to the in-universe material - I see no sections under Appearances that could not be at least a paragraph shorter, and suspect that most of those sections could get by with a paragraph overall. Finally, some sections about Master Chief as a popular culture icon would be warranted. Phil Sandifer 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on this article sometime ago (february-may this year) - after I noted it in DYK; it was listed as GA in June and nothing much has been done to it since then. I would like to get this article to higher status, however I already have done pretty much all I could do for it so I decided to put it up here to see what else should be done, if everything is clear, especialy to people unfamiliar to topic. Thanks -- Xil/talk 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, this article is very good and all, but because Emma's still young, it might be to early for an FAC run. But I don't know, it is good enough quality. Few points:
Done Refs 27 & 28 need to be properly formatted.
Done Can a news source be found instead of HPANA for ref 25? I know its a reliable source, but its is a fansite, and I think a mainstream news source would be better.
I've replaced it with another reference to her official website.
Done Her official site link in the infobox needs to be properly formatted with a link title.
Done And some of the refs (like 16 & 17) are the same thing. Now I know its just the different pages of each thing, but I think its best practice just to cite the first page of the article, for each ref.
Done And in case the title isn't deemed obvious, ref 11 needs to be noted that its in German.
Any questions about the review, then please ask. Gran2 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions, above. Many thanks for the response. Happy-melon 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New ref is fine, what I mean for the Offcial site link, is for it to be written as EmmaWatsonOfficial.com. Gran2 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is comprehensive and well-sourced. For me, the main issue to address is the confusing organization of the sections of the article. Their order and hierarchy seems confused, and the section names are often misleading. But these things are easily fixed. First, about the broader outline of the article:
Not done The first section is called "Biography," yet the following three sections all seem to be biographical; for example, what is "Personal life," if not part of a person's biography? I would indent the second, third and fourth sections under the "Biography" section heading -- this would make them become subsections instead of topline sections.
This is the only issue raised that I have difficulty in agreeing to. I feel that indenting these two sections (the third, "Watson on Hermione Granger") is now removed) would unbalance the table of contents. It would, in fact, leave only three top-level headings, being "biography", "filmography" and "awards". Given that the last two are connected to the article proper rather than being an integral part of it (in as much as they are lists rather than prose), the article is left with only one top-level heading, which is inappropriate. While "personal life" could arguably be placed under biography in a longer article, it can also arguably be kept separated. I consider "professional relationships" to be an inappropriate addition to the "biography" top-level heading. Just my £0.02 Happy-melon 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done What is wrong with three top-level headings? I think it breaks things up nicely into narrative, filmography, awards. But if you're attached to separating "Personal life" and "Professional relationships" outside of "Biography," this leaves you a little lopsided in a way I didn't intend with my previous recommendations. This is what I'd suggest: 1) Break out "Early years" into topline section (akin to the logic behind "Personal life" being topline), 2) Rename "Biography" as "Acting career", 3) Move "Professional relationships" above "Personal life". --Melty girl 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good compromise. Happy-melon 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done I would put Filmography before Awards. I think it's better to read about the parts played before reading which of these roles won awards.
Onto organization within the sections:
Done The last three paragraphs in the "Harry Potter..." subsection would probably be better separated into their own subsection, called something like "Celebrity and wealth," because they are about Watson's celebrity, not her involvement in making Harry Potter films.
Done I would lose the "Interests" subtitle under "Personal life". It's superflous, since "Personal life" is good enough, and the second paragraph in that section doesn't describe "Interests" anyway, leaving only one short paragraph.
Done Similarly to "Interests", the "Watson on Hermione Granger" doesn't accurately describe what's in that section. There's info on Watson herself, as well as Watson on Rowling. I would lose this section title and simply work this text into the "Harry Potter" section -- except for the feminist comment, which I would move to "Personal life," since it's really a comment about Watson herself.
I've moved the quote by Rowling to "professional relationships", where it seems more appropriate. The extended blockquote goes into "celebrity" and the IGN quote gets lost.
Done Minor edit: I would remove the periods that follow the dates in the Filmography box. Those dates are not sentences.
Where exactly? There are no periods anywhere in the infobox that I can see. Happy-melon
There's a period following each date in the Filmography box's Notes column. --Melty girl 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Gotcha. All gone. Happy-melon 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that once you rearrange the article some, you'll also find yourself tightening up some of the language and the flow. You've got a great start; I think you just need to be a little more strict about the organization of the article. Cheers, Melty girl 03:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through this article with a red pen twice for copyediting, once forwards and once backwards. I know that Onomatopoeia has copyedited it too. I'm therefore concerned (although not offended) by any language issues you might raise. Can you give any specific examples of where the language and flow need to be "tightened"? Do you think it needs to be sent to the league of copyeditors? Happy-melon 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say is that when you rearrange sections wholesale, you often need to make subtle changes to compensate for things that now come first instead of last, and so on. --Melty girl 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just corrected a minor style thing. I'm moving right now, so I don't have time to continue this process more deeply, but I noticed that there are still at least two placement things that were not addressed, if not more: The new Celebrity section has items that do not relate to her Celebrity status. And why does the feminism paragraph start with "Finally"? Is it because it used to follow something else where "Finally" made sense? I strongly suggest that you be more ruthless about organizational issues and related writing/flow issues before braving FAC. Have fun with the article. --Melty girl 00:45, 1 September 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.[?]
Article currently at GA status. Hopefully with the comments we get, me and 4u1e will hopefully be able to improve it, and possibly nominate it for FA status in the forthcoming months. Davnel03 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By way of further information, the article is about a one-off F1 world championship winning racing car, used by Australian driver Jack Brabham in 1966 and 1967. All comments welcome. 4u1e 14:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure whenever units are mentioned there is always the metric equivalent in brackets eg. the 2nd paragraph of "Engine and transmission".
MOS says there should be a non-breaking space: between a number and the unit. Instead of 5 litre, use 5 litre so that you don't get the number on one line and the litre/inches/pounds on the next line.
The units should also be written out in text and abbreviated in brackets (see the second dot point of WP:UNITS#Conversions). Instead of "1 m (3 ft)" use "1 metre (3 ft)".
Can't find that.
It's there all right, see for example 'lb', which should be written out in full as 'pounds'. Now, we also have the option that "where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." (from the same source). Any feel for whether to do this or not? It's actually what I've done already for most units. What's making me hesitate slightly is that lb isn't a particularly obvious abbreviation for pounds, if you're not familiar with it. On the other hands writing pounds (and the other units) in full every time will get quite tiresome in the chassis and engine sections, since they come up rather a lot. I'll have a play with it and see if I can come up with something that looks good to me.
That brings up another issue: I haven't provided conversions of power figures. I guess they should go in kW? 4u1e 13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added power in kW and fuel consumption in L/100km, which seems to be the metric equivalent - anyone metric care to comment on that? The UK's a bit schizophrenic when it comes to units... 4u1e 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Metric power is kW and consumption is L/100 km. James086Talk | Email 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two more unit questions: Is there a metric equivalent for wheel size in inches? Does anyone have an equivalent for psi bmep for torque? I'm even sure that really is a torque unit, although it's what the source uses. 4u1e 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Converted bmep to torque in lb/ft, with Nm as the alternative. 4u1e 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2004, BT19 was in Australia, where it was still occasionally being driven at demonstration events by Jack Brabham, by then in his 70s." is a awkward sentence. It should be either "As of 2004, the BT19 is in Australia..." or "In 2004 the BT19 was in Australia..." also continue the tense through the rest of the sentence. I added "the" because all throughout the rest of the article it's referred to as "the BT19" and Brabham is quoted calling it "the BT19".
Done - used second version. Davnel03 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I looked for more images and they are all copyrighted.
There are some on Flickr whose owners might be persuaded to change their minds - I can't really see much reason for them to be 'all rights reserved' - but I've not yet persuaded anyone to actually change their licensing.... 4u1e 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no major flaws in the article and I think it's well on it's way to becoming featured. I just realised that I gave a rather bad review compared to the one 4u1e gave about the Ferrari P4/5. James086Talk | Email 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review, James. I don't think its a bad review: you've pointed out the things that you think need doing, what else could you do?! You've spotted things that I completely missed, which is the point of the exercise, after all. Cheers. 4u1e 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have too many things to add, just some things that stuck out to me as odd:
In 1966 Australian driver Jack Brabham won his third world championship driving the car, which was the first bearing its driver's name to win a world championship race. - The sentence starts talking about Brabham the driver winning the championship, but after the comma it describes the fact that the BT19 won the constructor's championship. I'd use a semicolon or break it into two sentences entirely to note the fact that the BT19 was the first car to win the seperate constructor's championship while being driven by a driver of the same name.
...designed by Ron Tauranac for Jack Brabham's Brabham Racing Organisation (BRO) for the 1965 season... - Not exactly a problem per se since they are two different entities, but the two Brabhams together sounds off. I'd simply re-word the sentence so that the two Brabhams do not appear alongside each other.
More complicated than it looks, but done. 4u1e 13:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The potentially very powerful flat-16 unit's development was abandoned - Very sounds a bit weasel-ish.
Changed to 'more powerful', a straight comparison. 4u1e 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the term 'Brabham' I think should be without the single quotes.
Quotes need some work on ending punctuation. If a quote is a full sentence statement, it needs the punctuation inside the quotes. If it is a fragment of a statement, then the punctuation can go outside.
I'd work the BT19's chassis number into one of the existing paragraphs instead of leaving it as a single sentence alone at the bottom.
I know, it's been bugging me for ages, but I haven't yet come up with a good place to put it. I'll have another think... 4u1e 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Better? 4u1e 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's the perfect place, but yes, it is a better place for it. The359 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to other suggestions! :-) It's really an infobox kind of thing, but it wouldn't really work there for most cars, since there's normally more than one of each type. 4u1e 13:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the car template at the top:
Formula Libre is wikilinked but Tasman Series is not. Although Tasman Series is wikilinked in the article, I think it is ok to Wikilink it again in the chart.
Fastest Laps - I assume NK stands for None Known? I'd type that out for those who can't figure it out.
I've looked through your article and understood it well. Having no prior knowledge I thought it was certainly clear and I didn't get lost. As i'm not sure about the actual technical stuff i'll comment more on the layout etc..
At the end of the article there is a jump between the 1960's and 2004 where it mentions the car is in Australia. Has it taken part in any historical races/rallys/exhibitions (with a starring role) between these dates? Are the demonstation events mentioned notable (with thier own wikipedia article to link to)?
Good point, I'll look into it, although sourcing that bit might be tricky. 4u1e 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made a wee start on this, but need to decide which refs I use. Plus I'm trying to confirm for definite that the car is still in the hands of Repco, which has recently been sold to private equity firm. 4u1e 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a public-domain picture for the one in the infobox? I had to change an article because at FA status the image needs to be public-domain for use on the main-page. Perhaps an image of the car would be better placed, with the logo somewhere else in the article? I presume its difficult/impossible to get a PD image of the logo.
You mean the logo? No, and I don't think there can be, by definition. If it were to reach FA and go on the front page, we would need a free use picture of the car instead. I haven't found one of those yet, either, but at least it's possible in theory! 4u1e 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the references there are loads of book resources (what wikipedia needs really) but I like to consult other web sources as I live in a country where I dont speak the language and so can't consult a library. Are there any more web resources that can be added?
I haven't found any good ones yet, but it's a good point and I will look again. 4u1e 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is well written and referenced as far as I can see. Hope these few comments help, Bobbacon 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, definitely helpful. Thanks! 4u1e 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An amazing read, and I have little to add here.
My main concerns regard the lede. Comments:
The lede looks a little long as a single paragraph. I would chop it a bit into multiple grafs - maybe three? Personally, I would strongly suggest a graf break that sets off a new paragraph at "For the 1966 Formula One season..." Mind that as a newsman I have a bias for short paragraphs.
I've split into two, but put the split one sentence earlier than you suggest. Otherwise the mention of its original purpose 'hangs' with no real relation to the rest of the first para. 4u1e 12:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Facts mentioned in both the lede and the article (such as the nickanem "Old Nail") have their footnotes/references only in the article body and not the lede. WP:LEAD doesn't say anything on it, but I'm not sure if the refs should be in the lede instead.
Opinion seems to be divided on that one. There is a line of thought which goes something like this: 1. Everything in the lead/lede is meant to be covered in the article. 2. The coverage in the article will be more detailed than that in the lead. 3. The more detailed material in the article will have to be inline cited. 4. Therefore nothing is added by repeating the references in the less detailed lead. Some counter that by saying Ah! But what if I doubt something I have read in the lead? To which I can only reply that surely the most logical thing to do if you doubt the lead is to at least read the rest of the article! Long story short - I'm happy with this way of doing it and I'll fight my corner if need be at FAC :) 4u1e 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the infobox, is it not possible to know how many F1 fastest laps the BT19 had? I saw that, for example, "race starts" was separated by series, so if possible, could it say "not known - # fastest laps in Formula One" ?
It's just harder to get the information. However, I don't think I could honestly say (yet) it was impossible to get the information, so I'll go away and look harder! 4u1e 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, actually F1 (champ and non-champ) was quite easy really. I just looked at the Formula One Archives, which match with the (less complete) hardcopy references. Anyone know a good site for Tasman results? 4u1e 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checked against Tasman Series and CAMS Gold Star, and there are no more fastest laps for BT19, so I make that 4 in total. Good point GuRoadrunner, thanks for raising it! 4u1e 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Praise) I think the way the article is sectioned is one of its strong points in how it is formatted.
Ta very much! 4u1e 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, to test my reading comprehension ;-) : When you say "Australian company Repco developed a new V8 engine for Brabham's use in 1966, but a disagreement between Brabham and Tauranac over the latter's role in the racing team left no time to develop a new car to take it. Instead, the BT19 chassis was modified for the job." -- I am correct in reading from just the lede that the BT19 was modified to take the V8 and then raced - i.e. it did not have a predecessor that was modified and became the BT19? I don't think so, right?
Yes, the BT19 chassis was built under that designation in 1965 (for the flat 16 project) and was later modified specifically to take the Repco engine, but retaining the same designation. I've changed it to 'existing BT19 chassis' to make the point a little clearer. 4u1e 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall the article was an excellent read. It manages to explain the technical aspects of the car without excessive jargon and neatly covers both the physical car and it's achievements & performances. Anyway, onto the feedback:
I think the lead should mention the years the car competed in the F1WC somewhere as time-frames are important to establish early on.
I've added a sentence stating the years they competed in Formula One in the lead. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Formula One Portal box. I think it would be better at the bottom of the article with the other navigation templates and categories. It's bordering on being a self-reference which I believe should generally be avoided in the main body of the article.
I've moved it to the external links section. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Formula One is the highest form of single-seater racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), motor sport's world governing body. - I'm guessing there's a reason for that sentence being there but I dispute that reason, whatever it may be! Else we'd have to explain what F1 is in every F1 related article. I feel having "Brabham BT19 is a Formula One racing car in the lead and the motor racing world championship bit provides enough context for people to know what's being discussed and then there's a Wikilink provided if they want to know more.
I've removed the sentence totally. Yeah - you're right, we would of had to have that in every Formula One related article!! Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now me, I'm not so sure I agree, but if the consensus runs this way, then I'm happy for it to go. The reasoning for having it in is that it does establish notability and give more context. In some articles I'd argue more strongly for it to remain - Mario Andretti being one where it is needed to differentiate F1 from all his other racing activities. Here, it's much less of an issue. 4u1e 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like its contemporary, the Lotus 39, the BT19 was built to use Coventry Climax's FWMW flat-16 engine, but was never raced in that form. - I think I'm right in reading this as both the L39 and BT19 were built to use the engine and they both never raced in that form. It's a little unclear if this is the case or if the BT19 and L39 were both built to accommodate the engine and the BT19 was never raced in that form. Perhaps changing it to Like its contemporary, the Lotus 39, the BT19 was built to use Coventry Climax's FWMW flat-16 engine, but neither raced in that form. makes this clearer.
Changed the sentence to your version. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that version is that you start the sentence having one subject (BT19) and end it with two (Lotus 39 and BT19). It could be written as 'The Brabham BT19 and its comtemporaty the Lotus 39 were both designed to use Coventry-Climax'sFWMW flat 16 engine, but neither was raced in that form'. I'll substitue with that form. 4u1e 14:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This agreement was not reached until November 1965, however, which left no time for MRD to design a car for their new Australian-built engine. - The however sits a little awkwardly in the sentence and to me it appears to flow better if moved to the start: "However this agreement was not reached until November 1965, which left no time....
Changed again. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again - Davnel's version improved it, but in reading that I realised that 'However' was unnecessary anyway! I've deleted it. 4u1e 14:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bodywork is glass-reinforced plastic, finished in Brabham's normal racing colours of green with gold trimming around the nose. Brabham's usual racing colours sounds slightly better to me, but probably others will disagree and it's a very minor point so whatever you think sounds best.
I'm keeping that the same for the moment. In my view "normal racing colours" sounds better than "usual racing colours". Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being extra picky, AlexJ is right: usual is probably more precisely the correct word here. Compare wiktionary:normal and wiktionary:usual. (Accepting that wiktionary is not the last word in accurate dictionaries...) 4u1e 14:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
before taking over a BT20 for the final two races of the championship season. The car was used again at three of the first four championship races in the 1967 Formula One season, taking second place at the 1967 Dutch Grand Prix. - Out of interest, could you find any reason for reverting back to the BT19 at the start of 1967?
I'll have to do some research on that point. I'm guessing they had teething problems with the BT20, but as I said, I'll need to do research on that point. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they'd sold the BT20s to someone else and needed a tried and tested car in case the BT24s weren't up to scratch. As Davnel says, poking around may uncover something.
That's pretty much all I can come up with for now, the rest of it looked really good. AlexJ 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, they are very helpful! Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll second that! 4u1e 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A single by the American alternative rock band Pixies. Looking to take this to featured status soon, so I would appreciate comments on its comprehensiveness and prose. CloudNine 13:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great song, and a great article. Here are some suggestions:
I think the intro can be a tad longer before it's brought to featured status. My suggestion would be to introduce the themes of the song sooner, before the details of the vocalist and producer. See WP:LEDE for other suggestions.
It's probably not easy considering the nature of the song and the band, but more sources would definitely help throughout the "Background and lyrics" section. It suddenly occurs to me, though, that the two topics really have little in common. I think Wikiproject Songs should do more in suggesting better headings and sections but I digress. What makes more sense to me would be a "Overview" section with subsections for "Background" (origins of song) and "Lyrics and themes" and maybe "Musical structure" ("Melody" section currently) or something. Breaking them up like this would allow you to really see what needs expansion and, hopefully, encourage that expansion. It's a big change which may or may not be feasible, so consider it thoughtfully. Either way, great use of sourced quotes throughout those related sections. The "Melody" section definitely needs some work as far as sourcing.
"Recording and production" section could use more sources, even just for minor snippets of info. Two sources for a section this important is kinda low. The final paragraph is written very anecdotally (hey, my spellcheck confirms that's a real word) rather than encyclopedically (not a word, apparently).
"Video" - Eh, I'm not a video expert. It might need some info about the video's production rather than just the observational summary. Who directed it? Budget? That sort of thing. Also, "simple affair" sounds like either original research or non-neutral. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it just shows the importance of referencing.
"Reception" is great, very thorough. If you happen to come across a negative review, do add it to maintain balance. I would consider merging "Accolades" as a subsection here. Credits look great where they are.
Overall, a good article, very easy to read and interesting. Keep up the good work and consider some of my suggestions. As much as it pains me to say it, look at "Hollaback Girl" for a featured song article. Follow their formula and you may be on your way to getting this to FA too. Best of luck! --Midnightdreary 12:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! Apologies for not acknowledging earlier; in my opinion the "Video" section is the weakest, and it's the one I've been meaning to improve. (I'm also going to expand the Accolades section; I tend to keep it seperate, see Doolittle (album) and Surfer Rosa) CloudNine 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on this article lately and was wondering what else could be done to bring this up to a GA standard? Comments appreciated. Timeshift 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, i think that it would definately pass GA. My only issues are with the honours section and the associated picture. The picture is awkwardly placed, and i find the section too short - the options are: merge it into another section or expand it.
There should be two sections for external links and references. 6references isnt good enough probably for GA, although the content is probably true, it just needs reliable sources to back it up.
Once these minor problems are fixed, you are looking good for GA. Maybe you should wait until the peer review of over, until GA nom-ing it. TwentyYears 04:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it all looking at the moment? :-) Timeshift 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping to improve this article to Good Article status but I have kind of hit the wall with it. ANy help appricated.--Vintagekits 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a lot of good information and referenced data. Its main problems seem to be organization and grammar (spelling and usage). I'd recommend some thematic reorganization (see notes below) and an afternoon with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, going through and fixing the little bits.
Note: This is my first peer review. I apologize in advance if I lead you astray in any areas. Also, I just noticed that someone did a review of sorts on the article's talk page. I don't think I'm duplicating anything written there, but I apologize if this is the case.
A picture in the top-right. I'm sure it's hard to find a free image, and WP:F doesn't seem to offer us much help. But an image would really help the page look better.
"Michael Gomez known as "the Predator" (born…" Put a comma after Gomez, and another after the close-parentheses.
"He now usually fights at lightweight however earlier in his career has also fought in the featherweight and super featherweight divisions." First off, avoid time-specific terms like "now". If he changes his weight class, the article will have to be modified. See if you can phrase it in a better way. Also, word it: "fights in the lightweight class; however, earlier…"
"Gomez, who is compared to Johnny Tapia who also lived a turbulant life, is often…" Try: "Gomez, often compared to Johnny Tapia – who also lived a turbulent life, is often…"
"…controversial and explosive fights with all of his last 15 fights have ended within the distance." Unclear. Say "…controversial and explosive fights. Each of his last 15 fights have [explain what "the distance" is]."
The word turbulent is spelled in a variety of incorrect ways throughout the page.
Explain why he was forced to change his name.
Try to group your information in each paragraph along logical lines; if the first ¶ is about his family (as suggested by the first sentence), then the basic info about his family should be in that ¶, not the second.
Firstly is frequently less useful than first (as in Background ¶ 2).
If two items are in the same sentence ("After they moved to England, the eyesight of Gomez's father…") they really ought to have something to do with each other or at least be related in scope or concept. That sentence is very puzzling, despite the fact it conveys the information itself plainly enough. (As it's worded now, it seems to suggest that the two things have something to do with each other.)
The bit about him being a truant and living in children's homes (add the s) should be sourced.
"Gomez began training…" is a big run-on sentence. Break it up into two sentences.
The info about his fighting style interrupts the flow of that first section. Maybe you could group Some of the paragraphs there into an "Early career" section. When discussing his style, it's best to explain what other people have said about it, rather than putting forth generalizations (even if they seem obvious to you – or indeed to every spectator in the world).
In general, a number of the paragraphs and sentences are inserted seemingly at random. For example, the Background section has a ¶ about his style, and then immediately goes into an overview of his career itself. The next ¶ is about a murder charge. A biography page ought to move chronologically – start with info on his family (Background), then move to 'Early career'. (You could incorporate the "Debut as a professional" info into such a section.) Some of this is done already; the "Title fights" section is especially well-organized. But it seems to me that something as significant as a trial for murder deserves its own section.
Is Alison the mother of his three children? If not, who is/are? What's Alison's last name? More info on how they met would be good.
Rather than go through and pinpoint every item which catches my eye, I'll end my review here. Good luck with the article and let me know if you have any questions. — Scartol · Talk 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a great article; you've definitely done a lot of work and it's to be commended. I'm going to focus on only a few sections but give you an overwhelming amount of specific details about those sections. Here we go...
Lead: This section problem could use the most work. I'm sympathetic because I'm terrible at writing intros myself. Consider some of these suggestions... Try adding a third sentence to the very first paragraph. A short paragraph like that comes across as choppy, and it's important to make a solid first impression! Maybe the founding date? Remember that, as per WP:LEAD, the intro should introduce the important points in the article to follow. I interpret this to mean that anything in the intro will be expanded upon if they continue reading. So, information about the history of the name and the management should be somewhere in the sections below in more detail. By the way, the line "2007 marks the twenty-first season that the Kinston team has been known as the Indians" is a bit of a throw-away in my opinion, the info about the name compared with the Durham Bulls needs to be said elsewhere. Actually, there's a lot of "only such and such team did something longer" and it's a little annoying to read (no offense). You might consider leading with "one of the longest" and then mention who beats them for the record when you expand on it in the body of the article. Am I making sense? Really, when you're re-working the lead, think in your head that you are squishing the entire article down to about three paragraphs that can stand on their own if a reader chooses not to read any further. For example, if there is a lot of weight in the "History" section (which there is), there should be more weight given in the lead.
History: "Baseball" is wikilinked here. It should be in your intro somewhere (maybe try minor leaguebaseball in that first line?). Kinston doesn't need to be wikilinked here because it's already linked a few paragraphs above. Your sentences are occasionally a little long here, especially in the first paragraph, mostly due to wordiness. "Quickly found themselves in the cellar"? What does that mean? What "onfield problems" does the next sentence refer to? "Professional nine" is not encyclopedic. "Kinston enjoyed" may be breaking WP:NPOV. Here's one: "In 1984, he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. To this date, he is the only former Kinston player to have been given that honor." Try combining to one sentence (the two short ones here are implying a show-offy emphasis, definitely close to a NPOV problem, in my humble opinion). Oh, and the photo caption on those tickets should have a space after the colon. Phew.
Under "Coastal Plain League", you could use another citation midway through the section (maybe split up the two at the end?).
Under "Carolina League" - how many years without a team? Here's an example of wordiness: instead of deciding to move the team, maybe say he just moved the team? It also comes across as too anecdotal rather than encyclopedic. A couple sentences later seems worse, "something never before seen on any of the town's previous nines - black ball players." First, I'd consider "African-Americans" (but I'm not an expert on PC terms) but also the dramatic flair of the sentence isn't quite the correct tone for an encyclopedia. I'm also curious about "verbal and psychological abuse." That's a deep accusation, abuse vs. ridicule or hardship, for example. Is that from your source? Later, "Unfortunately for Kinston..." is definitely breaching NPOV. Basically, be careful of word choice throughout ("explosive"? "youngsters"?) - if you use these essentially color terms, you're kinda stepping outside the encyclopedia world and into sports writing. I'm skipping around here. "The Eagles would fail to win any more championships during this second period of Carolina League play, but they were in the hunt during most seasons and managed to make the playoffs following six of the thirteen seasons" - Cut out the middle of that sentence about being in the hunt. Later, "powerful" team is a breach of NPOV. Tell me more about this "working relationship" with the Yankees, otherwise I fail to see how those sentences are relevant.
The paragraph that talks about the 1970s having a decline in attendance needs more citations split into it. Also some excess color terms throughout. Careful with talking about all their talent; it really looks like NPOV or WP:OR, which is why additional sourcing (and possibly, at this point, quotations) is needed. Too much background on Ray Kuhlman not relevant to this team (he has his own article). Again, instead of saying "decided to", just say what he did. Don't call him "Ray" either. And definitely add more citations to this paragraph too (especially after "remembered fondly").
(Taking a quick breather... and here we go again...)
The last four paragraphs of the history section are getting stuck with very long sentences again. I know you're trying to be thorough and cram lots of information into a single article and I appreciate that. But I think that's what's inviting you to go with these long sentences so that you can cover a lot of ground. Just give it a read-through (try it out loud) and see if there are any that are going too far. Similar problems here with color words ("yardstick") and potential NPOV problems. Actually, the sentence about the yardstick might as well be tossed out. It's one of those "show, don't tell things." Saying the team increased in value speaks for itself without the interpretation. "An incredible array of... talent" a line or two before is also definitely an NPOV problem. I'd also toss in a couple more in-line citations midway through the last couple of 'graphs. That fair use image doesn't seem to have a fair use argument and, I think, is either unnecessary to illustrate the topic or could possible be easily replaced by a free image. Oh, and stop using the word "enjoy"! =)
Grainger Stadium: Nice, brief summary here. Remove the bold names, though. You need sources for the second half of it, too, especially for claims like, "the second oldest..." and who is referring to it as "Historic Grainger Stadium." Actually, I almost think you'd be better off taking out that copyrighted image of the championship and putting the image of the crowd at the stadium (from Grainger's main article) in this section.
Current roster: This might be a better place for all the detail about the current management staff, maybe as a subsection. By the way, the page for WikiProject Baseball seems to suggest this higher up in the article. I don't necessarily agree, and they don't seem particularly rigid in that suggestion, so use your best judgment here.
Bibliography/Footnotes: This was a little hard to follow (for me, but I didn't get the best night's sleep, so...). Consider what was done over at "The Raven" (currently at GA status) to make citations a little easier to read.
I hope I was helpful. I tried to be explicitly thorough because this is already at GA status and I know you want to bring it up to FA. I think the biggest problem is the color terms and possible challenges of NPOV. More in-line citations will also protect verifiability if another editor makes additions that splice into the middle of a large single-source chunk. I hope I didn't come across as harsh! Best of luck in getting this to FA! --Midnightdreary 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the work that went into this review. I appreciate it. I will try cleaning up all the areas you talk about throughout this week. Kinston eagle 13:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've started to tighten up the prose in many places per your suggestions (nearly 2K bytes of material were removed), but I still have quite a bit more to do. That will have to wait til tomorrow though since I'm getting tired now. Much of the non-encyclopedic prose arose from my having written this for another medium and then trying to wikify it after moving it here. I do disagree with removing the line about "verbal and psychological abuse" during the integration year as death threats would certainly seem to qualify as "psychological abuse" in my mind, and the verbal abuse covers all manner of racial taunts without having to fill the article with the ugly details. I like the way the bibliography and footnotes were integrated together in The Raven, but it doesn't seem as though that approach would work well here with all the newspaper and program articles. I'm going to look around at some other sports articles that have been heavily sourced and hopefully find something that will work with these types of sources. Thanks again. The problems seem so obvious once you pointed them out to me. I really needed the fresh eyes to look at this. Kinston eagle 03:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to improve to good article standard or even featured article standard. The article is well written, but i think it still have space to be improve, and i also want to know how to write a long lead section in this article.
I think the sections about the opening and closing ceremonies were overly long and excessively detailed. Consider shortening those a little. I also doubt the necessity to include all the countries in which the Games were broadcasted.
Consider expanding the section on the highlights of the Games.
...many believed that the organisers did not have plans to deal with it...
Citation needed.
Sources say there were only so many buses, which were quickly filled...
Citation needed.
Many volunteers have been complaining about the lack of transportation needed to take them to their locations...
Citation needed.
Otherwise, I think you have done good work thus far.DrWeetAls 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like advice and help in improving this article for possible good article statusShinerunner 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References would be best if placed into citation templates, rather than in the format that they are currently in. Done
A little thing, but something that bugs me- citations should be placed as [statement][punctuation][citation], with no space, even if there are two references. For instance-
The sun is a star.[8][9]Incorrect Done - corrected
The captions shouldn't be in bold. Done - corrected
Over-spacing at the top of the article, and around the sections. There need never be more than a single line's space between anything. Done
Section titles should use sentence case- the first word is capitalised, and subsequent words are capitalised only if they are proper nouns. Done
Noticed by chance, but Admission, the first word of the last paragraph of the first section, links to a dab page. Done- corrected link
I'd remove the list, to be honest- it is badly placed within the article, US-centric for obvious reasons, and pretty indiscriminate. If any of them are notable, then they may deserve a mention. Otherwise, no. Done - removed list
Some more categories would be nice.
You may want to use the more details or main templates, rather than the clumsy 'see also' currently used at the start of some sections.
References go above external links, usually. Done
That reflist, especially when placed into citation templates, would benefit from using {{Reflist|2}} instead of whichever reflist template is being used now.
I'll be happy to offer further thoughts on how the article could be improved- drop me a line on my talk page.J Milburn 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
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 11 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.”
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][?]
I've added some detail to his recent seasons with Ajax, but I'd like to get some feedback that would help me to improve the article in general. Thanks in advance for any advice! JACOPLANE • 2007-08-27 18:45
I'm kind of lazy so I will give you some feedback from an automated peer review. Enjoy.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
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][?]
The infobox states that he spent time at De Graafschap as a youth player. Is there any further information on this, or anything else from his early life?
A dull stylistic one - according to WP:DASH, sports results should use an endash instead of a hyphen (3–0, not 3-0).
If Huntelaar did not play in any cup competitions, put "only senior appearance" instead of "only Eredivisie appearance". His debut could do with a reference.
Try to avoid references to summer or winter; seasons vary in different parts of the world.
Keep sporting or journalistic jargon to a minimum e.g. scoring drought, on target.
A few phrases have an air of POV and need referencing or removing - no goals against quality opposition, wonderful strike, controversial off-side call .
Why is "by not selecting Huntelaar" wikilinked?
earned a transfer to Ajax implies Heerenveen are less worthy than Ajax.
All transfer fees and scoring records (i.e. top scorer) should be referenced.
It seems odd to start the international section with "despite". Let the facts speak for themselves: Huntelaar was part of the preliminary Dutch squad prior to the 2006 FIFA World Cup, but was not chosen in the squad for the tournament itself", or something along those lines.
Was the Ireland match his full international debut?
No need for 1x or 2x before each award, the listed years show how many times each was won.
There are a few instances of redundant phrasing e.g. This was however his one and only Eredivisie appearance for the club.
Since Ajax had finished second in the Dutch league, they would have to play in the European play-offs to secure a place in the third round of the Champions League. "Had" and "would have to" is an indirect way of stating it. Try "As Ajax finished second in the Dutch league, they required play-offs to qualify for the third round of the Champions League."
How can I improve this article to (or at least nearer to) Featured Article status? It's been a Good Article since March 02, 2007. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is petty, but are that many references in the lead necessary? If those stats are mentioned elsewhere then 'd prefer they'd be cited there. There's a debate going on about that though, really thugh it looks good so far, I'll give it a more detailed run over later. Wizardman 17:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a few of those references out of the lead. The ones that are remaining should probably stay there, as the "more than 45" figure is subject to vandalism and the "good attitude" isn't mentioned elsewhere. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's good. I'd cite all the awards he's gotten, just to be safe as well. I actually think this is very near FA status, I'll look to see what else I ca find but this is very good. Wizardman 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the awards have all been cited at least once, although I'm sure there are a billion references for them elsewhere on the internet. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick suggestions: The year of his draft should be in the first sentence as it helps establish his notability and/or timeliness of the article. The lead should be further expanded (see WP:LEAD) just a little bit more. The use of "(see below)" is a bit silly - I think readers know that there's more to the article. That sentence seems a bit awkward anyway; I'm not sure his trip necessarily "exemplifies" his humility. Even if it did, that needs sourcing or it's original research to come to that conclusion. The information that it refers to is under the subheading "Academic activities," which doesn't seem to fit (in my opinion). Did he get course credit for this trip, then? Otherwise, it might just be community service. And who gave him these options? And what's a solar latrine? Is it solar-powered, or are these facilities on the sun? (lol) Oh, and that final sentence in that same mini section doesn't need the word "also." The article, in my opinion, has some WP:NPOV problems as it seems to be just non-stop praise. I'm also a huge fan of occasionally repeating the full name of the article's subject, so good work there. But, under the section "NFL draft," the first subsection starts with "Johnson," then the second sentence has "Calvin Johnson." It's more logical to give the full name first, then use just his last name. Also in that subsection, there is a single-sentence paragraph. Actually, a lot of your paragraphs are very short but, personally, as long as they are three sentences, I approve. Towards the end, I'm not familiar with the term "guaranteed money," and other readers might not be either. That's all I have for now. Hope that helps a bit, and good luck! --Midnightdreary 12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: It occurred to me, and confirmed by reading above, that his humility, etc. are mentioned in the lead but not further expanded in the article itself. That may be worth doing, maybe with a quote from a coach or fellow player illustrating it. --Midnightdreary 12:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed some of these issues, but not all of them. Good points :) The only sources I have on the Bolivia thing are this and this; they mention that the Georgia Tech Research Institute is somehow involved, but I'm not sure how. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to someone at GTRI and asked them some questions about the project. IMO the remaining tasks you suggested are 1) expand the lead and 2) move that "good personality" sentence into the body somewhere and add a quote talking about him. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be greatly appreciated if members with scientific knowledge would look over the validity of the claims made on this page and also help to establish a more scientific understanding of this subject. Jmm6f488 07:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of disagreement over the correct terms and classifications for what pedophilia is. It would be greatly appreciated if members with a background in science could review this article and help bring it up to a more scientific standard. As it is now there is a lot of POV problems with the article. Thanks, Jmm6f488 07:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of my fellow editors suggested nominating this article for peer review (it currently is rated 'B' class), and I would mostly like help in properly formatting and endnoting the references section, have an impartial observer locate any parts in need of citation or expansion, and point out any deficiencies that would keep it from being upgraded to a better class. Thanks! JMax555 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
The article is almost perfect. I made some minor cosmetic changes, such as adding {{cite book}} for bibliography and references. It would be nice if we can get origyear for some of the books in the bibliography section. utcursch | talk 11:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your edits and comments! I seem to be having a problem with the actor's infobox: it's mysteriously "added" a field called "Resting place" to the box, but no such field is in the template. Since Farr was cremated and her ashes scattered, there is no "resting place" and I'd just like to make the blank field go away. How do I do this? JMax555 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a pleasure to read this article - I learned so much! I love all of the beautiful images, too. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
Lead:
The lead needs to be expanded so that is a standalone summary of the article. Ideally it should reference each part of the article (see WP:LEAD and WP:BETTER#Lead section for hints on writing leads.)
You might mention who all of the famous artists are you list in the lead, such as "author Oscar Wilde, poet Ezra Pound..." - not everyone knows who these people are, sadly. The same goes for all such famous people you mention (e.g. Florence Nightingale).
It seems a bit odd to list "divorcee" in the first sentence - from the article, I didn't gather that that piece of information was that important - is it worth listing in the first sentence?
Content:
But it was a disastrous marriage, and she chafed under the restrictions expected of a Victorian wife - Can you expand on this at all?
An early feminist, Farr was known for advocating equality for women in politics, employment, wages etc. amongst her intellectual circle of acquaintances. - This is a crucial section of your article - don't sell it short by using an "etc."! Spell out exactly what Farr thought and did. Teach us (me included - I'd never heard of her until I read this article!)
Within a year Farr became Shaw's mistress, who wished to mold her into his idealized vision of "The New Woman" and be the star of his plays. - Are there elements of My Fair Lady, just in a different register, here?
Small things:
I'm not a big fan of infoboxes, as they tend to intrude on articles and offer no additional information. If you decide to retain it, I would remove everything that is subjective, such as "Occupation".
The first time you mention a text in the article, it is a good idea to give its first publication date, so that the reader can place it historically.
Prose (if you go for FA, I would suggest a copy editor - someone who hasn't spent hours staring at the same sentences over and over again - it is very helpful to have a pair or two of fresh eyes):
EX: Her family sent her to school at Cheltenham Ladies College in 1873. - It is always good to start paragraphs with the specific noun rather than the pronoun - it is easier for readers to follow. (This happens a few other times in the article.)
EX: Farr, May Morris and other friends posed for Sir Edward Burne-Jones' Pre-Raphaelite painting, "The Golden Stairs" when she was 19 years old. - "she" doesn't match the "they" listed earlier in the sentence
EX: The painting is exhibited at the Tate Gallery in London. - I would put this in the caption for the image. I would also add a caption to the image of "The Golden Stairs" identifying it as such.
EX: In early 1890 Farr moved in with her sister, Henrietta, and brother-in-law, painter and stage designer Henry Marriott Paget, to Bedford Park, a bohemian London enclave of intellectuals, artists and writers. - awkward
EX: Shaw was in the audience to review the play, which he called "an hour's transparent Arcadian make-believe",[6] but was greatly impressed with Farr's performance, as well as her "starling beauty, large expressive eyes, crescent eyebrows, and luminous smile." - I don't quite follow the "but" - Shaw's quote sounds like it could be positive.
EX: dauntless in publicly championing unpopular causes such as campaigning for the welfare of prostitutes. - perhaps just "causes such as the welfare of prostitutes"? there seem to be extra words here...
EX: who's resonate voice was perfect for reciting his poetry - "whose"?
EX: Farr was also the first woman in England to perform in Ibsen's plays, in particular the role of "Rebecca West" in the first English production of Rosmersholm, at the Vaudeville Theatre in 1891, which gained her critical acclaim - just the teensiest bit awkward
MOS (if you go for FA, spend a day perusing the WP:MOS and making sure that the article meets every single standard - that way the FAC won't descend into long list of your MOS violations):
Sometimes you use single quotes and sometimes double - it is best to be consistent.
Might you add a little note at the beginning of the "List of works" telling the reader where you found the list and how complete it is?
All of the notes need page numbers so that readers can check your sources. (See WP:CITE and WP:FOOT for how to format footnotes.)
"University College of London, biographies collection, Reference code(s): GB 0096 MS 982" - Is this a manuscript? It seems to be missing an author, publisher, etc.
Again, this article was so enjoyable to read. If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 07:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions! It's exactly what I needed (you're already providing one of those "2nd pairs of eyes".) I'm going to implement as many as I can, and even get some "non-wiki" friends to read it and help too -- I know a few librarians... :) Again, thank you. JMax555 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine was a WikiProject Palestine collaboration for some time and has been significantly improved by multiple editors. I am looking for feedback on how to further improve the article before submitting it for Featured Article status. Your comments would be very much appreciated. Tiamat 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a long article, but any feedback, even on parts, or technical aspects, anything at all, would be very greatly appreciated. It's a crash course in 600,000 years of human habitation and imperial history in a strategic geopolitical location. Check it out. :) Tiamat 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is WAY too long. I recommend creating a new article, "Pre-WWI history of Palestine." All the historical demographic and genetics information should go in that new article. (I wouldn't be surprised if other editors call for the genetics section to be yet its own article. After splitting off that material, the result would be a much more coherent article about modern Palestine, which should definitely include at least a paragraph about current conflicts.
It would be helpful to add a Geography section clarifying the various subregions and notable locations. VisitorTalk 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was also thinking of removing the genetics section, since there is already a section covering/duplicating this information at Palestinian people. But I do not really understand the rest of your suggestion. This is about the geographic region of Palestine as defined throughout history based on the progression of empires that passed through. It focuses on the pre-WWI history of Palestine, not Palestine today. Could you expand your suggestion so I can better understand? Thanks. Tiamat 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear. "This is about the geographic region of Palestine as defined throughout history based on the progression of empires that passed through." Now I see what you were trying to do. That is a good explanation that makes the article easier to follow. I recommend simply retitling the article to "History of Palestine."
Here's the funny thing. There already is an article entitled History of Palestine which is in pretty bad shape. That article, as I understand in supposed to discuss the historical phases in more detail, while this article, discusses the term Palestine, its origin, its boundaries through history under different rulers, etc. Perhaps both should be merged into one article. But I think there was a reason for having two pages that we might not know. I'll look into more. Tiamat 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the other article and yours are duplicates and should be merged, so there is one "History of Palestine" article from antiquity to the present day - an ambitious undertaking but you seem to be up for it. Good luck! VisitorTalk 09:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need a Palestine article to discuss that term and its applications and variations through history. But like I said, I'll look into it more and see what can be done. Tiamat 09:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some non-Aggie eyes to look at it. I am eventually planning to nominate this for Featured Article consideration. Before that, however, I need to make sure that the article makes sense to people who haven't lived and breathed the Texas A&M traditions. Please let me know if specific sections don't provide enough detail or provide too much detail. I also welcome recommendations on what, if anything, should be cut, and on anything non-Aggies have heard of that should be included.
Howdy! (I hope I pronounced that right, I'm not from Texas but I've visited there.) The article seems fine. The only item I'd heard of before was the bonfire deaths as reported in the news. It would help to make this a subsection, so that it shows up in the table of contents as that's what I looked for first. VisitorTalk 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it makes sense, and I'm certainly not an "aggie", never having been to Texas.
Some things I find myself wondering:
Howdy - how prevalent is this? Has it more or less replaced "hello" and "how's it going", or is it mostly just something people do on special occasions?
Football - I have no idea what is meant by "step off the wood".
Toresica 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Toresica, "Howdy" is a widely used friendly greeting throughout Texas that can mean "Hello," "how's it going," "I'm happy to see you," and "I wish you well as I pass on by." It's an all-purpose burst of good cheer that is breezy enough to use while roaming the range on horseback, and flexible enough to be stretched out in a relaxed manner when someone joins the campfire circle. The university tradition is celebration of a Texas tradition. VisitorTalk 09:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'll try to explain both Howdy and "off the wood" a little better. Karanacs 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing this article for some time, and would appreciate some feedback. Thanks, Skeezix1000 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be complete, the article should include a little more information about the town after the war: population, economy, whether it is frequented by historically-minded tourists, etc. VisitorTalk 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. While the article does contain some information on Lakhva today, like population and the political divisions in which it is located, there is not a lot about the town in the post-WWII period. That's mostly because there is not a lot of information to be had, esp. in the English language, respecting what is a very small town in Belarus. However, you've made a good point, and I will continue to search for that type of information. Skeezix1000 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're deeply focused on getting this article to FA class, but it is probably not ready for FAC yet. The article reached GA status about a month ago, and has improved a great deal since then. Although the whole article needs reviewing, the main thing I would like the reviewer to focus on is the "Musical Style" section, which is only a few days old. Thanks. Grim-Gym 04:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few comments to the talk page for the article. VisitorTalk 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) YDone[reply]
That's a helpful start, thanks. Grim-Gym 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References need to be consistently and correctly formatted. I started on it, but don't have time to finish. Refs with URLs all need retrieval requests. Should be: Last, First (date). Title. Work or Publisher, pages. Retrieved on date. - URL goes with title, of course. Directly after punctuation, no space before, no punctuation after. I'll review more later. LARA♥LOVE 06:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) YDone[reply]
I fixed all the references—or so, I think I did. The refs that are in "cite news" format, automatically put the date last, so I let them lie. Let me know if everything is satisfactory. Thanks for the input and we look forward to hearing more. Grim-Gym 07:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading up on Frank Barson I decided to look him up on wikipedia and found this was the article. I then decided to expanded it and put it up for a GA realising that i had a lot more to do to get it to that standard so i was wondering what needs doing? Baring in mind there isn't much info about him as his playing career finished in 1939 but started in 1911!
Thank you
(Everlast1910(Talk) 09:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Always good to read a well-developed article about a player from the game's early days, even if he spend six years playing for the dark side.
I have my doubts about the tagging on the infobox image, which states it was uploaded by the copyright holder. As the picture was taken in c.1920 this seems unlikely. The same image appears at [4], might be worth enquiring there.
Done:he finished playing for Villa in 1923 so added the
This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1929 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.
PD-USPublic domain in the United States//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/September_2007
tag
He's on holiday at the moment according to his userpage, but you could ask User:HornetMike if he has anything about Barson's time at Watford.
As there is not much information about his career after Aston Villa, it may be appropriate to merge some of the stubby subheadings to something like Later career.
There's alot about Watford so ill leave it for now and try to expand the other areas
The section about his international career implies he won a full England cap, but the infobox states "England A". Which was it? As he only gained a single cap, it may be better to merge this section into his club career instead of breaking it out into its own section.
Done
A couple of WikiProject Football members have access to various statistical archives, putting a request on the Wikiproject talk page might help you to fill the gaps in his appearance record.
I'll get onto that later
The lead should be a standalone summary - everything mentioned in it should also be included (in greater detail) in the body. See WP:LEAD for more details.
Frank was the club’s highest paid player and in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to stabilise the club’s terrible finances. Looks like there are some words missing here.
Done
There are a few run-on sentences which need breaking up e.g. He was 39 at the time and at the end of his career but he appeared 19 times in a Wigan shirt.
A Google Book Search gives a couple more sources of information beyond those included in the article.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Get around to everything else in a bit Everlast1910 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Everlast1910 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is Nobel Peace Prize winner for 2006. I would like to work to upgrade this article at least to a GA status. Please help me with your suggestions. Arman Aziz 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please standardize the reference format throughout.
Please clear the cite tags by adding a reference.
Please consider adding more wikilinks to the article. Thanks, DrKiernan 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on one of the above comments, references should be standardised with [statement][punctuation][citation], with no space, even if there are two references. For instance-
Section titles should only be capitalised if they are proper nouns. Not certain which are, but, for instances, 'Awards and Recognitions' should definitely be 'Awards and recognitions'.
We do not credit the author/owner of images in the image captions.
Are there really no public domain images, or images released to the press by the authority in charge of the Nobel prizes? They would be very much preferable to an image with obvious commercial value.
Are all the external links really needed? I think you could afford to lose a few.
A reference for each award would be rather useful.
Happy to give further advice, contact me on my talk page. J Milburn 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how we can improve it and potentially get it up to featured article standards. All constructive criticism is greatly appreciated
It looks like you've done a lot of work so far, but I think you still have a lot to do before going for FA. The most glaring problem with the article is its lack of citations. Every single quotation must be cited, and most facts should also be cited from a reputable source. Furthermore, the prose needs work. Some of it does not send formal enough, and in other cases it is choppy or does not flow well.
I haven't gone too far into the details, but here are some examples of the problems I saw.
Do not include Further information or see also in the Lead. It should be a summary of what is in the article and not be sending people elsewhere
Needs major copyediting. The prose is very choppy, and in many cases could flow better between paragraphs.
You don't need to refer to her sister as "the late" Princess Margaret.
Watch your pronouns. I saw several cases where you would be talking about the Queen, then talk about another woman (her mother, her governess, etc), and then the next sentence would refer to "she." You'll need to change those so that we know who "she" is.
All quotations, no matter how well known, need citations
A lot of the article is without citations. This needs to fixed before trying fo FA.
personal surname does not need to be italicized
There are too many instances of information being given in parentheses. Try to work osme of that information into the main text, or remove it if possible
Much of the information about her 2007 US visit appears to be trivia. Ask yourself if each sentence will be notable in 10 or 20 years; if so, leave it in; if not, remove it
The Reduced Duties section needs a lot of work. It does nt flow well, repeats information from elswhere in the article, and appears to contradict itself at least once. It also includes a lot of speculative trivia
For Personality and image, you should summarize what is in the main article. There should not be an empty section.
Good luck! Karanacs 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just personal preferences, I guess, so take it with a pinch of salt, but I prefer to use a separate set of footnotes for extra information (footnotes 1 and 3, for instance) such as by using the ref label and note label templates.
Ref 14 and 15 are broken- I think it's because of those dashes someone has stuck in the template.
The references would look much better if they were all put in citation templates, rather than just being external links.
Now, some non-reference issues-
Would be good to cull some external links, if just to remove that nasty template message.
"Official Buckingham Palace sources, however, have always denied there were conflicts between the Queen and Thatcher." Could definitely use a reference.
Everything tagged with {{fact}} will need a reference.
"If she survives until 21 December 2007, attaining the age of 81 years and 244 days, she will become the longest-lived monarch in British history." and "If both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are still alive on 20 November 2007, the Queen will become the first monarch to celebrate a Diamond wedding anniversary." could both do with references.
In fact, the referencing all around is a little light. For instance, there are whole sections (Styles, Arms, Scottish controversy... Unreferenced controversies are not a good thing)
As already mentioned, the empty sections look bad.
Short paragraphs often look pretty poor- see Finances, Scottish controversy, Styles and others.
Happy to analyse further, drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed an FAC nom (see link), largely on the grounds that it gave undue weight to a minority opinion (WP:UNDUE). The issue here is that, while this may be a minority opinion, it has nonetheless played an important role in the life of the books and has had a massive cultural impact, just as, to use a more extreme example, al-Qaeda and the IRA are infinitesimal minorities of their respective religions, but their opinions and actions have had a large impact on outside culture.1 I am interested in finding ways that this could be accurately presented without appearing to offend people of religious faith, who seem the most askance at this article.
(btw, note to the confused: in response to complaints, this article has gone through six separate title changes)
1To give some quantifiable evidence for this impact, harry-potter alone produces 134 million separate Google hits, whereas harry-potter and religion OR christian OR christianity produces 23 million Google hits, or 17 percent of the total. By contrast, performing the same pair of searches for Narnia and Lord of the Rings, both well-known Christian allegories, produces 21 and 14 percent respectively, and Star Wars produces only 2 percent.
The current version seems fine to me. Good show! VisitorTalk 16:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some views on how this article can be improved would be immensely helpful as it is intended to take it up to GA level. Many thanks! Seaserpent85Talk 14:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the article includes no/little sources. In particular, Special shows, Changes to the format and Housemates.
The main image needs a Fair Use summary. Done
There needs to be a way of sourcing the nominations table without distrupting its readability, the vote percentages need sources the most here. Dalejenkins | 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the official site did an article after every nominations and eviction night with a brief summary of everything (including nomination points and eviction voting percentages), which we could put in for each week, but I'm not sure where it could go - maybe in the notes section? •97198talk 04:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally forked off from the main Gillingham F.C. article due to its length, but I see no reason why it couldn't also reach FA status, so I've been working hard on it over the last week or so, and would now appreciate feedback on anything I still need to work on.
A very good overall standard, covering all eras and with no obvious POV issues. These comments cover minor issues, of style rather than content.
There are occasional uses of informal language: lightning-fast hat-trick against Leyton Orient, bounced back in the Southern League, pulled themselves up the table, promptly snapped up by Liverpool.
despite being managed by the former England international Stephen Smith,[8] the team finished bottom of the table - being a former international player means nothing in a management context, so the use of "despite" is perhaps misplaced.
renamed itself Gillingham F.C... ...and adopted a new kit of red shirts with blue sleeves.[11] This, however, did not lead to a change of fortune on the pitch - Why would it?
famous cup victory over First Division Sunderland - a possible peacock term.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments, all addressed now, let me know if I missed any instances of informal language........ ChrisTheDude 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been steadily improving this article about Ban Ki-moon, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations. As one of the most important diplomats in the world, I would like to get this up to Featured Article status. I would like guidance on where the article needs improvement (and bear in mind, his early and personal life and career before becoming secretary general are not 1/50th as well documented as, say, a U.S. president) and particularly how best to deal with the section on his current term as Secretary-General. Would small subsections of the biggest issues during his term, much like recent Featured Article Ronald Reagan be the best way to approach?
Thanks, --JayHenry 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fine article, already A class in my opinion. I think the "early life" section is sufficient, but his early career could use some further information on what he was doing in each particular place where he worked. (I understand that such information is harder to find than current news.) I would recommend separating the criticism into its own == heading and identifying the particular issues. That will help to organize the large number of issues raised in that section, which is likely to grow during the next few years. ShalomHello 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, didn't expect a review so quickly, thanks Shalom! I was going to make some WP:LEDE fixes tonight too. Thanks for removing that vandalism about Taiwan, it was added earlier today and somehow I missed it. I think I can still flesh more out of his pre-UN career. I personally was thinking criticisms should be integrated, I don't like "see #Criticisms" in articles, but I think that'd be necessary when we're dealing elsewhere in the article with actions that are also criticized, right? I'm genuinely asking for thoughts, as I'm quite unsure. --JayHenry 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, very thorough. I feel weird offering commentary, since I'm such a noob. But I guess that's the risk of asking for a peer review. =) Some notes, in the order they appear in the article:
The second lead ¶ both starts and ends with a reference to him being UNSG. Maybe just start with "Ban had been a career diplomat…"?
"…in 1944, when Korea was controlled by Japan." Maybe "while" is more appropriate here?
"Ban was raised in Chungju, a nearby town where his family moved when he was 3." How about: "When he was three, his family moved to the nearby town of Chungju, where he was raised."?
"As a child, Ban's father had a warehouse business…" Dangling participle = reader is inclined to think Ban's father had the business when he (the father) was a child.
Good tidbut about the first Americans he ever met.
"Ban's mother is reportedly a Buddhist." I'd just say "His mother…" (It's clear who the "his" refers to.)
This may be splitting hairs, but the second ¶ in "Diplomatic career" uses a lot of generalized time reference. A year or two before the date of SK UN membership would be helpful, I think.
Some of the years are wikilinked; others are not. Seems like consistency one way or another would be optimal.
"Ban lacked work for the only time in his life…" To avoid repetition of the word "work" in this sentence, maybe start with "Ban was unemployed for the first and only time in his life…"
"In 2004, Ban replaced…" This ¶ slips into and out of the simple past. Maybe instead of "has been involved" you could combine it with the previous sentence and change to: "…, after years of involvement with issues relating to…" Chronological order for that ¶ might be most effective.
I'd merge "Personality" into the "Personal" subhead of "Early life".
Maybe explain why Brazil awarded the Grand Cross?
I'd make "Awards" all one ¶. Seems odd to have the single-sentence ¶ at the end there.
Just for the record, how about: "…Ban made ministerial visits to each of the X countries with a seat on the security council."?
14 September is different from the other dates in that same ¶.
"On September 25, 2006, while these polls were being conducted…" Wasn't he giving a lot of interviews during this period of time? Were these special? Maybe discuss a bit of the contents more specifically?
"In order to be confirmed (comma needed) Ban…"
The ¶ about avoiding a veto from the permanent SC members, only his relationship with the US is mentioned. Was there any veto threat or concern from the other four?
Who was the SC abstention?
The "Baghdad attack" could obviously use more detail, or else get merged into some other section. Maybe a subhead of "Overseas travel" (weak name, I admit) including Iraq and the Africa trip?
"As the election of the successor to the Secretary-General Kofi Annan drew closer…" The prepositional phrase "of the successor to the Secretary-General Kofi Annan" is awkward. Maybe: "As the Secretary-General election drew closer…"
Likewise, the sentence which begins: "Specifically, his alleged practice of systematically…" is prepositional phrase purgatory. How about: "Specifically, some news articles mentioned his alleged practice of signing trade deals with European countries and pledging foreign aid to developing countries." Omit needless words! (And the bit about going to each country was mentioned earlier in the article. If mentioned here, it might be more comfortable in parentheses.)
"In an interview on 17 September 2006 he reportedly stated:" I expect something hard to believe or wildly controversial when I see "reportedly stated". In this case, it doesn't seem necessary.
"Perhaps an attempt at a comeback to claims of a lack of charisma would explain his singing…" Hmm. How about: "Perhaps to combat his image as uncharismatic, Ban sang…" Maybe this tidbit would be better placed in the "Personality" section above?
"…at his first encounter…" I think "in" is more appropriate.
I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. — Scartol · Talk 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a great deal of time writing articles on the various carom billiards disciplines (a labor of love). This article is essentially my summary of that prior foundation. Already a GA and selected for Wikipedia:Version 0.7, I would like some suggestions for further improvement and expansion. Any clarifications, prose issues, etc. are welcome. Please don't provide an automated peer review. Note that I am aware of the recently added, fragmented text at the end of the three cushion billiards section.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<automated peer review removed>
As already stated above: Please don't provide an automated peer review. I did that myself long before posting here. If no one comments, fine, but at least read the request.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Midnightdreary
Great job on this article, plenty of good sources (though, really, you can never have enough, right?). Here are some suggestions.
Lede: First, I think the opening picture should be a little bit more illustrative. Rather than a historic illustration, maybe a more recognizable picture of a typical table used for gaming? Maybe even a pseudo-artsy close-up of the balls and part of a cue? It certainly would help me understand the topic of the article more quickly. The lede in general is good but there is one oddly placed sentence... The first 'graph talks about the general set-up of the game, then suddenly ends with info about the history of the game. The second graph, which talks about the origin of the name, seems like the better spot for that. I also wouldn't italicize any of the terms. As I understand it, the lede should be introducing the full article with expansion of all it introduces further in the article. The history of the term "carom," for example, should be repeated in the main body of the article if it's introduced in the lede.
Equipment: I wonder if it's worth a quick bit of prose introducing the equipment before breaking into subsections (maybe this is a good spot for further discussion of the origins of the term "carom."). I don't feel strongly about it, but it's just a suggestion. Also, under "Cloth," that first paragraph seems long enough that there should be another in-line citation midway through or even earlier. Your double citations at the end of the paragraphs could be split to help that. This is, I think, especially important for strong claims about, say, the "most famous maker of billiard cloth." The same is true for the "Billiard cues" subsection; it's definitely long enough to have further in-line citations. Really, this is a suggestion for the entire article. Also, should this "Billiard cues" subsection wikilink to cue stick or are there differences? Under "Heated slate," I don't understand why the quote ends with an ellipsis ("..."); just let the quote end. I also think the whole "Equipment" section could use a quick once-over for wordiness.
History: Just as the "Equipment" section, I weakly might recommend starting with some quick prose before jumping into the subsections. Feel free to ignore that suggestion. But, the whole section still needs more citations. Possibly less reliance on your 1st footnoted source too. Under "straight rail," "although no exact time of origin is known" should probably say "no exact date"; the time isn't entirely relevant. :) The excessive bold words here are also a little distracting... Not sure they need to be bolded here at all (throughout the full section). Some of your italicized, err, vocabulary terms might have definitions under Wiktionary (I didn't check, sorry) that you could link to. I'm also puzzled why "The champion's game" has a main article called "balkline and straight rail." It's not clear that this is the same type of game. Also, did this version die out? It is written in past tense but I wasn't convinced if this version has died out (maybe a quick line like, "this style of play was replaced by" or "evolved into"...). Under the "Balkline" subsection, your list of variants is very thorough, but perhaps excessive. Are some of those variants more notable than the others? Also, in the third 'graph in that subsection, your inline "1)" and "2)" takes away from the flowing prose.
Other I think the images can be sized up a bit, per editor's choice. Also, I feel like a section is missing after the History. Perhaps a "Modern play" section, starting with the final paragraph in the "Artistic billiards" subsection? Once it's in its own section (and I don't mean subsection), it may encourage further expansion of the current trends, popularity, etc.
Well, I hope I was helpful. Best of luck with this article and other work here on Wikipedia! --Midnightdreary 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Lot to digest. No one had responded for so long I didn't realize anyone had finally responded until today. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list was an absolute mess when I found it, so I restructured it based on other television episode lists. I guess I wanted some opinions on what I can do to bring this up to Featured List status - my thoughts were that individual episode summaries would make this page absolutely unbearable, but that individual season summaries might be appropriate. I also wasn't sure how to handle the writer/director red links. I know that individual episodes should not be linked if they have no page, but I wasn't sure about the people involved. I'm willing to do what it takes to improve this list (as I hope I've shown by my work on it so far) so please let me know. Thanks and Cheers, CP 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the red-links, I'd say either un-link all of the writer/directors, or start making stubs for any of the ones you can. Otherwise, nice work! Nswinton\talk 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll look it over and figure out which ones are important enough for an article and which aren't. Thanks! Cheers, CP 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to AnonEMouse, I got some great tips on getting this article up to B class and getting a free picture. Now I'd like to get it up to Good Article status and I wanted to know what I could/should do to do that. Any help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I think it's a bit too short, that's my biggest GA concern. I'm willing to do whatever work is necessary. I'd also like to review one or two of the other requests here. Do I need to be a member of WPBIO to do that? Cheers, CP 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can review. DrKiernan 07:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to totally revamp the article over the last couple of months, and would like an outsider to suggest ways to improve the article and make it GA standard. Any comments are greatly appreciated. Sam Orchard 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a mention of the importance of videos to their career in the MTV era. Other than that, it seems to me to be a fine article. VisitorTalk 06:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it could probably use some more detail on their videos. It's just rather difficult to find decent sources on the matter. Whether or not this passes GA, which I've nominated it for, I will do my best to add it to the article. Thanks for the reply. Sam Orchard 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to achieve a Featured article status, it is a quite famous, and musically important band, and now disbanded. I spent an enormous time improving it, it was basically totally unreferenced and without enough information and no images. But I know it is no reason for a FA that I worked on it for a long time:) So I requested peer review to have other people check the article against the criterias, because I can't see more problems, but I'm sure there are many.
I found out that Audioslave broke up through this peer review and had a mini-heart attack - I loved them. Wow. Well, moving on...The article is comprehensive and well referenced, and deserving of praise right off the bat. I also want to mention that this review is hit and miss; I didn't read everything. But I think the article (and particularly the lead section) suffers from subtle bias. This kind of bias tends to creep into articles about successful and critically acclaimed subjects, but still must be rooted out. An article can comment on success and acclaim without sounding like Wikipedia has an opinion, which is the goal. Some examples:
"One of Audioslave's greatest achievements" - couple problems (1) greatest achievements to whom? Some might think their greatest achievement was bagging Chris Cornell, or something else (2) again, greatest to whom? This time, some might think that playing in Cuba was anti-American or pro-communist totalitarianism. Some think it might have been a stunt. I might sound picky, but word choice is everything. Words like "notable" "difficult" "covered in the press" "newsworthy" are good; words like "greatest" and "best" are generally bad.
DoneI changed it to "notable". Gocsa 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"brought an inimitable, unique flavour into this mix" - absolute opinion. And why the British spelling?
DoneI rewrote it to "Moreover, Morello incorporated his well-known, unconventional guitar solos into this mix." Gocsa 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"as Audioslave broke decades-long barriers" - barriers? Opinion word. "Breaking barriers" implies that they were denied something. Many might champion the embargo.
DoneI deleted that part. Gocsa 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues:
"receiving 3 Grammy" - three should be spelled out
DoneSpelled out. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morello added of the name - odd phrasing
DoneChanged it to "Morello added he thinks the name, "adds a kind of three-dimensional depth to the rest of the package."" Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"confirmed for the 7th annual" - seventh should be spelled out
DoneSpelled out. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Under the tentative name "Civilian" (or "The Civilian Project"), thirteen rough rehearsal demo" - this statement appears to contradict what was stated earlier about the "alleged" name. This conflict should be addressed or resolved.
DoneWell, I added that "it was, contradicting the other band members, discredited", I don't know if it is better now. But you see, the contradiction was within the band:) It is obvious, many sources and two band members confirmed the "Civilian" name, I don't understand why Morello denied it, but he definitely did, I just wanted to point out the fact that it seems they contradicted each other, and that Morello probably wanted to deem this name a rumor, but he didn't tell the otwer two (or maybe even three) to say his version:) I also changed the other part to "Under the name "Civilian" (or "The Civilian Project"), which was then erroneously believed to be the tentative band name, thirteen rough rehearsal demo". Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This was not the only time the album production was panned, Jon Monks from Stylus Magazine had the same opinion, he considered Rubin's production over-polished and wrote that "lacking individuality, distinction and imagination this album is over-produced, overlong and over-indulgent."" - This is three separate complete sentence separated by commas. I recommend using periods or a period and a semi-colon.
DoneAdded a period and a semi-colon. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"position No. 7 after selling" - number seven should be spelled out
DoneSpelled out. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The band didn't win in neither category, the Grammies were awarded " - semicolon instead of a comma
DoneChanged it. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"started in 2003, on the Lollapalooza tour, during free" - remove the commas
DoneRemoved them. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"saying it is "limp"" - saying it was
DoneChanged it. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"got an actual plot, the video only shows" - again, a new sentence introduced with a comma instead of a period or semi-colon
DoneAdded a semi-colon. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"purpose-built five years ago for mass"- ago? from when? this will get dated quickly (if it isn't already)
DoneI changed it to the concrete date, 2000. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" on May 18, on Hollywood Boulevard" - rm the comma
DoneRemoved it. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"While the first two albums drew influences from '70s hard rock bands" - it is better to write the full decade (1970s) and do the same elsewhere. Wikipedia covers centuries worth of info, and hopefully will be around for a while, so it is better to write the full decade
DoneI changed all of them. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Cornell is often referred to by his full name - after the first instance after the lead, he only need be referred to by his surname.
DoneDone that. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, the article is good, and I really need to get back to RL. But these are just some things I picked up on.--Esprit15d 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoneFull dates are linked. Gocsa 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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==.[?]
DoneThe only repeat is the Audioslave heading, which is the name of the album. Gocsa 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
DoneI think there are enough subpages. Gocsa 10:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), travelled (B) (American: traveled).
DoneI think it is now consistent, I tried to use American spelling, but as my first language is not English, it is possible I messed up some times. Gocsa 10:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks very good so far, but it does require a thorough copyedit. In particular, the lead section needs to be rearranged for grammar and clarity. I'll put it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music's prose review section in hopes that someone can take a look at it. Also, I'm not really sure the "Solo projects" section is all that necessary; with everything these bandmembers have done such information is best reserved for the individual member pages. WesleyDodds 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Gocsa 09:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on Forbidden City for a while, with the aim of getting it to featured article status. I feel that it is meeting or close to meeting the criteria, so I would appreciate any comments or suggestions in that regard. Some things which I would like a "fresh eye" to comment on include style and quality of prose, formatting of references, and image quantity/placement. Thanks in advance, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There a few comments, not a good review though. SpecialWindlertalk 06:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.
I've hidden the subheadings under "Collections". --PalaceGuard008
I've started expanding the lead a little to better summarise the content of the article. There are now three (substantial) paragraphs. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lazy review by mcginnly
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 metres, use 7 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 metres.[?]
DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 0.72 km2.
DoneWhen writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
DonePer 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==.[?]
DonePer 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.[?]
DoneThis article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
DoneThere 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.
it has been
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
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.”
DoneAs 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][?]
Thanks Mcginnly! That's a lot of excellent suggestions. It'll take me a little time to work through them - but thanks! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am progressively making the stylistic changes suggested, but I think one big issue is that I need to start a couple of sub-pages to make this summary style. I probably should have done that as the page was growing. Thanks! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mcginnly has made a lot of good points, so I won't repeat them. My only real bug is that a lot of citations come from the same source - "Yu". Would it be possible to have some of them replaced to vary the sources used?
DoneAlso, I don't see the original references for "Yu" and "Yang" - you need to have full citations for the first time they're used. John Smith's 13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that!
Yu is probably the most authoritative source on the architecture of the Forbidden City out there. An alternative would be the Palace Museum website - but I've used Yu mostly because of two reasons: 1) the Palace Museum website is almost impossible to cite, becuase they disable right clicking and you can't see the URL of the framed page, and 2) Yu is an English language source, whereas the Palace Museum website has very little information in English - most of the information is in Chinese. Still, I'll see if I can replace some of the Yu refs with other sources.
The full citations for Yu and Yang are in the Bibliography - I guess I haven't fully grasped how the footnote/bibliography thing correlates with the paper version. Good suggestion - I will change that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by D. Recorder
This article looks very good. One minor comment is that there are a lot of paragraphs with only a few sentences in them. Very often there are only two or three sentences per paragraph. I would either merge or expand them so that the text flows more and isn't as broken by spaces. Secondly, it would be advantageous to have a labeled plan, diagram, or axonometric drawing that shows the locations of the individual buildings such as the gates and halls that are discussed. Furthermore, you can add a few more references, such as [5] if you have access, and you can also work from some surveys such as [6]. It is smart that you are using plenty of Chinese sources but the article may benefit from a few more in English. Where you are at now looks very close to featured article status. Well done so far and good luck. D. Recorder 01:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that.
The one/two-sentence paragraph is a result of my attempt at Summary Style cull-and-move to daughter pages in the last couple of days - I will fix them up as suggested.
This article was nominated for Featured status, before going through an FAR and demoting this article from Featured status. Any suggestions to get this back up to Featured status should be very much appreciated. Thanks. GregJonesII 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to note that the article also needs to be reviewed to see if it reaches FA-Class. Thank you. Mr. Mario 192 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the first question I have is, has it resolved the criticisms of the featured article removal it went through? Once those are resolved, it should be ready...Judgesurreal777 03:57, 23 August 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.[?]
I found the current version of the article difficult to follow. There is a link to "jihad," but not to "lesser jihad." The introduction says that the laws govern diplomacy, but the only diplomacy-related comments in the article were duplicate comments about the requirement to accept peace treaties. There was nothing in the article about how Islamic soldiers are dealt with when accused of military offenses; is there an Islamic equivalent to the Western court-martial? Where differences of interpretation were noted, it was not made clear if this is because the Quran does not specifically address those issues, leaving room for interpretation based on different traditions, or whether there are specific texts but different traditions insist on differing applications of those verses. The line "historically, lack of a central religious authority..." could well be expanded into its own paragraph, with well cited examples through history. The article does seem grammatically correct, but it would help to break the longer sentences into short, one-thought sentences where practical. It would be useful to cite research about how different philosophies of military jurisprudence have contributed to the outcomes of various battles and wars between the Islamic world and opponents from other cultural and religious traditions. VisitorTalk 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section on "negotiations". Coupled with "Declaration of war" it's a good start to the inclusion of diplomatic issues. Of course, more work has to be done.
I don't know what Islam dictates is to be done in case of offenses. This has to be researched.
The reason for different interpretations also has to be made clear, I'll try to do that.
I will also try and find some historical info.Bless sins 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I done some major work on this article and would like advice and comments. Looking to resubmit this artilce for Good Article Review. Thanks Shinerunner 17:11, 5 August 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
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] Done
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 miles, use 100 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 miles.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
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==.[?] Done
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.”
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][?] Done
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: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==.[?]
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
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.
it has been
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
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.”
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][?]
The page is on the short side and is lacking in citations. The lead does not serve as a concise overview of the article. The Genre overview section relies too much on a bulleted list—can that be worked into prose? The article does no say where the term "Low fantasy" originated. Who are the most notable authors who write in this genre? Have there been low fantasy films or TV series? Instances where specific books are listed as "low fantasy" should be cited (such as a review where it is clasified as "low fantasy"). Hope this was some help. — RJH (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting, but it doesn't seem quite there yet. Some comments:
Please use the cite templates for your reference; a bare URL isn't going to cut it during FAC.
There are a few too many short paragraphs. Please merge or expand.
You might want to run the article through a spelling checker.
Can the article tell us what light source was used for early lighthouses? Was it oil?
The lead section needs to provide more of a summary of the main article. There is content in the lead that is not covered by the body, so it's not a summary. (See: WP:Lead.)
Hope this helps a little. — RJH (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I agree with the references comment from RJH. Consider more print sources as well; I'm sure there are plenty out there. That's just a personal opinion because I think print sources are a tad more reliable than internet sources. Anyway, here we go...
Lead: Your opening picture isn't so great. Something easier to see that properly illustrates a lighthouse would help (of course, I was raised in New England and spent summers down at Cape Cod, so I have no problem, but what about those poor land-locked folks in Oklahoma?? ;) Anyway, images won't affect your attempt to reach good article status (I don't think) so let's talk text. The first sentence is awkward; I wouldn't start with a clause like that. Try: A lighthouse is a tower building or framework meant to aid navigation and pilotage (umm... is this a word?) at sea, by sending out light from a system of lamps and lenses. The part about fires can be a separate sentence is at is secondary to the primary purpose. Also, take a look at WP:LEAD and spend some time improving the whole intro. It should really serve as a "mini article" that entices the reader to read ahead for more detailed information. Its own size should also be relative to the entire article; an article this size should have a good-sized intro to match.
History: This section is great. It's tempting to go over the top in a section like this, but this is very concise yet detailed. Well done. I'd try to get another in-line citation for the first paragraph just to increase verifiability if additional text is added in the middle by future editors. This article falls into passive voice occasionally (as do I), which is generally considered weak writing. For example: In the Islamic world, lighthouses were also known. Try Lighthouses were also known in the Islamic world (I'd also give more detail on dates right in that sentence). The final 'graph in that first subsection uses the word "use" twice in the same sentence; try "operation" the second time. Under "Classic period," the person "was drowned" or should it just be "drowned"? For your longer 'graphs in this subsection, I'd also suggest scattering a couple more in-line citations throughout, as mentioned a second ago. You also toss in the term "wick" before explaining that the lighthouses were using flames at the time (pretty obvious, but it couldn't hurt). Under "Modern," the term less picturesque may be challenged for NPOV so I'd stick an inline citation right there.
Light technology: Great section here and I'm glad it was included. I might consider, briefly, the possibility of starting with the building design before the tech-specs of the light. Maybe. Definitely more citations under "Lens technology" subsection. I also think the two-item list at the beginning breaks up some great prose writing; consider integrating. "Light characteristics" is very brief and, I think, would work fine as one medium-sized paragraph rather than several small ones. You also have a verb redundancy, to indicate distinguish safe water areas.
Building design: A bit word here throughout. Ex: ...the lamp needs to be placed at an appropriate height could be the lamp is placed. Otherwise, it kinda sounds like a "How-to" guide to make your own lighthouse. ;) I'm personally not a supporter of having bolded "vocab" words within the text of an article (other than the article's main subject in the first line) but that's really editor's choice. There are also a couple of single-sentence paragraphs which should be avoided. I'll make those same two comments for the Range lights section that follows; that section also could use more sources.
Maintenance and Preservation: Consider possibly merging these two sections together. I don't feel strongly about this but thought I'd just throw it out there.
Popular culture: As every pop culture section on Wikipedia, more sources would save this article from accusations of original research or questions of verifiability.
This article is very close to getting Good Article status. I hope my comments will prove helpful. Best of luck, and thanks for your efforts so far! --Midnightdreary 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just written up this article after a fellow WP:HMM participant recommended it to me, and now I would like to know what I can do to push it that little bit further up to Good Article standard. It's only short, but they are a side project that has released one album, so it is hard to write much. Not sure which areas may need work, and I am open to all suggestions.
Shortly afterwards, Lex Icon left the project, and was replaced with Tony White of Minis Tirith.[1] - The Rockdetector interview gives more information on this, and Shagrath explains why Lex Icon had to leave the band. This could be added, and would give the reader a better understanding of the situation. LuciferMorgan 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think- not sure if that's what you mean.) J Milburn 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One critic finished his review with the thought that the album "might not be smartest record of 2006, but it is the sweatiest."[9] - Please name the critic, and the publication the review was written for. LuciferMorgan 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The album was praised for being fun and catchy,[8] but one reviewer said it seemed as though the band ends up having more fun than the listener.[10] - Praised by which critic, and for which publication? Who's the "one reviewer", and what publication was he writing for? LuciferMorgan 12:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers picked up on this, commenting on the biker culture imagery,[4] and describing the music as biker metal.[8] - Reviewer name, and publication name please. LuciferMorgan 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was this lineup that entered the Panzer Studio in Oslo to record the bands first album, Doomsday Rock 'N' Roll.[1] - They entered on December 4, 2005 as can be read here. Also, they inked a deal with Nuclear Blast in February 2006. LuciferMorgan 13:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but do you have a reference for the February 2006 part? J Milburn 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The news article announces that the band have a record deal, and it's dated February. Usually, the news sites receive the press releases and publish them within a day or two. LuciferMorgan 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The album charted at number 31 in Norway, as can be read here. LuciferMorgan 13:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blabbermouth.net review of their album can be viewed here. LuciferMorgan 13:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated it. J Milburn 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was this attitude that lead critics to speculate about whether Shagrath could still be taken seriously in the black metal community.[10][2] - I don't like this sentence, and not too sure where this impression was given. I, as one of those two critics, didn't speculate upon this. I happen to like Dimmu Borgir and this band, though if there's any question that I asked which gave this false impression feel free to say. LuciferMorgan 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, seems you don't say that, apologies. The other critic doesn't really seem to say it either, and, to be fair, despite what I expected, I can't really find anything saying that- quite the contrary, I came across an interview with Shagrath saying how surprised no one had really said it. Ok, I'll remove it. J Milburn 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - it's an easy thing to do when working on an article. Only thing I seemed to rankle on about in the interview was the Motorhead comparison, which is something he responds to. Some good work thus far! LuciferMorgan 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their official news page may give you more information to work with. LuciferMorgan 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, most useful, I've incorporated it. J Milburn 22:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the album was described as being unoriginal,[13] this was reputedly made up for by the amount of talent with which the music was performed.[12] - Reviewers and publications? LuciferMorgan 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bjorn Bergersen produced the album, which is mentioned in a question during the Rockdetector interview. It may be mentioned elsewhere also. The fact he produced the album is verified by the official press release I sent you, so this information could be incorporated into the article. LuciferMorgan 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style section could be significantly expanded. Using the Rockdetector interview I did as an example, I've noticed the following relevant information;
Rockdetector: What can one expect in future material from CHROME DIVISION?
Shagrath - "It's a band like AC/DC – when you buy an AC/DC album you know what you get. Musically it'll be the same thing, but we'll try to add different ingredients to the music. Maybe we'll also change the lyrical content."
Rockdetector: During rehearsals in the band's early days, did you perform cover songs?
Shagrath: "We tried out a few Rock N' Roll jams fused with some TWISTED SISTER. I'm sure when we do live shows we'll perform some more cover songs."
Rockdetector - Are there any particular songs, or bands?
Shagrath - "Some MÖTLEY CRÜE songs from their first album maybe? We'll see."
The Motorhead comparison was particularly picked upon in the Rockdetector interview, as can be seen here;
Rockdetector: It sounded a lot like MOTÖRHEAD to me
Shagrath: "Yeah MOTÖRHEAD also. We don't take direct inspiration from those bands though; you're not gonna see us sit down and think 'now let's make a MOTÖRHEAD song."
There's probably interviews with a lot of other information also. LuciferMorgan 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added what Shagrath has said about future releases- I don't think the covers are frightfully relevant. I admit it needs to be expanded- I'll keep my eyes open. J Milburn 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say tehy're essential, but I would say they're relevant for such a section. It helps cover comprehensiveness. Good work thus far, and I can't wait to hear what your next project will be. LuciferMorgan 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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]
This is currently a GA. I'm looking for any comments anyone may have, with the long-term aim of getting this to FA status. SP-KP 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this peer review list at Project Gender studies. Anyway I think its generally very good, I have a few suggestions though.
The second paragraph in Children's schooling seems unnecessary to me - only the line about the special needs schools near her home is important.
The Career as an MP section could do with more sourcing.
The sub-section Sex offenders in schools controversy is interesting & well sourced but not entirely relevant - what did Ruth Kelly say/do/promise about this issue? Similiarly the Trust schools section seems a bit long to me.
Over all the article reads well and is interesting, well done--Caililtalk 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a smattering of points:
The initial section under the "Background" lacks sources
The "Family history" seems a bit out of the way. How relevant could her grandfather's political views/possible IRA membership really be?
The prospects section (other than the constituency bit which could be used elsewhere) is speculation of the worst kind and the claim about her deep voice is off the wall.
If it's notable enough at all, the section on her "Children's schooling" could do with being cut down to size.
The second paragraph on religion seems a bit speculative. The article provides no basis - other than prejudice and an explicit reference to the speculation by third parties - for the presumption of Kelly's religious opinions might affect her views on scientific and gay rights issues. I think we should have something a little more solid, before we start making these kind of claims. Caveat lector 00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I would like to know what kind of things does this page need to be nominated for a feature article. Thanks!
Limetolime 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a preliminary suggestion, I think it would be best to model this film series article after Spider-Man film series and X-Men film series, both of which are Good Articles. I can make more suggestions down the road, but the article should expand its structure first. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. The Superman film series is far older than either Spider-Man or X-Men, and its critical receptions should not be measured by websites like Rotten Tomatoes. Alientraveller 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Perhaps we can do without the precise measurements of the box office performance and critical reaction and just focus on prose to shape how the films did in these two areas? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: I think that all verifiable content from Canceled Superman films should be merged here, since this article can encompass both unreleased films and failed projects. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a quick observation: is it right to call it Routh "series", when only one has been made? The heading seems to indicate that there is more than one movie, but the text does not say so. Are there more in the works? 69.202.41.119 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then perhaps you might want to mention the sequel possibility in the text. 69.202.41.119 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. The same thing was done for Spider-Man 4 -- information was originally placed in a Sequel section at Spider-Man 3, but when Spider-Man film series was created, the future film information was placed there instead. When this one is developed more, the content at Superman Returns#Sequel can be brought here. Just seems like this article needs to be a bit more respectable first so it doesn't seem like an unwarranted move of content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another thing I see missing is information on the very first Superman films: Superman (1940s cartoons). These animations still influence Superman films today. Wrad 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please search for errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar.
I hope to make the article interesting and informative for lay readers, while providing a useful starting-point for scholarly research. I will be grateful for suggestions relative to either of those objectives.Wugo 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Utcursch, especially for the better reference. I was not aware of the curly-bracket commands, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite web}}. I shall look them up and, thenceforth, use them. Wugo 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article! I'd work to clarify the introduction (i.e. is only wheat glutens "a mixture of gliadin and glutenin", or are all glutens?) and if you have more information, perhaps say more about the chemistry, where it is found in the grain, and so on -- some of this could be taken from the introduction, which could be written in slightly less technical language, and put into it's own section (composition, maybe?). I'd also see if there are any general references out there (books about gluten? overview articles?) and list these as "further reading." In general, good job on an informative article! :) -- phoebe/(talk) 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phoebe, I added a diagram and some explanation. Please check again to see if I'm on-track. Wugo 04:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add all the comments, requests, additions, adjustments that you would like to recommend, especially if you are an expert or an interested person. :) Wikidea 00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this list is compiled mainly by one user and therefore is not a consensus. Further, as I mentioned on the talk page, there's a long list of complaints, however little initiative from what I can see to actually address them. Also in regards to the complaints; while some of the information may be common knowledge, a bulk of the arguments may not be and there's no sources provided to backup the claims. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The list was reviewed by other users (all of whom were lawyers or law students) when I brought an RFC over the appropriateness of the NPOV tag (and when Wikidea brought a COI complaint against me), and all of whom agreed the tag was appropriate and my edits were appropriate. (2) There are sources to a number of matters than can be cited. Since many of the complaints are about POV phrasing, NOR violations, and lack of relevance of many sections, there's nothing to cite. If you think I've made a controversial claim, please identify it and I'll add a cite, but everything I mentioned is fairly obvious to American antitrust practitioners. (3) See WP:TAGGING. An editor who identifies problems has no obligation to correct them. In this case, correction would entail rewriting an entire article, something I'm not inclined to tackle before the WP:OWN and WP:NPA problems of an editor are fixed. THF 12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Chicago school section requires substantial editing. Secondly I believe there was a Harvard school of thought? I'm relying on my memory at the moment. We are having a problem in terms of the structure of the article. I reckon we ought to reassess what it is this article is supposed to do. Many of the sections have their own dedicated articles. If it is to act as an introduction mini-portal, then we can restrain ourselves on the number of court cases that are required and broadly describe the theories behind competition law. At the moment I feel the purpose is confused - the competition in law practice cannot do itself justice because it concentrates on the EU side too much. At the same time we need to back up our comments, so finding a neutral source is necessary.
I would perhaps remove the competition law in practice section, if only because it lengthens the article and duplicates material that would be discussed in the main EU & US articles. If not, let's divide each part into three: overview, EU, US. That way each gets a dedicated treatment. Sephui 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind the object of Wikiproject law is to have a pan-jurisdictional treatment of the legal position. If there are people with any knowledge of US law that are willing to contribute, then that's the best thing, not deleting the practice part. Comments on specifics anyone? Wikidea 11:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listing this article as I'd particularly like some feedback from someone unfamiliar with the topic. (Comments from people familiar are welcome as well of course!) Ways of improving the structure and/or heading would be of particular help. Frankly I've been looking at this article for way too long and need a fresh perspective. Caveat lector 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking for the review. The subject seems noteworthy and you have a good start at the article. However, I believe several changes are in order.
Throughout the article, it would help to break long, complex sentences into short sentences which each address only one idea.
The initial sentence needs to be rewritten, as the current language implies that the Republic of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
The lead says "there has never been a formal agreement," but the 1922 section says "an agreement to this effect was reached between the two sides." That's confusing. In 1952, was there "an agreement" or only a unilateral change to the UK's "relevant immigration law?"
I'm confused as to why Ireland would have been "required to follow changes in British immigration policy" in the absence of a formal agreement.
Is the section about EEA nationals actually relevant in an article about the CTA?
I believe the Schengen section should be retitled, "Effect of potential Schengen integration" or something like that. I was halfway through the section before I realized it was about a hypothetical change.
Is there research indicating public opinion about the CTA, EEA and Schengen integration?
In practical terms, what does the CTA's existence mean to citizens of the area and to international visitors from outside the EEA?
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 14 additive terms, a bit too much.
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
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>.[?]
Your article has no citations. References are not enough. Try to have at least one inline citation in each paragraph.
Any picture of him?
Only his name should be bolded in the lead.
Do not wikilink single years; only full dates. Check WP:MoS.
"She had been studying the violin in Switzerland and had met Tigersted through her brother Albert Nybom was also studying in Köthen and who was a class mate of Tigerstedt." Prose issues.
"Tigerstedt returned to Germany in 1913, founding a company with the Swedish merchant Axel Wahlstedt and the Swedish engineer Hugo Swartling. This was the first in a series of unsuccessful business ventures. Although Tigerstedt is able to complete his work with the sound-on-film technology, their laboratory is confiscated due to unpaid rent. It is later returned to them, but it is finally destroyed by a fire." You change tenses here and afterwards. Inconsistent.
"Unfortunately, his achievements ..." "Unfortunately for whom? POV.
"His German colleagues however, told him that the vacuum tubes could not be developed further and that there could be no solution to the problem with the weakness of amplification. Tigerstedt however, continued". Repetitive prose.
I am requesting this article be rated as "Start" as opposed to "Stub". It seems substantially similar, for instance, to the A. J. Croce page, which is cited as a canonical example of "Start" class bio pages. That's all. Jkraybill 16:36, 18 August 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.[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
A while back I asked Jonyungk about getting this article to featured status. He had already been working on it for some time and continued to work on it tirelessly until it became what it is now. I never knew until recently that it is good to peer review an article before nominating it to featured status, and so here it is at your disposal. Is there anything left that needs done for it to be submitted for FAC? — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is too long, ideally the text needs to be removed or shortened till the article is 3/5 its current length.
The "Musical works" "Style" and "Compositions" sections need to be merged.
The introduction needs to be shortened to four paragraphs.
Tchaikovsky being gay needs to be discussed, and not as a homophobic knee jerk reaction.
The section which currently discusses this is oddly titled and placed. It stands outside the chronological description of his life, is a discussion of the controversy regarding his sexuality and not about his personal life, and stands out since many articles do not have "Personal life" sections.
There is, however, good reason to present the information in a separate section in that it is apparently very controversial. As such the section needs to be made NPOV. It then needs to make reference to and perhaps be referenced in the description of his life and works so as to fit better into the article and its flow. Hyacinth 22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Tchaikovsky being gay [sic] needs to be discussed, and not as a homophobic knee jerk reaction." Can you expound on this a bit? It is sourced and widely known that he had homosexual feelings (after all the talk page shows it falls under WikiProject LGBT Studies). — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication of him being gay, except the denial. What is briefly described is a cover up of him being gay, the sketchy proof of his straightness in that he thought about marriage (see beard), and a lack of consensus (which is uncited). Reading the section I imagine one would think "Why did they think he was gay anyways. Must not be." Hyacinth 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find this section a bit more filled out. I'm very concerned about NPOV, as much as Poznansky and Holden aree given more or less equal time. Suggestions would be most welcome at this point. Thanks. Jonyungk 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you guys cite the New Grove? Here's one example from the Tchaikovsky article in the online New Grove Dictionary of Opera (Richard Taruskin): "Professional success brought with it entrée to aristocratic circles where Tchaikovsky's homosexuality was more readily tolerated; this, plus a loving and protective family (including a worshipping younger brother, Modest, who, sharing his sexual orientation, became his literary collaborator and personal confidant, later his biographer), seems to have helped the composer towards self-acceptance in his later years." Here is a line from the article on 'Gay and lesbian music' in the New Grove (Philip Brett): "Following the inception of a homosexual identity (see §1), Tchaikovsky became the first musician widely known to fit the role." Good stuff: you can use that. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll keep your suggestions in mind and seek out both these sources at my local library, though please note my concerns stated above about NPOV. While considering additional sources can always be good, I'd greatly appreciate suggestions on what is currently in the article as well. Thanks again. Jonyungk 07:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), defense (A) (British: defence), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), counselor (A) (British: counsellor), signalling (B) (American: signaling), travelled (B) (American: traveled), installment (A) (British: instalment).
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.”
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][?]
In the 10,000 foot view, I notice that the article as it stands is mainly a biography; it ends with a very short section on works and style. Detailed sections are available as links. Were these split off because there were complaints the article was too long? My opinion (feel free to disagree) is that it's OK to have long articles on subjects like this one, and that any article on a composer should be 40-60% biography and 40-60% works/style/influence. Sometimes that material can be integrated into the biography, but it's tough to do--better IMO to have a separate section as you do. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main comments would be that there seems to be an awful lot of material in the article at present which is simply cut-and-pasted out of other published sources (albeit referenced). Also a great deal of the language (e.g. describing his music) is very subjective, flowery and somewhat unencyclopaedic. For example, in the opening paragraph:
" While not part of the nationalistic music group "The Russian Five", Tchaikovsky wrote music now known and loved for its distinctly Russian character, rich harmonies and stirring melodies. His works, however, are much more western than those of his Russian contemporaries as he effectively uses international elements in addition to national folk melodies."
- Saying T's music is "loved" is a POV statement. It would be more objective to note things such as how often his works are still performed today at classical concerts, or used as incidental music in cinema, etc.
- The sentence handwaves to another article for any explanation of what might be the characteristics of "Russian-sounding music"
- what are "rich" harmonies?
- "stirring" melodies is not an objective phrase
--feline1 18:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've mentioned the opening paragraph (the only one, ironically, I didn't change), how about some examples from later in the article?
Also, yes, I drew on a number of sources and found out early on that if I didn't leavem in the form you have seen them, the WikiBOTs would ding what I was writing as an essay—even when I supplied attribution.
As for "flowery," no, I do not write in a style that could be considred dry, pedantic or pompously boring. But I do find "flowery" extremely insulting for what it connotes from the opposite extreme. Am I to assume I am wriiting a historical romance novel at Wikipedia's expense? Jonyungk 05:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Extremely insulting"? Please familiarise yourself with WP:FAITH - Peer Review has been requested for the article, and I have given some. Please do not react to it as a personal insult. I cited examples from the opening paragraph because that's the one that people read first, and those examples are indicative and applicable to the rest of the article. Where language is subjective rather than objective, and making POV value judgements of Tchaikovsky's music, than it is less encyclodpaedic than it might be.--feline1 10:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is still a future project but it is referenced quite well and there are a few other good features. I am a little worried that some sections are too short and possible OR. What should be required for this to become GA standard? Does it have to wait until the company comes into service? Simply south 11:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning the Shrewsbury to Chester Line, and the West Coast Main Line, which cover a lot of the same stations? There's not much information out there at the moment as the line isn't yet open. Neilム 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to promote this article to FA. Problems mentioned in the previous nomination for FA status include prose and references. ISD 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead should be two sentances, with a new sentance for "stars comedian..."
Truthiness should probably include Colbert's comment: "I don't trust books, they're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Let's face it folks, we are a divided nation.... between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart."
The "wrist violence" section should be renamed "wrist violence and painkiller addiction" as the latter seems a parody of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycotin addiction.
Should definitely include a section about the White House dinner speech and President Bush's response.
It might be worthwhile to include a comment about Colbert's interview of Presidential candidate Ron Paul. It seemed to me that in that interview, Colbert slipped out of character to show his genuine personal admiration of Paul's perspective, but then went back into his schtick.
I'm considering submitting this as a FAC, but there's a lot of history missing, despite the length of the section already (Once filled out, it will definitely be in need of some WP:SS-ing which I unfortunately don't have time for right now.). Is that likely to cause an automatic fail, or is there enough to allow it to receive decent consideration? I'm also concerned about redundancy, as some of the information deserved mention in a couple different sections, and while a few details are different in each section, others are not. Is it ok, or too much? How should I fix it? What can be removed from where, without leaving gaping holes? Also, have I gone overboard with the inline citations? If I have, how should I fix that without simply removing sources? Is there anything else that seems to be missing, or errors that I've overlooked? I'm busy now so may not be able to make suggested changes immediately, but if I can get a make-it-FA-quality to-do list to work on when I get the chance, that'd be much appreciated. -Bbik★ 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lazy review by mcginnly
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.[?]
YIf there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Unlikely When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Can't find this problem anywhere, anyone up to being a second set of eyes? -Bbik★
Only used for centuries, which is specified as being correct by the same page. -Bbik★
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbor (A) (British: harbour), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), grey (B) (American: gray), programme (B) (American: program ).
According to the given link, grey is "but a minor variant in American English", but it is still acknowledged; I don't see the issue with leaving that spelling even if it is petty. If there are any other words that set this comment off, I can't find them. -Bbik★
DoneWatch 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 20 additive terms, a bit too much.
20 in 2,700-2,800 words doesn't seem like it's all that bad (Does this comment come from a pure count, or a percentage?), I'll see what can be done to cut some, though. -Bbik★
Five cut, another one will be once I update the history section with more information. I don't think things will work as well if I remove any others, but the script doesn't give this complaint anymore, in any case. -Bbik★ 00:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UnlikelyThe script has spotted the following contractions: can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
News to me, Ctrl+F can't find it, even if I stop at can and search all six of those (two of which are part of significant, would that have set it off?). -Bbik★
I just want to know what I can add to this article and how can I can improve the quality. All comments will be appreciated. Thanks in Advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyangel252 (talk • contribs)
Spread your images around the article, like other articles.
In the see also section you have a red link, remove it. You can't see also it, can you.
That should be enough to get you going, especially the references. SpecialWindlertalk 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is difficult to follow for someone who does not already know about the region. Material about geography should be removed from the history section. The article on Alsace_Lorraine might be good inspiration for how to reorganize your article. VisitorTalk 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to come to a consensus about what quality this article should be rated at this time before I nominate it for higher quality than Start-Class or B-Class. I have looked over current B articles such as Damien Spinelli, good articles such as Homer Simpson, and featured articles such as Andrew Van De Kamp, The Cat and the Canary (1927 film), etc. And while there are no (as of yet) rated B, Good or Featured fictional couple articles that I can compare the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article to, I'm pretty sure that this article is of higher quality than Start-Class and would like to know what other editors think of this article.
Suggestions on improving its readability, if it needs improvement, would also be appreciated. Or if you feel that this article needs to be improved in any other way. Flyer22 00:25, 5 August 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.[?]
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.[?]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
allege
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
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.”
“In the year [of] 2005”
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, won't, can't, don't, isn't, doesn't, isn't, can't, can't, doesn't, doesn't, isn't, won't, doesn't, aren't, isn't, doesn't, doesn't, isn't, isn't, wasn't, couldn't, couldn't, didn't, didn't, can't, weren't, hadn't, can't, hadn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
You shouldn’t open with "are the members of a popular…" – They aren’t a band, they are two fictional characters. The first paragraph of the lead should be "basic", "objective" information. Try something more along the lines of: "Bianca ___ and Maggie ___ are two fictional characters in the _______." Because introducing them as the “BAM couple” means nothing to the casual reader. They are a lesbian couple, but BAM doesn’t say that.
The original love story was to be a short-lived one between two young women, where the murder of one prompted a murder mystery on the show. – This probably needs to be reworded. It’s slightly awkward sounding. It may even read better if it was broken into two complete sentences. Probably identifying which was supposed to die, and how got the twin is a good idea.
Former All My Children head writer Richard Culliton, who thought up the story, decided to bring the deceased character of the once-existing love story back as an identical twin, after fans of the show expressed notable discontent over the end of the romance. – "thought up"--> "developed". Reword to say, "…decided to bring ____ (actress’ name, not characters in that blank) as the identical twin of ____, after a notable discontent was expressed over the ending romance for ____."
With instant fan support of the duo displayed by viewers of the show, a deeper friendship between Bianca and Maggie came into focus by the show's writers. – Cut it. You should keep all dialogue such as “the fans” out, because it becomes really subjective. The rest just doesn’t make sense. It’s probably better left at the previous sentence, and the body can explain the outcome later.
much campaigned for on-again/off-again romantic flirtation – If you believe in citations in the lead, then this would be an instance where one might be necessary.
Despite the couple taking three and a half years to make their romance official, the couple gained a large and loyal fanbase (to this day) and managed to constantly intrigue not only the noted All My Children audience, but soap opera critics, gay/lesbian magazines such as The Advocate, and lesbian websites such as AfterEllen.com, ultimately becoming the most demanded homosexual pairing in American daytime soap opera history. – ditch the “fanbase” stuff again. The important stuff is not the fan opinion (though that’s important to fans, don’t get me wrong), but how the couple was viewed by professionals.
The pairing of Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone were designed to have many ups and downs, but were seemingly written with the underlying concept of being each others' star-crossed true loves. – Move it to a better place in the lead, or strike it out. It’s coming after you’ve discussed the cultural impact of the characters, which should be the last thing discussed.
Words such as "overwhelmingly" are peacock terms, and should be avoided. The peacock term page I believe gives examples on what to do to avoid such usage.
You mentioned on my talk page "formatting references to how they should be", I don’t know if you meant proper template usage…so I won’t beat this to the ground, and I’ll only mention it once because you may have meant otherwise, but references should come after punctuations marks, not before. You’ll need to go through and make sure all are after as I spotted at least one that wasn’t as I was reading.
…in which Culliton had set off earlier. – I don’t understand this statement. Probably needs rewording or clarification.
"some" is a weasel word. Check for more of those alongside the check for peacock terms.
Too much "fans said..." type of sentences. I know you have citations for when it’s mentioned that fans, but be careful how it’s written. Sometimes it’s ok to use it, but others it comes off like they are the priority. There are ways around it, like simply stating what the problem ones without directing the source to "fans". Like for: When the character of Frankie was killed, some All My Children fans claimed that the show was afraid to focus on a lesbian romance. – You could say: "When Frankie was killed, there was concern the show was afraid to focus on a lesbian romance".
Culliton’s firing in 2002, doesn’t appear relevant, unless it was because of these characters.
but that now audiences know them as well as writers do - ??? maybe drop the "that".
Actually, that entire paragraph is devoted to Frons and his belief. It strays from the characters. I'd scrap it for this article as it doesn't talk about how his ideals affect the characters.
began writing her character to become every woman, to make her more real and to understand what makes her good or bad -- This is plagarized from the source that is linked to it. There are no quotation marks, and I think even the source meant to say "everywoman", kind of like the everyman, instead of two separate words. I don't know how much more plagarizing is going on (not saying it was done maliciously, I'm sure it wasn't), but that needs to be checked. If you copy that much of the text, you need quotation marks around it. Even though you sourced it, you have to make it clear that you didn't paraphrase the text, but that you conveyed "word-for-word" what was said.
It's getting late for me, so this is where I will stop for now. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Bignole, I took care of your first pack of concerns and Paul's first pack too regarding this article, though I know that you may still want some of the plot within this article trimmed down and that there may still be some weasel words within this article that I need to take out. In the plot, I left the part about Bianca fainting, but that part is re-worded, and what was after it is re-worded and or cut out as well, to where I took out the quote and extra detail. I also left the two youtube clips in this article's plot. And, yeah, I didn't like the use of the word "members" in reference to Bianca and Maggie being a part of a fictional couple either. It wasn't there when I created this article. Another editor (IP user, to be exact) did that on the day that this article was featured in the Did you know? section on Wikipedia's main page.[7] I didn't protest that editor having re-worded it to that though, obviously. As for mentioning that Richard Culliton was fired, I added that to better transition from the paragraph about Culliton's writing to Frons' take on these characters, to point out where Culliton's whereabouts were, with the article then not mentioning him anymore, but I went ahead and cut off that part about Culliton being fired and just rather left it at when he stopped writing for this show. I also re-worded the mention where Frons states that now audiences know soap opera cliches as well as writers do. But I left that paragraph about Frons because I feel that it relates to his take on the Bianca and Maggie relationship, that it really shows what he was going for after a while, in trying to make these two characters as real as possible, and how he felt that some instances in their relationship were very real, as in relation to real-world issues. Oh, and the part of the message on your talk page where I comment on fixing some references within this article, I meant the references format. Flyer22 08:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continued review
Already spoken about the lead sentence on your talk page.
The original love story was to be a short-lived one between two young women, as a murder mystery was set up for one, character Frankie Stone, in the aftermath of the character's death. Former All My Children head writer Richard Culliton, who developed the story, decided to bring Hendrickson back as the identical twin of Frankie Stone, after notable discontent was expressed over the ending of Bianca and Frankie's potential romance. -- I'm thinking this can be trimmed and reworded. It's too detailed. You go from identifying Elizabeth as Maggie to talking about the death of a different character. I would simply say that "the story revolved around Maggie coming to town to investigate the murder of her identical twin sister, Frankie, whom Bianca was in a romantic relationship with." [<--or friendship with..I don't now how they were connected]. Then say, "Elizabeth ____ was brought in as the character Frankie Stone, but when her death attracted criticism, writer Richard Culliton decided to bring the actress back as the character's identical twin sister to advance the potential romantic interest that was started between Bianca and Frankie." -- or something closer to that. It reads somewhat confusingly right now.
The twin, Maggie Stone, brought on in 2002, was then immediately set up to bond with Agnes Nixon's creation... -- We know already know she's the twin, so we can drop that part. I'd say something closer to: "In 2002, that character of Maggie Stone was brought into the show, and set up to bond with Agnes Nixon's character Bianca..." -- I've expressed my confusion over the suceeding sentence on your talk page.
And the pairing was designed to have many ups and downs, with the underlying concept being each others' star-crossed true loves. -- Don't start a sentence with "And". "Many" is a weasel word, just remove it.
"The couple" is said twice in one sentence. Change the second to a pronoun, "they". Remove "noted" from "noted All My Children audience". What are they "noted" for? Change "gay/lesbian" to "LGBT".
magazines such as The Advocate, and lesbian websites such as AfterEllen.com -- just say "LGBT magazines and websites," -- no need to be specific here.
Done Okay, Bignole. I took care of your other newly-listed concerns toward this article. Though, in its plot section, I left the image of when Bianca and Maggie first meet, because I feel that that adds to that section's readability. And I added a quote box, with a quote in it, of course. You can tell me what you think of that, as I know that you will. Also, on the topic of the plot section, you feel that it's better to name it Characters instead of Storylines? I mean, as we both know, that's what you renamed it in one of your example edits, of course. Thus I left it as that as well. Flyer22 06:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read over it in detail tomorrow morning, it's kind of later right now. As for the "Characters" thing. That's a title I've seen used for Bernard Quartermass, the only featured television character. Normally it would be called "Appearances", but these characters only appear in one place so that's irrelevant. "Character" or "Character(s)" in this case is meant to say "this is who the character is in the show". I'm weary of certain titles, because if you say "Storylines", someone could take that to mean you want every storyline...and frankly, I'm sure that not every storyline involving the character is terribly important. But, if you prefer the other, that's your choice. It's just a header, and as long as it doesn't say something like "Biography", then it's usually alright. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 06:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to state Storyline, Bignole, not Storylines. I'm right there with you on not titling it Storylines, but I do feel that titling this article's plot as Storyline would/is better than titling it Characters. Talk with you later. Flyer22 10:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-worded the lead again, but just a little bit. Also, I went ahead and named this article's plot section back to its original title: Storyline. And thank you, Bignole, for the smile on my talk page. Flyer22 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to prepare the article for a GA nomination. I'm not a native English speaker so any comments on the language will be particularly helpful. — Kpalion(talk) 11:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the "Banner of Poland" article, and I'll try to keep an eye on it. Your English is pretty darned good, if you don't mind my saying so. Critically speaking: Obviously, the pictures need to be arranged more pleasingly. And more facts would help a lot; in an article about what is essentially a flag, one expects something like a timeline of the changes in it. It might not be too hard to flesh the article out with modern examples. –Milkbreath 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Milkbreath. I have a few questions though: You only copyedited the first section, so I'm not sure if that means that the rest is simply good or you just didn't go through other sections. I don't know what you mean by modern examples, since the article is about a historical banner that is not used anymore. Obviously, I will be trying to find some more facts and examples of historical variants of the banner, and put them in the article. As for the images, I arranged them as nicely as I could, so if you have an idea how to do it better, please let me know. — Kpalion(talk) 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I screwed that up. Forget what I said above. Sometimes I don't know where my head is. And "hoist" is correct, obviously. Sorry, must have been tired. I will pull myself together and give the remainder of the article my very best edit job, which is normally at least adequate. —Milkbreath 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As penance for being such a bonehead, I spent the morning playing with this article in my sandbox trying to arrange the pictures. I think I've got it looking pretty good. I'd like to edit it in over the present page, but I don't want to give anybody a heart attack. Would that be OK? --Milkbreath 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having replied earlier, Milkbreath. I appreciate your help, especially with grammar. I see you went ahead and changed the layout of the images. I don't know if I'm really convinced to this new layout. It looks a little massy to me with images scattered on both sides sides of the page; and please see the automated review below which says "avoid including galleries in articles". Perhaps someone else could come and decide which layout looks better. It's not a big issue though.
One more little thing, why did you change all the n-dashes to m-dashes (with no spaces on either side)? I'm not complaining here, I just want to know, if that's some kind of policy (part of MoS?) that I'm not aware of. — Kpalion(talk) 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That layout looks ok to me, there were too many images crammed in before, and even with fewer, having them all on the same side makes it look like a wall of images, rather than visual aids, unfortunately. However, I would suggest flip-flopping them -- it's generally a better idea to not cut the header off from the text with an image, so either they should be moved to the previous section so they line up with the headers (a nuisance with the top ones because of the TOC), or just switch left and right for all but the first one. As for the gallery, are any of the images hosted at Commons? If so, add a {{Commons|Banner of Poland}} or the like to the external links section instead. If any aren't hosted there, perhaps try using those ones in the article, so the link will cover the rest, rather than leaving a bunch out entirely.
The dashes may well have an MoS thing to them, I'll leave Milkbreath to find that, but if not, it seems to be the standard usage around here -- ndash with no space for dates, mdash with no space in sentences, and who knows what other dash-based things. -Bbik★ 18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the silence was deafening. I played with the layout for a long time. I think it looks better than the original layout with a column of pictures several pages long right down the middle before the text begins. You have to bear in mind that you can't just make it look good in your browser at your monitor settings. Try it at 640X480 16 colors and watch it morph. I see they took away the pic of the Congress Kingdom banner for copyvio. Too bad, it was needed. As for the gallery, I was aware of the Wikipedia policy on them when I made it, but I think a gallery is justified in an article like this one about a changing visual object—they also don't like pictures all over the page. But a link to an external gallery might be better here. And if anybody wants to have another go at the layout, more power to them. I'm no artist.
The dashes. The MoS accepts both styles, like the practically useless, wishy-washy document it is. What do you want from a volunteer ad hoc committee? It says to leave them alone if they're consistent in the article, but I always make them unspaced em dashes if I think I can get away with it. The reason is that I want the page to be printer-ready and modern-looking, and I often edit section by section, so I can't readily tell when I encounter one which way the writer had them in general. The space-en-dash-space version is a throwback to typewriter days to my eyes. But don't imagine that I have strong feelings about the matter. Lazy personal quirk. --Milkbreath 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I also think we may treat this article as an exception to the no-galleries rule. Images are too important to understand the subject to move them away to Commons and too many (and some of them too tall) to fit nicely into the text. So we'll have to live with the little gallery at the bottom unless for now. Thanks again for your help, Milkbreath. Do you think I might try nominating it for GA now? — Kpalion(talk) 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'd like to see more pictures, though. One of each different incarnation would be nice. --Milkbreath 14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) How's that work for image sorting? As for the intro, I'd try and summarize the history just a bit more to at least expand that paragraph, though leaving it at a single paragraph is probably fine, since the article is really about a single topic (history) rather than several (history, politics, architecture, whatever). Having a red link in the intro bothers me, too, especially since it's the only one in the entire article. Is there something else you can link there, perhaps? Or maybe move that link somewhere else?
Aside from those minor nitpicks, sure, go for GA! It's well-written, comprehensive (The only possible issues I can see here are perhaps complaints about how it is almost exclusively history -- are there any symbolic reasons for the colors or eagle that you could summarize in a separate section? Perhaps you could pull out/resummarize the parts about how it's used, when, for who into a separate section, too. Check flag pages for ideas of what they have beyond history, if that helps any.), has images (I assume they're all properly tagged for copyright stuff so they don't get deleted.), properly formatted references... Looks to me like it'll do just fine. Good luck! -Bbik★ 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead to two short paragraphs, with history summarized in the second one. I tried to make it clearer that this is a historical symbol, not used anymore, which should also eplain why the whole article is only about history. I don't have any more images that I could add at the moment, but I will as soon as I find some. Thanks to both of you, I'll go ahead with the GA nomination now. — Kpalion(talk) 23:09, 19 August 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.[?]
Expanded to two paragraphs. — Kpalion(talk) 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
See discussion above. — Kpalion(talk) 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot of work on this article, taken photos, written sections. I have written most of it and would like to see how it is faring towards Featured Article. I know its probably nowhere near close...--TheJosh 11:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this article needs a lot of work before it even meets Good Article criteria. The lead needs to meet WP:LEAD criteria; it needs to summarize the article, Right now, it is far too short. The history section needs to be expanded, but mostly needs references. The Geography section needs far more information, i.e. coordinates, town size, neighbouring municipalities, geographical characteristics, etc. All sections of the article need to be improved, both with referencing and length. More images would greatly add to the article. The current infobox image would probably be more appropriate in the "Transportation" section, and a view of a prominent building or cityscape should be obtained if possible. (Images are not a requirement for promotion, but they certainly add to articles). The infrastructure section needs a lot of work as well, particularly with prose. References should be properly formatted using the cite web format. Overall, while this article is certainly not ready for FA-class, it is off to a great start. I would assess this as a Start-class article on its way to a B. To see what is expected of a mid-size city FA-class article, see Grand Forks, North Dakota. Raime 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --TheJosh 12:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is clear that the article has had a lot of work done. There are some huge improvements. I'd say this now almost meets B-Class requirements (very close), but not quite. It is also not yet ready for GAC or FAC nomination. TheJosh, I'd say you would want to work towards Good Article status before arriving at FAC, as it seems an appropriate step. However, it still needs some work:
Lead - Still very inadequate. An adequate lead needs to summarize the entire article. I'd say you would want to put the historical mention after the rapidly expanding information to start. You may also want to add information about geography, a slight expansion on history, an addition of transportation, etc. See Plymouth, Massachusetts or Chambersburg, Pennsylvania to see what is expected for a GA-lead.
History - Still needs expansion. First, it is out of order. You jump from native settlement to 1984, and then go back to 1830. History should be in chronological ordering. And, the section needs more information about modern history other than shopping centres and infrastructure problems. What new subdivisions? What new, major shopping centres? An expansion about infrastructure would also be good. And mention the population boom here. Overall, the section is pretty underdeveloped and needs expansion. Be wary of wikilinking years, as they they are usually not notable enough in relation to the article to be linked. For example, the completion of a radio tower in 1987 doesn't need a wikilink for 1987. I'd say that no years should be linked in this section.
Geography - Expansion and references needed. What major cities is it located near to? And do not separate minute details into separate, one or two senetence paragraphs. This makes for bad prose, and it will likely not pass at GAC in this condition. Paragraphs should contain fully developed ideas, not straggling facts. Overall, I have to say, this section fairly porrly written compared to "History". It needs punctuation, major expansion, and prose work. Other questions - What is the total land area? What mnicipalitie are located adjacent to it? I would say exapnd on the "wetlands" information, and mention nearby rivers and mounatins. Also be careful - It is confusing in some areas about whether you are talking about the city or the mountains. For example: "Mount Barker is roundish in shape, and is approximately four kilometres across and three and a half kilometres long." I assume this is the mountain? Is the entire section about the mountain? If so, this needs major work, because it should be about the city. Of course, the mountain should be mentioned, but not be a focus of the section.
Climate - Also needs work. I'd say use the usual climate format (See here). Hottest month? Coldest month? Wettest month? Weather patterns? Expansion and refs needed. Remove The following table shows the average minimum temperature, maximum temperature and average rainfall for the year. from the article; simply title the graph.
Demographics - Needs major work. "Mount Barker" is repeated too many times. Use "It" or "the city" to break up redundancy. For origins, I'd remove the section and put it into the Dem section, and remove the table. This could easily be mixed into prose. Also, regional comparisons to state statistics would be great.
Economy - Not notable enough to warrant its own heading. Merge into demographics. References are needed.
Culture - This is probably the best section, but it is not without its faults. For shopping, I'd remove list format, and find a reference for each center. Also, this heading is not really needed. Be wary about listing shopping centers; try to include only relevant information. Supermarkets aren't really relevant, it is general information that cities have these. Large malls and residential complexes, new and very large developemnts, etc. are notable. The "Recreation" section needs work. "Just up the hills" does not sound encyclopedic. "Mount Barker has numerous activities that are available" sounds like an excerpt from a tourism guide. And mention tourism if possible. How many tourists per year? Media needs expansion as well. Radio stations? Television? Many smaller cities do not have enough media to require such a sub-heading, and this is likely the case for Mount Barker. A redlink to a small newspaper does not require its own section. Removing this section would probably be best.
Roads - Not notable. Local roads should not be mentioned. Highways are really all that should be listed.
Schoolsshould be renamed Education, and more information is needed. How many students in the school district? How large is the district? Try to refrain from putting information in parentheses after the school name. Mix it into prose. And remove redlinks to small schools which do not warrant their own articles.
Buses- Definitely remove tables. Wikipedia should not be used to advertise local bus routes. I am sure you had good intentions, but this section is not notable. No external links should ever be used in the article. Mention local bus companies, and refrain from using language like "(and the Strathalbyn buses)connect at stop 63B. This stop is right next to the Mount Barker pool, and it currently shares the car park with the pool." This is very confusing to readers not familiar with the city. Relate directions based on prominent subdivisions or highways, not on pools.
Public Services - Well written, but very short. References are needed, and more information would be great. Do not use language such as "right next to". "Adjacent" would be more appropriate.
Possible Expansion Sections - Healthcare, Governmnent, and Points of Interest
Referencing - Needs more references. All existing refs should use cite web format. But this is certainly a great start.
Images - Great job with getting these. But my first comment still stands - You should get a better image for the infobox if possible. Also, consider aligning some photos to the left. If possible, get a satellite photo that is uncorrupted (w/o arrows and tabs). Also, the arrows are unnecessary. They do nothing for the image. If something is not shown on the image, you don't have to label it.
Overall, you have made great improvements. Please feel free to leave me further questions or comments. I will be glad to assist in any article cleanup. Raime 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2mm, use 2 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 mm.[?]
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][?]
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.[?]
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.
I have so far been the only major contributer to this article about an ancient and destroyed Scottish castle.
I am looking for any comments and suggestions as I have contributed as much as I can find (I have no library access) and think now is the time to tidy up the article. I have been looking at this article from some time so it needs a fresh pair of eyes to look over it.
I will not have access to the internet until Monday but will reply to any suggestions after then weekend. thanks in advance, Bobbacon 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
You should include a lead, one or two paragraphs which summarise the article and sit ahead of the main piece. See Windsor Castle for an example: it's the bit that sits in front of the table of contents. See WP:LEAD for more details.
The article is long enough that it can usefully be broken down into sections with headings. Have a look at GA and FA level articles on other castles to get ideas as to what those headings could be, but don't feel you have to slavishly copy them.
I think I'm right in interpreting the map as showing a section of the north-east coast of Scotland, but it's not quite clear that the area north of the line is the sea. Is the grey area between the castles of Lonmay and Rattray Loch Strathbeg? Perhaps an arrow could be added to make that clearer?
The relationship between the different castles on the site isn't clear (to me anyway!). I read it as follows:
-Unknown date to ~1214 Timber motte and bailey castle, date of building unknown
-~1214 to 1308 William Comyn's timber castle (either an upgrade of "the existing buildings on the motte" or a new castle). Destroyed or fell into ruin in 1308.
-Unknown date to 1720. Stone castle, possibly buried during the 1720 storm.
If that is correct, that would be one way of structuring the piece, which would I think help to clarify the various developments on the site.
On a similar point, the article starts off with "It was a small, late middle age, 12th century "timber castle or Motte", but the article also covers the (much?) later stone castle as well. I suggest the lead could start: "The Castle of Rattray was a medieval castle, originally built as a timber motte and bailey in ??. It was rebuilt by William Comyn at some time between 1214 and 1233 before being destroyed in 1308. It was later replaced by a stone castle, which is believed to have been partially buried under sand dunes in a storm in 1720."
Although I have some concerns about the clarity of the structure, the writing itself seems good. There is some redundancy, though:
-"Castlehill was specifically found" Why not just "Castlehill was found"? Or even "Castlehill was"?
-"Building upon the Castlehill mound after his arrival" Why not just "Building on the Castlehill mound"? Arrival from where?
- "or built an entirely new castle" Why not "or built a new castle"?
- "found" is often used to give the position of the castle - can you just say that the castle is or was somewhere, rather than is or was found somewhere?
- "Some of which" (referring to superiors) Should be "Some of whom"?
- "What is known is that at some point..." Why not "At some point..."? Or perhaps better "At some time...?
- "There is a less likely story that..." Should probably be "There is another story that", since the sentence finishes "...and it is a very unlikely account".
- "Castlehill was thoroughly excavated in 1985-1989 and revealed the remains of..." should probably be something like: "Thorough excavations at Castlehill in 1985-1989 revealed the remains of..."
At present, the various discoveries at the site are not in chronological order - consider whether it would be clearer to treat them that way.
According to the article on Rattray, the 1720 storm also destroyed the village. Should this be mentioned?
I hope this is helpful (it's meant to be!). Good luck with the article. Cheers. 4u1e 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, i've implemented your suggestions! I know nothing about the article that you're working on but will have a look at it all the same and make some suggestions next couple of days! thanks, Bobbacon 08:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble. Would be grateful for your comments on BT19, particularly on the question of whether the article makes sense to someone who's not familiar with the subject. And for that matter, is it of any interest? ;-) 4u1e 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for any comments available to improve this article. However it would probably help the most with concentrations on headings and writing style, plus suggestions for improvements to citations. The359 06:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, I'll get on that part tomorrow when I have the time. The359 10:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Comments. Ok, here goes nothing...
The lead section needs a lot of work, and should be phrased assuming zero prior knowledge. Somewhere in there you need to mention that it is a motor race, for example! See WP:LEAD for guidance.
I've attempted to expand the intro, but I'm am not quite sure if it works at the moment.
Similarly, the prose in the main body text assumes a certain amount of prior understanding. For example, the "Track Changes" section refers to "more upgrades to the Circuit de la Sarthe". More? More than what? This requires you to go away and read around the subject, not desirable.
Done Removed the word more and only listed things that changed between 2006 and 2007.
On a related point, in the Track Changes section specific mention is made of particular corners. As you are discussing the track changes here you ought to have a figure to assist. However, you may like to think about slimming this section down and moving most of the track and rule changes (combine the two? just a thought...) into the history page, and just providing a brief summary with links in this article.
Done Added a track map which, although not 100% correct in its layout of the course, does at least list the corners correctly. I also attempted to slim down both the Track Changes and Rule Changes as sections as well. For now I've kept them seperate, but they can be combined if needed.
Jargon, terminology and abbreviations. There is quite a lot of it! In some cases (e.g. IMSA) these are properly introduced, but others (LMP, GT, restrictor, muffler {fatuous numpty comment: the cars wear scarfs? ;-}, ACO, etc.) should be linked or explained on first use.
Done for the first sections. I've attempted to link many terms, especially Le Mans Prototype, Grand tourer, pit lane, and most acronyms. There might be some still to clean up. There are still some to work on in the reports.
Referencing. A few statements of disputable fact require a citation. There are too many to list specifically, but one example would be that the entry list was "planned to be released following the 2007 12 Hours of Sebring". Really? How do you know? etc etc etc... Any such statement ought to be accompanied by a citation.
I was mostly going off of what I am used to and realize I do not have an actual source to back up the claim. I removed that particular statement anyway in an attempt to slim down some sections.
Still on citation, there is an overwhelming reliance on the official website. For such a long and substantial article this is a major weakness. As there are reports of the race on many sites (BBC, Autosport, etc) and in magazines and newspapers, it would be better to introduce a range of sources, to introduce a variety of viewpoints and just in case the official site goes u/s at some point and the article is left without any traceable source information.
I had used the ACO site initially due to the fact that it was easier to find specific stories (since they updated every few minutes). I will replace some of these citations with other news websites soon.
Done
You need to get a good hold on the desirable level of detail. This should include a consideration of what actually matters to the subject of the article (i.e. the race itself). For example, failed reserve entries really don't even merit mention, let alone a full listing. I have a feeling that much of the entry list section and subsections may be a hang over from when it was a {{future sport}} article, and isn't really appropriate for a historical article. Remember that we are a general interest wiki, and there are specialist motorsport wikis that would love that level of detail.
I've removed the reserve entries that did not make it, but I feel that the entry list section is important enough to keep, simply because of the nature of Le Mans. Teams have to be invitated to participate, while most other races simply have you say you're going to participate and you're in, barring any space issues. Keeping some things such as teams which made it in from the reserve entry list would also explain why the initial entry list is different from the race results.
Minor point: linking dates. It adds nothing and in some browser/preferences configurations needlessly breaks up text. You only need link a year or date if it actually points to something related to the article, e.g. 2006.
Done I eliminated all date links except for the two in the intro. I also kept links specific to previous Le Mans results.
Headings for the "Reports" section. Although I like the broad structure, I would be more bold with the heading priorities. Get rid of "Reports" and elevate "Testing" to a == header. Similarly "Qualifying" and "Race" would be easier to find if they were first level headers; this is what the article is ultimately all about, after all. Conversely, the "Results" section should be a subset of the "Race" section, in a manner similar to how you have handled the qualifying information. All other headings can remain as they are.
Done I spent quite some time earlier trying to figure out how to lay the reports and results out. This seems to work.
On the results table. Why did you drop the previous form, with separate subheadings for NC and DNF categories? I think in an event with such a long entry list it makes it much easier to see what is what if they are delineated clearly, and not just left to the reader to spot the little DNF in the left column (e.g. 1968). Just my tuppen'th, but I liked your old style!
I dropped the old style for two reasons: 1) I did not like that the two or three seperate charts did not line up when an exceptionally long name would make one section longer then others. Having the single chart I felt looked cleaner and made finding things easier by simply reading straight down. I agree it may make it hard to go straight to the DNFs, but regardless of the chart style, one would expect DNFs to be at the bottom, would they not? 2) Many sports car races outside of Le Mans do not automatically move DNFs to the bottom since some DNFs may have done more laps then a car that finished. Therefore breaking things into multiple charts would be confusing. Therefore for the sake of keeping things similar I felt that having the unified results chart would be better overall for all sports car races, even Le Mans.
As for the race report itself, well, save the best for last. There are a few flaws (mostly unencyclopedic language and jargon; "took the green" for example, that just hurts my eyes to read!) but in general it is far better written than many recent F1 reports (unfortunately...). There should be a degree of formality to the language tone (we are not ESPN or SkySports), but your style is generally pleasantly lively so just minor tweaks to reduce the tabloid feel of some sections. Specific style comments are:
Use of tense. Maintain past perfect tense, not conditional (e.g. "would be the first retirement" should read "was the first retirement"), and don't be tempted to slip into the present tense (e.g. "with the gearbox failing" should read "when the gearbox failed").
Some of this is due to the article transforming from the future to the present to the past. I've been trying to clean these up, will continue to.
Done
Careful with some minor phrasing. For example "the Creation" sounds like biblical intervention, and would be better off as "the Creation Autosportif entry" or "the Creation car". Just a case of a widely used phrase also being a model of car.
Done I realized that Creation thing sounded unusual when I saved that revision but never bothered to fix it.
Content gaps. Some glaring omissions, but not many. For example, "a large amount of oil was spilled on the track". Where? By whom? How come? For something that had such an influence this is a bit skimpy on information.
Will fix once I figure out who actually dumped the oil...
Done
Spelling. Just a few minor points, e.g. passed -> past. Either "the Audi passed", or "the Audi had gone past".
Will attempt to fix. The359 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Blimey, that was more than I was intending. Let me know when you have had your fun and I'll swing back and do a proper copyedit if you like. Nice article in any case! Pyrope 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have it all fairly well fixed now, with some minor concerns over the intro and layout debate. The359 04:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to know whether or not the picure is ok, and what other information people think would improve the article. Toepoke 13:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture seems fine to me, what specifically are you concerned about?
As for the article, it's a great start. It already gives a basic outline of what the Space School is (with in-line references and everything!), now it needs a bit of expanding. Here are some questions to get you started; maybe you'll think of more information that could be added while you're answering these.
What is the history of the program? When was it started? What did people go through in the process of creating it? Has it always been a government program, or did someone else start it first, and then convinced the government to sponsor it?
What prompted the connection with NASA, rather than staying within Scotland/the UK, or working with another country's space organization(s)?
Are there any key people of the Scottish Executive that are responsible for the program, or people outside the Executive? What do they do?
Does it have a central location, or just the University for summer school?
What age range is it for? If it's been around for long enough, have any previous students moved on to have notable careers in any of the areas the program covers?
Hope that helps! -Bbik★ 18:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, summarized versions of much of the information given in the earliest incarnations of the article would do well to be added back in, too. Admittedly, it was poorly written and sounded too much like a sales pitch, but it was still informative. -Bbik★ 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for a while now. The article achieved GA status on July 31, 2007, but has since been greatly expanded and given more references, images, and information. I am hoping to get it to FA-Status. Any comments and suggestions would be great, and I will do my best to respond to each one immediately. Thanks, Raime 05:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malinaccier's Review
Red links: The article has a few, well a lot of red links (they look like this: redlink, they are links to empty pages). You should spend sometime working on this. You can use Popups (if you don't already) to make this easier.
Done - No more redlinks in article. Raime 03:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures: You have a ton of pictures on this page. I usually like articles that have a lot of pictures, but this one is just a little too cluttered for me. They make the page load slower for users with dial up, and take up reader's bandwidth. The text has also been squeezed into the middle of the page, which doesn't look very good. This may just be my personal dislike, but I would ask around.
Done - Removed through images that crowded scetions. Do you see any other image problems? Raime 03:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, there aren't too many problems with the article. Just keep editing! •Malinaccier•T/C 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for review. Do you think this is anywhere close to being a FAC? Any more suggestions? Raime 03:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
Images - two seem oddly placed: the church in the "Climate" section and the monument in "Demographics". How do those illustrate the topic?
Well, the church fits somehwat in climate, as it was a rainy/cloudy day. It seemed like the only image that could possible fit in that section. There was no suitable image for "Demographics", so I followed along the lines of the "Media" section of the Boston, Massachusetts FA and added and important image that didn't fit in anywhere else. Is this really a major issue? It seems that several city/town articles put important images into sections that don't fit with the images, but do not have a suitable image that fit in with the topic. Raime 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References - some are stretching for reliability, especially in the Modern History section (don't use a real estate company as a reference on population statistics). 'Unlikely to be re-chartered as a city'..why not?
In "History" I can see a problem with balance. One paragraph explaining an entire century, followed by one paragraph on 30 years of unprecedented growth, followed by two paragraphs on incomplete developments? I'd recommend moving the developments into a paragraph on urban geography in the "Geography" section (or an "Economy" section), and expanding on the population boom.
Done - I placed the development information in a new "Economy" section. Raime 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In "Demographics", avoid repeating lists of census data, like 'x% White, x% African American, x% Native American, x% Asian, x% Pacific Islander, x% from other races, and x% from two or more races.' This kind of number heavy prose is better presented in tables or graphs. It is interesting to compare the city's key (or salient) demographics with that of the state or country.
The "Demographics" section was bot-generated, and needs a lot of work. That is a great idea about state compariosn, I'll get working on that as soon as possible. Raime 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of unnecessary or hyped words used. For example, "It is a popular camping...", "...boasts a natural beach...", "Plymouth is a major tourist destination...", "Plymouth operates a large school system...", "Students wishing to receive a...", "Plymouth has played a very important role in American..." The adjectives are unnecessary extra words.
Done - removed hyped words, except for "large" school district. This actually isn't hyped, the Plymouth School District is one of the largest in the state, and well above the Massachusetts average for numbe rof schools operated in a single system. I've added this information to the article. Raime 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potential topics you may wish to consider: map illustrating roads and other features, crime statistics, municipal infrastructure.
Great ideas. This will probably take awhile, but I'll get working on it as sson as possible. Raime 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of stubby paragraphs (like the last one in "History", "Ferry", "Government") could result in an FAC objection based on prose. They seem like mere mentionings rather than part of a developed topic. --maclean 07:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Combined stubby paragraphs with larger ones. Raime 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very detailed review. Raime 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking to get the Michael Barrett (baseball) article to GA status. I previously attempted, a few months ago, and failed miserably. I have since attended to the reviewers comments, and hope to get some feedback and suggestions. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't the Career statistics be easier to follow if they were shown by season. Buc 16:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd actually just get rid of that section altogether. There's plenty of sites where you can view that stuff. At first glance it looks pretty good, though i can check again if needed. Wizardman 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a MAJOR issue as far as i can tell. I will assert my thoughts on it, but the "what to do with stats" debate is rampant here and on most other sports related questions. Per WP:EL i have always been inclined to leave table stats to the els (except some minor summary stats for retired players). There are a lot of reasons for this - a) Stat tables could be considered inundating to some readers not familiar with the content. As it is easily conveyed in the stats sites as well... it's an easy fix (as i see it). b) Stats for most sports are going to change so frequently that unless they are "team oriented" it's awefully hard to keep them really relevant for active players. There is a guideline on this somewhere (i think it's a guideline though it may just be an essay). c) It's easy for vandals to make adjustments that are hard to catch in tables of stats. If i go change Barret's hit total by 3 in a table, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't caught. d) The "compromise" that i usually try and go with is that you do career totals up until the last completed season and just to leave everything else out. It's a hot topic with no true "my way is the right way", but just my 2 cents (or rather 10 cents). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 19:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went and removed that section, and also split the pro career sections up, since it looks neater that way. I'd probably pass this at GA actually. Wizardman 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I just followed the to-do list given to me by a fellow Pinoy Wikipedian.
We managed to fix all but one citation (we didn't go through the DENR people though) and I think the spelling is ok.
These is what the article needs:
Comments:
Is it GA worthy?
Contributions:
Images, we only managed to get two free images
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
I think all of these were addressed --Lenticel(talk) 10:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 0 centimeters, use 0 centimeters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 0 centimeters.[?]
Fixed by Shrumster--Lenticel(talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 13.5 cm.
did not find any abbreviated units --Lenticel(talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
it has been
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), gray (A) (British: grey).
Made all words set to American spelling --Lenticel(talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This GA article has been substantially expanded taking into account comments made on the project's A-class assessment page. I would like to receive wider input to push it on its way to becoming an FAC. Thanks. → AA(talk) — 16:49, 30 August 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.[?]
Y If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
None Available - uses airline logo per project guidelines.
Y Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 feet, use 100 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 feet.[?]
Y When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Y Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: metre (B) (American: meter), isation (B) (American: ization), travelled (B) (American: traveled), ageing (B) (American: aging), routing (A) (British: routeing), curb (A) (British: kerb).
Y All numbers with units of measures should have conversions from the metric system to the U.S. customary units. Templates available here.
Y No need to give all the destinations. Get linked to Biman Bangladesh Airlines destinations and remove the list. Structurally otherwise good. --05:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Y In history, "...with the gift fom the Bangladesh Air Force of a Douglas DC-3 that ..."; in the next paragraph, "...Biman started its journey with a gifted vintage Dakota and Douglas DC-3, which crashed a month later during a test flight." Are these the same Douglas DC-3? If yes, why the two sentences are so much separated?
Should now flow correctly. → AA(talk) — 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y "Douglas DC-10s and Airbus A310s were added to its fleet during the 1980s and 1990s, but the airline suffers an increasing rate of mechanical failures" This sentence does not read well. The two statements of the sentences seem not connected.
Removed sentence altogether as superfluous in History section (covered in detail in Fleet→History). → AA(talk) — 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y "These acted as a replacement for the BAe ATPs" This sentence suddenly talks about BAe ATPS that were so far unknown to the reader. Which BAe ATPs? Have that been mentioned previously? --14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This should flow correctly now - moved back to Fleet history section. → AA(talk) — 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y A "Livery" section? The El Al has it, so do some other airline articles. --14:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:AIRLINES#Structure shows that Livery should be included in the history section (which is the case for this article). There is not enough information available to create a specific sub-section. I know that the livery has undergone changes but could find no sources discussing it. → AA(talk) — 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wel, since the guidelines suggest it to be included in History section, we do not need a separate Livery section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y Also, any frequent flyer programmes? Any remarkable thing on in-flight entertainment or refreshment? Any publication/magazine of the airline? --14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an in-flight magazine, "Diganto" (also [8]). Frequent flyer is described on Biman's website, so could be incorporated. I could say a thing or two about their entertainment and refreshments (having flown them a few times) but unfortunately, WP:NOR prevents me from doing so :) I'll see if anything is available. Brilliant suggestions!! → AA(talk) — 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added new "Services" section with this info. → AA(talk) — 13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a bit more information on the services at User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 3. May be they'll come to some help in expanding the existing information. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y No references in first two paragraphs of "History" section. At least one citation per paragraph is generally sought, two or more if possible. Not a big problem, but maybe enough to eventually withhold FA status. --18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Refs added. → AA(talk) — 23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y The history section needs some expansion, it jumps from the birth to recent times a bit too fast. Were not there anything of note that happened in the time between? --05:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything notable for that period (or anything for that matter). Most of the article is sourced from news articles which thanks to the Internet has made it possible to write articles like this. But for the pre-Internet era, there's nothing available that I could find. → AA(talk) — 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Aditya for getting hold of Jatree (which I unexpectedly found a reference to in a CIA factbook link) and expanding the history section. It flows much better now. → AA(talk) — 08:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y The second paragraph in the reorganized history section shows some inconsistency about the first Biman aircrafts. I didn't notice it before I reorganized that part. I guess, it'd be easy to fix and get a bit streamlined. --03:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
hmmm...was there a need to remove the fleet history section? I think the fleet history (which is a notable element of Biman's operations) needs to be kept separate from it's corporate history. → AA(talk) — 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it back to the original structuring to address Dwaipayan's concerns but open to discussion on the intention of the merge as mentioned above. → AA(talk) — 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a need for two different history sections? I'd suggest (and I tried that too) a single history section that include most of the history, if not all, leaving the fleet section to deal with the current fleet with a bit of background and expansion/upgradation measures. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better if the level 2 History section covers the corporate history and not focus too much on other historical aspects which have their own section. In particular, the fleet history is better covered together with other fleet related topics under the named section. I can see the fleet history expanding as further progress is made at modernising the fleet in Biman. → AA(talk) — 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if the two history sections remain apart, I'd like to draw attention to a big discrepancy in facts. The first history section says - "Biman commenced operations with two Fokker F27 aircraft flying passengers to Chittagong and Sylhet from its base in Dhaka. Soon after a Boeing 707, chartered from British Caledonian, joined the airline's fleet, allowing Biman to begin international flights." But, the second history section says - "Biman started its journey with a gifted vintage Dakota and Douglas DC-3, which crashed a month later during a test flight." - and then moves onto the 1980s. What constituted Biman's original fleet? Fokkers and Caledonians or Dakotas and DC-3s? Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have posted some material on the article talk page to shed light on the original fleet. Hope it's useful. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't think there's any contradiction between the two sources - just the way they are representing the facts. I'll have a go at trying to put a uniform view in the article. → AA(talk) — 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I guess, with time even I could figure out a way to straighten it. But, for an innocent gazer of facts or a student who has come for quick gathering of information it could've very well become confusing. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y Is it possible to incorporate a few lines on the new management, especially the structure of the current management? May be with that inclusion, and a bit on the on initial management structure, it can become a level 2 section, not a level 3 part of the History section.--07:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There may be some sources for this - I'll look into it. → AA(talk) — 12:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The promotion of the management section from level 3 to level 2 was very appropriate. It could be helped further by incorporating a few bits on the current management (in structure, if not in names), otherwise it lacks completeness big time.
Not sure about big time, but it certainly would be useful to provide the management structure. Haven't found anything yet on the net that goes into this level of detail, but still looking. → AA(talk) — 08:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y Is it possible to incorporate a few bits on the evolving laws for this government agency over the time into the history section, may be distributed along the time flow? --07:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't come across any that provide this level of detail. → AA(talk) — 12:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a short evolutionary overview of the laws (which may be coupled to the original Biman Act, which is a part of the national constitution) at User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 3. It may help a bit. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y How about removing the 2nd paragraph and the 2nd part of the first sentence from the History section. This would remove mention of fleet from the history section ensuring this only deals with corporate history. The Fleet->History section covers this anyway.
Reducing redundancy? Wonderful idea. My only question is - why two different history sections? I have checking airline articles, and this structure doesn't seem to be a necessity. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm not succeeding in getting my thoughts across - apologies for that but let me try again. I believe the Fleet section should discuss everything related to the fleet and History should be confined to company history (with maybe an overview of history from the other sections - Destination, Fleet, etc.). Posssibly, the problem is starting the Fleet section with a level 3 heading called History which I think can be solved by just removing the heading. I've jiggled it about a bit so let me know what you think of the current layout. → AA(talk) — 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just remembered that you suggested the current structure yourself a while back when the article looked like this. I think this layout does fit in better. → AA(talk) — 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, shit! Why didn't I think of that before! You just removed the second history header, right? Incorporating an overview of historical facts from other parts is an wonderful idea again. Just keep it very brief, otherwise someone would surely spot it for redundancy. And, oh, I remembered that suggestion made by quite a while back, but things have evolved much ever since. (well, I do feel a bit like a jackass taking my words back, hahaha). One more thing, I strongly feel that the article should go into FAC as soon as the PR goes silent for more than a week. It's very ready now, notwithstanding the length of the intro section. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - just removed the 3rd level History header under Fleet. Will submit for FAC as suggested. Hopefully, one or two other passes of copyedit/proofread can be done - we'll see how it goes. Thanks again for all your help! → AA(talk) — 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y Need to incorporate some info on Biman Cargo. --11:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have copyedited from there into the article. More to come. → AA(talk) — 08:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standardise the currency used in the article. I think converting the BDTs to USDs would be appropriate since this is not a "country-specific" article (per WP:$). --08:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Which conversion rate would be useful in doing that? Current market prices or the price of the years associated? The former would be misleading, the later would be difficult to establish. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will have a hard time in FAC if this is not addressed and we need to see the best method for doing so. Maybe worth looking at going the other way then USDs → BDT. → AA(talk) — 08:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y Create articles (may be stubs to start with) for Biman subsidiaries. If they are not notable enough then remove the redlinks from the subsidiaries section (infobox and body of article) --06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Y The incident and accidents section should be merged with the history. Even if a separate section is retained it should be converted into prose style from a list style. --09:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This incidents and accidents section is in accordance with the structure suggested by Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines, a collaboration to standardize and develop airline related articles. This structure is widely used by airline articles including the featured article El Al Israel Airlines. Besides, it doesn't really represent a list, as each incident/accident is described in prose, the resemblance to a list is that each has its own paragraph, which are in agreement with WP:LAYOUT guideline on paragraphs. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks. Arman Aziz 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent quite a bit of time working towards GA for this, and think that it could reach FA with a little bit of help. Any advice, especially specific advice, is very much appreciated.
You might want to check out the List of U2 awards page and list a few major awards that the band have won, or some awards that Clayton won, or awards for an album that Clayton significantly contributed to or was well-renowned for that particular solo on that song, etc. Otherwise, you've done a great job at keeping the article factually accurate. :) Sebi[talk] 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate the help. Neranei(talk) 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APRt 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Basic data" section, I'd like to have a basis for comparison on the salinity. Could the article list the typical North Atlantic and Mediterranean salinities?
Not done Some measure of the shipping tonnage passing through the sea would be informative (in the "Marine traffic" section) to demonstrate the relative importance of this body of water.
--Childzy ¤ Talk 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Added "Recognition" section, rewrote the intro. In fact, one of the earlier versions had a "Recognition" section (mostly helped by my poor self).
Really.
May be that celebrated sex-drive was her personal life. There was a nice quote on one of the earlier versions to that end. I need more advise on this.
I'm getting to the style issues soon enough, promise. But, I'd definitely like to solve the tone ans reference problems first. Doing a thorough copycheck before that may lead to some amount of wasted effort. I can already look forward to some amount of material removed, and some totally rewritten. But, please, someone guide me to some specifics. Living so close to the article for so long has blinded me to some extent, and I really need help on this. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Done Slightly re-worked as wanted to farm off some of the content elsewhere Dick G
Not done Only because I think it is important that the article emphasises the events during the Tour. It seems there is much less gravitas on the post-Tour developments - most of the talking/action occurred when Rasmussen exited . Thoughts? Dick G
Done Transferred to new article. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Unlikely When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
