Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2005

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

---

Stairway to Heaven

I would like to know what you guys think of this article. I know it is not ready to be featured by this is my first time trying to get an article featured so I don't know what needs to be fixed. Any comments would help. Dan M 00:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening sentence should be more professional, than simply "a famous song", and include a year, writer, etc Sherurcij 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• The lead definitely needs to be expanded. Denni ☯ 04:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm increasing the lead by moving up the first few lines from the history section. However, I do not know where to put this:

It did, however, appear as a promotional disc in the United States, on an Australian acoustic EP, and in the 1990s as a 20th anniversary promo issue.

It doesn't fit with either the lead or the History section now. I'm leaving it in the lead, but it can't stay.

• From the article: This form would influence many other rock artists, notably Queen, who would use a similar structure for their opus "Bohemian Rhapsody". Needs a citation showing Queen was definitely influenced by Stairway.
• Needs an iconic picture of Page playing the two necked guitar. Article is lacking without it.
• "Our turntables only play in one direction—forwards" Great Quote, would love a citation.

My name is No Parking and I approved this message. 14:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

This article needs some special attention. It's highly controversial subject matter, and it needs a good going-over by several pairs of eyes, to ensure that all notable points of view are represented, and that everything is accurate, and that the citations are proper. We are hoping to get it ready for featured status, because Smith's 200th birthday is approaching on December 23, 2005. ''COGDEN'' 08:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Great article. Good luck bringing it the FA: it would be a great addition to Wikipedia on the greatness of the man Joseph.

• Most recurring is to make sure that all sources (such as Norwich, Berge, Quinn, Mack, Vogel, Roberts, Tiffany, Lapham, Howe, Jesseeetc.) are linked to (at least the first time they are used), for ease of reference. If some of those aren't in the article footnotes, reference them.

Working on this. COGDEN 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

Done. COGDEN 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• In summary, it says he was considered a martyr. Is this nessicary in an article on his early life? Think of a better way to end the summary section.

I removed the martyr reference. COGDEN 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Put the citation for the leg operation at the end of the paragraph. Also, should the citations from books be changed to a number link, like so: [1], rather than a text link?

Done. The link style for citations to books with links is set by the templates, which are rather new. I'd expect them to change. COGDEN 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Be more clear on the "warned out of town". Put a link to it. Was their vagrancy the only possible cause of this warning? If so, make it clear that only this theory has been put forward for this warning

Addressed. COGDEN 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph before religious background of the family, the article cites numerous refernces to him being a rather quiet boy. However, doesn't the JS - H state that he had a "jovial" manner? Add in the discrepancy, please.

I found a reference in Smith's history that he was "sometimes associated with jovial company", but that refers to the personality of those he associated with, rather than himself. COGDEN 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Why was Western NY often known as the "Burned-Over District"? (I take it's because it was so "on fire" with the Spirit. Add it in for everyone's sake.)

Addressed. COGDEN 21:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Prejudice against Smith may have taken place by clergy, it is largely undocumented" is a comma splice.

Addressed. COGDEN 21:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• At the end of the article, you may wish to refernce the reader back to the article Joseph Smith, Jr. for the rest of his life.

Addressed. COGDEN 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic article. Well done. Look forward to seeing it on the FA list. Trevdna 23:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, come to think of it, shouldn't the lead-in picture be one of his earlier life, rather than "A daguerreotype photograph dated c. 1843", six years after the end of his early life? Trevdna 18:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. I'm looking for a suitable painting of him as a youth. I'm trying to avoid overly-romanticized ones, for NPOV purposes, but there aren't very many. COGDEN 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

This article has been listed as a Featured Article Candidate. Please enter additional comments at the FAC comments page. COGDEN 05:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine

This is the third peer review request for this article. The first two can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Palpatine/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Palpatine/archive2.

I rewrote much of this article to emphasize the character's role outside the Star Wars universe per the guideline Writing About Fiction. This article has changed dramatically since it first appeared at peer review and FAC. It was a good article before, but apparently not what the Wikipedia community at FAC was looking for. Explanations of the changes I made can be found here: Talk:Jabba the Hutt. Any suggestions for improvement of the article to meet FAC standards will be appreciated. Dmoon1 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Haven't had a chance to go over it with a fine toothcomb, though it definitely is worthy as previous Star Wars character FA's by DMoon1. If I find anything amiss, I'll be sure to get in touch with Dmoon1. There's one bit though;

" Ian McDiarmid required little make-up in The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, he remembers, "I'm ... slightly aged [in Attack of the Clones]. In the last film, I had a fairly standard make-up on, but now, they're starting to crinkle my face."[50] "

The following words "he remembers" after the first sentence seem possibly awkward, but this is only my personal opinion. Could "he remembers" be changed to "remembering", "reminiscing" or something in a similar vein? LuciferMorgan 08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed this to "he recalled". Please let me know if you find anything else that sounds awkward or needs to be addressed. Dmoon1 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Very nice work so far. My main concern is whether the casual reader will be a little lost when reading the article, as even though I know the films and the character quite thoroughly, I was a little confused at parts. The "Appearances" section starts off fine, but when it gets to his role in Episodes II and III it starts becoming a little rushed. For example, Count Dooku and his relationship to Palpatine kinda come out of nowhere.

I expanded some instances where the narrative seemed rushed; I want to keep the plot sections as concise as possible. If you point some other examples out I'll see what I can do. Dmoon1

I found this quote in "Literature" to be misplaced: "These novels demonstrate how the Jedi are blind to Palpatine's true identity as a Sith Lord. In Shatterpoint, Mace Windu remarks to Yoda, "A shame [Palpatine] can't touch the Force. He might have been a fine Jedi." Eh?

I'm not sure what you don't understand. Mace Windu and Yoda, the two most powerful Jedi at the time, could not detect that Palpatine was Force-sensitive or that he was in fact a Sith Lord while sitting in his very presence; the last bit about him being a fine Jedi was a reference to his diplomatic and political skills, I think. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics section coming along, although I think a little more could be said about his lightsaber skills (he defeats three Jedi and Yoda in Ep. 3 after all) and his Force abilities (he manages to hide his plot from the entire galaxy). Also, no information about his deceptive relationships with his pupils. Maybe a mention of his racism towards non-human species as well?

His force abilities (including lightsaber skills) probably could be split into a separate paragraph. His racism is mentioned and a quote by Count Dooku concerning Sidious's views is there too. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I elaborated somewhat on his lightsaber skills. Dmoon1 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would get rid of the opening sentences in "Concept and creation" as the information is basically repeated down below. This statement, "Lucas's original conception of Palpatine was of a cunning but weak politician elevated into office and controlled by bureaucrats" needs a reference I think. Also, this sentence about Ian McDiarmid, "He became the artistic director of the Almeida Theatre in North London in 1990", is kinda unnecessary. Otherwise, that section is terrific.

Well, this is supposed to be somewhat repetitive since it is a intro/summary to the "Concept and creation" section. The same thing is done above in "Appearances". The bit about artistic director is there to show what McDiarmid was doing between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace since there is this sixteen-year gap between the two films. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While the whole article is comprehensive and successfuly avoids any cruft, I think it still needs a spelling and grammar run-through, as I saw a few too many typos and errors than normal. The only extra suggestion I can offer is maybe adding an image comparing Palpatine to Satan or such. Great work.--Dark Kubrick 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've run the text through a spell checker and there are no common spelling errors (there may still be a couple remaining); I can't speak for the grammar since I hate to proofread. I will print out a paper copy and go over it over the next day or so. Not sure what to do about an image comparing Palpatine to Satan. I haven't run across anything directly showing Palpatine as the devil, just that some academics have compared him to the figure. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll see if I can address all of these soon. Dmoon1 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just read through the article and made some minor copy edits here and there. I've also hidden some requests for source citation where it appeared a direct quote was being given. Other than that, here are a few concerns:

The quotes come from directly from the film which is being described. Dmoon1 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• A few terms are used that may be unfamiliar to non-fans. Sith, Expanded Universe, and Emperor's Hand. Some of this can be remedied by adding a couple of words of explanation. For example, perhaps in the intro: 'In reality, Palpatine is a powerful lord of the evil Sith sect . . . " or something.
  • Did the best I could with this one. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• The article asserts that Palpatine is 'a symbol of evil and sinister deception in American popular culture." This is true, but is it only in America? Does the character not have the same associations in other countries and cultures where Star Wars is popular? I'd think that at least Canadian culture would have this association, but maybe not?
  • All the examples I found were American (this statement is almost exactly like the one in Jabba the Hutt). Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Throughout the "Appearances" section, consider changing a few more sentences to describe what authors and directors are doing. For example, instead of "in the 1999 prequel film Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Palpatine is introduced . . . " to "in the 1999 . . . Lucas introduces Palpatine . . . ."
  • Changed a couple of these. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• The article is way overlong, and I think the "Appearances" section is to blame. I think it goes into way too much detail about Palpatine's role in relatively minor and secondary books and cartoons. I honestly think you shouldn't be devoting more than a sentence or two to anything but the actual feature films. Maybe Dark Empire or some of the stuff where Palpatine is indeed a central chracter. But he's almost not even in the Clone Wars microseries, yet that cartoon gets its own section! In short, I would take a long, hard look at the "Appearances" section and think about scaling it back by half or more.
  • I edited down the literature section, but I must disagree about the cartoons and novels. I'm not sure what you mean by secondary (to the films?), but they are important. Palpatine/Darth Sidious is influencing the entire plot of the cartoon (but I only chose a few of the more notable examples). The cartoon is not like some of the obscure video game references that have tried to pop up in some of the articles recently. It is critically acclaimed and has won several major awards. Additionally, almost all of the Star Wars novels have appeared on the New York Times Bestseller list. But you are right concerning the bulk of these sections, and it has been trimmed considerably look more like the literature section of Jabba the Hutt. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think most of the KB length is being generated by the footnotes. It's probably around 35 KB, not 55. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• I removed some asides about other characters that do not have any direct pertinence to Palpatine (Vader's struggle between good and evil, Mara Jade's future nuptial).
  • This was on my to-do list. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Some of the quotes from interviews are given in the present tense ("Lucas says"), while others are in the past tense ("McDiarmid remembered"). I think either is acceptable, but try to make it consistent one way or the other.
  • Taken care of as many of these as I could spot. There may be some I missed. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the line about McDiarmid's life between trilogies (as an artistic director) should be cut. The article's about Palpatine, not McDiarmid.
  • Removed this line. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• The quote from John Shelton Lawrence seems to be referring to Star Wars action figures in general, not specifically to the Emperor's. I'd cut it.
  • The quote is explicitly about Palpatine and Luke Skywalker, you can see the actual page here.

That's it. I think that if the "Appearances" section is trimmed with a hacksaw, this will be a good Featured Article Candidate. Here's to hoping you turn your attention to Chewbacca next! — BrianSmithson 09:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks! I definitely appreciate your feedback and will address as many of your concerns as possible. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Objectivist poets

Another Modernist poetry in English offshoot, two and a half thousand words on this 1930s poetry movement. I feel I'm growing tired on it and need any help, advice, suggestions etc you can give. Thanks in advance. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Not related to the article, but is there a reason this isn't at Objectivism or objectivist poetry or something? Perusing list of schools of poetry, this title seems out of place. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, but Objectivism is already occupied and Objectivist poetry would imply a tighter group with a single platform/manifesto. What you actually have is a group of poets who were given the Obgectivist tag because they happened to be published together twice under that name. If you really think Objectivist poetry would be better, I would not oppose the move, however. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Objectivism's only a redirect right now, that you could use if you think that's better. Dmcdevit·t 19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it has a long history, not just a single line creation. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What can I say, it's perfect, the author's prose hypnotizes and makes it impossible to miss anything. I don't think this should be puffed up in any way—is there something wrong with this kind of length? Not in my book. However [with an effort], the poetry? Actual quotes? Would that be a copyright problem? "Fair use" is a pretty generous criterion when it comes to quoting for the purpose of critical discussion, I think.

Actually, I have a minor rhetorical point: lead section structure. Even though the title is about the poets, I assume Objectivism will be a redirect, and one via which the reader will be quite likely to arrive. The lead is most specifically for the ignorant, and it seems to take rather long before the concept of Objectivism is explained. I'd like to hear what it is before being told who its practitioners were, and especially to hear as soon as possible the bit that explains why it's called Objectivism—such an off-putting name—i. e., the "to treat the poem as an object" bit. In the first sentence, if possible

Even more minor: you speak of the "condensation" of Imagist poetry. Is that a technical, or commonly used, term for it? Or just a synonym for conciseness, concentration? I got a little diverted by associating condensation with Freud and the Interpretation of Dreams and psychoanalytic lit crit: Freudian condensation is where a single dream event (or metaphor in language) refers to more than one anxiety, or chain of associations.

Or were the Imagists a bit Freudian, and therefore used condensation in the Freudian sense as part of their definition of Imagism? Like, the petals on the wet, dark bough would be at the intersection of several chains of association? ...I guess not? Sorry to not have anything more helpful; you'll have to look to Geogre. --Bishonen|talk 01:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have tweaked the lead. What do you think? I'll also add some quotes from the poetry over the next day or two: it's a mater of reminding myself of which texts exactly appeared in the Poetry special issue and the anthology. I also changed condensed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added 3 sample poems from the Poetry issue, what do you think now?

Dawson Creek, British Columbia

An article on a small town in northern B.C., population ~10,000 people. I would like someone to help with the prose and the reference formatting. Plus, comments on how to improve would be great. --maclean25 16:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, to me at least, this looks like an excellent article. I only saw one format issue and that was a pair of tables that overlapped in the Government and politics section. (It's probably related to the browser width.) You could possibly add some infrastructure information, such as hospitals, gas, electricity, and telecommunications. Also your culture and recreation section could have a paragraph on local TV and radio stations. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the parallel tables have been a problem and it is a browser thing. Originally consructed them in Mozilla, then had to tweak them to work in Internet Explorer. Now they look fine on my browsers (at maximum expansion) but I don't know if it works on others with different settings. If anyone knows how to force the table to stay the same size (and in palce) while the browser window shrinks please let me know. The media stuff I've consider but never got around to (not my most favorite subject in the world). The infrastructure idea I haven't considered, but I will now. Thank you for your comments. --maclean25 16:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • In the header of the first table you could try, for example: style="float: right; margin: 1em;". That should prevent overlap, I believe. — RJH

• Pretty good comprehensive article. I'd like to try doing some copyediting, especially on the introduction and the first para of the history (too many "settlements" :-) ) but life is interfering with Wikipedia so I won't get to it until next week. I find the footnotes interfere with the text and most could be incorporated in it as they are not references. Like I said, I'll take a gander at it next week. You might want to include some climate data from [2]. See Dawson City for an example of what I did. 207.189.233.198 21:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Somehow, I was logged off. It's me: Luigizanasi 21:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Luigizanasi, where do you find those wonderful sources? I noticed that website has climate data on other small cities (like, Taylor) that I just could not find elsewhere. This will really help. Concerning the footnote style: it was something that made sense in the beginning, but it just kept on growing and growing. I'm going to have to turn them into plain old references and merge(?) the notes. --maclean25 01:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's a decent article, but you should avoid the use of certain sentence structures. For instance, Dawson Creek’s unemployment rate was quoted at 10.4% is something you might find in mass media; it would be better stated as Dawson Creek’s unemployment rate was 10.4%. I think the Demographics section needs copyediting, because there are several such awkward sentences. Another (very minor) issue is that you link to relevant articles on their second occurrence in some cases, instead of the first. An example is transshipment, which occurs in the Demographics section, but a link to it is found in the subsequent section, Economy. Stylistically, don't use & when you mean and; personally, I also don't like the use of "B.C." - I'd favour province or British Columbia. Also, should the article use Canadian English? (I see a number of center etc.) The images are OK, though I'd prefer to see one that has a close-up (the Art Gallery maybe?) instead of numerous shots from a distance; it'll add variety to the images. The images under Economy and Transportation are remarkably alike; is there some way of getting the same information without making the images so similar? Overall, the article is good, and needs only a few minor tweaks. I've made many of those changes in a recent copyedit. Mindmatrix 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the copyedit. The underlying cause of the points you mention above is that my background is in report-writing. I instinctively go for the short statements of fact using as few words as possible and don't write anything from start-to-end (but rather a piece here, a piece there). This is why I require help in the prose and getting it to flow well. Concerning the images, I will walk across the street and get a close-up pic of the art gallery when the weather clears up a little. I really like "The Mile Zero Post" image as the wind was blowing well when I took it. I think the "8 Street" image best captures the essence of the town and it looks really good when viewed at full extents. However, I realize it does not convey the intended message of retail activity as a thumb. I will need to take a walk around town and think about this. --maclean25 01:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

1997 Pacific hurricane season

First review

First Candidacy

Second Candidacy

A twice-failed featured article candidate. While the article had much support, bold changes were made. Since the original comments may not apply, I closed down its nomination to seek peer review. I'd like to point out that the current formatting is different from every other season article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty good article, I think, and covers the topic to a nice level of detail. The only part that caught my eye were the Super Typhoon Oliwa and Paka. These are covered on the 1997 Pacific typhoon season page, and are out of sequence with the others. I know they are mentioned in the introduction, but an explanation of the names in those two sections wouldn't hurt. Thanks. — RJH 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I added in the Oliwa section that tropical cyclones are not renamed when they cross basin boundaries in the Pacific Ocean. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

This is an article about a controversial but obscure subject related to Islam, the Qur'an, and Alexander the Great. The article has been expanded a great deal, and information has been moved to it from Alexander the Great and Alexander in the Qur'an. Zeno of Elea 16:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Generally blockquote heavy - I'd paraphrase just a bit more
2. "Historical background" - first paragraph seems kind of short
3. "Muslim veneration of Alexander the Great" - There are some embedded <br> here which just results in a bunch of odd whitespace

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It'd look better if the double dashes were replaced with an mdash (& mdash ; without the spaces, looks like this: —). CTOAGN 15:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Communes of France

Any comments? David.Monniaux 10:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think I have identified several issues to be getting on with:
  • To achieve FA status it needs a picture or two. I suggest a map demonstrating the size of a few communes in a well known area, a road sign effectively saying "Welcome to the commune of..." (if such things exist), an image of a legal document containing the law which introduced the commune, a picture of a significant politician in the creation of the idea of the commune during the French revolution...
  • The references could be bulked out if any more sources were used with maybe one or two in English for verification of facts.
  • The latter part of "Intercommunality" needs to be Wikified.
  • The links at the bottom of "Status of the communes" should be moved to the bottom of the article in footnote/reference form.
• I hope this helps. --Oldak Quill 13:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Attic calendar

This entry has been rewritten. I'm in a state of photocopywrite intimidation and wasn't really intending to put it up for FA but would appreciate any responses or suggestions about the entry. Flounderer 01:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The grammar, puntuation and layout are bad. I've done a fairly heavy copyedit of most of the article (I didn't get all the way through). There are a lot of sentences with multiple dependent clauses. These make the article very difficult to read. Go through the article and break up any sentence with two or three clauses into smaller sentences. Have a good read through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It gives good examples of how to put an article together. Have a read through some of the better Wikipedia articles on calendars, and try to emmulate their style of writing. --Gareth Hughes 17:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to copyedit the entry and in particular for improving the look of the tables (I was fumbling my way there and the help pages on tables in wikipedia could be a little easier for a newcomer to use!). And you are right that many sentences are convoluted, even if I don't share your dislike of sentences beginning with "And...." Flounderer 01:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Streetlight Manifesto

previous PR

Elbert Frank Cox

• It needs an image to be able to be featured, but what else does it need? More maths, perhaps? I spent all day working on it, it's well sourced, and contains quite a lot of interesting information. What do you think? It somehow does not read like a well-written article (I'm not a native speaker). Perhaps it just needs a minor rewrite by a native speaker who can write very well? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 21:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting article. It looks like you put in a lot of work and made some impressive improvements. It's very comprehensive on the subject of his education and teaching, a bit less so on the other areas of his life. The writing isn't so bad. It's not gripping, but it's sensible and for the most part clear and grammatically correct. The links feel a bit dense, and the organization isn't the tightest I've seen (it has an "and then... and then... and then..." feel to it, IMHO). A few comments:

• How about referencing specific facts in the article from specific sources (in particular, the items that are relatively subjective, such as how good a teacher he was or what influence his father had on him)?
• There are also a few thoughts in there that look like they could be more fully developed -- e.g. "Cox went to a segregated school with inadequate resources. His father was an important inspiration for him."
• By 1930, it would rank 2nd in the U.S. (after Harvard) for the number of mathematicians getting a bachelor's degree." "It" is Indiana University?
• I'd be interested in learning more about what impact racism may have had on his career and studies in a time when discrimination was widespread and the KKK was active near the area where he worked.
• The sentence "He did not publish a paper until 1934." seems a bit out of place in a discussion of events from the mid-1920s
• Perhaps the article could be organized, or at least the sections titled a bit differently. Instead of organizing it by where he was, it could maybe be organized by life events -- Undergraduate studies, graduate studies, teaching, family, etc.... Since it wouldn't be 100% chronological, the article could begin (after the intro section) with an abbreviated chronology.
• "Cox started to teach at Howard University in September 1930. It was very different; despite his high credentials, he was outranked by other professors such as William Bauduit and Charles Syphax." What was different from what?
• "Williams, his supervisor, tried to pursue recognition for Cox from a university from another country" Who is Williams (and does he have a first name)? I don't recall his being mentioned elsewhere, or certainly not within the past few paragraphs.
• "Cox had directed more Master's Degree students than any other professor at Howard's University" Is it "Howard University" or "Howard's University"?
• There's a section marked as a stub. Presumably it should be expanded?

-- Avocado 23:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I will have a look at it tonight or tomorrow (sorry that I saw it only now). Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Fox River Grove level crossing accident

I have taken this article as far as I can go, based off memory, recent articles, archived articles, and from practical experience with the intersection (driving by it twice). It is missing a couple of pictures (the memorial, and the crossing itself), and a diagram to better explain the picture, but those can be done later. Mostly looking for proper grammar and punctuation. --Rob 18:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job. Nice read, just made a few copyedits. I remember this happening. InvictaHOG 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. It might be useful to include more information on the make-up of the passenger train, the frequency of trains, etc. I think that what would be really helpful is a description of the sequence of events leading up to the crash. Also, it might be helpful to include more information on the make-up of the commuter train, the frequency of commuter trains, etc. JYolkowski // talk 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Reasons

1. So called detractors not identified. Most of the article is based on hearsay. No facts provided
2. Please verify sources.
3. For personal attack and opinion
4. Most of the article has the tone, its believed, detractors have said, etc.
5. The article is heavily depended on single source JAM magazine. There are hundreds of article about IIPM in reputed Indian newspapers, Websites. None of them have been cited in this article.
6. Refer to the quote in the beginning of the discussion page, which broadly states the agenda of this article, which in itself is against the spirit of this wiki

" IIPM will pay heavy price for misleading indian. Business in the name of Business education won't work anymore"

OpenBSD

I feel that the OpenBSD article has matured a fair bit recently, but that it could use filling out and review from eyes beyond just NicM, SimonMorgan and myself in order to truly become worthy of being featured. There are still sections and information yet to add to the article, but I am reasonably satisfied with it as is. --Janizary 03:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• A few things: does the dev section really need to be that high up? How is OpenBSD in terms of GUIs? casually reading through it, it sounds like a scary hardcore command line unix. True or myth? Screenshots might help here, I dunno. Plus: there are quite a few red links. This isn't really a bad thing for the article per se, but does make it suboptimal. And... that's it really; some of the "flavor", if you know what I mean, is missing, but it's pretty good as is. --Maru (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Do you mean normal GUIs, like KDE and whatnot, or GUI configuration tools? I feel the former are already mentioned quite enough in the Desktop section. GUIs have no more - perhaps less since desktop uses probably make up the minority for OpenBSD - to do with OpenBSD than they do with FreeBSD, Linux, etc. If the latter, a few words might be appropriate, but it may be tricky to put in a neutral way. Some actual OpenBSD (not X) screenshots (booting? what else?) could be a nice idea. NicM 07:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

• This is a good article, but it seems to emphasize the developer and hacking aspect of the operating system a little too heavily. Large sections are devoted to this, including a list of developers (if this is really necessary, it should be moved down to the bottom of the article). There seems to be too little coverage of GUIs under OpenBSD. Now, the project web page hardly mentions GUIs at all, but presumably they can be made to run equally well under BSD as under Linux. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• The reason for this is that OpenBSD doesn't have GUIs, that is X that deals in GUIs. It is mentioned only in the Desktop section of Uses because it is only a very small part of what OpenBSD is able to do and those GUIs are dependant on X and not OpenBSD at all. Janizary 18:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Even the Linux article only has a paragraph about GUIs, why should we do more? We do already link to the KDE and GNOME articles. OpenBSD is not focused on and it's strengths don't lend it to GUIs, even though they do run fine (but don't forget most are ports, not part of the project). NicM 20:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi there! I don't usually review content but considering I know the subject matter quite well... here we go!

1. First off, you're going to need a lead at least two paragraphs long for an article this size - see WP:LEAD
2. General issues with whole article:
   1. Where are the references?
   2. Too developer-oriented and too many unexplained buzzwords (CVS, etc.) - you're going to need to explain these in layman terms. Yes, I'm a developer and know these things so this article reads well for me of course - but please keep in mind not everyone is a developer :).
3. "History" might benefit from a section intro here. In addition
4. "Schism" - this has some serious POV issues.
   1. For one, the treatment of Theo's departure from the team is very one-sided - WHY did the developers lock him out? Did he submit faulty commits? It doesn't say immediately and insinuates plenty of conspiracy theories here before getting to the supposed reason.
   2. In addition, this reads more like a novel then an encyclopedia IMHO... try rewriting it just a bit (the writing itself is pretty good).
   3. " he found that NetBSD developers had been encouraged not to talk with him about the issue"- WOwOW! If you are going to say that you BETTER have a reference for such a claim!
   4. Also, when was OpenBSD 1.0 released (was there a 1.0?) - it should probably say here.
   5. In addition, consider splitting off a bit either into a seperate section or doing something, as this is bigger then the other sections
   6. "he only reason officially given is "because of philosophical and developer personality differences"" - mind explaining this? Again, really fluffs it up in a very POV way. Also, "only" itself seems POV here, as if they needed a seperate reason, no?
   7. Paragraphs could be combined here to form two longish ones rather then the current way
5. "Focus"
   1. "Theo de Raadt was contacted by a local security software developer interested" - who was that developer?
   2. " exploit possible security flaws" - in what? I'm assuming in OpenBSD, but you might want to enlighten the reader :)
   3. "synergy" - neat word, but "relationship" is probably more appropriate here, LOL
   4. "OpenBSD would often go out of the way to do what was right, proper or secure, even at the cost of ease, speed or functionality." - yeah ->I<- know that, but you might want to give some examples for the poor readers, eh?
   5. Missing dates in general - i.e. "After years of cooperation, the two parties decided that their goals together had been met and parted ways." Its rather unclear when the relationship started (1994?) so the reader is probably lost time-wise by now....
   6. "As bugs within OpenBSD became less easily found and exploitable" - reword a bit, writing-wise a bit sub-par to the rest
6. "Here and now"
   1. "Despite being the largest reason" - largest here is quite clumsy, try "most prominant" or something similar
   2. In general, this section doesn't really belong in "History", or at least is misplaced a bit, as it details more the general goals of the project rather then something that happened in time which generally goes in a section like this
7. "Releases" - combine the first two paragraphs here...
8. "Nomenclature" - ambigous section title, consider using something more specific
   1. Delistify this, first off
   2. Don't wikilink -beta as its kind of odd, consider explaining a bit more a linking a seperate word "beta"
   3. Quote the things prepended with -
   4. Ending paragraph is too developer heavy and needs rewording
9. "Latest" - avoid this, as it makes the article time-based. Instead just list the versions and when they came out, along with their notable features
10. "Image and marketing" - "interesting" and "imaginative" are definately POV in this context. Do something like "widely considered to be" if you can get away with it
11. "Themes" - make the paragraphs here longer. Also, that list is really annoying - if it were me I'd put it into a table so that each entry only took up one line, but you can also either turn it entirely into prose or get rid of the "-" parts and collude those
12. "Mascot" - Something's not right with the list here. I can't put my finger on the exact problem, but I think there's a bit of context missing here...
13. "Slogans" - delistify both the lists here...
14. "Developers" - a normal reader is going to fall asleep on this section. WHY is this important? Needs more context... in addition consider using a more neutral word such as "recognized" instead of "notable" as it veers a POV-y. In addition, I'd make this a table instead of a list, but I suppose its not too bad as is, just a little long.
15. "Hackathons"
    1. Needs to be wikified more
    2. Paragraphs way too short... combine them or something
    3. "A brief summary" - well, if you're going to list them I suppose that would be "listing", eh? A table might be better for this too.
16. "Security" - especially nasty offender of short paragraphs and one-sentence paragraphs
17. "API and build changes" - thoughts here too detached and needs better flow in general
18. "Strong crypto" - strong is POV here, also use the full word "cryptology".
    1. "frustrate password-cracking attempts." - Consider something like "make ... more difficult" etc..
19. "Memory protection" - consider doing something here like killing the subsections here as they are extremely short
    1. "Stack-smashing" - kill the list here...
20. " Ports and packages" - short paragraphs.... well and I'll save you guys the trouble and not mention that again :)
21. "Licencing" - a lot of this stuff seems like it would go better in the history section.... anyway
22. "Highlights" - kill the list here... - "unacceptable licences" is POV in the current context
23. "XFree86" ewww... don't italicize quotes - if you want to highlight it blockquote it instead :)
    1. " He later added, "it seems like every 8 years or so we have to go through some period where someone tries to take free software and makes it less free because they don't feel they are getting enough credit."" this just reinforces a POV - get rid of it
24. "Uses" probably needs to be renamed
25. "Derivatives" - HMMM. I'd kill the list here and do a bit of rewriting to make it one or two nice long paragraphs
26. "Desktop"
    1. "From it's beginnings OpenBSD has been distributed with an X Windows system" say "derivative" or something afterwards or reword a bit.
    2. The second paragraph here is a pretty egregious POV offender :)
    3. Third paragraph has obvious grammer issues
27. "Forks of BSD" - merge this into "See also"
28. "See also" - seems kind of bare for the subject. Also, axe ones like hackathon as they are already wikilinked in the article.
29. "Books" - consider renaming this "Further reading" as a lot of articles have. Also, the place where to buy it reeks of advertising - I'd cut that out. In addition, consider using a reference style here that doesn't take up five lines a reference :).
30. "External links" "OpenSSH page" etc. - if the project has a wikilink here don't do an external link in addition to it :). "Free For All by Pete Wayner" needs a better description

WHEW! Well, I'll see you guys later :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You are asking for things which, if you did know this material well, you would know are impossible. The Schism section is one sided because only one side has ever talked about it, period. All the items which are linked within the article are the sources of this information - including Free For All by Pete Wayner. Read it. Most of your whining is solved through reading, be it the OpenBSD site or the other parts of the article. "In October 1995, OpenBSD 2.0 was first released as a fork from NetBSD 1.0." Should point you to the fact that there was no OpenBSD 1.0, that it was a fork of NetBSD 1.0. Within Focus, you ask once more for things which are not disclosed - the company is never mentioned because Theo has never named it, likely because they wish to remain unnamed. The exploitation mentioned is in software, any code that the tools could find problems in, I thought that obvious by the way it had been worded - I will see if I can dumb it down a little for the more mundane. With the path of least resistance, those examples are later given, within the Licence section and Security section. If all you have to complain about is consistantly saying it's too developer oriented then there is nothing wrong with it - I have attempted to ensure the article is readable to mundane users but I will not remove good information from the article. You refer several times to not explaining words enough and using buzzwords, those words a linked so someone that doesn't understand can read up on what they don't know - that is one of the benifits of an online encyclopedia like this. You complain about point of view in the sections like Licencing - but this is stuff that the OpenBSD developers decided was unacceptable - that isn't stuff that is point of view, it is fact about their stance on licences, it is the backing proving the point. Infact, I cannot see any of these point of view violations you're talking about. So I'll have to ignore them, cause you're the only person to see them. I can't even see how quoting Theo de Raadt on the issue is a mark of point of view, it's stating exactly what happened and why. Regarding the Lastest release section, that doesn't seem like a problem to have dated information when the releases happen regularly and the information listed can be updated by anyone. I'll see what I can do about dumbing things down a little, but if you want something in Simple English, that's what the Simple English Wikipedia is for. Janizary 02:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I was "whining". I will cease commenting further then :). Take care :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I do like that you were good enough to read the article and comment, just some of the stuff you mentioned has irked me - things which are covered in the article but you didn't see in it. Janizary 05:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Theo's departure is hardly undocumented; if one looks through the NetBSD mailing list archives from around that time, the threads that lead up to Theo's departure are there for anyone to read. I know that Theo used to include some of the pertinent messages on his personal website - but they were cherry-picked, and hardly NPOV. --moof 08:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a big comment and some of it is fair. I might take a run through and see if I can define some buzzwords later on, a few simple definition might not hurt, even if they are covered in more detail on linked pages. Schism would certainly benefit from references, but Janizary is right that it is one-sided because only one side has ever been told (this is sort of explained in the section). I'll take a look at your comments on Focus section sometime, they are minor but not without merit, although I really want to avoid getting bogged down in tedious examples that people who are interested could look up themselves. Your comments on Here and Now and Releases are nitpicksminor (sorry, it's early :-) NicM 09:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)) and I disagree anyway. I don't agree with Nomenclature comments except the last paragraph, I'll take a look. Image and Marketing - good point about POV, I'll fix it sometime. I don't really understand a lot of your comments about the lists, this article is trying to be a reference as well as an informative one, and lists are easier for uninterested people to skip than dense paragraphs. I think short paragraphs are a good thing in this kind of article so long as they don't cover the same part of a subject. Strong crypto(graphy) is a recognised phrase, not POV. Security, the centre two paragraphs could combine. I'll take another look at API and Build changes sometime. "Books" is better than "Further reading". They are books. I'll have a closer look at your other comments a bit later. NicM 08:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC).

Oh, some (many) of these comments are useful, even if I don't agree with them all, so thanks ;-). NicM 09:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* the point of peer review here is to get an article to featured standard and resolve standard objections raised at FAC, and what's raised here are suggestions that are not set in stone, but realize that I wouldn't have spent several hours pointing these out and it should be somewhat clear what is a light suggestion and what needs to be fixed (for example, if I say "kill the list" I mean someone is going to ask you to do the same at the FAC). I've done quite a few (something like 20 or something) peer reviews here already, so I'd like to think I have a decent idea of how it works :). Anyway, well, as for nitpicking, that's part of the whole point :). In general with lists you should only use them when you have to with featured articles - and people will object for that sort of thing. Same with short paragraphs - take a look at mercantilism for an example of a good modern featured article with nice long paragraphs - this is what people are going to expect at FAC time. As for the history POV thing, well, nothing is really one-sided (this seems like an example of the POV of the writer) - you give the reason there right at the end "because of philosophical and developer personality differences"" - if that's the official reason, then that's what you go with - rewrite it to be balanced, which may be slightly difficult (you've got more to work with then you realize), but is definately neccesary as you don't want POV issues in a featured article - reread the article as the devil's advocate if need be :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, to the both of you - please don't get so defensive about it. It's highly unusual around here mostly because as I mentioned these are suggestions from me/someone on how to improve the article, and the person may or may not be right. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 13:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if defensive is the term best used to describe us, we are that way because of how much we've done to the article in question. A great deal of historical and technical data has been taken from common sources and when people call what we view as plain fact a bias impression it will likely raise ire. Regardless, we do take even the critizisms with which we completely disagree into account and try to redevelop the article with the comments in mind, despite Maru and Andrew's comments making no sense to me, I have worked to try and expand the Desktop section and add Screenshots. Janizary 16:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't being defensive. I was just pointing out (quickly :-) the bits I disagreed with and the bits I would take a look at, after a relatively quick reading of your (extensive!) list. Anyway, I'm going to work through your list properly now and see if I can fix some of them. NicM 18:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC).

Defensive? How about ungrateful. Ryan Norton takes a lot of time to meticulously criticize your article at your explicit request and the first thing you say after is that he is whining. How dumb is that. It seems like Ryan Norton has a big heart and is not bothered too much, but I think you can do better than your half-hearted attempt at back-pedaling and do a real apology.--MarSch 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

few see also's

I enjoyed reading the entire article and the only thing that I could find was that there are so few see also links. --MarSch 15:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish people

Hello. I have made extensive revisions to this article, and would like to submit it for the consideration of my fellow wikipedians for their thoughts, and hopefully helpful revisions of their own. Looking forward to hearing from you. Fergananim 18:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Not being Irish myself, I nevertheless respect you folks a great deal. A COMPLETE article on Irish People would probably have to be a thousand pages long. However, some of your choices in the article in question are, well, odd. For instance, you have a list of folks of Irish descent who lived and worked outside Ireland and earned some recognition, also outside Ireland. The list includes Cyril Connoly, but makes no mention of George Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde. It contains the name James Duane, but, try hard as I would, I couldn't find O.Henry on it, or any of the Kennedys. And what is it so precious that Stephen King has but William Faulkner and Jack London don't? You see my point. Impressionist October 6, 2005

Thanks for the reply. The heading under which those people were listed was "Noted people descended from Irish immigrants"; GBS and Oscar were not descended from Irish immigrants - they were Irish. Faulker, Henry and London I did not include as I was not aware they had Irish roots. The Kennedys I left out as they are very well known. The point of the others was to avoid rehashing all the old familiar people of Irish descent and throw some light on new ones (especially Ali, Jimi, Ella and Juan). Hope that clarifys matters. Any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Fergananim 17:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you state clearly, and perhaps in so many words, too, that the purpose of the list is "to avoid rehashing all the old familiar people of Irish descent and throw some light on new ones (especially Ali, Jimi, Ella and Juan)". Besides, your article is an encyclopedia entry, not an essay with an agenda. Listing names, no matter how familiar, isn't "rehashing" in this case but just doing your job. The article on the United States, for instance, mentions that it's a country as well as a republic, although I'm sure even President Bush knows that. Impressionist October 7, 2005

Thanks for those pointers. Will include JFK and the others on that basis. Fergananim 19:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is too much repitition between this article and "Irish Diaspora". There is no need for two articles on this so I think one should be merged into the other. "Irish People" has 49 links to it, while "Irish diaspora" has 40 - so I suppose the diaspora article should be merged into this article. Seabhcán 13:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to the merger, but what shall be the title of the new article? Fergananim 19:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose "Irish people" seeing that there are more links to that name. We can make "Irish diaspora" into a redirect. Seabhcán 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the figure of 5.9million Irish people in Ireland sounded high, so I checked the CIA Factbook and it gave a population of just over 4m. Unless the article's referring to the peak population of Ireland, in which case the figure sounds a little low. Is 5.9m a typo or do you have another source? Thought you might have included N.Ireland in that figure, but even then it seems too high. CTOAGN 23:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland has a population of 1.66 m and the Republic or Ireland has a population of 4.1m, so the combined population of the island should be about 5.7 or 5.8 m. Seabhcán 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't think you can assume that they're all of Irish ethnicity. Leaving aside recent immigration, that figure must include hundreds of thousands of N.Irish people who consider themselves British. Wouldn't it be more accurate to just count those who are of Irish descent? CTOAGN 14:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If you mean the Unionist population in Northern Ireland, I don't believe that they think themselves non-Irish. They see themselves as Unionist, Protestant and often as British, and as different from the people in the south, but they consider their identity to be very much an Irish identity also. I think they see them selves as being British and Irish, in the same way as Scottish Unionists are both Scottish and British. Seabhcán 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The 5.7m is correct. The division into Northern Ireland and the Republic is only 80 odd years old, so talking about "Irish People" as solely those from the Southern 26 counties is essentially meaningless when you're talking about Irish People going back hundreds of years. Bandraoi 20:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this going for a featured list or a featured article? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Barbara McClintock

McClintock was one of the big names of 20th century genetics. Does this article read-through ok for non-scientists? Is there anything that is missing or could be expanded upon?--nixie 01:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of anything is missing yet, but it can definitely use some adjusting for the non-scientists. I'm a scientist (or at least studying to be one) and even I don't understand some of it. I'll try to fit in a review and some comments as soon as possible. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I read the article and feel it is very good overall. True, more detail could be provided but it's a well-crafted article. I've read a great deal on McClintock including Nathan Comfort's biography, and added some informtaion on his book and Fox Keller's biography as well as the citation for Comfort's book. Somewhere online I have seen a paper entitled "The Real Point is Control" written by Comfort on McClintock and this paper is very good. I am not sure if it is availible free of charge or my university subscribes to the journal it was in and therefore I was able to call it up. That said, I would love to see this article as a featured article. McClintock deserves it.--Mike 00:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Found Comfort's article:

• Comfort, NC. "'The real point is control': the reception of Barbara McClintock's controlling elements". J Hist Biol. 1999 Spring;32(1):133-62.--Mike 00:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I have access to that journal though uni, jugding by the size of it- it should be very useful for expanding or creating a section on how her ideas were recieved. --nixie 00:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• I plan to write an article for Wikipedia on Fox Keller: when I do, should I let you know so you can link her mention in your McClintock article?--Mike 04:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I already made a stub for Keller.--nixie 04:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Structure wise has a few short paragraphs and one or two one-sentence paragraphs. And "Early Life" is a little short... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As of 06/03/06, I think the amount of early life detail is fine. Could do with a 'private life' section detailing relationships, marriage(s), children etc or at least a statement if none of these apply.--ChrisJMoor 01:26, March 6, 2006 (UTC)

Indonesian Civil War

I created this article, mostly because the subject did not seem to be covered, and because this happened to be an area (History of Indonesia) I feel has been neglected and in need of general improvements. Most of Indonesian Civil War was created out of research I did for Suharto that was beginning to clog that article (see Talk:Suharto). If possible, I would like for those with more experience than I on U.S. and U.K. foreign policy (esp. diplomacy, military affairs, and intelligence operations) as well as persons who might know a thing or two about Indonesia to check up on it. I added Template:WikiProjectWars to bring the attention of military/war buffs to it, and made Talk:Indonesian_Civil_War/to_do to make a first round of suggestions for it. Also, a while ago I created Wikipedia:Indonesia-related topics notice board (WP:ID) to try to get more attention to these kinds of articles.--Daniel 22:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a few short paragraphs here and there and the lead may need to be two paragraphs. Other than that looks ok to me structure-wise. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

This article has a previous peer review from October 2005. Wikipedia:Peer review/Gettysburg Address/archive1 It has undergone tremendous expansion and sourcing since then and an initial check of WP:FAC was performed (by me). The two main contributing authors at this time are in agreement to solicit further peer input prior to submission as a featured article candidate. Thanks! Kaisershatner 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• The linkage and citation style is horribly messy for such a well-researched article. Notice how when you add an inline external link (e.g. [3] adding a link that way) it throws the entire footnotee/endnote numbering system out of alignment. This is likely the result of multiple and/or inexperienced editors. I recommend converting the inline links to do one of the following: highlight a particular word in the sentence (like this) to prevent them from being numbered and thus interfering with your references; or add them to the references list, which only has the footnoted sources at present. One place where both of these suggestions apply is the penultimate paragraph under "Themes and textual analysis", where you have a link to your source and another to the biblical quote. Your source should be in the references section, possibly with a footnote to it, while the biblical link (if necessary) should be in the form of "Psalm 90". Also, in one place you have three individual footnotes after a sentence, which link to pages 1, 2 and 3 of the same source; this is frankly unnecessary. With a good deal of careful editing, this can be a fine article. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 19:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll go further and say that all links to outside websites should be in the references or external links sections. Inline external links aren't acceptable for a featured article. Also, remember that punctuation is always outside the quotes (e.g. And then he said, "this is a quote", and the people laughed.) And be sure to add non-breaking spaces whenever you use units (I did the first one). That said, this article is really looking good; nice work. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the feedback and changes, and also thanks for the other people who have dropped by to touch up the article since this peer request was posted. (Especially for the huge help with the mechanics of referencing). There seems to be some debate about external link citations in the text, so I'm not sure what to do about that. Also, Spangineer, according to both the WP MOS on punctuation and my own dim recollections about grammar, more than one punctutation style is considered "common usage" but my preference is for the older style, which generally incorporates the punctuation inside the quotation marks. I am flexible on this point, however, especially given your kind contribution, so I hope it's not a big deal.  :) Kaisershatner 13:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the WP:MOS on this one, because I'm used to the American standard of always inserting the punctuation inside the quotes, but according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks, we're supposed to "include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation." Honestly, it's not a big deal, but I'm sure that someone eventually will come along and change them all. As for external link citations, if you take a look at some recently featured articles, you'll notice that they put all external link references in the notes section. Some people insist that there be no links in the text, and others don't really care either way, so the links invariably get moved to the notes or references section.--Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Albania (1945-1989)

What can be done to make this better? Alr 00:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems to mostly be taken from the Library of Congress country study, which is generally quite good, if dry material. The most important thing is that the article needs a new and more descriptive name. "Communist Albania" or "History of Communist Albania" would be far superior. Simply listing dates is useless for readers who don't already know the subject. It also very much needs a lead and more images. - SimonP 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Right - more images - Right now its pretty dry, I'm afriad (not that that will draw objections, one hopes). Other than that the lead needs to be a bit longer and there are many short paragraphs. Also, could use some external links. Maybe consider a section re-org too - its really quite dry with just nine sections one right after one another... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra

Freshly created. I have referenced all the material I could find about this 1959 court case oneline. Please point out what is missing or what more can be done to get it elevated to FA status? Thanks in advance. --Pamri • Talk 09:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I like this article. However, I suprised that the statement that this trial led to the abolition of trial by jury was not reprised later on in the article. I would have thought that, if the trial had such important consequence, a section on Consequences of the trials should be added. There are, also, a few places where the prose style turns into a slightly rambling narration. I would advise that you read through the article again, and rewrite sentences to a more encyclopaedic and objective style. However, this is good stuff: keep it up. --Gareth Hughes 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive comments and constructive criticism. I am reading the judgement in its entirety and hopefully can write more on the Consequences of the trial. The part on the abolition of the jury trial is mentioned in the jury trial paragraph, but I will move it a different para to better highlight it. By the way, do you find the problem with the prose style throught the article or in any specific para. Just asking, so I don't go overboard while cleaning it up. Thanks again. --Pamri • Talk 06:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting subject and good work collecting the info. If the tone is improved by avoiding use of present tense while narrating the story and sound less like a newspaper report, and the section headings are reworded and copyedited, this article can become an FA. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Very good and clear article overall, but I too would like more on the consequences of the trial and its aftermath insofar as how such changed legal practise in India. Also, shouldn't Mumbai be also identified as Bombay in its first mention as it was Bombay at the time these events transpired?--Mike 00:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Carmen

An older peer review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Carmen/archive1

I would eventually like this page to be an FA candidate, are there any issues? (Other than a lack of pictures). --Alexs letterbox 04:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I quickly scanned the article and have some comments:

notes: The link to the second note doesn't work; the labels probably don't match. More notes would be better. Consider searching for the sentences containing the word most or words ending with -est to see if there is a way to justify these claims with a footnote and reference.

links: You did a good job with your article linking and avoided over-linking. I don't care for red links and you avoided an excessive number of these also. In the few cases where there are red links, verify that there likely will be future articles on those topics and they will likely have the titles used in your links.

I also fixed a minor punctuation problem. JonHarder 00:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Horror film

Has gone through major revisions in the past few months, now should be close to FA status, but apart from the obvious lack of references whats the opinion on this article? detailed comments and specifics welcome. Niz 17:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a good article. I think I'd like to see some discussion about the relationship between religion and horror. I.e. a lot of horror films draw upon the religious mythos, most notably catholicism, to justify their story line and the elements of horror and evil. &c. Also the article is very euro/hollywood-centric. Is there anything to tell about horror films from Asia, for example? — RJH 15:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Short paragraphs are a problem here. Other then that I can't help but thinking there is something big missing here... perhaps on seperate section on how phsycology influences these? I don't know its just an idea. Feels like its missing something.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

which paragraphs do you consider too short? what do you mean by "how psychology influences these?" influences what? Niz 23:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It is quite good but definitely not a Feature yet. Sentences like this one: "The Canadian film Cube (1997) was perhaps one of the few interesting horror films of the 1990s" just reek of POV. Yes it is qualified with "perhaps" but I think its just an unnecessary opinion. In re: the discussion of psychology, there is a lot that needs to be added here, just one example is 70's American horror directors who brought their experiences of Vietnam and that tumultuous period of history into their work. The lack of Asian or extremely low-budget third-world cinema is also of note. I would say it needs a lot more work and expansion. Many of these expansions could be made in other articles specific to national cinemas and genres, but those need to be created and linked at the bottom. I also read some of the Talk re: use of the term mysogyny and I think this needs to be clarified, expanded, or removed to make it a meaningful reference. I would love to see this article get feature status as well but it feels like there are huge pieces of history, information, and theory missing yet. Powers of i 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Chicken soup

I've made a lot of changes to this article recently. I nominated it for featured article (yes, I know, probably should have listed it here before doing that), and made changes in response to some of the comments raised by the nomination. I'd like to get some feedback as to how the article could still be improved - even better, see some more people editing it. Thanks. See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicken soup/archive1 --Woggly 14:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Woggly - most of the stuff I'd say is already said in the FAC nom - pay special attention to the structure mentions... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't be on PR and FAC lists simultaneously. Tony 02:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite observant - I removed it from FAC. Looks like Woggly needs help so I'll try to remember to comment more later... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. It goes a bit heavy on the Jewish side of it, beware of NPOV (although you've done well so far). However, there simply isn't enough meat (excuse the pun) the make this FA. Yet. HereToHelp 18:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Planetary habitability

As good a lay science overview as you'll find on this topic. Looking for more feedback in the hopes of an FA nom. Anything forgotten or not mentioned? Marskell 12:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Quick tip, seperate the book- and online references from the regular external links and put the references (both book and online) under a ==References== header and the "regular links" under ==External links==. I'll try to read it in more detail later. - 131.211.51.34 09:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually all the links under References and External Links were used in the article. I did as you suggest split the two headers. Marskell 09:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'm curious as to why you ignored the seminal work, "Habitable Planets for Man" by Stephan H. Dole, published in 1964? I know it's probably a little dated now, but it covered the subject in excellent detail. — RJH 16:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I live in the Middle East and have absolutely no library access. On-line PDFs, or books I stumble across, are as far as I can go. By all means, if you have anything from that source to add go to talk there or here or simply be bold and add it—particularly, if there is an unaddressed topic I would like to know. It occured to me today, for instance, I should probably address gravity and habitability.
  • I would, of course, be a little leery of adding stats from 1964 as so much has changed (estimates of our sun's HZ, attitude toward Red Dwarfs, knowledge of exoplanets which was of course non-existent then). The research that appears "seminal" at this point, is James Kasting's many many papers and the Turnbull & Tarter HabCat selection criteria. Marskell 17:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• I went ahead and fixed the captions (no italics and rewrote the first one). Also, links are not supposed to be part of the section title; rather, use the template below. I've fixed this in the article, though.

{{main|MainArticleGoesHere}} becomes

Main article: MainArticleGoesHere

. HereToHelp 19:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes, main article is better, TY. I more or less reverted the caption though, sorry--plz no "many," "some" theories etc. These aren't used in the article (if they are I suggest they go). Also, I'm ambivalent about removing italics. This image means this and subsequently a quote is pulled from the text. One or the other should be italicized. Marskell 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fernão Mendes Pinto

I believe this is article has did very well, and is well referenced. There is one more reference(online),that I guess would be considered a note(?) from the top but other than that its completely referenced. I'll add it soon. The introduction is long enough for the article. Falphin 15:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't have enough time today to thoroughly read the article but I'll give you a few token comments to show that you're not being ignored :). The references need to be formatted correctly using the templates which have been created for this purpose, eg. {{Book reference}}. The article also appears to be an extensive biography without sections on his legacy and following... I hope that helps. --Oldak Quill 13:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I am waiting for a response from Kaisershatner about the references. I started a section(will need copyediting) on his legacy. I'm not sure what you mean by following though. Do you want me to write a section on the events taking place directly after his life? Thanks again. Falphin 00:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I think you were right that many of the "references" should be "further reading." Kaisershatner 16:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • I wasn't clear. What I meant by following is have there been any art works created in his honour since (statues, etc.)? That kind of thing. --Oldak Quill 11:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Not that I know of. Just the crater on Mars, an intermediate school in Almada, Portugal. [4]. I could possibly make a trivia section in prose adding that Pinto translates to "Young Chicken" in English. Falphin 01:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Early life" and "Legacy" are too short, especially compared to the others. There are many ultra-short paragraphs here and at least one-sentence paragraphs here. I don't know - could use some longer sections other than "Voyage"... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• The problem is not much is known about his early life. Everything on the net is already in there. I can expand legacy by perhaps including more information about each individual legacy although most of it will be a repeat of stuff already in there. Falphin 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • After some digging I found something interesting, [5]. I also got his recounts of his early life from the website.

"Do I thus start my peregrination with a mention to what I endured in this kingdom [of Portugal], where I lived up to ten or twelve years in the misery and stinginess of my father’s house at Montemor-o-Velho. An uncle of mine – maybe willing to provide me a better fortune – took me to the city of Lisbon and enlisted me at the service of a Lady of noble generation and illustrious parentage. He certainly though this could bring the fruit he envisioned to me, if we consider the quality of the Lady and her family … Hellas, my uncle’s expectations didn’t succeed according to his plans, quite the contrary. After no more than one year and a half at the service of this Lady, I found myself involved in events that subjected my life to such a risk that, to save me, I had to rush from that house and fly away as fast as I could. Such was my fear that I noticed not where I headed, like one that saw death in the eyes and carried her close behind. Eventually I reached a quarry and was accepted in a caravela from Alfama I found ready to sail carrying the horses and goods that a nobleman was sending to Setubal …Next morning, while sailing across Sesimbra, we were boarded by a French privateer that ditched some fifteen or twenty men into our carvel with no resistance or contradiction by our men. In no time did he empty our boat of all its contents – valued at more than six thousand cruzados – and sunk it. The French pirate headed to Larache where he aimed to sell weapons to the moors, and took the seventeen of us that survived the attack, tied in feet and arms … One night he ordered [us] to be thrown into the beach of Melides, naked and barefoot, some with countless sores from the scourges they were offered, and in that garb we went the day after into Santiago do Cacem … My pour self with six or seven other no less destitute than me, went to Setubal where it befell my luck to be taken by a fidalgo of the Master of Santiago whom I served for the next four years upon whish he handled me to the Master of Santiago whom I served as chamberlain the following year and a half. And since the accommodation then in usage at the houses of the princes was not enough to my sustenance, I decided to board to India, offered to any venture, good or bad, that would happen to me." Falphin 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Evan Mecham

I believe that previously noted issues with this article have been addresses and am thinking about submitting this article for another shot at FA status. Before going to FAC I would like some other opinions on the status of this article. --Allen3 ^talk 13:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger J. Traynor

I have been working on this article about Roger J. Traynor for a couple of months. This article is about the most accomplished state court judge in the history of California. Can someone take a look at it and let me know where it needs improvement? I would love to see it on the Featured Article list someday.

Also, I know that it would be nice if the article had a picture of Justice Traynor, but I'm not sure how to get one that's clear of copyright issues. About the only way I can think of would be to ask his heirs directly, but that might be awkward.

There is a really low quality picture of him in his New York Times obituary (I was able to access a scanned version of the article through ProQuest Historical Newspapers, which has scanned the full content of the Times back to 1851), but the Times picture is probably still covered under American copyright law, thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. --Coolcaesar 06:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? I don't know if the lack of feedback is a good or bad thing. Can I safely assume this means I can go ahead and nominate my own article for the Featured Article list? --Coolcaesar 04:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • That would be a bad idea; this article isn't ready. It really just needs to be more indepth. I would turn the cases which are currently under bullet points into prose and expand their discussions. The references, etc. are good, but it would probably fail FAC as too short. More biographical detail might also be nice. THIS book might be helpful; if you don't have access to a copy, I could get ahold of it and take a look. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a small contribution (longer intro telling us why we care about this guy, and moved up early life). There's a Robert J. Traynor honor society, according to Google. Include info about it. Also, the POV of the article clearly favors a liberal viewpoint - can it be more neutral? I'd be interested to see what the "conservative critics" cited had to say about his views. Kaisershatner 15:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh. Now the article is actually more of a mess after you guys started editing it. I think putting it on the peer review list was a bad idea. Although I concede user Kaisershatner's point that the article needs work on POV, the misspellings that he and other users introduced certainly didn't help the situation (for the record, the guy's name is Roger, not Robert). I'll have to clean this up in a few weeks. --Coolcaesar 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding of my concerns about the POV. I dispute that I introduced misspellings, although that should be easy to fix in any case. I did refer to him as "Robert" above, but not in the article. HTH. Kaisershatner 15:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Henry Cowell

The seminal figure in the flowering of modernist classical music in America is deserving of a featured article...whether or not that has been developed is the question. The article is supported by three daughter articles—string piano, tone cluster, and The Tides of Manaunaun—and one...er...brother article—Leo Ornstein. Any and all suggestions, dissensions, improvements solicited.—DCGeist 07:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's unusual that the lead almost entirely comprise a large slab of quoted text. Why not paraphrase the quote—or most of it—and in the body of the paragraph, perhaps quote just a sentence or two ('No other composer ...'?), with a reference citation at the end of the paragraph ([1]). Not sure I like 'Bible' in this global forum; 'fecund and right' is odd; so is 'radical and normal' without further explanation. It's a little hyped—more authority to be gained from being restrained at the top. So, you can do better than VT's raw words. I'd also like to know just a little about his style at the top, in not-too-technical terms. Just so I can place him in the history of 20th-century music.

• • I'm a little unclear on some of these comments—please elaborate: (1) Granted that the lead containing a large slab of quoted text is unusual—is unusual structure a problem per se? Might not unusual be unusually provocative and intriguing? (2) Thomson clearly uses "Bible" in a colloquial sense that has been common among English speakers for centuries—this is really a problem? (3) "Fecund and right" is unusual, to be sure—as it's an example of clear, strong, pungent writing and not the sort of meek, safe blandness that makes the average reader feel comfortable and sleepy—"odd," if you must, but really a problem? On the other hand, your implied point about "radical and normal" being unclear without explication is unquestionably well taken. Could you please sign when you reply? (Something I often forget to do first time 'round myself) —DCGeist 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Are there one or more 30-second sound grabs that you could position at strategic points in the text to illustrate what you say about his style. The article would then come to life. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Guidelines for using sound excerpts. Tony 01:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Great idea. I'll get on it. Do you have a suggestion for a Wikipedia music article that presents such sound clips in a particularly effective way? —DCGeist 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing about the lead - I'm not sure if WP:LEAD covers quoted stuff or not. Expect resistance if you keep it this way at FAC time. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

DCGeist— WP's superb potential for illustrating text with musical excerpts has only just starting to be expoored (see initial my attempt at the top of Johann Sebastian Bach, an article I'm gradually rewriting before FA nomination. (I intend to add several more further down to illustrate claims made in the text.) Here, the excerpt is a whole track because I have rare permission to use it from a recording company. Otherwise, 'fair use' restrictions apply, and it's all the better if your text refers specifically to aspects of the music in the excerpt, or to the excerpt as a whole (i.e., educational function). Thus, using commercial recordings without permission is the way to go, but 30 s each is about the limit (starts of movements, I guess). The main features of Cowell's style might be illustrated in several short excerpts, and either referred to in the text ('Excerpt 1, 2, 3', etc) or the icon provided close by.

With respect to the long quote in your lead, WP should have enough authority to say this without directly quoting another source, at least, not a large slab. It's just not as engaging for the reader, and is certainly not 'provokative and intriguing'. By paraphrasing, you can deal with all of the other points. Tony 08:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Xanadu House

I wrote this from scratch a long time ago, it has been copy-edited and worked on a lot since. What do you think? — Wackymacs 17:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Good work on the article! Here are my concerns. 1) The introduction could be expanded. For an article of this length it should be about 2 paragraphs. 2) The interior photos have no source. If this goes up for FAC, that will certainly be questioned. 3)The section "Using Computers at Home" should be renamed "Interior" and combine all the subheadings. In addition the bulleted items should be turned into prose. The reason for renaming it is that it sounds more like a promotional brochure than an encyclopedia article. 4) The sections of the book listed in the final section aren't really necessary. 5) There are a number of one sentence paragraphs throughout that should either be expanded or integrated into other paragraphs. 6) I think some of the photos could be bigger in the article. It'll help to create a much nicer looking article. Good job so far, keep up the good work! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the useful feedback. I have sorted out the sections, according to your suggestions. I have also sorted out all the images, two of the interior photos are scanned from a book (see the image pages for more detail). I have removed the book contents listing from the book section, and improved the book section as well. I have added another (relevant) image to the History section, which makes it look a bit nicer. I have also enlarged the main photo, you were right, it does look better. I've split the lead paragraph into two paragraphs, but they now need extending and I'm not sure what to write. Further suggestions, thoughts? Thanks. — Wackymacs 21:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Water resources

This article was nominated because as a wiki community we should work together to make an article as best as possible. I believe that this can be achieved through constructive critisism. Tarret 23:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nominated? Well unfortunately peer review is "for nearly featured-standard articles that need the final checking by peers before being nominated as Featured article candidates". Perhaps you wanted the article improvement drive page? At any rate there are a few things that could be added: the use of filtration for the production of water (if any), and water purification kits for use during outdoor recreation; something concerning the recent contamination of the water supply by relatively large quantities of medications, and possibly the availability of water sources for the exploration and settlement of outer space. Otherwise it looks like a good overall coverage of the topic, if a bit sparse in a few places. Thanks. :) — RJH 14:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• The history of water as a scarce resource. Prediction by esteemed scientists on water resources in the 21st century. Wars (or threats or wars) over water resources. These two essays Ancient Irrigation and Mining Water may be of use to you. Perhaps info from the USGS or from the International Water Resources Association would be helpful as well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• The article does a good job of explaining what water resources are and how they are used. What if doesn't do is explain why the reader should care. As Quadell points out the scarcity of fresh water and the social and political implications of controlling the water supply need to be discussed in some depth to compelete the article. The treats to fresh water section is weak and should be expanded. There is no mention of how water is stored. A section on how water can be recycled and desalinated would also be a neat addition.--nixie 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

See also Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: Deep Space Nine/archive1.

This article has come a long way and is currently approaching critical mass, but still needs some more sourcing and (as mentioned before) book sourcing. However, in addition to general opinions, I'd like to focus on the reference system. For instance, the DVD extras are not consistent; in one I have "Westmore, Michael. Interview conducted on..." and another, with multiple references, simply says "Source: Whatever DVD extra". How should I go about integrating these? I could change "References" to "Notes" and, after listing the DVD extras in the References section, put notes stating who the interviewee was and what date (which is included in all interviews). Alternately, we might simply genericize all the DVD extras, i.e. remove specifics about who and when the interview was. Simply put, I'm not sure how to tackle this.

The other thing is in (what is currently) footnotes 9 and 15, two websites are listed in each note. Should these be changed to "formal" footnotes with "Last name, first name. Blah blah blah..." and included as separate? On #9 that would seem to be redundant, but I'm aiming for consistency, so as stated above, maybe I should scrap the last name, first name formality. Again, not too sure. Moulder 01:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the lists of main and supporting characters chould be removed from the main article because 1-they are already discussed in paragraphs about the main and then supporting characters and 2-there is a link to a sub article which seems to cover the same ground as these two lists. I did a preview edit removing the two lists and it took out about 7kb of material.--Dekkanar 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, and yeah, that would make it a lot cleaner; the main cast is covered in the text and the recurring characters who aren't discussed are in the sub-article. It's also bugged me that people kept changing or adding on to the ranks part of the table, so this will solve that. I hope someone comments on the references issue though. Moulder 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hypogeum of Hal-Saflieni

Please help me modify this article in the best way possible, following research I have done I want this aticle to eventually become a feautured article and I would be grateful if I can have your views on it, and on how it can be improved. Extensive research was done, the photo is taken from a government tourist pamphlet (1960?), and in my opinion it is uncopyrighted. The Hypogeum as one will not, is a unique worldwide site. There is NO similar prehistoric site in the world, therefore its importance is clearly significant.

I look forward to your views Maltesedog 15:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all the Peer Review template should go on the article's talk page. Then the article is missing references , and definitely more descriptive text for each level. More pictures wouldn't hurt either, specially because the copyright status of the picture you provide is unclear. You could get rid of the "introduction" header since the lead is supposed to serve that function. You also need to clarify the meaning of the abbreviations in "Fr. Manuel Magri sj." and generally copyedit the text you already have. As it stands this article needs a lot of work. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

- Fr. Manuel Magri refers to Father (Priest) and sj (Society of Jesus) - as he was a jesuit. I believe the abbreviations are correct.

- With regards to references most of the info provided is following personal notes carried out after a visit to the location.

- With regards to the picture that government pictures are uncopyrighted.

- I am looking to increase the number of photos

Look forward to hearing from you further advise on the matter Maltesedog 14:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • I added a list of references, related articles, categorised the article and included external links. What do you think now? Maltesedog 15:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, the article is looking much better now. Do you have any source for your claim that Maltese government pictures are uncopyrighted (e.g. a website)? You say you took the picture from a pamphlet, so it may be that the government licensed the picture from some private photographer and therefore only the Tourism Ministry would have had the permission to use it. Do you know if any books or magazine articles have been written about it? You could include references from those even if in Maltese.

I still think you can considerably expand the description of the site, maybe including the reason behind better explanation of the names of the features in the second level.

I copyedited the text a bit of the lead text. And also expanded the abbreviation since you can't assume every reader to be familiar with them. Keep up the good work. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Copyright legislation is quite recent in Malta. I have traced the following website regarding crown copyright, I do not know if its useful to detect whether there are copyright implications with the picture provided. Actually the picture came to me as a cutting on itself, yet I quite sure it was taken from a 1960's tourist pamphlit. What I found is http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html

• I do not have knowledge of a book written directly on the Hypogeum. Actually much of its history is a mystery. There is not much detail which can be added.

• The stamp actually is a 2c5 stamp (2 cents 5 mils), I arranged this in a way which will clarify the meaning of "2c5" which is not the same as 25c. Mils were removed from the local currency system, even though certain prices of products do include mils which are than rounded. In this case, the stamp is an old stamp and no longer in use Maltesedog 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • My initial impression is that it's pretty sketchy. Of course, it could be that there really is no more worth saying about some of the rooms/chambers than one line... but then that may alsoimply that the subject isn't sufficiently engaging for a featured article.

• • • I will do my best to try and seek further information on the rooms even though its a mystery. I can't understand your phrase "pretty sketchy" in the sense you mean it. It took me personal time and research to have such article complete. Maltesedog 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Hello, the above comment was by yours truly. Sorry I forgot to sign. I've been told on my talk page that Maltesedog is upset by my comments. Obviously that wasn't the intention. However, I'm afraid I can't really find fault with anything I've said. By "pretty sketchy" I merely meant that you have 7 sections, each having less than 4 lines, this suggests that either there is more detail that could be added or, possibly, that each room does not warrnat a section of its own and the whole temple could be described in one or two paragraphs that flow together.

I'm further informed that Maltesedog is a new user. It's brilliant to have you aboard and very gratifying that you've discovered peer review so quickly. I've been here for 18 months and was only dimly aware of this page and haven't contributed before. It's fantastic that you want your articles to be among the best on Wikipedia and I hope you'll stay on the project. However, criticism is a necessary part of peer review, so I'm afraid you will have to accept that as part of the process and try not to take any comments personally.

A featured article nomination cannot claim special favours by virtue of being nominated by a new arrival. It has to slug it out with the old hands on a level playing field. But don't be discouraged. Wanting a featured article is probably 90% of the battle and I'm sure you'll get there before long. Good luck. --bodnotbod 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

PS, I haven't time to check these myself, but you may find some more info at this search or this page in particular. --bodnotbod 12:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Impressive article about impressive book. I think it is close to FA criteria - what do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• It could stand to be a bit longer
• Fix the redirects.
• Get rid of the one sentence paragraphs.
• Don't use the abbreviation GGS without at some point letting the reader know what you are a abbreviating (it is indeed obvious to most people), but you should still add "or GGS for short" or something like that to one of the first couple sentences.
• You need to expand more on the domestic animals section. The fact that animals can pull plows is not an example, it is one of the main reasons. You need more about other uses such as horses in battle, cows for milk, etc.
• Wiki-link to animals when you are discussing them, even when it is in a bit of a tangent (I'm talking about the part about how African animals couldn't be domesticated.)

Sorry, I was only able to finish the synopsis section, I'll critque the rest tomorrow. -Greg Asche (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC) i think that the article is much to short and does not cover the importance of the book. Yes it's an excellent book; well worth reading if only for brain food. A good article too, although I think the actual coverage of the book itself could be expanded. :)

• One aspect I don't think I see covered in this article is the importance J. Diamond placed in the orientation of the continents. He argued that food crops (and some animals) are relatively easy to transplant along the same latitude, but very difficult to move to different latitudes. Thus the eurasian continent with its long axis pointed east-west can readily exchange useful food crops along the same latitude, whereas Africa and the Americas are less favorably oriented.
• There was also a television program based on the book which was broadcast on PBS. You might make mention of that toward the end.

Thanks! — RJH 17:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• • The PBS documentary is mentioned in the lead. While this could use expantion, I don't think it is necessary in this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• The title of the article suggests that the subject is the book. However, the vast majority of the content of the article discusses only the ideas (and their criticisms) presented in the book. Who was the publisher? How many books were sold? During what period? How/When/Where was the book researched and written? Was it popular outside the USA? Did it have any impact beyond academia? Translation into a different medium, like a PBS documentary, requires its own section. Consider the Featured Article The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as an example of a great article on a book. Also, you may want to read this Science Magazine review of the PBS series here and this academic paper on the book's impact on the field of behavior analysis here. --maclean25 21:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Architecture of Mac OS X

Written all by myself, based on documented technical notes from the Apple Developer Connection (Apple Computer's group for Mac developers worldwide). I have included diagrams, an explanation of what Mac OS X actually is, see also section, references, categorized the article, and tried to make it as easy to understand as possible, with wikilinks to other relevant pages for terms that need detailed explanation to be able to become understandable by a non-computer literate person who may be reading the article. It would be nice to know if my article can go onto Featured article status, because I think with creative feedback and the right changes made it fits the criteria. Thanks! — Wackymacs 09:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Not bad. It still needs:

• • More resources and citations,
  • expansion of the darwin stub and,
  • some work with the images. Clairify where they are from. If you can't, redraw the idea with basic imaging software and upload it as your own work (I think, but am not sure, that this is allowed). Also, low rez graphics would speed up the load time, which was oddly very slow on my decently fast computer.

Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HereToHelp (talk • contribs)

1. Thanks for the comments on the article, I have added more specific reference links to the pages I actually used on the Apple Developer Connection website. To be honest, this was my only source, as well as other wikipedia articles, because Apple have documented everything in detail.
2. I don't think there is anything wrong with the images, all the images state why they are fair use and state their source as well, and also state which article they are being used in, and have a brief description. And they are low resolution really, but the compression I did was rubbish (the first image is 52kb alone), probably why load time was a bit slow for you, however the speed at which Wikipedia loads depends on your Internet connection speed, and the current status of the Wikipedia servers. OK, I have compressed all the images, they are now all considerably lower in size, espicially the first one which is down from 52kb to 16kb.
3. I'm going to expand the Darwin section. Done, it now says what it needs to.

— Wackymacs 08:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• WOW, MAN, you must be the best tech-head writer there is! I've done a long copyedit on it, and inserted numerous inline queries. Please check through, because I've probably introduced factual errors. I do hope you nominate this as a FAC, and that you can work out a way of using all of the images without copyright violation.

Two personal requests: What's the difference between 'crash' and 'hang'?

AND

How do you key in the curly apostrophe—I can only access this by keying in (ampersand)rsquo(semicolon), and would love to do it in one keystroke.

I wonder how they'll react to the technicality of it all in the FAC room. I'll certainly defend it; I hang around there all the time. Tony 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure I'm a tech-head writer, however I am a Mac OS X software programmer, which sure explains partly why I made this article. Thanks for the very positive feedback, and thanks for your copy-edit, that was some serious reworking you did there. Wow to you too! :) I haven't found any factual errors yet, I'm still reading through all your edits. Well, as I stated before, I don't think the images are copyright violations because they are fairuse (reasons stated on the images), I can always recreate those diagrams in Word or OmniGraffle or another app that can make diagrams. I'll answer your personal request on your User talk page. Thanks again for the encouragement and help! — Wackymacs 18:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition of planet

archive archive 2

I was wondering if this was going to become an issue, and apparently, at long last, it has. The hydrostatic equilibrium section has been flagged as being a bit ORish, a fact which I always slightly suspected but which I allowed myself to ignore given that that this article has gone through two peer reviews and two successful featured article nominations with that section remaining pretty much intact. Of all the sections in this article, this is the one I have had the least hand in, and understand the least. I really don't know if it would be possible to properly cite it, or which sources to use. So. What should I do? Serendipodous 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any good suggestions other than to think about a complete re-write from scratch. It appears to me that the IAU hasn't really decided on the criteria for selecting border-line cases yet. Here's some references that are marginally relevant:

• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993CeMDA..57..247L — a paper that only a mathematician could love. It has some interesting aspects about the shapes of planets over time.
• http://www.imcce.fr/~hestro/papers/hestroA04.pdf — discusses equilibrium shapes of binary asteroids. Could weak rubble piles meet the criteria for hydrostatic equilibrium?
• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Ap&SS.103..379H — discusses hydrostatic equilibrium in the case of asteroids.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. — RJH (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville, Florida

This is a great article and I don't think there is a reason why this should not be featured. But if there is, tell me. HereToHelp 19:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that there are no references. This will have to be remedied before it can become a FA. There are a few sections that are too short, such as "Geography" and several in the history section. Geography should be expanded, and the history section rearranged into only three or four sub-sections. It also needs more and better pictures. The skyline image is nice, but forced into the corner of the intro it is much too small. Most sections should have an image. You could have a picture of the town hall in the government section, and image of the Skyway in the transportation section, for instance. The article also need some copyediting. - SimonP 19:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I did some rearranging and copyediting. Nevertheless, there is a lot of lists which should be converted to prose. The history should be summarized with its current form moved into a sub-article. Famous Jacksonville natives should also go into a sub-article. As for references, is the "further readings" section references for this article? If so, rename the section as such (though more references could help). Pentawing 21:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Another problem that I am running into is the use of "travel brochure" language, notably in the culture section. This should be kept to a minimum if not eliminated completely. Pentawing 00:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay! Travel Brochure...you mean POVish in a positive way? Got it. I'll try to do my best with the other suggestions. Keep 'em coming! HereToHelp 01:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"Travel brochure" as in (for example) "this event has everything for everyone of all ages." Instead of embellishing information with such language, just state the facts. However, since such language is in the eyes of the beholder, you should get another person to check the wording to make such there are no problems. Pentawing 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifacation. But you're right—another person helping me would be useful. Any volunteers? HereToHelp 12:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• The further reading section could also use some work. I'll help out when I can.--Cuchullain 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'll help out too. --Revolución (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I live here in Jacksonville, but I agree this article needs a lot of work. I think one of the main problems is the lack of pictures. I have tried to search for historical pictures for Jacksonville before, but I have not had much success. I did find a picture circa 1920s of downtown but it was deleted by some copyright fanatic who didn't even bother to tell me they wanted to delete it. --Revolución (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We really have improved this article in the last 48 hours. I think the biggest problem now is references, which I'll work on tommorow—it's almost 10:30 where I am. HereToHelp (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nice work with the clean-up. However, there are still some things that could be modified, including:

1. Information on cityscape (what is the city like? Modern buildings or classical? Spread out or compact? Mostly industrial or parklike?)
2. Economy needs more work, in particular the type of tourism and business (these terms are very broad. Without specifics, one could assume Jacksonville's business is just banking).

If you want an example to follow, I would suggest the featured city articles Louisville, Kentucky, and Cleveland, Ohio. Pentawing 21:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

First peer review

I stumbled across this article while looking through Genetic engineering. We need information about the chronological flow, comprehensiveness of the footnotes, sources, and references. We also need information on the biographical and methodological considerations:

• Should the article's flow be strictly chronological, more chronological than it is now, or less ...
• Should certain other sections or contents be moved out to daughter articles ...
• We need to know how this article compares with respect to the Margaret Thatcher and Noam Chomsky articles ...

We are putting it on the peer review roster for due diligence purposes, before placement on the FAC list. Absolutely all manner of comments from anyone and everyone are welcome. Saravask 06:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure where should the comments go. Right here in this same page, or here: Featured article candidates/Hugo Chávez. Please clarify. I certainly will comment. --Anagnorisis 03:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, Anagnorisis. This article will not be put up for FAC for several days (until a peer review or two are completed). Just put your comments here. I removed the confusing and inappropriate FAC template that I stupidly put up from the talk page. Thanks. Saravask 08:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is comprehensive, but there are several formatting issues that will need to be addressed.

1. The lead is too long- aim for 3 paragraphs that summarise the content of the article
2. I think that the internal links to sections within the article make the text harder to read. I have not seen a system like this used in any featured article.
3. All html links used as references should be listed in the references, please don't pipe links to external websites use a footnote instead.
4. The text in the election results tables is too small to comfortably read.
5. Please include some summary text in the cabinet and critisisms sections so that these sections are not empty.
6. For all fair use images, plesase replace with the {{Non-free fair use in}} template and provide a fair use rationale, see Wikipedia:Image description page for instructions. (This seems to have been done for some, but not all fair use images).

--nixie 05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Now that I see it, you are absolutely right about the excessively long leads. I first saw the internal links in the Christopher Colombus article, but yes, it is not featured, and they will be removed. The references section will be built up with the HTML links. I will look into the images. Thanks again. The Cabinet and Criticisms sections will include summary-style overviews, like you pointed out. Thanks again. And if there are any articles anyone would like me to comment on, I'd be happy to return the favor. Saravask 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nixie, I just removed two paragraphs from the lead, thus making it have the three paragraphs that you wanted. I also commented out all the internal links, and they will probably be worked into wikilinks or deleted outright. I am now going to switch the image descriptions. Thanks for your good ideas and policies. Saravask 08:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I just increased the font size in all the election box templates. Thanks for the suggestion. Saravask 08:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Saravask, the changes have improved the readability of the article significantly. Let me know when you put the last two summary sections in and I will have another read through and copyedit.--nixie 23:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've put in the short summary sections that you requested. I also fixed, clarifed rationale for, or removed all problem and unsourced images. I'm now starting to convert all piped links into proper ref/note format. Thanks again. Saravask 23:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is quite massive at 62kb, are there any summrary sections that could be further summarised? I think presidency, human rights and foreign policy are potentially good candidates for getting the article to a more managable size.--nixie 00:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. you are correct. It seems that the average FA article size is around 50 kilobytes (the Albert Einstein article is only 48 kb) Today, I'll shorten the sections you pointed out above. Saravask 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I just shortened the "Foreign Policy" section by half. More of the suggested summarizations are in progress ... Saravask 00:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Second peer review

This article has undergone a first peer review here. All comments and concerns in that peer review were quickly acted upon, except for concerns on article size (despite significant shortenings and summarizations). Peer review information is needed on the comprehensiveness of the article, and what material in the article should be shortened or summarized. Contributors are attempting to make the Hugo Chávez article the only FA that discusses a Latino leader, and only the second FA about an indigenous native heritage leader (after Louis Riel). Information comparing this article to the Riel piece (in terms of scope, depth, comprehensiveness, and structural outlay) would be most appreciated. All comments will recieve a response and will be acted upon quickly (within half a day at most). Thank you. Saravask 01:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Spell out the first incident of "MVR", not the second. Spell out "MVR" in the infobox since that is the first thing most people see and most will not know what MVR means. Is the infobox about Hugo Chavez or the office of the president? "Born into a poor family and later earning a record of distinguished military service," is a tense shift (born = past, earning = present). The notes are really hard to keep track of, they can't be numbered? What is the purpose of having them in alphabetical order? What is the deal with references #49?I didn't see any mention of the municipal elections in footnotes 3 or 4 (if this is correct place them after the recall election). What is "situated at the core" supposed to mean? CTV (tell us what that is, don't let the reader get distracted by another article)? The "early 21st century." statement is stretching it, let the historians 20 years from now make that call. In Military Career section: "Throughout his career, Chávez has been heavily decorated.[7]" links to a spanish website, please provide an english reference. Why does the Military Career section spend more time discussing baseball and literature than his military-related activities and decorations? In the Coup of 1992: what is "MBR-200"? Did Chavez lose the election then Chavez go to jail or the opposite? Why do some of the images have a box around the captions? What is CNE? The "1999 – 2002" section is really long. It breaks up the pace of the article. In "2002 – 2004" remind me what "PDVSA and its revenues" is at its first instance, not third. In "2004 – present", I don't understand this sentence "In a nation that once boasted an 80% government-defined poverty rate, where 2% of the populace owns 60% of the land, and where before Chávez a vanishingly low proportion of the $30 billion annual oil revenues are used for social programs." Also, the "military ties with the U.S. Chávez's Venezuela" is there a period in there? The "Foreign policy" section/paragraph is pretty weak. So is the "Cabinet" section/paragraph. In the "Chávez and the Media" section please refernce the "Chávez is mentally ill and that he harbors a "sexual obsession with Castro" bit. He hosts a TV show???? If that is true (no reference) put it in the intro paragraph because that is unique and will make people read further. What is a "homologue"? The "Personal life" can be expanded: when was he divorced? Children birth dates? I'd like to see some analysis between his personal life and his public life. --maclean25 09:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Raney nickel

This is an article I brought up from a mere dicdef to the more or less complete article that stands today. My intention with this peer review is not so much try to bring the article to Featured status but rather see if the subject is understandable by a non-chemist. Since I think the article is rather technical and the prose may be a bit dry, it would be great if more people read it and came up with suggestions to make it more readable. And some copyediting wouldn't be bad either. Your help is much appreciated :-D -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Great work! I am probably not the person to ensure readability for a non-chemist, but I will see what I can do in the way of copy-editing. Physchim62 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additions! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 08:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• The addition of a third metal changes the phase diagram of the alloy to that of a ternary alloy. What makes the phase diagram of a ternary allow interesting? Does it change the allow to a ternary alloy, or just the phase diagram? Is there another term which can be used in place of phase diagram? As a non-chemist, a phase diagram sounds like a graphical representation of a physical phenomenon. What is the name of that phenomenon? Pburka 15:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The name of the phenomenon is phase equilibrium. I don't like that sentence either: how about "The addition of a third metal changes the stability of some of the different phases." It is difficult to avoid the technical term phase, but I will have a think about it. Physchim62 17:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• It would be good if the Applications section included a practical example the average reader could relate to. Is the reduction of benzene to cyclohexane such an example? Can this be related to the production of something non-chemists would use everyday? Pburka 15:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• I like the use of the hazardous materials images in the Safety section. The first and third paragraphs have images. Can an image be added for the second paragraph? Pburka 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I noted your comments and will make the necessary changes. "Phase diagram" has a precise meaning and I can't think of other terms to replace it, although I agree that a bit of an explanation would be warranted. The cyclohexane example is intended to be common application, see the change now in the article. For the safety section, there is no safety label for 'irritant' as far as I know. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a symbol for irritant, it is exactly the same as the symbol for harmful which is on the third paragraph, see European chemical hazard symbol. Nickel is not officially classified as an irritant, although nickel allergies are well known: the reason is partly technical, and partly political... Physchim62 16:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah! Yes, my thoughts exactly (I should have known that :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• It may be of interest to note that Raney's choice of an alloy with 50% nickel-silicon content was fortuitous and without any real scientific basis. However, this is the preferred alloy composition for production of Raney nickel catalysts currently in use. This confuses me. Is it supposed to say nickle-aluminium? Pburka 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • It actually refers to both Al and Si. I've fixed that now since only the Al ratio is truly relevant for that paragraph. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• You asked for input from a non-chemist. I haven't had a chemistry lesson since I was 13 years of age and took no science subjects past age 15. Therefore "Alloy composition is very important because the quenching process produces a number of different Ni/Al phases that have different leaching properties." was the first point at which I got utterly lost. Having said that I see no advantage in turning the article into something I would understand. Were you to accomplish such an onerous task (which would require explanation of all difficult terms involved in the article with reasons why I should care) it's still unlikely that the information would be of any use to me and - in its new form - would no longer be of any use to those it could have been. If it were the basic chemistry article I were looking at then, yes, I feel I should have my hand held. But with a substance I would not - as a layman - have any cause to encounter, then I can cope with being baffled. --bodnotbod 17:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Another suggestion, if you'll excuse me barging in from WP:Chem: how about introducing a nice chemical infobox {{chembox}} for presenting some info? And pictures? And some crystallography? It sounds like a metal, so can you construct anything with it, or is it only the famous catalyst? Just wondering, trying to be helpful. Wim van Dorst 23:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC).

I thought of adding an infobox but decided against it because the only data I would be able to fill in would be density and solubility. I haven't even seen a consistent CAS number assigned to it (either the nickel or nickel aluminide numbers are quoted). I agree on the need for a picture, but I'm currently away from the lab and won't be able to get one till December. I'll look into crystallographic data since I remember seeing some powder XRDs of commercial Raney nickel in an article (single-crystal XRD is not possible, however). Finally, the article only refers to the catalyst; an article on the metal itself should go to nickel aluminide, which, if I remember correctly, is used to reinforce some steels or something like that and has substantially different properties because of its non-porous structure. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think a chembox is really warrented here as it is more of a material than a chemical. Physchim62 12:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon

Seattle is today's featured article, and I think it's time Portland makes the jump as well. Before I suggest it though, I'd like to see what critical concerns can be generated about the article in its current state. Sarge Baldy 00:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• There are some improvements that I could suggest after looking through the article, which includes the following:

1. External links should only be in the external links section.
2. There are a number of single sentence paragraphs. Stylistically, this is discouraged.
3. Image:Portland downtown.jpg and Image:Portland rose.jpg do not have copyright tags or have questionable copyrights. You should instead use images with GFDL-compatible licenses. Image:Portland rose.jpg should also be replaced with an image that shows Portland in general (could you get a picture of a rose garden in the city? An image of only a single rose could be located anyway in the world). Pentawing 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've dealt with #1, which was a problem (some of the external links were even used in the place of working internal ones). #2 is more of an issue, with some of the single sentences really not fitting with anything else, although I'll look at expanding them when I get a chance. I agree that more and better photos are necessary. I've been meaning to get there and take some, but haven't had an opportunity to as yet. Thanks for the input. Sarge Baldy 23:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I should have spotted this earlier, but this article is missing an economy section. Also, the article should be kept below 40 kB (36 to 38 kB to be safe); there are some users who object to large article sizes. If the article starts going over the 40 kB limit, you should start eliminating unnecessary information (e.g. information that concentrates exclusively on an institution rather than its relationship to the city) or moving some sections to sub-articles. One such section that comes to mind is "Portland's five sections", which you could summarize and move the details to a sub-article. Pentawing 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't looked too closely, yet, but I wanted to note this before I forgot. This paragraph needs some work:

"The Portland metropolitan area is located within the Willamette Valley, which follows the Willamette River and the I-5 Corridor. The valley consists of suburban municipalities sprawled around patches of farmland farther south. The further north you travel, towards Portland, the thicker the population density becomes. The vast majority of Oregon's population lives in the Willamette Valley. Interstate 5 bisects the valley and a significant number of commuters travel the I-5 Corridor daily."

1. (Minor point) Stylisticaly, might as well remove I-5 Corridor from the first sentence, since it's covered in the last.
2. The Willamette valley is mostly farmland, isn't it?
3. Describing the population density of the valley as increasing as you go north is oversimplified at best. Eugene, Oregon, at the south end of the valley, is Oregon's second-largest metropolitan area. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the sections seem a bit thin, and there doesn't seem to be many images of the city and its landmarks. James Pinnell 16:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think overall it is a decent article but not one that especially jumps out at me as great. Something I dislike about articles of this nature is that they read a bit much like a cross between the CIA World Factbook and run-of-mill guidebooks. Youth subcultures are a huge part of Portland and recognised in novels such as After Nirvana and the popular media. Under the heading of "people" you might include some aspects of Portland's subcultures rather than repeat basic census information. If the article is made more interesting, I could see it becoming a feature, certainly.--Mike 21:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Advance Wars: Dual Strike

This article has come a long way from what it used to be. Some advice on what to add, expand upon, remove, change, etc. would be appreciated. If possible, I'd like to elevate this page to featured article status. -- gakon⁵ (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Any references? This is a requirement for FA. Pentawing 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, my main reference was the game itself (considering this is an article on a video game), although some bits and peices of articles were drawn from walkthrus and FAQs. So.. I should link to those text files? -- gakon⁵ (talk)

• No, that'd be illegal. You need references to back up claims, such as sales figures, quotes from developers, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, actually, I haven't quoted any developers, written up anything on sales figures (as it didn't sell nearly as many copies as a DS game like Nintendogs) or made any claims that need backing up, unless I'm missing something. Would a write-up on the game's developemt history be in order or something? Although looking through things such as Gamespot updates on this game, nothing terribly interesting happened before the game launched; not on the scale of something such as Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, whose developers traded off the development of the game three or four times. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

1. May need a two paragraph lead (WP:LEAD)
2. Several subsections too short - systemic through the article Merged Versus and Link mode into Multiplayer;
3. "Game Modes" opens with a one-sentence paragraph. Two or three more sentances, need more?
4. "Demo mode" a little short.... Merged into Game modes > Combat mode
5. "New commanding officers" - too list heavy, get rid of these and just write it out :)
6. "New units" - again, write out this list stuff Merged into Gameplay > Units
7. You do need sales figures etc. here in order for it to be comprehensive (one of the FA criteria)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

At last! Someone replies! I've been trying to count the exact number of words in this article, but I was guessing this would need a two-paragraph lead. I'm also working on condesning the number of sections, particularly under Gameplay; Game Modes will have some sections merged (eg Link and Versus mode into Multiplayer). Do you have any advice on what subheaders under Gameplay are good to keep or remove? I myself didn't put them in there, but they're probably making the TOC larger then it needs to be. The Units section, I'm going to link to the just-created Units in Advance Wars, and provide an overview of what kind of units are available, as well as making notes on the new ones, going along with Wikipedia:Summary Style. The Demo section I can probably integrate into Game Modes > Combat mode. And, lastly, I'll find some sales figures, although I don't have much of a clue where to go, and this game probably wasn't too much of a record-breaker. I'll look around. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

Resolved issues strike-thru'd. - g⁵

Alright, I'm working on reducing the number of subheadings still, so I gots some questions:

• Should Units and Commanding Officers be out into their own sections, or stay under Gameplay?

• I'm going to translate New Commanding Officers into a paragraph and then maybe stick it in Gameplay > Commanding Offers. If I do that, it should be large enough to graduate from subsubheader to just subheader (two equals signs), no?

• War Room and Survival are the smallest Game Mode sections. Should they be stuck into Other Modes?

• Or, as an alternative, I could just put everything under Other Modes except Campaign and Combat mode, and probably Multiplayer too.

Advice appreciated. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

International cricket in 2005

This article, which has almost all been written by User:Sam Vimes will be completed at the end of the month, when the last detail can finally be written. I think it'd then be suitable for featured article status, but would welcome constructive comments on anything else that should be done before it goes to WP:FAC, jguk 16:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd object if it was put on FAC anytime before January. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Why? Have you seen International cricket in 2005-06? jguk 12:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt this will pass muster on FAC; too many tables. Great FLC candidate though. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• It would be useful if you put dates for the start / stop of the cricket season, as defined in the article, and mention more prominantly the 2005-06 article. Bluap 13:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Will do - I'll expand the lead paragraph a bit, too. Sam Vimes 14:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dromornithidae

One of my longer articles, a lot of info already in place. I'm not sure wether all the formatting and wording is correct. Could this be a featured article? Mstroeck 12:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Great job!
• It's nice to wiki family, genus, species, etc. the first time used
• Anything interesting in the etymology of the word?
• Why are there so many different genera? What differentiates them/why are some split into species?
• Not everyone knows how large a cassowary is. Perhaps a more concrete estimation of size?
• Explain the Australian megafauna the first time you introduce it
• There are a lot of red links! InvictaHOG 00:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, InvictaHOG! I had a go at all your points except for the red links (that's going to be a lot of work) and the question about taxonomy (frankly, I don't know...). I'll try to find that out and start writing the missing articles or at least create some useful stubs. Mstroeck 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have begun to create articles for the red links. Cuddie Springs is already online and almost done, just needs referencing. I have rudimentary articles for almost all the others as well, but haven't put them online yet. However, I'll be on vacation for the nex 4 days, so I probably won't be able to answer to any comments. Mstroeck 13:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Swans

Aussie Rules rocks, and the Swans rock even harder. If the Arsenal FC can get their article into FA status, then we Swannies ought to try for it too. Take a shot... J L C Leung 10:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It needs a references section and an improvement to the lead paragraph, two lead paragraphs would do better for this article. It also seems to be lacking context, and I can see a lot of red links. A lot of the article is taken up by a large table listing Honor Roll. The history section is missing quite a bit of info, what happened in the 20s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s ? In the third paragraph of the History section, in the first line, it says On 31 July 1985, for what was thought to be $6.3 million, Dr Geoffrey Edelsten "bought" the Swans... Can you clarify the amount, and why is bought in apostrophes? Did he buy it or do something else? — Wackymacs 14:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ephrem the Syrian

I put a lot of work into this article a good few months back. I'm quite happy with it, but a needs a little bit of something else. I'm posting for peer review because I would like to get some ideas of how to polish this one until it is very, very shiny! --Gareth Hughes 11:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A few ideas (some of them quite minor):

1. The lead should be expanded to be a summary of the major points from the rest of the article.
2. The discussion of variations of his name should be merged into the lead, or possibly moved to a footnote if it is too long. Technical details of spelling are probably not the best thing to open the article with.
3. The infobox should probably be moved up to the top of the article (unless there's some standard for saints that suggests a different usage).
4. The quotes might be intergrated into the prose.

Overall, though, the article looks quite nice. Kirill Lokshin 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Kyrill. I've taken out the name section, and added it and some summary into the lead section. I've added a couple of photographs of Ephrem's church in Nisibis. The WikiProject Saints suggests the seperation of veneration from life in articles on saints (quite understandably!), and suggests that the infobox goes in that later section. I'll keep working away at it. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Gareth Hughes 23:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Lead seems short for the article, but its not too bad
2. "Life" - last paragraph too short
3. "Writings" - Paragraphs 3,4,5 too short and 6 is even a one-sentence paragraph
4. "Veneration as a saint" - Paragraphs 3,4,5 too short
5. " Quotations" - these should only be here if you REALLY need them - otherwise they should be on wikiquote

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I've attached the last paragraph of Life onto the end of the previous one. However, it seems a bit abrupt to me, so I might rewrite the demise. The short paragraphs in Writings are begging to be expanded really. I've combined two more short paras in Veneration, but I think I can write some more on his place in the Syriac churches and in the wider world, and as seperate paragraphs. The quotations could be worked into the article somewhere. Is there anything in particular that you would like to see in this article? --Gareth Hughes 22:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Gareth, I have a couple of problems with the section "Life". The first is that the focus appears to be more on the world of Ephrem than on Ephrem: a sentence tells us "It was a time of great religious and political tension" -- yet there is no explanation what this tension was, nor how it affected Ephrem. For example, did the Diocletian persecution touch Ephrem's life or his community? I know that it was far more savage in the eastern part of the Empire than in the western.

The following paragraphs have the smae problem. I had to read them twice to realize that Ephrem was mentioned in them; their emphasis seems to be on the ongoing war. (BTW, the link to Constantius should be to Constantius II.)

Also, I don't get a sense for the person after reading this article: there is little if anything to distinguish him from the dozens of other churchmen of the period. If you could find something to give him a bit of personality -- a physical description, an anecdote of his life, or a discussion of his writings -- that would make this a strong candidate for FAC. -- llywrch 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I can see exactly what you mean: the Life section focuses more on the political history during Ephrem's life than his actual life. The problem I have is that the more vivid accounts of Ephrem's life are late and unreliable. I have mentioned them in the Veneration section instead, where I felt that they shed more light on how people have felt about Ephrem rather than his actual life. The Life section is drawn from the internal evidence of Ephrem's genuine works with a strong current of local contemporary history. I think the solution would be to include more from Ephrem's own works and less history. The Diocletian persecution, Shapur's sieges and the deportation of the Christians to the west are themes in Ephrem's hymnody, and must have had a profound effect on his life. I could make this more vivid in the account. The reliable anecdotes and descriptions are all of others: Ephrem doesn't write much about himself. --Gareth Hughes 14:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Department store

This article is obviously far from FA status, and its in obvious need of expansion, but I don't know what to add to it. Not long ago I cleaned up this article, added some photos, and it doesn't look bad, it just needs more content. Any suggestions? — Wackymacs 13:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a bit clunky - too much use of the work "retail", instead of "sell". Move the US-specific paragraph to a separate section, alongside the UK one. Perhaps have a separate section on discount department stores. Move the country-specific section out of "History". Explain why the Hudson Bay Company wouldn't be considered a department store nowadays. Bluap 13:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response, I have moved the US info to a new section as a subsection of a "Countries" section. I have added a reason for the statement made about Hudson Bay Company. I made a slight change to the lead paragraph. I'm not too sure what to write about discount department stores, I can't seem to find much about them around the Internet. — Wackymacs 15:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've written a short section about discount department stores. — Wackymacs 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dept. stores were high class places in the 1950s. Conspicuous consumption was rampant and appearances (symbols of wealth) meant a lot. Departments stores were built like palaces and offered extensive high class services. There would be elevator and bathroom attendants, men in tuxedos playing the piano in the make-up section and jazz in the dining room. Their target audience for their serices was married women (they had facilities to take care of the children while the women shopped). However, a lot of their advertising and outward appearance was oriented towards men. The dept. stores wanted the man to know his wife was well taken care of (and safe from the poor people in the city) while he was at work. However, as affluent people left the city for the suburbs, the businesses followed. Rents in the city declined and cheaper (lower-class) stores moved in. Many women became trapped in their suburban homes, others entered the workforce themselves. The dept. stores adapted by going into suburban malls ... and so forth.

I'd help out more but I won't get my school notes back for a few months (Jan?). The topic has a lot of overlap with women's studies and urban history. It really needs a trip to the library. There are many academic journal articles on the subject. Try these sources:

• Women
• 1920s
• Pre- and post-1950s trends in canada and austraila
• Bourgeois Utopias: Visions of Suburbia by Robert Fishman (why is that link red?)
• Cities and Buildings by Robert Fishman ---maclean25 06:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• • As a comment to what maclean25 wrote above: Please remember that the suburbanization of the middle class is mainly an American phenomenon. The situation is different in various European cities; I don't want to generalize as I have my own systemic bias, but please just keep this in mind when researching and writing. Uppland 11:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

smotherbox

I could not find anything to add. Neither was anyone else actively working on the article. Maybe it would be possible to add something on the history of such devices, but could not find anything on that one either. So I'm looking for anything which would make the article more complete or assure its quality so it could some day reach featured article status. --Easyas12c 16:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Aside from history and a nice picture, I think you said everything I would have wanted to know about a smotherbox. InvictaHOG 00:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you be more specific on the picture. An in-use photograph? Also, feel free to write a request of such picture at Wikipedia:Requested_pictures. --Easyas12c 23:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, history and perhaps demographics. I now know what one is, but how many people use them? Just in the U.S., or elsewhere? Were they "invented", or have they been around a long time? Have they been mentioned in any mainstream (or other) media sources? The picture depicts a lesbian couple - is this predominantly (no subtle pun intended) a gay thing? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So, we need a smotherbox-history expert. I think that the most common setting is woman on top and man at bottom, and I have personally never seen a man on top, but it might just be me. Where do you find reliable statistics on use of smotherboxes? --Easyas12c 23:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. I just fixed the link to breath control play as it was pointing to breath control, an article about meditation. --Craig 02:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 1993

One of the most important and interesting Canadian elections in recent years. I've been working on this article recently, trying to bring it up to FA level. It almost certainly needs some copyediting. It would also be great to get some image of campaigning, but getting free ones would be difficult. - SimonP 03:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be warying of using nicknames like "Tory". Few people outside Canada, and non-experts inside Canada, will know what that is. Although, I do like how the term covers both the PCs and John Tory. Are there references for the polling numbers? You don't have to answer this but, where are the references used in the article? The article is dominated by the campaign narrative, perhaps add some explanation of how the vote is set up (first past the post), voter turnout, and other more technical matters. The finance section needs a table (especially where comparing numbers). Otherwise, nice narrative, great national results table (the small text makes it easy to go through). However, the results table is probably the most pertinent topic of the article, why hide it at the bottom? --maclean25 04:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are some SWEET tables Simon! Anyway, it does need a bit of work in places.

1. For one thing the lead would probably be better off as two paragraphs and it needs to be a bit longer.
2. In "Background" the first paragraph is too short - try merging it with something.
3. "Campaign" - There are quite a few shortish paragraphs here.
4. "Issues" - last paragraph too short... expand or merge :)
5. Well, and there are several short paragraphs here and there...
6. In general could benifit from a couple more images
7. External links? Just kidding - I don't think this one really needs any :).

Moreover just needs another pass or two for structure... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• You should check your use of commas carefully. I've fixed one instance of a misplaced comma, but there are many more, and I'm getting too much Wikipedia lag to have time to edit them all. RSpeer 05:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Very minor, but the two diagrams of the seat distributions (Image:Elec1988.PNG and Image:Elec1993.PNG) aren't quite consistent. The Liberals seem to have gotten a bit pinker in 1993, and one images is slightly larger than the other. Pburka 03:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. Here are some things that can be improved, in my opinion:

1. You should reference sources for poll numbers, Campbell's quotes, analyses of voter behavior and analyses by political scientists.
2. In the sentence, These factors combined to make Mulroney the least popular leader since opinion polling began in the 1940s, does "leader" mean "prime minister?"
3. For the benefit of non-Canadians, you should explain the five-year rule that required Campbell to call the election.
4. At what date were the PCs close in the polls to the Liberals?
5. Who does "they" refer to in this sentence: They failed to get literature distributed to the local campaigns, forcing each candidate to print their own and preventing any unified message.
6. How could the 1993 campaign have taken place during the "late 1980s recession?" The article on that recession says it ended in 1991.
7. As this is not a scholarly journal, you should explain who "Jackson and Jackson" are and use their full names in the text.
8. I would consider seriously trimming the minor-party section. I think only the National Party is noteworthy. Mwalcoff 02:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Nashua, New Hampshire

I think it has a shot at making it to Featured Status, but here's what I see needing to happen before we get there.

• 2 or 3 more pictures, at least one of a school.
• Alot more info on the schools(will look into the Wikiproject on Schools with this)
• Maybe a few more subarticles
• Perhaps another section (Parks? Local Landmarks? Famous People?)
• A little more on politics, due to the New Hampshire Primary situation.

What do you all think? Karmafist 00:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC) First Peer Review can be found here

• References is one thing (not only because it is a requirement for FA, but also to allow others to verify the article's content). The lists in the education section should be turned into prose. A minor thing I have a problem with is the table of state representatives. I think it is better just to mention how many districts there are since representatives change with each election. Climate and a map of Nashua in New Hampshire can also help. Pentawing 04:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Another thing I noticed is the large use of historical images. I would prefer more images of Nashua as it appears today. Pentawing 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

After glancing at the article here's what I see that is needed:

• The intro should be at least 2-3 good-sized paragraphs in length.
• The history section needs expansion. A city with as much history as Nashua has should have a longer section. There should be mention of Native Americans in the area as well.
• The geography section also needs expansion. Discuss the lay of the land, is it hilly? Flat? Some of this information can be taken from the geography section of the article on the state of New Hampshire.
• There should be a section on cultural activites in the city. Include music, theatre, literature, any details of that nature.
• Of the seven images, only two are recent images. There should be many more recent photos. By no means get rid of the older photos, they are great, just show the city as it is now. In addition, vary the size of the photos so they all aren't so small.

You have a great foundation to build a featured article! Bon chance! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightning

Seems to meet the criteria for a featured article. Just putting it in peer review for due diligence before the FAC list. David Bergan 19:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of the sections and subsections are very small. Right or wrong, I got several objects about that when I put something up for FAC. -- SCZenz 07:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This needs a few improvements:

• A longer lead section (at least two healthy paragraphs, briefly covering the contents of the article)
• One and two sentence paragraphs should be expanded or merged
• Table of contents is too large—short sections (only one short paragraph) should be expanded or merged
• In-line citations are needed (see format at an article I'm working on, gas tungsten arc welding)
• External links need to be reduced to about 4-6 extremely relevant (and preferably noncommercial) links, and links referenced in the article need to be put under references. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Great article, very comprehensive. I have taken the liberty of changing the layout of the article, combining some section, and turning all those third level headings into bullet points. Seabhcán 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all the points made by Spangineer. Some other things need tidying up there are lots of unconnected sentences that should be incorporated into paragraphs. The Facts and trivia section is odd, surely the facts should be incorporated with the rest of the factual information and the trivials details included in a section called lightning in popular culture or something similar.--nixie 06:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Queenston Heights

Having scrawled a large part of this article in its current form while I was bored at high school an awful long time ago, I find myself wondering 'gee, I wonder if this could be a featured article someday'. And the answer, as I read the thing, is probably 'no' but I can't figure out what's wrong with it. So I figured I'd ask the community. Lord Bob 17:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a very good start. Some suggestions:

• Sections headings are needed, with a brief summary of the battle at the beginning, as well as a statement of its importance.
• A "background" section or paragraph is needed, letting readers know the overall strategic situation before the battle.
• A map would be nice, though of course good public domain ones are hard to come by unless you make one yourself, which is time consuming, though not difficult.
• Both references are by Canadian authors. Some American scholarly input would be good.
• A book came out recently, supposedly the first full-length one about this battle (A Very Brilliant Affair: The Battle of Queenstown Heights, 1812). It really ought to be a part of this article.
• Missing are various details, such as General Alexander Smyth (not mentioned) refusing to cooperate in the operation as requested by Stephen Van Rensselaer III, and Rensselaer's resignation after the battle.

Keep at it! --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Lord Bob. :) What Kevin said. I'd also suggest mentioning (perhaps with a photo or two?) the Queenston Heights park & the current Brock monument, and the history of the prior monument. The latter was at one time the tallest structure in the Empire, and one of the very few targets of a bombing in Ontario. But I'm not NPOV on this, having sat on General Brock's stone cold shoulder while a student at Brock U. :) Good luck with the FA campaign! Cheers, Madmagic 20:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Better than very good start. I would like to echo Kevin Myers' comments. I think it is pretty important to have a beginning paragraph which briefly describes the battle, its outcome and significance. A map would be nice, especially indicating the many places in the Niagara peninsula that may not be familiar to most reader. Good job, well on its way to being a featured article. Luigizanasi 18:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for your terrific input. I haven't been able to track down a public domain map yet, and I might end up drawing my own if it comes to it. Plus, I still haven't grabbed any American sources (it's the weekend and I'm not keen on zipping in to the University library to dig some up, so I used what I have). However, I did just expand on the background and the aftermath of the battle, as well as add a few section headings in there. So it's a start. Lord Bob 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Here is a public domain image, if you want to use it. Also, if you'd like to draw a map, the following three (probably copyrighted) maps should help you: 1, 2, and 3. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Karin Sowada

I wrote this a few weeks ago as part of the Women in the Australian Senate project, and have tried to get people to look over it so far to little avail. Any feedback would be appreciated; though a picture is out of the question due to Australian copyright issues. Ambi 11:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• A picture is not necessary for an article to become featured, however References are. The article is missing a references section. It seems to be written quite well and it is quite long as well. — Wackymacs 11:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• A very good article only spoiled by the utter lack of references or indeed any external links save to her official website. Regarding a picture, do you simply mean that we can't do fair use with Australian-sourced pictures, or is there some other law restricting it even if we got a Wikipedian to stalk her with a camera? —Morven 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What sort of external links were you thinking of? We simply can't do fair use with Australian-sourced pictures is the problem with images; one way we've got around this is for a Wikipedian to stalk people with a camera, but this is hard for someone who is largely out of public life these days. Ambi 17:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well the biggest concern is references/external links, but a picture sure would be nice. Why can we not do fair-use with Australian pictures? I'm sure there are plenty of Australian source pictures on Wikipedia that are fair-use. Can you not get permission from the website that has the picture of her? — Wackymacs 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What sort of external links were you looking for? (I know references need doing, but that's always a bit difficult the way I write articles (from a couple of hundred newspaper articles)). The problem is that Australian law doesn't recognise fair use, which puts us in a whole messy grey area that we haven't yet worked out a response to. Getting permission may have been possible, but getting that released under GFDL would be particularly difficult. Ambi 18:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • External links such as a link to a biography on another website, or a photo on another website, etc. External links are usual for users who wish to read more and read stuff on other websites too. — Wackymacs 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Official images of Australian senators are copyright the Australian government, but fair use still applies in the U.S. (where Wikipedia's file servers are). There's no legal reason not to have use the official photo, so long as fair use requirements are met. Also, here's a news article about her. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Geography of the Yukon

I wrote this article a couple of months ago. Upon re-reading it, I believe it is a pretty good piece of work that could also serve as a template for other Canadian provincial/territorial geography articles which are either missing or incomplete. I just added a bit more stuff including references.Any comments and suggestions would be welcome. I have one which I am unable to fulfill: I believe the list of mountain ranges would benefit from a map, but I don't have the appropriate software to make one; assistance would be appreciated here. Luigizanasi 18:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• The first sentence, "The Yukon Territory is in the northwestern corner of Canada." doesn't capture the essence of the article. Outside this article (this is a complaint about Wikipedia, not this article), more work needs to be done on developing the features of geography. The FA list shows that most of the work has been done on places and the Geography/Geology of foo and not on the geographic features/divisions like Boreal Cordillera Ecozone. Anyways back the PR, check the wikilinks; "Yukon" and "Whitehorse" only need be wikilinked once, or few times if you want. Definately needs some maps or illustrations of the section topic. See the FA Geography of India as an example.

--maclean25 19:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005

It just struck me that this is one of the few pages on Wikipedia that can ever be considered to be 'finished', as the only edits that can ever be made to it will be corrections if there are any errors... additions do not need to be considered.

Hence I thought that I would maybe try nominating it for featured article status at some point, but would appreciate opinions of others beforehand; both on the page itself, and whether one could consider it suitable to be featured. --Neo 15:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the feeling for "List of..." pages at FA is, first off. Maybe see if there are others and if not save yourself nom'ing. Lists are lists--not that they can't also be well done! Thus, some points on the article:

• Make the first sentence more generic: "The UK election, contested on x date, saw a Labour party victory with x seats etc. A total of x parties ran, with a significant number of..."
• Clarify "national fourth parties." I know there are three major parties and thus can deduce the meaning but that won't be the case with others.
• Unpack "the impact of minor parties should not be underestimated." Perhaps: "minor parties had a decisive effect on policy debates etc."
• Finally re-structure last paragraph. "Parties are grouped based on the three sub-national components of the United Kingdom (maybe better than simply "nation"). The listings in the group proceed with..." Also, alphabetical is last but where, say, four parties have the same number of candidates they aren't necessarily in alphabetical order. Marskell 23:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Try nominating this at WP:FLC -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice article. Just one thing - you say 'There are well over 500 seats in England and Wales'. Perhaps it would be better just to give the actual figure, as in 'There are x seats in England and Wales'. - TomScrace 01:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Pneumonia

Article has recently been improved a lot by the medicine collaboration of the week. Would be nice to get some feedback especially from people with a non-medical background. The article has had a peer review before that has been archived here. Hope to get some good feedback and maybe this could be a FAC soon. --WS 23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi. :) This is a comprehensive article that was, for the most part, easy for a person with a non-medical background to read. I felt that the exception was the section called Causes of pneumonia; I can't decide if it's all the Latin phrases with no explanation, or the density of the links that's causing me a problem. I am thinking that making that section into an annotated list, or perhaps changing up the prose a bit to make it less link-heavy and with a bit more contextual information, would be helpful.

One other set of comments I will offer have nothing to do with the prose itself; it's the pictures. They're well-chosen and generally quite clear. I would say that it would create some more visual interest on the page to not have them all on the right side. And this last bit is especially nit-picky, but -- the first diagram is very clear, but to read it, I had to navigate away from the main page because some of the text was too small to read at that resolution, and it took a bit for the bigger one to load. When one is on a slow Internet connection or at a public terminal, waiting for the larger version of that picture to load up may cause some users to log off altogether.

I hope this didn't come off as too negative; I am relatively new to peer review. :) Feel free to comment on my talk page for any other questions/concerns. --Jacqui ^★ 05:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't apologize! Thank you for the input; if there were no criticisms, then the article would not get any better. I've worked on the layout - I had never experimented with the left side of the page, so you ended up opening a whole new world for me! The lead image is only 65kb, so I think it's more of a wikipedia loading issue. I went back to see if I could make all the words large enough on the original image and I think it would be too crowded, unfortunately. As for the causes of pneumonia, I am a bit unhappy with it as well. With over 100 microorganisms we could put there, choosing the important themes and some notable exceptions has been difficult. I'll give it another shot, though. Thanks again! InvictaHOG 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the causes section a little. It can't ever be clear of Latin/Greek, but hopefully it reads a little better now with some explanation! InvictaHOG 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• It looks quite good with the slight exception of the Pathophysiology section that has the odd bulleted-sections format, which is at variance with the format of the remainder. I didn't see anything in the article addressing the issue of reoccurance, which supposedly significantly increases your odds of acquiring pneumonia again once you've had it. Did I miss that somewhere? If not, could you cover that topic? Thanks. — RJH 14:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I converted the bullets into subheadings. I also added a sentence under Epidemiology addressing recurrence. Typically occurs because of an underlying predisposition to pneumonia. Let me know if you think that it deserves more mention - it's really more a matter of an underlying problem increasing risk InvictaHOG 15:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This would be a good topic for an FA. My notes:

• FACs are always hit hard for any and all one-sentence paragraphs (two isn't good either) and one- or two-paragraph sections or subsections. It always hurts a little to see the "cleanly organized outline" sink into the background, but merging the sections and replacing the subheadings, where needed, with text does usually make an article read better.
• I personally was surprised at the shortness of the "treatment" section. Particularly the very brief mention of mechanical ventilization. Eh, maybe it's just a personal bias: my wife was hospitalized with pneumonia at the beginning of the year and was kept under, on ventilation, for 10 days. Still, maybe there is something more that could be said.
• I'd lose the "See also" section and rely on those links being in the text. It can actually be a little POV-ish deciding what class of related topics are the important ones that make it into that list.
• I'd rename ==References== to ==Notes== and ==General references== to ==References==; at least, I think that's more typical. Maybe in medical articles it's not, though. Look around, see how recently featured articles do it, and try for consistency.
• The article needs some in-depth copyediting, fixing grammar and flow throughout.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I've ditched the see also and started to copyedit. The multiple sclerosis article we just finished used the references heading and it's certainly more in keeping with medical literature. I'll see if I can find better examples, though. I'm working on the section thing. I can certainly rearrange the complications and classification sections. What do you think about the pathophysiolgy section? I think it's fine with different sections because of the links to individual article. As for treatment, you're tempting us! We expect to expand the ventilator-associated pneumonia in the future to better cover the topic. At this point, there's so much more to be said about treatment that it's probably best to leave just the most common situations in. Luckily, pneumonia requiring ventilator support is quite rare. Not that it mattered to your wife, I understand... InvictaHOG 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! Regarding the pathophysiology section: I think if a topic is extensive enough to have a separate article on it (and be linked in the "Main article: foobar" fashion), then it should merit a few paragraphs in a parent article like this. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I just finished an article on ventilator-associated pneumonia - probably not as applicable to your wife, but an important part of the pneumonia set of articles nonetheless! InvictaHOG 03:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. There was always worry of a reinfection. Didn't happen, but I still don't recommend long-term ventilation as a hobby :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• Initial description as a disease characterized by fluid in the alveoli sounds a bit odd to my ears. I am used to thinking of pneumonia as and inflamation or infection of the small airways and alveoli, which can lead to fluid accumulation.
• Some sections seem to assume bacerial pneumonia with only passing reference to viral eiologies.
• There is a paragraph about treatment under the heading "hospital acquired pneumonias" which seems out of place.
• Aspiration pneumonia is a common problem in hospitalized patients, but it is only mentioned in passing in the article.
• Epidemiology section could perhaps consolidate information on common etiologies/organisms versus age, hospital status, etc.

Osmodiar 07:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've started making some changes, moving treatment out of the hospital-acquired section, etc. I added inflammation to the initial line - most definitions hinge on consolidation of the air spaces. Since it's due to inflammation in every case I can think of, seems reasonable to add it in. All in all, pneumonia is a horrible term to cover. There's a multitude of vastly different disease states which share the name. We tried to focus on the most common types. So, we mostly speak about bacterial pneumonia. If there's any particular place we could expand on the other types, let us know! As for aspiration, all infectious pneumonia is caused by aspiration (except for IVDU, etc). In a way, the important thing is the host and his/her flora. We chose not to cover aspiration pneumonitis because, frankly, it's a different disease entity. I'll work on the epidemiology section. Thanks for your help; check back and let us know how we do! InvictaHOG 08:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare is currently a Good Article. WikiProject Shakespeare is attempting to bring this article to featured article status, so we are looking for overall comments about the article, along with specific critiques and corrections. The members of WikiProject Shakespeare feel it is vitally important to bring this article to FA status because William Shakespeare is ranked among the 50 most viewed articles on Wikipedia.

For the record, there have been two previous peer reviews. The first, at Wikipedia:Peer review/William Shakespeare/archive1, was of limited use because the review mainly focused on the cuts an editor made to the article. The second review, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Shakespeare, was extremely specific. We have addressed all the concerns in this review, as detailed on the article's talk page. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• See several missing citations which are mentioned on the talk page and in the main article. Wrad 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Smatprt

I just did a top to bottom review and did a fair amount of spelling/grammer/readabililty work, which I hope is not contentious. The following is a list of items I saw that will require a number of editors to consider, depending on their particular expertise. The article gets better all the time.Smatprt 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent: I've looked through that, great work - all improvements.AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1) There are so many citations in the first paragraph (7 at last count) that it is difficult to read. Any way to combine references or find some references that can cover more than just one fact each?

• I don't agree that thorough sourcing is ever a bad thing. If footnotes make the text more difficult to follow, that should be raised with the project's techies: it's not a reason to provide fewer footnotes. WP:ATT is a policy, and one that Wikipedia is trying to tighten up on. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2) Same with first paragraph of Early Life.

3) Do we really need citations for such non-contentious issues as Shakespeare making numerous references to the theatre? So many citations for universally accepted statements make much of the article hard to read.

• Surprised that you take this view: until recently the article said that the plays demonstrated they were written by an actor and you changed it to say they demonstrated they were written by "a man of the theatre". [And for the benefit of others reading this comment, that is because Smatprt holds the view that another author wrote the plays.] What I'm getting at is that you personally are one of the few people who finds this kind of statement contentious therefore it's odd that you are arguing it may not need citing. (I'm not trying to imply hypocrisy or anything, don't get me wrong, I'm just pointing out the reason why citations for this sort of thing can be important.) AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually - I changed that line with little thought of the authorship. Yes, Shakespeare (whoever he was) was an actor, but he was more than that - author, director (Hamelt's notes),devisor of props and costumes & sets (midsummer - rustic converstions), song writer (numerous), etc. I simply thought "man of the theater" was more all encompassing, and given the Tempest quote that appears in the article (and now appears opposite this info), I thought the statement would not need a citation. I thought is was an example of a non-controversial statment. If you disagree, no prob. And I completely understand and support the need for sources - just wish there was a way to source these articles without so much clutter. It's the readablility issue that Alabamaboy raised (which I also agree with). Yes, maybe the techies can ultimately figure this out.Smatprt 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, and just to be clear I do agree that the "man of the theatre" edit was a good one. AndyJones 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

4)  Done The first paragraph of Plays also has lots of cite requests and a statements in parentheses that make for a confusing read.

• Agreed but don't worry: will be short-term. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

5) Same section – I find the “three stylistic groups” problematic. It’s a contentious issue that relies on dating, which is equally controversial (and I am talking about mainstream debates). For example “middle period romantic comedies and tragedies... as well as “problem plays”…). That's a lot for one stylistic period. Is there really agreement on these stylistic groupings as stated in this article?

• I have the same problem with this. And is is Henry IV really an "early play"? What about the really early plays? This is the kind of thing that could be easily fixed by attributing to someone. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • PS, the issue was discussed on the talk page: See Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 2#Stylistic classification. AndyJones 07:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

6) Done Suggest moving up the “All the world’s a stage” quote to “London and Theatrical Career" next to the paragraph that mentions Shakespeare making numerous references to the theatre. The context would be appropriate for the image, which also doesn’t need to be quite so wide. I don’t know how to adjust the box size or I would.

• I figured out how to do this one myself, and didn't think it controversial, so I did it. If anyone objects, feel free to move it back.Smatprt 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

7) Done In Style, you have: “While many passages in Shakespeare's plays are written in prose, he almost always wrote the most important passages in iambic pentameter.” Really? Seems like a reach to me.

• Agree. That seems wrong to me, too. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

8) Done By comparison to the rest of the article, the Authorship section is underwritten. As a summary of the main article, it’s a pretty poor example. I am not referring to what was cut in the last concensus, but rather the lack of reasons or examples why the topic ever arose, and why it exists today.

9) Done The Religion section has grown to be almost the longest section. Oddly, there is no main article, even though the subject is full of controversy and disagreement between scholars. Perhaps this should be the beginning of a Main article and someone could just summarize it for this page. It’s just too long.

• I agree. I was going to suggest that it be broken out, myself. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

10) Under the bibliography, we now have a parody section?? Shouldn’t this be elsewhere or deleted and moved to another article? The list of parodies would be endless…

 Done This is gone now. Wrad 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

A thorough review for an important figure. If Shakespeare is one of the top 50 viewed pages, then that page should be some of wikipedia's best work. Thank you all for working so hard on this. Here are my suggestions and comments:

Lead:

•  DoneIn general, the lead does not meet the requirements of WP:LEAD - it is not a standalone summary of the article.

• He is widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language and the world's preeminent dramatist. - Modern Shakespeare scholars really don't say things like this anymore (except perhaps for Harold Bloom) - I noticed that your sources are other encyclopedias for this, something we try not to do. To claim that anyone is the "world's greatest writer" in any genre is simply unsupportable. Let's take the rhetoric down a notch, shall we?

• • I thought it was taken down a notch, "world's greatest writer" is very different from "world's preeminent dramatist". Where does wikipedia discourage citing encyclopedias? Wrad 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:ATT emphasizes that articles should use secondary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources are not the most trustworthy regarding the subject at hand. Also, I have a problem with "world's" - I do not believe that it is agreed that Shakespeare is the world's best playwright. Some people have argued that he is the best playwright within the Western tradition, although, like I said, serious academics no longer make this claim. Awadewit | talk 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• his work has been adulated by eminent figures through the centuries - very awkward passive

By the way, 7 figures quoted in wikisource does not lend credibility to this claim.

• • Why not? I would think two would support the plural, "figures", although shakily. Seven seems fine. Besides, this is in the lead, and doesn't need to be cited if supported in the article, which it is, very thoroughly. Wrad 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • From WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. - The implication of the statement "eminent figures through the centuries" is certainly more than two. I can come up with a list of seven such quotes for almost any writer - does that make them as "great" as Shakespeare? That is the problem with these sorts of statements. Awadewit | talk 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Still don't see the point, how does the fact that the statment applies to other writers make it any less true for Shakespeare? Also, How exactly does that quote show that this statement doesn't belong? Wrad 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• You wanted proof that statements in the lead needed to be cited - I gave that to you.
• Why are we saying that Shakespeare's works have been praised throughout several centuries? We could say this about any writer. It is therefore a meaningless statement unless you say who has made the statements or how many people have made them. It is just too vague. I believe that what you mean to say is that many other writers who are considered great have lauded Shakespeare, but this is a difficult statement to prove. A secondary source would be better since everyone will disagree on the "many" needed to establish such a statement and an assemblage of quotes actually qualifies as original research. Awadewit | talk 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Many FA articles do not have any sources in the lead, for the very reasons I listed, and this continues to be trend in many current FAC's that seems to be accepted. Also, such a statement is not meaningless in my mind because it places him "among" the greatest writers for which that statement could be true. (Sorry if I sound really contentious here, but I am genuinely confused. I have made the "cite the lead" argument in several FAC articles and been shot down every time. I've never seen any such argument stand in an FAC discussion, and I've seen many, but the guideline seems to point otherwise. Perhaps this is a discussion to bring up on the guidelines' talk page or something.) Wrad 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I have seen FAs use citations in the lead; since the guideline suggests it and we should use citations for statements likely to be challenged, such as this one. I urge you to find a citation or remove it. A list of quotations is actually original research, which cannot be included in a wikipedia article. If you want to prove that Shakespeare was adored by many writers after him, find a reputable secondary source that says so. Awadewit | talk 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy. - Please remove this sentence until you have a citation. It seems a particularly problematic statement, given that later in the article, you do not break his plays down into tragedies and comedies.

 Done statement adjusted. Wrad 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Shakespeare is the most quoted writer in the history of the English-speaking world - I don't understand the "in the history of" part

 Done fixed. Wrad 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

•  DoneMany have speculated about his sexuality, religious affiliation, and the authorship of his works. - This sentence is just hanging off the last paragraph of the lead.

Probably best fixed after making the changes suggested below. Wrad 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The authorship reference used to be connected to uncertainty over the works. Now it's included with two references about his personal beliefs. It was probably better before the edit wars between myself and a few overzealous editors who believe the authorship debate is not worthy of wikipedia. Until the regular editors of this page stop trying to stifle discussion of this subject, I fear that this article will always be problematic. During this FA review, for example, many, many suggestions are acted upon without debate. However, in reviewing the 3 or 4 authorship related references, I find that no action has been taken and only Wrad has even bothered to respond to those suggestions. If we all want FA status for this article, then we really need to deal with all the issues, even the unpleasant ones.Smatprt 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that there had been edit wars (I am sorry to hear that). I am still concerned about the "Speculations" section as a whole. Please note its size in relation to other sections (it is larger than many). When reading this page I asked myself "What information would you include in an undergraduate Shakespeare course?" Interestingly, much is missing from sections on Shakespeare's writings (more on themes and style, for example) and much is included (such as "Speculations") that many academics would not bother to mention. I feel that this page privileges some rather sensationalized or arcane disputes instead of focusing on the basics of Shakespeare's life and works. I realize how difficult that this page must be to write (everyone has their pet theory about Shakespeare), but perhaps the best solution is to consult books like the Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and use its bibliography. Such books provide "standard" readings and "standard" historical narratives, meaning the most accepted readings and narratives. Their bibliographies would also provide the editors with the most important Shakespearean criticism. (Then maybe we won't have people referencing obscure websites.) Awadewit | talk 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree that we need much more on themes and style. These sections do seem underwritten and do make the "speculations" look rather large by comparison. I will add for the record that I believe the Shakespeare Authorship question is a topic that merits research and scholarship and I do beleive it is achknowledged by many recognized researchers. Several colleges are now offering courses that are devoted to (or at least cover) the topic, and a number of international research conferences are presented each year.Smatprt 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree that his style, etc. could be developed, but I don't know if the article is as unbalanced as you say. In my undergrad classes, we don't really study the biographical Shakespeare, because it's not a biography class. This, on the other hand, is largely a Biographical article (as well as a literary one). If I were to take a biographical history class on Shakespeare, rather than an English class, it would probably mention more about the speculations and less about his style and works. It's all how you look at it. Wrad 02:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I should have made my assumptions clearer - I meant a class that was using some sort of historical framework. Not all Shakespeare classes do that (some are psychoanalytic, some are feminist, etc.), I will grant you that. But any class that does use a historical framework for discussing Shakespeare's work will mention his biography. (I'm not really sure what a "biographical history class" would be - that is a strange phrase.) Awadewit | talk 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • On the point of "Shakespeare authorship," one should probably consider several factors before including much about it in the article. It is difficult to know what Shakespeare wrote at all because we don't have manuscripts for the plays (I know less about the poetry) - we only have second-hand and third-hand copies based on pirated publications and collections of actors' parts and other miscellaneous. The three different versions of Hamlet's "to be, or not to be" soliloquy is an excellent large version of this problem and the "too, too solid flesh" vs. "too, too soiled flesh" line is a good small example. Which version is Shakespeare's? No one knows anymore and there may never have been one, true Shakespearean text, as the plays altered from performance to performance. As far as I know, no reputable Shakespeare scholars take any of the "Earl of Oxford" kinds of theories seriously (I studied with at least two of the leading Shakespearean scholars as an undergraduate who said in no uncertain terms that these theories were crap, but perhaps these theories have suddenly gained traction? I know some popular books have been published on the topic, but that is not the same thing.). Most scholars are more interested in the kinds of problems I quoted above. I am curious what scholars Smatprt could point to support his/her argument. Also, just because there are conferences on a topic does not make it legitimate. There are conferences dedicated to creationism - that is not evidence of its acceptance by the mainstream scientific community; not all conferences have the same status within the academic community. Again, I would like to know what conferences. Awadewit | talk 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Major content and prose suggestions:

•  DoneThe last paragraph of "Plays" should be organized more coherently - it does not follow in a logical order.
• Please describe Shakespeare's "Other poems" a bit - their topics, their major themes, etc.
  • Agree. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
•  DoneIn the "Style" section, you chart Shakespeare's changing use of iambic pentamenter. I am sure that scholars have speculated on why he did this. Could you provide some of that information here?
  • I added more info on "why" Shakespeare used iambic pentameter. Does that help?--Romeo in love 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• In the "Style" section, you note Shakespeare's use of soliloquies - why did he use soliloquies? What rhetorical effect did they achieve? Again, scholars have written stacks on Shakespeare's soliloquies - something could be inserted here to explain them. This paragraph merely defines them.
  •  Done I added a paragraph about this.--Romeo in love 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Shakespeare's writing (especially his plays) also feature extensive wordplay, in which double entendres and clever rhetorical flourishes are repeatedly used. - I would either expand on this one-sentence paragraph or delete it.
• The "Influences" section (except for "Later influences") seems like it all belongs under "Plays" because it describes Shakespeare's development as a dramatist and his literary debts. Also, this section should be shortened so that it corresponds to the length of the others.

 Done I think this was fixed. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I found the "Later influence" section largely useless - it just listed names and the second paragraph was particularly incoherent. It needs to clearly state that Shakespeare and other writers could experiment with the language specifically because it was not yet standardized. (English did not become standardized until the 18th century - see John Barrell's An Equal Wide Survey). Moreover, if it is revised, it should be placed in the "Legacy" section - that is the more appropriate location.
  • This section has changed a lot, could you look at it again? Wrad 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• The "Religion" section is much too long compared to the other sections, given its relevance (or, really, irrelevance). I would suggest that it be condensed into a single paragraph and the rest spun off into a separate article.

 Done Also fixed. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would insert information from the "Sexuality" section into the "Biography" and put anything here not in the "Sexuality of William Shakespeare" article into that one.
  • This part is speculative; it doesn't belong in the "life" section.
    • Much of that section is speculative as well, if you really look closely at what is being claimed. What we know solidly about Shakespeare can be reduced to handful of facts. Awadewit | talk 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• I would place the "Authorship" controversy in the "Works" somewhere as that is the topic it is most relevant to. Topics should be addressed where applicable.
  • As above, the subject is speculative and would clutter the Works section if added there.
    • But it is related to that topic. I think that it is disingenuous to create a "controversies" section, which is what the editors have in effect done here. Either the "speculations" merit discussion under the relevant topics or they do not. Decide which it is. Awadewit | talk 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Awadewit is correct on the above points. Because so much about Shakespeare is speculative,to spin off the three topics Authorship, Religion and Sexuality is a questionable move, and may be more about the editors POV regarding these issues than the issues themselves. Regarding the authorship references, a few months ago (before the ugly edit wars) the authorship references were more informative and better cited. The reference in the lead was also connected to the uncertainty about the plays - not tagged onto the other references (religion and sexuality)about his life.Smatprt 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would also add the bit about Shakespeare's will and the "second best bed." It is famous and funny.
  • I think that might be best placed in the Shakespeare's life article, rather than here. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • But it is one of the few verifiable facts that we have about Shakespeare, thus I would argue that it should go in the "biography" section of this article. Since so much of Shakespeare biography is speculation, I believe that we should include every solid fact that we can in the main Shakespeare article. Awadewit | talk 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Much of his biography is based on solid evidence (mostly records), but the intricacies and little details are the stuff of speculation. The "second best bed" part is trivia; it's charming but not particularly important. It is usually raised in debates about authorship. RedRabbit1983 07:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It is interesting and right now the biography lacks interest - this tidbit spices it up. Awadewit | talk 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Without the little details his biography seems too much like patchwork. RedRabbit1983 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor content suggestions:

• Please check the "Black Plague" link in "Early life" - there might be a better page. That one focuses on the Black Death in the Middle Ages.
  •  Done Wrad 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• You might consider putting [sic] after the quotations that contain early modern spellings so that later editors don't change them (I've had this problem on other pages).
• Every paragraph of "London and theatrical career" starts "By [year]" - a little variety in style would be appreciated. In fact, many sentences within the paragraphs themselves start this way as well.
  • I prefer parallelism to elegant variation. RedRabbit1983 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not parallelism. It is repetition. It is poor writing. Awadewit | talk 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I am not defending the quality of the writing; that is for others to judge. However, the device is parallelism — a form of repetition. It is exemplified by the King James Bible. There, if the forms were varied, the parallelisms would collapse. Every example of parallelism has a repeated form. I think the problem is structure, not repetition of "By". It could be changed to, for example, "By... In... X years later... By... In... etc." but the result would be ostentatious and unnecessary.
        • I know what parallelism is. I have to fix it in my students' writing all of the time. It is not only the KJV that uses it for emphasis, by the way. The problem is when parallelism becomes repetition. When I read that section, I thought to myself, "wow, that writer was really at a loss for sentence structures." I did not think to myself, "what a nice use of parallel sentence structure - it really highlights an important point." The form (here parallel structure) should be used to highlight particular content. In this case, there is no reason to have any parallelism - the content does not merit it. It is merely repetitious. Awadewit | talk 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• The First Folio of his works divided these plays into tragedies, histories and comedies. - This sentence should probably mention that Shakespeare himself did not publish the First Folio.
  •  Done Good point.
• You might mention Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery and Garrick's Shakespeare Jubilee - these are usually used as markers of Shakespeare's "arrival" - it helps to prove Shakespeare's popularity. There are pretty pictures associated with them as well.
• Neoclassicism (the view that dramatic works should be judged by principles established by Aristotle) damaged Shakespeare's reputation until the Romantic era - This is unclear because the section suggests that it was during the 18th century (with Rowe's, Pope's and Johnson's editions), which was the time of neoclassicism, that Shakespeare became popular. Please clarify that there were opposing Shakespeare "camps" at this time.
• Could the "See also: Timeline" be moved to the top of the "Reputation" section?

 Done Wrad 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are the "Shakespeare on Screen" and "Parodies" necessary under the Bibliography? Shakespeare was never presumed to have written them, after all. I believe they should be placed in a "See also" section.
  • Currently under debate. Probably should be moved. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    •  Done Wrad 18:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Specific prose suggestions:

• As christenings were performed within 3 days of birth, tradition has settled on 23 April, Saint Georges day,[14] as his birthday. - too many little clauses
  • Two is too many? I agree that it is awkward.
  • Rewritten it.  Done
• popular enough for the new king, James I (1603) - unclear what 1603 is referring to unless you already know
  • I extended the parenthesis.  Done
• Shakespeare's writing shows him indeed to be a man of the theatre, with many phrases, words, and references to the stage. - This is an interesting statement - I would definitely need a cite for this. While I don't doubt that Shakespeare was involved in the theater, deducing that from his writings is an interesting move and highly problematic. Was Vladimir Nabokov a pedophile, then? See the problem? I wonder if scholars make this move so easily - they might qualify it.
  • Heh. Good point. I think the writer meant that Shakespeare described his craft in detail through his writings, although not directly.
  • I revised it.  Done
• There is a tradition that Shakespeare, in addition to writing many of the plays his company performed, and being concerned as part-owner of the company with business and financial details, continued to act in various parts, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V. - wordy and full of clauses
  • I removed the cluttering pharses.  Done
• A monument on the wall nearest his grave, probably placed by his family,[26] features a bust showing Shakespeare posed in the act of writing. - wordy
  • Revised it.  Done
• They have been translated into every major living language,[27] and are continually performed all over the world. - Language is repeated verbatim from the lead.
  • I'm not sure what to do with this.
• Like many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare based many of his plays on the works of other playwrights and reworked earlier stories and historical material. - repetition of the word "many"; in general, a redundant sentence
  • Don't agree it is redundant. It is general statement followed by a specific one. I removed one "many" and revised the sentence slightly.
    • How about "Like many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare based many of his plays on the works of other playwrights and earlier historical material." The "stories" part is vague. Awadewit | talk 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Stories include poems and other stories. Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida, for instance, was partly based on Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, and Chaucer wasn't a playwright. I'm open to suggestions but I don't know how to make it more specific. RedRabbit1983 06:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • A poem is not a story. This sentence doesn't have to list all of his sources, just give an idea of them. "Stories" is simply too vague. No reader who doesn't already to what you are referring is going to understanding that phrase. Awadewit | talk 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
          • A narrative poem is, but I see your point. RedRabbit1983 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• For plays on historical subjects, Shakespeare relied heavily on two principal texts: Plutarch's Parallel Lives (from the 1579 English translation by Sir Thomas North[28]) for most of his history plays, and the 1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (which provided material for Macbeth and King Lear) for his English history plays. - very awkwardly worded
  • I made the sentence simpler and moved part of it to the following sentence.  Done
• Shakespeare's plays tend to be placed into three main stylistic groups - by scholars? who does this?
  • By scholars, I think. I didn't contribute this, so I don't know what the source is.
• The late romances have redemptive plotlines with ambiguous endings and magic and other fantastical elements. - too many "and's"
  • One fewer now.  Done
• However, the borders between these genres are never clear. - These are not "genres" - the earlier sentence called them "stylistic groups." That is very different.
  • True. Duly amended.  Done
• The lack of an authoritative print version of his plays during his lifetime accounts for part of the textual problem, the difficulty of identifying which plays he wrote, and for the different textual versions of some of his plays. - awkwardly worded - first phrase doesn't seem parallel with the others
  • I created a subordinate clause and simplified the sentence.  Done
• Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada - "dramatic apprenticeship" is a lovely phrase, but I wonder if it is too poetic for wikipedia
• Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; he retired at the height of the Jacobean period, not long before the start of the Thirty Years' War. - Remind the reader of the dates.
• His style changed not only in accord with his own tastes and developing mastery, but also in accord with the tastes of the audiences for whom he wrote. - "in accordance"?; also, give us a hint of what the change was
  • I fixed "accord".
• Shakespeare wrote a large proportion of his plays and poems with a rhythm known as iambic pentameter - do we really need the rhythm bit?
  • Not at all. I got rid of it.  Done
• To end many scenes in his plays he used a rhyming couplet—two rhyming lines of poetry—to heighten expectation of what is to follow. - redundant
  • I removed the fluff.  Done I might come back to this article later. Thanks for the review. RedRabbit1983 01:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Shakespeare's works have been a major influence on subsequent theatre and literature. - should be more restricted
• The second paragraph of "Influences" has inconsistent verb tenses.
  • This section has changed a lot, could you look at it again? Wrad 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• In the twentieth century, a professional field of study known as "English" developed, - I am not quite sure why "English" is in scare quotes here - would it not be better to say "the discipline of English literature developed" (for that is what it is called)
• In the twentieth century, a professional field of study known as "English" developed,[79] so among academics, Shakespeare was subjected to critical methods such as structuralism, poststructuralism and semiotics, and was analysed from feminist and Marxist perspectives. - very awkward

• • I'll leave those sentences alone. If you have any more suggestions, don't hesitate to add them. RedRabbit1983 06:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources:  Done Please cite all of your sources in the same way. They are all over the place in the notes.

• The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-1769 by Michael Dobson, Oxford University Press, 1995. Accessed Feb 26, 2006. - This is a book abstract. Please quote from the actual book. Book abstracts are written by publishers. They often contain misinformation.
• Footnote 13 - Shakespeare online - is a self-published website. There is no reason to use self-published websites for Shakespeare material. See here for a description of the site.
• Footnote 19 - Who wrote this site? Why is this site reliable? I see that it comes from a .edu, but that doesn't mean a scholar put it up - it could be some student project.
• Footnote 28 - Please note that on the site it says "We have used here J. W. Skeat's nineteenth century edition of North's Plutarch that selects several of the major Lives." - I'm not sure how useful that would be to someone interested in finding the version Shakespeare read.
• Footnotes 107 and 108 need to be fixed.
• Footnote 108 is promotional material for a seminar series. According to the page, "This seminar is adapted from chapter 4 of The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare, Cambridge University Press." Why don't you just get the information from there? Awadewit | talk 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been pointed out and is in the process of being fixed. Wrad 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of "Influence" paragraph

 Done Shakespeare's works have been a major influence on subsequent theatre and literature. Not only did Shakespeare create some of the most admired plays in Western literature,[71] Which of his plays are most admired? Not all of them have been equally influential. he also transformed English theatre by expanding expectations about what could be accomplished through characterisation, plot, action, language, and genre.[72][73][74] How? Can you give any examples of any of these "expanded expectations"? This is much too vague. The success of his plays also helped raise the status of popular theatre, permitting it to be admired by intellectuals as well as by those seeking pure entertainment.When and how did this happen?

Shakespeare's influence isn't has not been limited to the theatre. His plays and poems have influenced a large number of writers in the following centuries, including novelists such as Charles Dickens[75] How? What specifically is Shakespearean in Dickens? and William Faulkner,[76]Again, how? and Romantic poets such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge (with critic George Steiner calling all English poetic dramas from Coleridge to Tennyson "feeble variations on Shakesearean themes."[77]What themes?

Finally, Shakespeare's writings greatly influenced the entire English language. Prior to and during Shakespeare's time, the grammar and rules of English were not fixed.[78] As England and English culture gained power and pride during Shakespeare's time, he and other poets and playwrights experimented with the English language.[78] Because of the popularity of Shakespeare's plays, a large number of English words and phrases that Shakespeare created or modified[79] are now in common usage.The logic here still doesn't work.

How about something along these lines (it's messy, but you can fix it up): Finally, Shakespeare's writings greatly influenced the English language. Because English during Shakespeare's time was not as standardized as it is now, playwrights could experiment and play with the language. But once Shakespeare's plays became popular in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century, they helped contribute to the standardization of the English language, with many Shakespearean words and phrases becoming embedded in the English language, particularly through projects such as Samuel Johnson's Dictionary which quoted Shakespeare more than any other writer.<ref>Lynch, Jack. ''Samuel Johnson's Dictionary: Selections from the 1755 Work that Defined the English Language''. Delray Beach, FL: Levenger Press (2002), 12.</ref> Awadewit | talk 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I wrote most of this section, I'll address your concerns. Won't get a chance for a day or two, though. Most of your comments are fine with me, but the rewrite of that English language section doesn't quite work for me b/c it removes too much relevant and referenced info. How about if we combine the two versions into a new baby? --Alabamaboy 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. The last paragraph, in its present form, just doesn't follow in a logically coherent manner. I tried to rewrite it so that it could be sourced from your sources and added the necessary source for what you probably don't have. Awadewit | talk 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made most of these changes. However, the more I think some of the changes you want in this section, the more I think that's too much detail for the main article. Perhaps a subarticle should be spun off just on Shakespeare's Influence. let me know what you think of the new version.--Alabamaboy 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously ample information for an article on Shakespeare's influence, but I think that this section has to have some specifics. Vague generalizations are not very informative. I still feel that the section is basically puffery. It proves next to none of its claims because it offers no evidence. Awadewit | talk 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out the section again b/c I was still revising as I wrote the previous comment. I think I addressed most of your concerns. What I didn't add was a detailed explanation of how Shakespeare influenced those novelists. That's too much detail, I think. Also, it's not that Dickens is Shakespearean, but that Dickens acknowledged a massive debt to Shakespeare. Same with Faulkner and others.--Alabamaboy 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is what is the debt? What is the influence? Shakespeare achieved many things with his plays and poetry - from the new version, I still don't know which of those things influenced later writers. The second paragraph still makes too many unsubstantiated claims. Citations are not enough - you need to give the reader some evidence to prove your point. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have cross-referenced to this conversation in my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words invented by Shakespeare. AndyJones 08:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The section has been revised and now addresses the concerns raised here. See this link for verification of this. Thanks to Awadewit for his incredibly helpful critiques on all this. --Alabamaboy 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

qp10qp

The article is getting there. Congratulations to the editors for all the efforts they have put in. My strongest suggestion would be that website references be changed to print references except where reliable scholarly websites carry full publication details of articles or books they have reproduced. In the latter case, the whole book or article should be carried and the website should have permission to carry it. Anything short of this standard will leave the article's referencing looking amateurish in places.

Particular points:

• His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation and poetic grandeur with philosophical depth.

The sentence invites a miscue.

Not sure what you mean by miscue, but I don't like that sentence either. I'm not sure how to fix it, though. Wrad 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The miscue is: "His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation and poetic grandeur..."

A short term solution would simply be: "His plays combine popular appeal, complex characterisation, poetic grandeur, and philosophical depth". But, I don't like the sentence either: it attempts too much and comes over like a blurb.

How about: "His plays combine popular appeal and complex characterisation; poetic grandeur and philosophical depth." Wrad 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A semicolon doesn't work for me there; it needs to be followed by a full sentence form (as in the sentence I am writing now). The trouble is that the original parts don't match: "popular appeal" is antithetical to "complex characterisation", but "poetic grandeur" does not have a similar relationship to "philosophical depth". So no attempt to set these four qualities off in pairs will work. qp10qp 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's another potential miscue here: Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate. The miscue is: "audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated..." I've advocated removing that whole passage (see below).

• Two Noble Kinsmen and Pericles are listed under both apocrypha and comedies. I would list them under comedies, noting that they were only partly written by Shakespeare. The number of scholars who would dispute that description is too few to justify a listing under apocrypha as well, in my opinion. In any case, the double listing looks confusing, in my opinion. Whatever the decision, Henry VIII needs to be listed comparably (with a note that it was partly written by Shakespeare).

 Done Wrad 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is a tradition that Shakespeare also continued to act in various parts of his plays, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V.

"There is a tradition" seems to me too bald. If the tradition has no basis in fact, that should be stated, as it was for the "lost years" traditions; if there is any evidence or notable scholarly theory, for example, for Shakespeare playing the ghost (which I doubt), then it should be noted. Fact and fiction, and fact and tradition, should be scrupulously separated when it comes to Shakespeare's biography, and even traditions should be sourced.  Done Wrad 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The same applies to "Supposedly, Shakespeare died on his birthday, if the tradition that he was born on April 23 is correct."

• • I'm tempted to just delete this line. Wrad 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• By 1596 Shakespeare had moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate...He appears to have moved across the River Thames to Southwark sometime around 1599. By 1604, he had moved north of the river, lodging just north of St Paul's Cathedral with a Huguenot family named Mountjoy.

I think this all needs to be made clearer. Not everyone knows which side of the river was which. The first sentence here assumes that Shakespeare had lived somewhere else in London before he moved to Bishopsgate, but I can find no mention that in the article, so it lacks an antecedent.

• He was married to Anne Hathaway until his death and was survived by her and their two daughters, Susanna and Judith. Although Susanna married Dr John Hall, there are no direct descendants of Shakespeare alive today.

This seems odd. Why mention Susanna's marriage and not Judith's? And why not mention their children, if we are talking about descendants? I believe Judith's children died very young (including one called Shakespeare Quiney) and Susanna's daughter Elizabeth Hall in about 1670. I'm not saying this information is actually needed, but the sentence should be logical and consistent, I think.

• • Sounds good. Do you have a source for that I could use? Wrad 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For death of Judith's children, Schoenbaum, 296; for death of Elizabeth Hall in 1670 and extinction of Shakespeare's line, Schoenbaum, 319. 1988 edition. ISBN 0195051610.

 DoneI added this. Any idea who Judith married? Wrad 03:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Quiney. qp10qp 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done Wrad 04:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• There's considerable analysis of the different versions of King Lear, for some reason. I suspect there's too much for this general page; perhaps that could be covered in a sentence or two, with one or two added about Macbeth, just as problematic a text, though in different ways (missing scenes, added Hecate scenes, corruption).

• In a Shakesperean sonnet, poets often divide its 14 lines into 3 quatrains, followed by a closing couplet.

The text has jumped from Shakespeare's sonnets written by Shakespeare to Shakespearian sonnets written by others. A transition and explanation is needed, I think; better still, this stray little paragraph could be cut, with no loss, in my opinion, to the article.

 Done I didn't cut it, since I thought the fact that a poetic form is named after him is very notable, but I changed it and worked it into the prose a little better. Hopefully it doesn't stick out so bad now. Wrad 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• In "Other poems", should it be noted that Shakespeare wrote Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece at times when the theatres were closed owing to plague?

• • Really? Wow. I had no idea. What's the source? Also, do you have any other facts like that up your sleeve I could add? Wrad 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The situation is fully explained on pages 9 and 10 of Roland Mushat Frye, Shakespeare, Routledge, 2005. ISBN 0415352894. The theatres were shut for almost two years in 1593 and 1594 because of plague. qp10qp 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The citation isn't working right, the ISBN turns up empty. Wrad 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: ISBN search qp10qp 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done Wrad 04:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time." Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate.

To me, this sounds weak. I would cut it and replace it with a similar point made in a less generalised way. The reference does not read like a proper academic reference (2005, Elizabethan Period (1558–1603), from ProQuest Period Pages, ProQuest). There's so much on Elizabethan drama that it is possible to make the same point with reference to a print source with a named author.

• • This was debated on the talk page, and I hesitate to change it. Apparently, the reference is more reliable than it looks, but I'll let someone closer to the issue decide. Wrad 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't even know how to find this source - how do you find it? Google didn't do me much good. Can we not link to it so that the rest of us can judge for ourselves? Awadewit | talk 04:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; he retired at the height of the Jacobean period, not long before the start of the Thirty Years' War.

Here again, this is generalised and imprecise, in my opinion. What does "dramatic apprenticeship" mean? How do we know he didn't serve his dramatic apprenticeship during the lost years? If it is meant that he wrote his first known plays in the years after the Spanish Armada, then perhaps the article could say just that. However, I would suggest cutting this paragraph as far as the point where style is at last mentioned, since the section is supposed to be about style, not history. Also because there are other things wrong, it seems to me: the word "height" is problematic applied to both the Elizabethan and the Jacobean period here—for a different reason in each case. It's true that the Elizabethan literary flowering was at its height in the last decade and a half of the reign, but, despite the defeat of the Armada, that is not true of the political situation itself: it was during this period that discontent infected the country and criticisms of and challenges to Elizabeth's policies arose: far from being at her height, she was past her sell-by date. In the case of the Jacobean period, it is true that the reign enjoyed both its greatest literary flowering and most of its political successes during its first ten years; but it seems to me questionable, from a semantic point of view, whether a reign can reach its height at its beginning. Finally, I don't see what the Thirty Years' War has to do with anything in this context, since James I kept out of it till his dying day (1625).

•  Done Style: when we do finally get to questions of style in the "Style" section, the treatment seems to me rather tangential and superfical. The fact that Shakespeare used soliloquies, couplets, prose and verse in his plays was a question of form rather than style. And I wouldn't say that his originality lies in using those forms, which were common to all the playwrights of the time. A mere one-sentence paragraph at the end of this section at last addresses style itself by talking of word play and rhetoric, though without developing the point. However, writing a short section on Shakespeare's style is a stiff challenge, I admit.
  • Huh, weird, only reason we added it was because a previous reviewer wanted it. I'm not sure what to do, here. Wrad 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having a style section; it's what goes in it. qp10qp 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, we already had the section, someone wanted soliloquies and stuff in it. Wrad 05:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the section says that he used soliloquies and merely describes what they are. But it's the style of the soliloquies that counts. I'm not informed on this matter, but we can be sure that Shakespeare, being a genius, developed soliloquies in original ways; how he did that would reflect his style. I've seen Marlowe and I've seen Shakespeare, and it is very clear that Shakespeare brought the soliloquy on a long way from Marlowe's use of it.qp10qp 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• He and other dramatists at the time used this form of blank verse for a lot of the dialogue between characters in order to elevate drama to new poetic heights.

Shakespeare and his contemporaries certainly elevated drama to new poetic heights, but was it anything to do with writing dialogue in blank verse? I've just checked the pre-Shakespearian plays Arden of Faversham and Gammer Gurton's Needle, and, as I thought, they used iambic pentameters and verse dialogue too.

• The plays of Shakespeare were also dismissed as rubbish by Leo Tolstoy.

This struck me as a rather crude sentence, and since it is referenced to Orwell's essay Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool, I looked it up. What Orwell actually says is: "As Tolstoy justly complains, much rubbish has been written about Shakespeare as a philosopher, as a psychologist, as a ‘great moral teacher’, and what-not." Rather different. I would therefore remove "as rubbish" from the sentence, because certainly Tolstoy did dismiss Shakespeare in other terms, if not that one.

 Done Wrad 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• While none of this evidence proves Shakespeare's own Catholic sympathies, one historian, Clare Asquith, has claimed that those sympathies are detectable in his writing. Stephen Greenblatt makes the case that the "equivocator" arriving at the gate of hell in the Porter's speech in Macbeth refers to the Jesuit Father Henry Garnet after his execution in 1606.

 Done I'm not quite sure how the two sentences above hold together. One would expect an example of Asquith's theory to follow, not a reference to the porter's scene, which in its ridicule of equivocation would suggest the exact opposite of Catholic sympathies ("Here's a farmer that hanged himself on the expectation of plenty...Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven"). Certainly Greenblatt is right in identifying this equivocator with Garnet (mind you, nothing original in that reading); but we need an example from Asquith (I wouldn't really call her a historian) against which to juxtapose it, and a reference to the book in which she says it (Shadowplay). qp10qp 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree, but am not familiar with the theories discussed. Can anyone fix this? Wrad 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I just took out the second sentence (which mentions Garnet). If people want to the detail on all of that, they can go to the main article. Is this ok with people?--Alabamaboy 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Because the best solution would be to contrast the referenced view that Shakespeare was a Catholic with the contrasting referenced view, using a linking sentence. I'll have a poke round to see if I can find something: it needn't take up much space in the article. qp10qp 14:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was able to find parts of Asquith's book on Amazon Search Inside, so I have added a short quote from her in a note and have referenced the page. I have removed the description of her as a "historian": she's a diplomat's wife with a pet theory, and the book is cringe-makingly dreadful, in my opinion (for example, she says that Titania's court is Catholic and that Puck is a coded representation of Sir Robert Cecil). qp10qp 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rmky87

 Done Why do I see naked URLs in the footnotes?--Rmky87 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We are in the process of fixing citations. You can help if you like. Wrad 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I couldn't tell if anyone else saw that.--Rmky87 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rhapta

This article attracted a flurry of interest when it appeared on the Main Page as part of DYK, & saw a number of improvements -- but since then, it has sat almost untouched. As it now stands, does the article competently cover the topic? Are there any points that obviously need be added? Or has it remained stable for so long because it does a competent job? -- llywrch 03:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems too short, given a biblography that long. Also, it would be a good idea to make it clear what parts of the article are coming from what sources. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The cinnamon stick image doesnt seem very relevant to the article, at least you could explain in the caption that they were traded there Astrokey44 14:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuan (surname)

I had some trouble writing this article to make it understandable to a general reader. Because there is extensive discussion of Chinese texts, regions and historical periods, I'm afraid someone without the necessary background knowledge won't be able to follow it. Without any other featured articles in the area to emulate, I could use advice on any aspect. Any suggestions would also be much appreciated.

Since articles on Chinese surnames (see for example Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Owyang) and surnames in general (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames) were subject of some controversy a while ago, I think they need to conform to a high scholarly standard. Hopefully this article can be a model for other articles on Chinese surnames. Eventually I'd like to get this article to featured article standard. Yu Ninjie 21:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• excellent article! a Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese surnames needs to be started to cover all the major Chinese surnames in as much detail as you have done here. A couple minor suggestions: It is not immediately clear in the lead section whether we are discussing Yuan surnames in general (as would be implied from an English-centric pov) or just the most common Yuan surname in Chinese. It would be helpful to add explanations of transliterated names and phrases (e.g. "Qianfu lun" should be followed by a clause explaining what "Qianfu lun" is because someone with no knowledge of Chinese cannot be sure whether this "Qianfu lun" is a person or book, or for that matter, what kind of book). Redundancy is not a problem here as this article is already very dense. A literal translation of the book titles used in the references will be helpful. --Jiang 10:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• The introduction was always a big problem. I've gone and simplified it somewhat, leaving the explanation about other surnames in the footnotes. The first two sentences still seem a bit awkward though. What do you think? Your advice about translating book titles was most useful. Since around half of the sources are standard histories or mainstream historical texts, I've just used the commonly accepted translations of their titles. --Yeu Ninje 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• The other Yuan surnames are deemed "statiscally insignificant". But how "statiscally insignificant"? Where should the cutoff be where we have to considering giving any of these surnames articles? Does the information exist in published form to write lengthy articles on these other surnames? --Jiang 07:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's a fair enough objection. I went and did a search on google and found a few more surnames pronounced "yuan". Some of them are so obscure that I wouldn't think there'd be more than a few hundred people in the world who held them. According Yuan Yida's 中国姓氏, none of them make the top 100. This is basically what I meant by "statistically insignificant", but that is not to say that they don't have interesting histories. Of the 10 that's there, 2 were well known enough to be documented by Ouyang Xiu in Xin Tang shu (he recorded 103 surnames in total). Some of the more minor "Yuans" no doubt are verifiable through an obscure reference in an early dictionary or something. I'd say that only 元, and possibly 源 are worth mentioning in any detail (both have produced notable historical figures) because the others are just too remote. It seems a bit artificial though, to include them with 袁 since they don't have anything to do with each other other than a common pronunciation. But I guess we have to work with Western concepts here on English Wikipedia. This is what I propose: if there is one surname which is clearly much more populous (i.e. 20+ times more populous than another), then that one should take the lead, with the others as supplementary to the main topic (maybe included in notes or in a subtopic). This would apply to the Yuan (surname) article. Yeu Ninje 09:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd hate to see a page be cluttered up simply because the English written language lacks the complexity of Chinese characters. If they're a different surname, then I think they belong on a different page. They're not relevant, not even as a supplementary section. It would seem odd to have the lead section and most of the article discuss one surname and then have an extra section discussing another surname that is unrelated to the lead. There's no precedent for this, but how about using characters in the title for less common variations, e.g. Yuan (元), and adding a dablink at the top? I can't think of a better way to differentiate these in English. --Jiang 09:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be good to have a different surname on each page but the idea of using characters in titles seems very problematic. I don't think the English Wikipedia's ever had anything other than characters from a Latin alphabet in article titles. I tend to think that there are some irreconciable differences between the Chinese and English languages and accept that the solution will have to be a bit messy. But I personally can't support Chinese characters in titles. Even Chinese characters in titles of sections (for example in Li (surname)) look very repugnant to me. Yeu Ninje 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Discussion has been carried over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese surnames. Please continue there. --Jiang 12:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl

I'm not trying to stack Peer Review with Gwen's voice, but I think that this article near featured states. It has also been through peer review before. I'd like suggestions on how to inprove it. Any comments? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A few points raised during FAC, rounds one and two, include the following:

• no significant analysis of the actual music—at present, a reader can't even tell if the song has an instrumental bridge;

New music section, but brief as of now. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle

• speculation not supported by sources, or at least writing that sounds like original research, e.g., the lyrics "that could seem to be directed at [Courtney] Love" and the Highlander reference;

Commented out pending further research. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle

The Highlander reference is probably speculation, and probably incorrect; if Gwen meant it as a nod she'd probably get the quote right, which is consistently "There can be only one," in the movie, not "There can only be one." If the material about Courtney Love (both her statement about Gwen and Gwen's more vague statement) can be properly referenced I think it would add to the article, though. - Dharmabum420 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• claims that the song is known for its use of a particular expletive, but doesn't provide a source;

Replaced with neutral statements giving the number of times the word is used. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle

• generally clunky and non-compelling prose (passive voice where such is not necessary, etc.).

Some changes currently. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle

The first paragraph is clunky because every sentence except the first starts with "The". -- Mpt 13:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The models to follow for the first point seem to be "Layla" and "A Hard Day's Night". It may be difficult to find source material of that caliber for this particular song; in fact, good sources might not exist on the Web. My own opinion (one I think others share) is that this is not an excuse to slack off and stop researching. The best articles incorporate material which the rest of the Internet could not provide. Anville 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The article does not require another peer review! It is one of the best on Wikipedia! --Winnermario 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Apple Macintosh

This article has been summited for peer review multiple times.

• First Submission
• This article is a FAC; see nomination here

---

After all of that, and a failed FA nomination (view page) , and with WikiProject Macintosh now on the case, we still cannot get this to FA! Please, help! --HereToHelp (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• We still need to get the article under 40k in size, otherwise this will be highlighted and used as an objection on FAC again. I also think the hardware section is too technical, and may not be understood by someone who is not familiar with computers and the Macintosh. It is very close, it just needs a bit of work in the Hardware section, I think, and chopping down some information to get it under 40k. — Wackymacs 09:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• As for trimming, it's the history section that needs it, it's way too long. That detail should be moved to a new subarticle on the history of the mac if needed, or to apple's history page. Half that section's current length would be about right. 2) The last paragraph of the history section is problematic from a POV standpoint. The halo effect is disputed and there are other effects anyway. The Big Mac (System X) at VTU probably had an effect, among others. So find some sources to cite and say, X says Y instead of having Wikipedia make the claim, and note common dissent. The last sentence in the paragraph is poorly worded too. There are some other POV statements sprinkled throughout that could benefit from citing a source or just being written more neutrally in some cases. - Taxman ^Talk 16:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

I rewrote the introduction and the entire band history section to make them more comprehensive. I think this may eventually be a good Featured Article candidate but right now it's quite long, and I'd like to be sure that it's not filled with the sort of fancruft that music articles often have; I've tried to avoid writing that way but I'd like help pulling out anything that I may have unconsciously slipped in :) --keepsleeping say what 16:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the images need license information. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Added. --keepsleeping say what 01:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Content is good. The introduction kind of seems like a staggered mix of the two points of view (parents etc. and fans etc.) instead of a fluid, neutral combination of the two, so I think it could be written a little better, but there's nothing really wrong with it. History is written very well, if a bit long. Reads like a small biography and doesn't get too crufty. I think a little blurb about the drama with Reznor deserves a mention, right about where he drops Nothing for Interscope. There's really no explanation given as to why he changed labels, making it seem like it's an insignificant part of his story.  freshgavin TALK   02:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I get what you're saying. By that point in the article, I was concerned about its length, so I kind of glossed over recent history in favor of a comprehensive history of the band at its peak. If you (or anyone else) want to go through it with a new pair of eyes and start trimming the fat, I'd appreciate it. --keepsleeping say what 16:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• A few minor points. First, the images are a bit big (as one whose dial-up connection is sometimes a bit sluggish, they make the page load rather slowly); could they be thumbed rather than framed? Secondly, is the "tour history" section useful? Without any other information, it doesn't convey very much. Thirdly, is there another band infobox that you could use? The current text warning about the TfD is a bit ugly (and it'll be worse if the template is in fact deleted). Fourthly, I'm not well up on this, but would a featured article need some samples? In general, though, the article looks fine. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • The images were supposed to have been thumbnails. Apparently they were both thumbed and framed — a syntax error on my part. I've elected to expand the tour history rather than delete it outright, but now the article is even longer; that's a separate concern, though, and I may eventually fork off a Discography of Marilyn Manson article. As for the band infobox, the debate over its TfD seems to be leaning quite sharply toward "keep", so I'm going to leave it in place unless that changes. --keepsleeping say what 20:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The images look much better now. I'm still unsure about the usefulness of the Tour section. The band have toured extensively — I'm a bit worried that the detail doesn't add anything and looks rather fancrufty.

Am I wrong about the samples? I seem to remember that being an issue at another FA nomination (which failed). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • You're right about the samples: the FAs that are about bands all seem to have them. I suppose I ought to make some, then. --keepsleeping say what 21:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry for not commenting sooner. I think it's a very good article, well-written and free from POV. This is more than can be said about many articles on contemporary musicians, many of which are fangushy and swamped with excessive details about the sales and chart performance of their records. The description pages for the images will need source and copyright holder information, as well as fair use rationale. Check out the images at the Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) article if you are unsure about the last part. It may be wise to send an email to the group's official website asking them to release an image of them under a free license (see Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a few sample letters). Also, the discography and videography section could be split off into a Marilyn Manson discography and videography article, and the tour dates could be moved into a Marilyn Manson concert tours list (though the latter may be WP:AFD'd). A few more quotes from critics about their work wouldn't go amiss either. On an unrelated note, maybe you could start a Marilyn Manson wiki at Wikicities. Extraordinary Machine 19:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good read. I'd like it to be more obvious to the reader that they can get to an entirely seperate article about Marilyn Manson (person). I always skip listy things in articles, so it might be good to mention in the article's lead what Manson's real name is, since you begin the History section with it. This needs a reference note: "despite evidence that both Harris and Klebold were not fans of the band" I'd get rid of the inline links in the "on the internet" section if you want to get this through WP:FA. I don't know what to think about the table-formatted discography, but it doesn't follow the "standard appendices" section of the WP:MOS, which is likely to be another FA problem. I agree with User:Mel Etitis about the tour listings as well. I'd rather see a paragraph or two of actual text if there is something to be said about the tours than a list of every single one. Furthermore, if the band is going to tour again, it will require indefinite upkeep. All that said, it's a pleasure to see that Wikipedia's article on Marilyn Manson is this good. Jkelly 07:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Tour history is now out, since the tours are already discussed in the history section. Inline links are gone; they're all compiled in one endnote. As far as the discography tables, there's no offical format for Wikipedia:Filmographies and Discographies so I used the same format seen in Featured Articles Nirvana (band) and Dream Theater. --keepsleeping say what 16:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

2005 Ashes series

In what is perhaps the closest Ashes series in this storied rivalry between England and Australia, the former won the Ashes again for the first time in 18 years. Surely it should try for an FA nod, but we need help, and a review. Non-cricket fans can help too... --J L C Leung 11:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is very long. Looks good. But it only has two references, this is very poor for such a long article. More pictures would be nice. Good work.— Wackymacs 14:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, its long and the information has to be summarised. Rather than having specific instances of what happened on each day, just summarise how each day went for the teams. The subheadings need to be removed. Those inline references should be collected at the bottom by using the footnote style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be good to have a brief summary of what happened in the subject line rather than just "Day one" etc. Astrokey44 13:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

South India

I came across this page today while looking for information on Diwali and I'm very impressed. In my opinion it's already featured-article material, but it's good to get some other people's feedback first. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• It is good, yes. Some parts may be overstated and therefore subtly POV. For instance, "The south Indian people have a world view which is organic and celebrates the generative ethos of the natural world." Well, there are Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Sikhs in South India. It's probably overstated to ascribe a single worldveiw to all people in the region. And again "The South Indian world view is essentially, the celebration of the eternal universe through the celebration of the beauty of the body and motherhood." Sounds a bit too simplified. Also, I think the diet part could be expanded upon. I would merge the "South Indian heritage" subsections, since they are very short. The History part should be longer, and perhaps other parts (like info on the 5 states) should be shortened. There are little ways that it could be better organized or standardized: like saying "Main article: whatever" where there is one, instead of "More information on. . .". It's close though. People will also predictably complain that there are no references. So find places that make a verifiable statement of fact (e.g. "the most species-abundant ecoregion of the Indian peninsula" or "Some of the main crops cultivated in South India include. . .") and cite specific sources. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Very well done with nice images, Two of the images in the "Tamil Nadu" section dont seem to be working though. Havent got rid of them in case its just my computer Astrokey44 12:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, two images were deleted because they lacked source information. I've removed the links to them. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• For your references (notwithstanding the bibliography), you should use the style in the FA Angkor Wat or the FAC Mandan as a good model and example. You should import that article's style of inline citation and standardized listing of references. Also, references should be categorized by type (book, online news, documents, etc.). Saravask 10:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Harrow School

This article is a featured article on the Schools Portal and could do with a few style checks by more experienced wikipedians than I so that it can conform to some of the harder to define qualities of a featured article. As a current pupil at Harrow School I personally cannot think of much more to add and some of my comments may by their nature be biased. Any help or critiscm would be appreciated. It would be great if this was featured as there are few featured education articles and Harrow is such and interesting school especially to those who have never before really known about the UK private education system. (n.b. this is a [sort-of] self-nomination) --Oli 22:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the editing people have been doing to the Harrow article (especiall Chriscf)- its been really helpful. Keep up the good work. Can I also add that it would be useful if editors who don't know much about this topic have a read and give their impressions on the dicussion page, in particular style, how interesting it was and what needs doing for it to be a featured article. --Oli 18:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A great article, and I was happy to feature it on the Schools Portal. I'm wondering why there isn't much on the history of what is obviously a very famous school, as this seems to all be covered in the opening lead paragraph and should be fleshed out more. I'd also like to see short phrases to outline the importance of the Notable Harrovians (eg. 13th Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) so people don't necessarily need to read their articles. Obviously, the images are a problem. The pics of the school are copyrighted, and doen't have good usage rationales. I'd suggest that you Oli are a student at the school and should easily be able to get your hands on a digital camera and take some good shots of the campus. I'll add more comments if I think of them, but you're on the right track. Harro5 00:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will do some investigation in the school archives on the history and will take some photos of my own to upload.--Oli 11:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title I

My goal is to summarise each of the Titles of the PATRIOT Act. As the USA PATRIOT Act currently stands, it doesn't really give details of what is covered by the law. I hope to create summaries of each of the ten titles and then we can work back with summaries in the main article. Yes, topsy turvy I know but necessary. My comment on Talk:USA PATRIOT Act stands. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Seems like a very good start, and will be a valuable addition to wikipedia. I've gone through it and done some copyedits/rewrites, trying to simplify and tighten the language without losing any of the essentials. Brandon39 17:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good so far. The comments I can offer are not really limited to this article, but to the entire series in general. First of all, there are some sections in the USA PATRIOT Act that are contentious to some people. I am not up on what all of those sections are (I do know there's one I disagree with about searches of library records, though I think it was weakened recently). In any case, though, I think any contentious section should have a good bit on the media coverage surrounding it. I don't see that in this article, but maybe there are no contentious sections yet. The other thing I'd say is not really an article comment per se, but I think it would be helpful to have some sort of navigation box for all of these by the time you are done. --Jacqui ^★ 04:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Maybe an email to the EFF or the ACLU may be in order for more material? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Northwest Territories capitals

Former Featured List Candidate nomination failed do to lack of interest, with no oppose votes. It was suggested that this article is not much of a list by one person, but could be improved to a real feature standard article by another. Since I created researched and for the most part, with a little help here and there got this article to where it is, i am kinda out of ideas. So I yield the floor. --Cloveious 00:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You should rename it ot "Capitals of the Nortwest Territories" or "Northwest Territories Capitals". It's not really a list. Other than that I can't really think of any improvements; it's a good article. Luigizanasi 03:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, I will rename the article at the conclusion of the peer review process --Cloveious 06:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The writing is concise but doesn't flow well at points. Consider expanding the intro to discuss what the capital means to the Northwest Territories (government functions it performed). Try re-orienting the page so that it conveys more of a list format like this List of Northwest Territories capitals/temp. Add an image of Ottawa and Fort Smith for consistency. --maclean25 07:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting layout. I could not find what I thought was a relevant image for Ottawa or Fort Smith, Ideally I want a picture of the building on Sparks street where the Northwest Territories assembly sat, but i'm not sure if the current office on sparks street is where the assembly was. Let me dig around, of course if anyone in Ottawa could go snap a picture of the current building for the NWT office in Ottawa that would work for me. For Fort Smith I'm not sure what to show but let me dig around. Also if anyone has a public domain image of the current Northwest Territories legislature building I would gladly change out the photo. --Cloveious 22:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I expanded the opening paragraph, to try and convey meaning to what a capital means to the Northwest Territories. --Cloveious 06:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Being the capital city would mean there would be a migration of 'skilled' labour (ie. bureaucrats) to the city to run government programs. What programs were run from the capital? What was the capital city's relationship with the rest of the Territories? Did the capital's location have any effects on the rest of the Territories (ie. was the goverment's attention focused on certain parts of the Territories, meaning other places were ignored)? --maclean25 05:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Fort Smith picture! I will see what I can come up with on those questions --Cloveious 08:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sleepy Lagoon Murder

Hi all. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and would like your advice on how to improve this article. Please feel free to make critical comments, or edits, I would appreciate the input. I also have two specific questions -- (1) I am unsure about how to handle images, have never uploaded any, and wonder what is currently public domain; and (2) is it better to have subsections, or not? I originally put them in, but I took them out today. Thanks in advance. Joaquin Murietta 06:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

1) have a look at WP:Images and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy, 2) I think it looks OK without subsections as it's a fairly short article. --bodnotbod 15:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Joaquin Murietta 16:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Guinness

This is a great article on that most Irish of drinks. Any ideas for improvement? Seabhcán 09:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• There's some good stuff, there, but it could do with some possible additions:
  • How to pour could do with a diagram
  • Difference between Irish & British Guinness (if there is any - I know this is a topic of dispute)
  • More on the bottled versions, and why they have a market in West Africa & the Caribbean
  • Television advertising & slogans - "Good Things Come To Those Who Wait", "Not Everything in Black & White makes Sense"; several Guinness ads have won awards. A small example image of Guinness advertising (if it can be covered by fair use) would also be nice.

• Also:
  • Inline external links should be proper references.
  • Serving temperature should mention the Extra Cold variety & when it was introduced.
  • Varieties list could do with being organised by type (draught, bottled, export) rather than a single list. In fact, it might be better as a table.
  • Mentions the use of sorghum in Nigeria twice, separately.
  • I'm not sure if all the information about the harp is relevant specifically to this article. Qwghlm 10:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea about the "How to pour" diagram. Adding the ads to wikipedia might be legally sticky, but I'm not sure. Thanks Seabhcán 10:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not clear if the items listed in further reading were actually consulted to write this article- references should be clearly identifiable for the reader. Html links should be converted to inlines, or at least cited in full so they cane be identified if a reference website goes down. I assume since this article is both about the company and the product that there should be some more detail on corporate stuff, profits, number of employees, etc; where brewing is done around the world. How licening the name Guiness works seems to be an important omission since in most countries Guiness is produced under licence by local breweries, how much does it cost a brewery to get a licence to make it, how is quailty controlled and so on. An old advertising poster if discussed in the context of the article could be pictured in the article under fair use. The lead could use some expansion to summarise the content of the article.--nixie 01:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just me but I was just thinking that it would make more sense if this article referred to the company entity Guinness Breweries and most of this information was moved to Guinness Beer, or something like that. This article contains mostly information about the beer (and the culture? around it) and a little bit of information about the company itself and it's workings, but I think that they should be treated separately. There is definitely not enough about the company itself (a standard company profile style page would be appropriate) and it's history, not to mention Arthur Guinness himself.  freshgavin TALK   02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that the word "Guinness" unqualified usually refers to the drink, rather than the brewery, and the phrase "Guinness Beer" is awkward and rarely used, I would recommend having the article Guinness be about the drink, and hive off the details of the brewery to Arthur Guinness Son & Co. instead. Qwghlm 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that Arthur Guinness Son & Co. is much more clunky than Guinness Beer or Guinness Breweries, but anyways, either a disambiguation page, or links at the top of the Guinness page and a couple of redirects here and there would suffice.  freshgavin TALK   23:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's a good enough treatment, but it does have some holes:
  • Inline citations. You have some, but the following points should probably be footnoted so the reader knows where the information came from:
    • The fact that some drinkers consider Guinness a "meal in a glass" or "liquid bread" (without a citation, this reads like original research).
    • The fact that the temperature at which Guinness should be served is disputed (again, original research without a citation).
    • The direct quote from the advertising campaign needs to include an inline citation to one of those adverts. (i.e., "It takes 119.5 seconds to pour the perfect pint.")
    • ". . . many American bars seem to ignore the requisite 'slow pour'." Source, so doesn't come off as original research.
    • "Another myth is that Guinness is brewed using water from the River Liffey . . . . " Source, so doesn't come off as original research.
    • "Guinness fans can visit the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin, which has been described as Disneyland for beer . . . ." Where has it been described as such? Source it. (Also, watch the antecedent. Is Dublin a Disneyland for beers, or is the Guinness Storehouse?)
  • I agree that the article needs to discuss the corporation that is Guinness more. Profits, corporate history, advertising campaigns and how they differ in various parts of the world. West Africa is a huge market for Guinness, and the current article barely covers this. Cameroon in particular (according to unsubstantiated rumors I heard while there) is the third largest Guinness consumer per capita after Ireland and the U.S. They use Michael Power in their advertising, with slogans like "Guinness brings out the Power in you!"
  • Likewise, serving Guinness is different in Africa. Lack of refrigeration means that Guinness is often served room temperature. It's pretty much only available bottled, as well. (This is all original research by yours truly, but you should try to dig up sources on Guinness in different markets.)
  • The discussion of the River Liffey myth is out of place. It comes under the header "pouring and serving", but it has nothing to do with either of those.
  • I'm pretty sure Malta is available in other markets than just West Africa. One of my old roommates was Puerto Rican, and his family loved the stuff and drank it in Louisiana. —BrianSmithson 16:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• I just wrote Michael Power (Guinness character). The sources there would be good for the main Guinness article, as well. —BrianSmithson 19:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Delrina

Self-nomination. Name of the firm that was best known for producing WinFax software, prior to it being bought out by Symantec ten years ago this month. An influential Canadian software company with a lot of interesting history. Have built this article to what I think is approaching Feature Article quality, but would like it peer reviewed.

Would like to know:

• what is it missing?
• does anybody care about the firms financials? Would that be useful info to throw in?
• does a non-encyclopedic POV intrude in terms of tone or voice?
• what would make it better?

Also, go easy on the requests for additional images -- after 10 years it is surprisingly hard to come up with relevant box shots/screenshots, etc. Captmondo 15:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

just one thing, the red links in the opening paragraph dont look great Astrokey44 14:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that -- will plug those gaps as soon as I am able to. Captmondo 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Now done. Captmondo 15:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a few copy edits to this article, & hope that made the text flow more smoothly. I didn't think that the tone of voice in the present version intruded at all. Wikipedia must be having some problems because I couldn't view some of the images,for example that "About" screen capture, but if it does show the pictures of the programmers, then it would be quite a prize: an old easter egg!

As an OT personal note, that does explain something about one of my first jobs in the computer industry, as a phone tech. At the time I supported PC Tools (which had been bought by Symantec & was effectively EOLed); next to our group were the 2 guys who supported WinFax LITE (also EOLed). This article shows that all of us were working under a contract Corporate Software (which later became Stream) with Symantec. -- llywrch 17:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, but there are too many red links throughout the article, are the external links also references?, the company infobox could be a possible thing to add (see an example of the company infobox in good use on Microsoft or IBM) Looking good so far, keep it up. — Wackymacs 10:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the company infobox suggestion -- duly added (though I note there is little support in this format for companies which no longer exist). Will start working on the remaining dead links. And yes, many of the external links are also references -- is that a problem? Captmondo 15:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. I asked about the references because the title of that section was wrong. I have changed it to 'External links and References'. The company infobox looks good. Once the red links are gone, this might just qualify to become a featured article, but I think too many sentences are too short. — Wackymacs 15:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Have spent the necessary work "plugging the holes" so to speak with many of the formerly dead links from the Delrina main article page, as suggested. This includes links to the company's former principles, such as Bert Amato, Mark Skapinker, Tony Davis and Dennis Bennie; descriptive links (and screenshots!) of some of the products not already covered off, like Cyberjack, TalkWorks and WinComm. There's a few more to go, but they will be tackled shortly. Will beef up the main Delrina article with additional info tomorrow (or soon-ish at any rate) in the hope that I can overcome the "short sentence" problem you refer to -- which I assume means that the article is a bit too thin on detail at times (right?).

Texas State Highway 195

I'm new to Wikipedia and I was wondering how my article on Highway 195 could be improved or otherwise cleaned up. I was also wondering if there was a project regarding Texas state highways out there. Thank you for your consideration. Reav67 07:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways does not have a child project dealing with Texas, though there is nothing to stop you from setting one up and seeing how much interest there is. Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas is a related project. Although the article itself is still relatively small (in fact Peer review is generally used to look at articles a lot bigger) it could already benefit with being split up into sections such as "Introduction", "History" and "Current construction". Good luck with the page and welcome to Wikipedia. CheekyMonkey 14:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, write the article so that somebody outside of Texas or the US can understand and follow it. A map of the road, showing where Killeen, Georgetown, and the other roads you mention are and their relationship to one another will help orient the reader. When was the highway originally constructed? When was it originally designated a highway? Why was it built (for what purpose)? Has its dominant purpose changed over time? Are there any references to this "Highway of Death" designation or the claim that 21 died on it? There are no traffic counts? What about technical details? How wide is the right-of-way (ie. easement)? What is the highway made of? and what is it patched with? Try contacting your department of transportation or whatever dept builds the highways in Texas for info. --maclean25 20:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

manifold

This is an important concept in mathematics with many incarnations. It allows for a simple geometric interpretation of gluing paper together. It has been attempted to make this article accessible to non-mathematicians and reserve the technical details mostly for specific incarnations such as differentiable manifold and topological manifold. Therefore I would be very interested in finding out whether we succeeded in this at all. All other comments are also welcome of course. --MarSch 11:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Cdc

Wow, very well done. I really appreciate the work done to make this comprehensible to non-math people (like me). A few comments, from someone who had absolutely no idea what a manifold was before reading the article:

1. Looking only at the intro paragraphs: Manifold and Surface are be defined in terms of each other; a manifold is a generalized surface, and a surface is a 2-d manifold. Is there a way to describe one or both in some other terms, so I can get a clear picture of what's going on from the first paragraphs?

   I've rewritten the intro to clear this up. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

2. I feel like there's some specific usage of the term simple here, but I'm not sure. Things can be simple in many ways; easy to understand, having few parts, etc. Since simplicity seems to be an important attribute of manifolds, would it help to define more specifically what the term means here?

   I've rewritten the intro to clear this up. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

3. I don't usually use "you" and "we" when writing Wikipedia articles - it sounds somehow too informal to me. I'm aware that mathematics has its own writing style, so maybe it's okay here, but it's something to consider.

   I will try to remove this writing style. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

4. I didn't get why the Hausdorff assumption is important enough for this general article - needs more context, maybe?

   it is not important and way too technical and I've moved it to the more specialized topological manifold.--MarSch 10:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Are there any applications or implications of this that can be briefly mentioned? Are these used in engineering or modeling or anything?

   I've rewritten the intro to clear this up. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a nice piece of work! CDC (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony1

• I like this a lot, but it needs a few changes.
  • The lead is unsatisfactory. First sentence too technical—there's info further down that is more accessible to non-specialists, so why not present an opening definition that will be more widely comprehensible? Remove 'technically'? 'Much of the terminology is inspired'—insert 'connected with manifolds' after 'terminology'? 'In the remainder of this article we will give'—better as 'The remainder of this article will provide ...'. Three overly short paragraphs. Needs flow and needs to engage your readers.
  • 'A manifold is a space that looks, when examined close up, like'—clumsy word order. Same for 'and is, in this sense, like a'—so check through the whole text for dependent clauses that are embedded in awkward positions.
    • I've rewritten the intro and it avoids this now --MarSch 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 'compared to' for similarities; 'compared with' for differences.
    • fixed --MarSch 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'Such a'—better nowadays as 'This'.
  • One example is given of a specific notion, but there are many more examples. Therefore "This" would not be correct and neither would "These". Perhaps this is alright after all? --MarSch 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Italics for 'Figure 1' etc, is harder to read and unnecessary. Better to reserve that highlighting for technical terms.
  • fixed --MarSch 11:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up the formatting of the reference list. Use all initials rather than first names? Punctuation needs to be consistent. 'provides', not 'gives'; 'in undergraduate ...' Hypy comment for Milnor. 'The 1851 doctoral thesis in which "manifold" (Mannigfaltigkeit) first appears.'—How many 1851 doctorates were there?
  • I kind of like to keep the first names. I've fixed the punctuation and grammar/style errors. What is "Hypy"? There were probably many 1851 doctoral theses, but only one by Milnor. --MarSch 12:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree that "best math book ever written" is hype (though I like the book). The doctoral thesis is by Riemann (not Milnor); those interested in history care about the date and the context (presumably). --KSmrq^T 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• The images are FUNKY!
  • Please explain this more. I'm not even sure wether this means bad or is a compliment, though I'm assuming the first.--MarSch 12:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Dethomas

I agree, this is a well done article. I like the second and third person here, the you's and we's, they help to make the material more accessible to the casual reader.

The pictures rock, but the article needs a hook in the lead paragraph. I left out the wiki formatting and links, but how about something like this for a lead?

"While many people think of x's and y's and long schoolroom afternoons when they think of mathematics, many mathematicians think about shapes and surfaces. But our normal three dimensional space of width, height and depth is often inadequate for reasoning about mathematical problems. Over time, a variety of ideas have converged on the idea of a manifold as a way to help think about surfaces.

An everyday example of this sort of thinking is the common street map, which uses a two dimensional drawing to represent features of the earth, whose surface is three dimensional. Indeed, much of the terminology of manifolds is inspired by map-making or cartography, we speak of an atlas of charts which can be pieced together as a patchwork to describe a manifold." (by User:Dethomas --MarSch 10:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

Kill the opening and start from 'Our normal three-dimensional perception of ....' Tony 11:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Actually we like to say that the surface of the Earth is 2 dimensional. Also manifolds are about much more than only surfaces. I hope you like better the new intro I've created. --MarSch 12:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The current opening paragraph doesn't engage the casual reader, while the second paragraph,if he gets that far, dumps a load of complexity on his head. The first paragraph of the Introduction is a much better answer to the reader's implicit "Why are manifolds important?" question.

Any lead paragraph needs to tell the reader why the material is worth his time. So what are manifolds and why should the reader care? Because they aid in mathematical reasoning about surfaces, shapes and spaces in ways that everyday three space is ill-suited to do. Let's just say so. I'm quite willing to let the "long schoolroom afternoons" go, but most readers need a boost to get over the "eek, math!!" threshold. I think the street map analogy or something of that nature places the reader in familiar territory (as do the words "chart" and "atlas") while opening the door to the depth of detail in the article. But that's just my opinion.

Dethomas 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The closest I can get to a street map example is the example of charts in an atlas of Earth. This is what I wrote about it [6] a while ago which later got ruthlessly cut [7]. This is what I wrote

Imagine you have a few sheets of paper and some glue. The paper is of a special high-quality kind that can be strechted and molded into whatever shape you want and it never tears. You could cover the Earth with just two such sheets. One strechted over the North pole all the way down to Antarctica and another stretched over the South pole all the way up to Greenland, with a bit of glue at the tropics where they overlap. You have just proved that the surface of the Earth is a paper manifold!

Is this like what you have in mind? --MarSch 16:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really, not for a lead or opening paragraph. A good lead convinces the reader, in a few sentences, that the material is worth his time and effort. My sense is you are being too literal (pedantic?) with the "earth's surface is two dimensional" mathematical idea, and hence missing the point. To the the target audience, the non-technical reader, the idea that the earth's surface has height, width, and depth but we commonly represent it with flat, two dimensional chucks of paper called "maps" is understandable and nonthreatening. By analogy, we can proceed from the familiar concept of a street map to the unfamiliar concept of a manifold, draw the reader into the article, and let the Introduction section do it's job.

The current (Oct 29) lead is too big, too wooden and does little to draw the non-technical reader into the body of the article. So I'm still suggesting something like this:

"Our mundane notions of width, height and depth are often inadequate for reasoning about some types of mathematical problems. Over time, a variety of ideas have converged on the idea of a manifold as a way to help mathematicians think about surfaces and related topics. An everyday example of this sort of thinking is the common street map, which uses a two dimensional drawing to represent features of the earth, whose surface is actually three dimensional on the scale of daily experience. Indeed, much of the terminology of manifolds is inspired by map-making or cartography. We speak of an atlas of charts, which can be pieced together as a [[[patchwork]]] to describe a manifold."

You can take this verbatim as the lead, or you can bless it and I'll put it in, or somebody can write a new lead, but if we are trying to reach non-technical readers, we should ditch the current opening paragraphs if favor of something Joe Everyman can read without passing out.

Dethomas 05:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot bless it. Projecting out the height to construct a city map has nothing to do with manifolds. Or perhaps I should say that this is way too trivial to mention in this article. Everybody knows how a chart can represent a piece of the earth. Stating that the surface of the Earth is 3D is unacceptable too. What manifolds are about for example is that even though you cannot make a chart which covers the Earth, you can nevertheless bring a lot of mathematics from the plane over to the sphere.

It would be more helpful if you tried to make specific remarks about the intro, so that I can fix/rewrite things.--MarSch 12:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought I did make specific remarks, and offered specific remedies to what I saw as essential problems. But that's just an opinion.

In any event, an effective lead paragraph draws in the casual reader. If a trivial example does the job, use it. I think it would be more helpful if you remembered the article is aimed at a non-technical audience, that the rigor of a textbook is inappropriate, and give me the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to disrespect of your contempt.

The phrase "you can nevertheless bring a lot of mathematics from the plane over to the sphere' is precisely what you what to tell the reader in a lead, and precisely what my examples have suggested. Read what's in the comment, not what you wish was in the comment.

Or not. Your burden.

Dethomas 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to disrespect you or show contempt. If I have I apologize. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that the lead you suggested is unacceptable for the reasons I stated. I know you have said that the lead should draw in the audience and I agree. I just don't know what will do that for laymen. To me the mention of usability for general relativity is enough to get me interested. On the other hand I consider "you can nevertheless bring a lot of mathematics from the plane over to the sphere" only of superficial interest. So how can a general audience appreciate the content of that statement? Apparently I'm wrong. So thanks for that. I'll incorporate this in the lead ASAP. When I said specific I meant extremely specific. Tell me what you think of each sentence, whether it is clear or interesting. Questions which are unanswered. Thanks in advance. --MarSch 11:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

KSmrq

Good to see this moving forward. A number of goals agreed in the talk archives still could use some work. One lingering concern is the lack of a link, say in Other types and generalizations of manifolds, to the original and still important type, the Riemannian manifold. --KSmrq^T 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Riemannian manifold-link is buried inside differentiable manifold which is linked to. Perhaps the history needs to be augmented? --MarSch 16:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what goals do you think need work?--MarSch 16:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NatusRoma

My comments hardly deserve their own subsubheading, but that seems to be the way. I suggest moving some of the technical details in the introduction into paragraphs in the lead. As a mathematician, I wanted to engage the mathematics more quickly, and the lead doesn't really allow me to do that. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that there should surely be technical details in the first sentence of the article. It's an article about mathematics, so the content should be about mathematics. NatusRoma 05:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We decided to make manifold a general article and to keep it free of technical details. Those are to be addressed in topological manifold and differentiable manifold and their cousins. Perhaps this fact should be stated before the lead. Does this address your concern? Which things from the intro do you think should be moved to the lead? --MarSch 11:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. My concerns are alleviated, then. NatusRoma 19:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Deryck

I personally think, as the first leading paragraph stands for an introduction, it might be better to merge the "introduction" section into up above the TOC. Other things are pretty good. However, I don't know if it can go through in case you put it up for FAC -- not everybody's interested in this difficult mathematical thing. Deryck C. 08:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with merging the lead and intro above the TOC. Unfortunately many contributors feel it is paramount that the lead not be longer than the few sentences it is now :( . Nobody is interested in every article. However if this article is too difficult please specify which bits are, so they can be fixed if possible. --MarSch 14:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Vb

YES. You MUST pu this on FAC! This is basically more interesting than shoe polish! More seriously, some comments:

• "A manifold is a space that looks, locally, like a Euclidean space" is in contradistinction with "There are many different classes of manifolds. The simplest are topological manifolds, which look locally like some Euclidean space. Other classes of manifolds have additional structure. One of the most important kind of manifold is the differentiable manifold, which has a structure that permits the application of calculus." Moreover I don't understand what is meant by "calculus" in this case. Something more explicit would help.
  • Good catch. I've removed the whole first paragraph as it was way too specific and uninteresting for this overview article. --MarSch 14:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The calculus is difficult to catch in one sentence. It means that there is the notion of differentiabillity. Thus given a function from a differentiable manifold to the reals (also a diff. manifold) you can say whether it is differentiable. This is not possible for a topological manifold which is not a diff manifold. Vectorfields are introduced as derivations on differentiable functions. One can embed the function into the dual vector space by the evaluation. Elements of the dual vector space are called 1-forms. There is a notion of integration of 1-forms on diff. manifolds. Perhaps this can be boiled down to something about differentiabillity and integration. --MarSch 14:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes I think you are right. It should be possible to replace calculus by a reference to integration and differentiation. Vb 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Could you link "holistically" to something understandable or (better) explain it more simply. I looked in my English-French dictionary and "holistic" is translated aby "holistique" which doesn't help me.
  • Have linked to holism. The opposite of reductionism. The resulting topology after gluing cannot be traced back to any of the constituent parts. All patches have trivial topology.--MarSch 14:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't the term holism be explained in two words in order to prevent clicking and flow break. Vb 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• I wonder whether Fig.1 or a simplified version of it could not be moved into the lead to make the article more appealing.
  • I think fig1 is exactly where it should be, but perhaps a picture of a few manifolds could be moved to the lead. Perhaps a circle, a 2-sphere and a 2-torus?--MarSch 14:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think a circle divided into 2 arcs like describe in the lead would be good. However I wonder whether a map of the world wouldn't be better?
• The sentence "The top, bottom, left, and right charts demonstrate that the circle is a manifold, but are not the only possible atlas." is clearly not correct. Well I guess.
  • The sentence is correct. Please explain why you would think it is not, so that this statement can be explained a bit more. --MarSch 14:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Charts do not demonstrate anything. The fact that each parts of the circle can be mapped to them demonstrate that the circle is a manifold. Charts are not an atlas. A set of charts is an atlas. Vb 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is unclear to me : "Viewed through the eyes of calculus, the circle transition function T is simply a function between open intervals, so we know what it means for T to be differentiable."
  • The "Viewed through the eyes of calculus" is new and perhaps confusing and I will remove it. What the last part of the sentence is getting at, is that if T had been a function from the topological space we have just glued together (a circle) to itself, then we wouldn't know what it would mean for T to be differentiable. Since it is simply a mapping of the unit interval to itself we do know what it means. --MarSch 14:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• This sentence " If two charts overlap, parts of them represent the same region of the manifold, just as a map of Europe and a map of Asia may both contain Moscow." is very nice but should maybe appear above when the concept of transition atlas was introduced on the motivating example.
  • Actually I think that section is pretty bad and needs a complete rethink. It is quite misleading. I will merge this sentence somewhere --MarSch 14:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• In "Motivational example: the circle", the explicit definition of Xtop and Xright should be given so that the algebra leading to $T(a)=\chi _{\mathrm {right} }\left(\chi _{\mathrm {top} }^{-1}(a)\right)=\chi _{\mathrm {right} }\left(a,{\sqrt {1-a^{2}}}\right)={\sqrt {1-a^{2}}}.$ can be followed more easily.
  • Will do. --MarSch 14:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• In section "Differentiable manifolds", sentence "In particular it is possible to apply "calculus" on a differentiable manifold." should be expanded in order to make the reader understand what is meant by "calculus".
• Isn't there a way to make the sentence "locally looks like the quotients of some simple space (e.g. Euclidean space) by the actions of various finite groups." understandable?
• History should be moved in the front because it is clearly understandable by the layman.
• It is written in the lead "Applications of manifolds to physics include differentiable manifolds which serve as the phase space in classical mechanics and four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifolds which are used to model spacetime in general relativity." Could you make a section "applications" with examples from those topics in order to make the article interesting to a broader audience. In Bernard Schutz' Geometrical Methods of Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, 1980 ISBN 0-521-29887-3, you'll find many applications interesting for physicists.
  • Now this part disappeared. Why? These two applications are clearly the most important ones. Even if they are not the only ones. Vb 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Vb 15:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • You are correct, they are quite important. I really disliked the rotation group example, so I was in remove mode. At the time I also thought it a good idea not to mention any examples in the lead, so at least they wouldn't be arbitrary. And I was trying to keep the lead short, so as not to offend too many people. I guess I failed. Thanks for setting me straight. --MarSch 11:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Céline Dion

Ok. Im trying (again) to get this article to FA status. Can anyone tell me what (if anything) is missing? Any help would be appreciated. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the third lead paragraph should go. But you must mention the Chopard Diamond award somewhere in the lead. I'd argue that award is the most notable achievement of her career. I'll keep reviewing the article now. Harro5 02:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ive removed it, and I also worked the Diamond award into the 2nd paragraph (hopefully it flows). Thanks. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It works well there. I've tweaked the "Image and celebrity status" section, but don't like that name for the heading. Thoughts, anyone And I've removed the caption from the lead pic - this isn't needed, says what the description page does. Harro5 03:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did all those great references come from? =). Seriously though, is there a reason why some of them you put in notes and others you put in references? Why not put all of them in notes and just forget references altogether, except for maybe some of the sources you quote from more than once? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I dont know where they (the references) came from, they just popped up =). I put some sources in references because they contribute generally to the article i.e information was directly or indirectly synthesised from them. The notes, however, are for direct quotes or explicit point of views that are needed to provide proof for a particular point. Make sense? Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I'm going crazy or maybe someone fixed it, but it looks good now. You won't get an object out of me the next time around on WP:FAC. I'll try to watch the nomination to see what people say about the number of references, so that I can try to dig up some more if necessary. Good work! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually would have tried to salvage something about her vocal qualities in the introduction. Otherwise it lends itself to the earlier complaint of "too much charts and awards, not enough musical information" (paraphrased). But the article has definitely improved, and I appreciate the effort to find more and better references. --Michael Snow 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats a bit tricky, but Ill see what I can do. As for the sales and awards. This is a bit difficult. The thing is, she is the best-selling female artist, ever. As the introduction mentions this, it is dificult to avoid sales performance in the rest of the article, as this would affect its coherence.

Im not rushing, but I was wondering if tomorrow would be too soon to renominate the article, many others have told me that it would now be a good candidate (plus, if it passes, it would be a nice Christmas present =).) Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you avoid the topic of sales, they are noteworthy enough, but more information on the musical side might provide some context to why she does as well as she does. Anyway, I won't stand in the way of a renomination at this point. --Michael Snow 23:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. I can't find any huge problems with the article, and it's very good. I'd suggest reading the article a couple of times over to see if the prose can flow a little better, however (though I am aware from personal experience how one's eyes can glaze over once you have edited an article a lot in a short space of time :)). For example, "The cover showed Dion in a simple and relaxed manner: choreographed poses usually found on her album covers were discarded for a more relaxed, natural look" could be replaced by "The cover showed Dion in a simple and relaxed manner, a contrast to the choreographed poses usually found on her album covers". Also, piped links to "years in music" (e.g. 1990) are to be avoided, per WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia:Piped link. Again, I'd like to stress that I think this is a very good article. Extraordinary Machine 16:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Constantine Maroulis

This particular subject is not likely to be nominated as a featured article candidate in a very, very, very long time as it is kind of incomplete (As of right now, the subject has not accomplished much, other than a mere "famous for being famous."), but all I want to know is:

1. Clarity - Do the wording, word choice, and sentence structure read smoothly in a clear and concise voice?
2. NPOV - Is the article understandable in an outsider's POV? Is it free from fancruft?
3. Language - Are there any grammar issues that need to be corrected?
4. Content relevancy - Does it contain any unnecessary information that does not need to be stated?
5. Factual accuracy and validity - Does the article cite its sources?
6. TOC - Are the headings named and ordered sensibly?
7. Quality - What can be done to make it better?

because I think this article is close to feature article candidate quality, despite the subject's incompetence. --User:Lehla 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I found it interesting and easy to read. Maybe you should take out the "Early career" subheading as it seems strange only having one Astrokey44 11:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Also expanded lead section. User:Lehla 12:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)----

I think the pray for the soul of betty infobox should definitely be taken out. That belongs on a band page on nowhere else. (See Jack White versus The White Stripes or Kurt Cobain versus Nirvana (and the Nirvana article is a featured article).--Esprit15d 14:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the band page has been redirected to Constantine. I not sure how that decision came about, and I didn't see any talk information on it on the band page. I find that a little surprising, but I think it is a little thematically cluttered like that and until Betty does more, or Constantine does more, (so there will be a solid reason to separate the two), it won't be fac quality. But I could be wrong.--Esprit15d 14:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw the merge tag on Pray for the soul of betty so I merged it. It's back on its own article now. --User:Lehla 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How can someone have a "recurring" on American Idol? That doesn't make sense. You're either in the competition, or you're not. You don't just pop up from time to time. That needs to be reworded. Harro5 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sex symbol claim

Taken from the first paragraph of the article:

Maroulis was the seventh finalist voted off of the music reality series, however he gained a reputation as a national sex symbol; having performed well-received renditions of "Bohemian Rhapsody", "My Funny Valentine" and "How You Remind Me".

How exactly is Maroulis a "sex symbol"? This particular sentence does not bode well with me, it reads as an opinionated statement sandwiched between two completely unrelated facts. It is unclear how being an American Idol finalist or performing cover songs makes one a sex symbol, nor do I see a credible source provided which supports such a claim. Can this be resolved? Hall Monitor 17:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write the last half of that sentence but I agree it needs to be rephrased and cited. Same thing with the gay icon claim. Where are the sources for these kind of things? This site talks about getting Constantine's hair, one of hundreds of google search results talking about Constantine and his "sex icon" status. There was also a news segment on Access about it, something about "hollywood's newest sex icon". It doesn't say he obtain sex icon status solely because of the song performances. --User:Lehla

Claudius

I have recently overhauled this article and would appreciate feedback from those who have been discussing it and those new to the article. LaurenCole 16:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• It looks pretty good; perhaps a little sparse on the imagery. A few places needed some cleanup but not anything significant. However I'm not sure that inline external links are a good idea, as they could suffer link rot and become useless. You might want to reference them down at the bottom instead. — RJH 17:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, RJH. Where do you typically get extra images that aren't copyright protected? The older biographies I have dont contain any pictures. As for the documents, they are already linked at the bottom, so I'll just remove them from the text. LaurenCole 20:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Any images on the community commons or in wikimedia should be okay. Sometimes I check related articles and look for suitable images. You can get out-of-copyright pictures from old library books or antiquarian books from pre-1923, US. Occasionally a site will grant you permission to use their images. You can also put something on the requested images page. :) — RJH 16:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious Society of Friends

A bounty has been offered for the improvement of this article to featured status. It is one of my pet articles, and I would like to see it as a featured article. I think those of us who have edited it would appreciate suggestions on tightening the prose, improving the organization, and anything else that would be helpful. Thanks. Logophile 10:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Logophile (and others.) I am concerned about this "bounty" thing; I do not want to derail the peer review, so I will point people to my comments on it [8], and encourage people to discuss that separate issue there. In the meantime, I hope people do help us out with peer review! Sdedeo 10:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Good article...a few suggestions: 1 - Get rid of the plethora of red links under "Recommended Reading"...just add the links later, as the articles are created; 2 - a pic of George Fox near the top would be good, maybe one of William Penn later, and perhaps even a contemporary Quaker (like Richard Foster). Good article overall. KHM03 20:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed the redlinks from the bibliography. Perhaps we could also include a photo of a meetinghouse? We have a couple of old engravings of meetinghouses floating around the articles, but it would be nice to get something more contemporary. I totally slept in today and missed meeting (and my meeting is rather boring, just a bunch of folding chairs), but perhaps some attendees could take a photograph of the layout of their meetinghouse as a contemporary example, especially if the layout is permanent (e.g., benches) to show a notable aspect of "eqalitarian" quaker theology? Sdedeo 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments.

Sdedeo, I'm thinking about the bounty in terms of what you wrote. I will try to form an opinion on it soon. Thanks for the unlinking. It certainly looks better. I agree about the picture. I am not in a position to be able to do it myself. I could ask around for a submission. KHM03, thanks for responding so quickly. I think you are right about the pictures.Logophile 03:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox

This page has gone through some trauma; by its very nature, the topic seems to step on the most sensitive toes. However, the Cleanup Taskforce left it in good shape, and it has been pretty stable over the past several months. It's not a very pictorial subject, but I added a couple images I found in other articles. Anville 11:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• The lead is very well-written, but should be expanded by at least one more summary paragraph. I'd suggest that the article is a little light on contemporary philosophy -- there is a link to Semantics as a See also, but it should be possible to find a Wittgensteinian treatment of the problem and mention semantics in that context. Much the same with Logical positivism. The two items make the "See also" list look more like "two things not worked into the article yet" rather than explicit cross-references. The Simpsons reference is really, really trivial. The other "pop culture" reference is confusingly written; there is either too much or too little about quantum physics in there, and all as a preamble to a mention of a novel. The images were good choices, but the one of Averroës has no source information. I hope that can be fixed. Overall a good article. Jkelly 03:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that was a remarkable piece of work. Great job on the addition. I think that the trivia section is still too, well, trivial and I imagine that editors at WP:FAC will agree, if that is where this article is headed. Again, good work. If I have the chance, I will try to go over the article myself to give it some fresh eyes. Jkelly 02:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree on the trivia section, and I wouldn't be terribly sorry to see it go. (I've worked over several other articles to merge their Trivia lists into other sections — "factoids" are like facts, but not.) At one point, it was a few bullet points longer, but the extra topics (like the Babel fish) weren't really the same paradox. As always, thanks for your comments. Anville 10:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Marching band

I didn't start this article, but I have helped it incrementally here and there. I do believe there are some improvements that can be made, but overall I feel it's a good article and it fairly represents the facts and depth of this fairly broad subject. Fsiler 08:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Needs more references and a longer lead paragraph. The article is quite long, so even two lead paragraphs might more suitable. — Wackymacs 10:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input, but I'm afraid "references" may be difficult to come by. Individual bands (such as the Marching Illini) sometimes have manuals detailing rules, procedures, marching styles, playing tips, etc., but as far as I know there are no compiled volumes listing uniform styles, marching steps, and all the other things involved. I expect that most of the meaningful content on this page is from life experiences of the editors. Fsiler 19:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• For an article to become featured, it must cite its sources. This a requirement. I understand the difficulty. But, the information in the article must have come from somewhere, so where is it from? Were any websites, books or anything else used for writing the article? Even news stories, if they were used, can be listed in a References section. — Wackymacs 21:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• If this were an article about some scientific subject with papers and lectures and presentations, it would be no problem to come up with sources. However, this subject is documented mostly in the minds of people who participate in and observe it. What sources do we have? Hundreds of thousands of present and former marching band members, and their friends, family, and associates. I'm aware of one published manual for a specific band. This is a craft learned by doing, not by reading. Fsiler 21:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

For rules, I would try taking a look at any information put out by Drum Corps International [9]. They are arguably the most famous governing body for any marching competition, and they should have some good information regarding their trade. I will read over this article and comment further once I'm through with my review on The West Wing. -Scm83x 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Prester John

I requested a peer review to see if this article needs anything. I think especially the "Later legend" section could use some work.--Cuchullain 20:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You appear to have a great a great deal on expanding this article. Kudos to you! Here are the first things that jump out at me as needing work:

• The introduction should be expanded. For an article of this size it should be at least two paragraphs but no more than three.
• The article is filled with many names. While most of them have articles, they should be explained a bit in the text. Nothing elaborate, simply something like "ecclesiastical historian and bishop Eusebius quotes from Saint Iraneus..." Otherwise the article tends towards becoming a jumble of unfamiliar names.
• The article has many short paragraphs. Try either expanding the information or connecting shorter paragraphs to create larger ones.

I hope this is helpful! *Exeunt* Ganymead 21:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nice - but desperatly needs references. Also, I think that Kingdom of Aksum should be mentioned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Having worked a bit on Axum-related articles, I can't think of any significant connection between the legend of Prester John & the history of that ancient kingdom. The later kings of Ethiopia did trace their lineage to Axum & before, but locating Prester John in Africa was a later development in the evolution of the story, inspired by stories of the contemporary victories of Solomonid kings over their Muslim rivals in the 14th & 15th centuries. -- llywrch 23:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, the connection is simple: Axum converted to christianity, thus laying fundation for the local Prester John myth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Eton College

One of the world's most famous schools, I'd like some feedback on how this important article can improve further to become the second school to achieve featured status on Wikipedia. Any thoughts or comments are welcomed. One area I see as needing improvement is the list of alumni - a partial list shouldn't be needed given four separate lists for alumni, and perhaps anyone living in the area could provide some GDFL pictures. Harro5 00:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Great article, easy to read and informative. I didn't realise Eton was so close to Windsor castle. Some suggestions; don't explain terms that you have linked, some examples are "public school" and "oppidium". If people are unsure of the term then they will click on the link otherwise you're interrupting the flow of the passage (ain't hyperlinks great!). My other main concern is the list of current alumni. Whilst I'm sure it's of interest to students and their families, it's not relevant to the main Eton article. I'd break that part out into an article of it's own that way if it doesn't get updated as freqently as it should it won't affect the rest of the article. On that note, the past students of Eton is very relevant and should reside in the main article unless you want to make it an exhaustive list. Good work, keep writing! DanF, 9 November 2005 (AEST)

The alumni lists are now on separate pages. As for unnecessary explanations, Wikipedia sees links as being sources of extra information about topics, but where a word in an article is important to the subject, it should be defined to allow readers to read just that article and understand the content. Thanks for the feedback though. Harro5 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Day After

The article is about a relatively groundbreaking and well known television film. Article's developed into a rather in depth representation of the film, its background, and its reception. Any comments, criticisms, and contributions are appreciated. Volatile 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• You provide a comprehensive account of the circumstances that lead to war in the movie, but the description of the plot itself is rather slim. This might give people the idea that the movie spends a lot of time on the geopolitics, which I don't recall it doing. The end of the "Situation Presented" section should go under "Reaction." I really like the "Production" setting, although I'm sure some others will call for more bluelinks. You also need a spoiler warning. -- Mwalcoff 02:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• You've done a very nice job so far. Here's what I would suggest:

• The intro needs to be at least two good-sized paragraphs.
• The plot points in the "Situations presented" section should be in prose. I think simply taking out the bullets will be fine as they already read well.
• Inline citations are needed.
• The see also section is rather unnecessary. If this were going up on FAC the suggestion to move See Also to separate lists would be given.
• Some more images would be nice, even if they are just pics of people involved such as Carl Sagan and William F. Buckley. Pics would help to break up the copy.

I hope these are helpful! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• There are several images on www.lawrence.com of locations in Lawrence, Kansas made up by the filmmakers to look like they've been devastated by a nuclear blast, including one of the scenes described in the "Production" section where the storefronts are knocked out, etc., etc.
  • Thank you both for your suggestions. I'll work on those when I have time this week. Anything else you can think of is greatly appreciated. Volatile 15:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Psilocybe cubensis

I want to see if any information should be added, and I'm curious if a separate section should be added on the safety issues of 'mushroom-hunting'/looking for Psilocybe Cubensae. I added a small bit of safety information at the last paragraph but I'm not sure if it really fits, if you know what I mean. - Xer0X 20:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This does seem to be more of a "how to" manual than an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure if I would be so specific in dosage information and such. Perhaps look and see what other articles on mushrooms have to say. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

List of NFL champions

Seems to meet criteria the criteria for a FA to me, especially when compared to current featured article List of Super Bowl champions. I'm wondering what more needs to be done before this can be nominated for FA status. It's not my article, I'm not associated with it any more than through the NFL WikiProject. jfg284 21:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks very good to me. You could probably nominate it already for featured list here: WP:FLC. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• The only thing I question is whether it is smart to simply have pictures piling up down the right hand side. I think the NFL logo, the main image for the page, is dwarfed when surrounded by the other pictures, and there is also a bit of a Packers bias in the team featuring in three of the photos - the pic of the team logo is definitely not needed. I'd stick with images of famous matches (eg. the Ice Bowl pic) That's the only issue really. Harro5 05:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• An excellent page. I would separate out the last four championships and indicate that the winners played in the Super Bowl. Also, since the 1939 game was not played in Green Bay, I'd put the city in parentheses after the name of the stadium. Finally, some of the games have articles on them, so there should be links to them. -- Mwalcoff 05:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is now listed at WP:FL. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Game theory

Hello all - This article has been substantially reworked from the former version. I would like any comments anyone has for how it can be improved. Particularly, I would like it to be readable by a wide audience and provide a fair and complete picture on how game theory is used. Please tell me if any part of the article does not do these things. Thanks you for looking into this page! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have added that I brought this article here because it was suggested that this article might be up to Featured Article quality. I would love to here attitudes about whether we are at that level. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well it's a good page and covers the subject nicely, but if the intent is to aim for a general audience then I think the page should be written at a High School vocabulary/education level. Words such as realizability, methodology, idealization, cognitive, contractarian, and so forth, would tend to put off lay audiences, as would comparable expressions. But that's just my opinion. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's a good suggestion. I'll give the page a read and try to remove as many of those as possible. There's always a trade-off with length of sentences, so I might leave some. I may not get to it for a few days, but never fear I will! Thanks for your suggestion! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've gone through and corrected what I can. I can't think of another way to say this sentence: "Game theorist respond that while the assumptions they make do not always hold, they present a reasonable scientific idealization akin to the assumptions of models in physics." Any suggestions? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I took a shot at it: Game theorists respond by comparing their assumptions to those used in physics. Thus while their assumptions do not always hold, they can treat game theory as a reasonable scientific ideal akin to the models used by physicists. — RJH 16:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Bravo! I've replaced the sentence in the article. Thanks RJH. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Its very good. It could use applications to political science sub area. Also, Auman and Shelling are just the most recent in a (long?) list of Nobel Prize winners who use game theory. Mostly, though, the introduction needs some filling out. I always think that an article on the main page should make me want to read it due to an interesting or catchy opening paragraph.Smmurphy 05:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks Smmurphy! I agree, I've been unhappy with the opening paragraph myself. Every time I rework it, it always ends up too short or too long. I have the philosopher's disease, I make anything I touch bland and academic :) Anyone else want to give it a shot? Even just a sketch would be great, I could fill in the details. I also agree about the political science sub area. I didn't add one because I really don't feel very competent in this area. Its a real loss since game theory really took off in the 60s and 70s because of its application to military strategy. In particular I think a lot of stuff happened at the RAND corp with respect to mutually assured destruction, but I don't really know what. Can anybody point me to a nice reference text that would give me a quick overview? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• hmm, as far as references to game theory in political science goes, many intro textbooks would have it, with Bruce Beuno de Mesquita's being the most notable (he brashly thinks an intro International Relations text can be based on game theory). But game theory (or rational choice, as it is sometimes called in a generalized way) permeates method in political science, from voting theory to corruption. I'll try to write up a short summary this week (no promises on a daughter article, but it could happen).Smmurphy 08:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's great if you would write it! As it is, we don't have full articles for game theory in any other field so don't feel like you need to create one. But if you want to... :) I actually do know a little bit about voting theory, Don Saari is a regular contributor to a seminar I attend. I plan to work on the intro section sometime soon. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I gave the intro the ol' college try. What do folks think? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Unclean animals

I want to get this up to FA status at some point, I've gone through and detailed the key religious text which relate to the concept. What I need from peer review is answers to a few questions:

• What other content do you feel belongs in this article?
• Are there any other major religions which have a concept of "unclean animals" that should be documented?
• Are there any other scientific studies which should be included or discussed?

I also need assistance with any other cleanup/punctuation/grammar checking that you feel is necessary.  ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• The apparent sole exception to this rule is a bee's honey which is deemed kosher. It's not clear to me from the article why bees aren't kosher. Pburka 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It's not clear to me either, but in my research that was the only exception that I found. Bees are considered non kosher, but beeswax, honey, and honeycomb are all considered kosher.  ALKIVAR™ 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Why are bees non kosher? I think the article needs to explain why (or at least that) bees are unclean. Pburka 22:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It shall be done then, I'll see what I can dig up for reasonings.  ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Regarding bees, according to [10], " Of the "winged swarming things" (winged insects), a few are specifically permitted (Lev. 11:22), but the Sages are no longer certain which ones they are, so all have been forbidden." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  In light of Angr's post here and his addition to the article, It looks like we've solved this why bee's arent kosher issue.  ALKIVAR™ 02:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some references to halal (in addition to haraam) would help explain more about the Islamic tradition. Pburka 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Halal is linked to as "Zabiha" what exactly are you looking for? As i understand it since Halal is only a list of acceptable stuff in this particular case the "clean animals"... so doesnt it belong on that article not this one?  ALKIVAR™ 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  I hadn't noticed that. I'm not very familiar with the subject. But it does make we question if we really need two articles on this topic. Are Clean animals and Unclean animals two different topics, or aspects of the same topic? Pburka 22:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  I think each will end up being large enough to require their own article, but they are definately two aspects of the same topic. I'm hoping to get this one up to snuff first and then tackle Clean animals.  ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Also, is kosher food halal or vice-versa? Pburka 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  From what I understand that is a subject of debate, some muslim clerics state animals slaughtered by anyone other than a muslim cannot be halal, others state any animal slaughtered by a Kafir (non-believer) or Mushrik (polytheist) are the only ones forbidden. So I cannot get a conclusive answer to this one, when I can find something more specific I will add it.  ALKIVAR™ 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• I feel like a spoilsport for saying it, since I actually like the way it looks. however, I'm pretty sure that those grey-boxed quotes are not sanctioned in WP:MoS (manual of style). I would have thought that adhereing to layout standards would be a criterion for FA status. --bodnotbod 17:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Actually I've looked through the MoS ... there is NOTHING absolutely nothing regarding block quotations, and or styles for them. So it is not a violation of any established policy.  ALKIVAR™ 22:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  The standard for block quotations, while not very clearly stated, is presented briefly in the quotations section: Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Quotations. You don't need the italics and the box, while pretty and attention-getting, isn't standard either. Not complaining about the way you've done it, but I'm pretty sure that a simple block is what they'll be expecting!  freshgavin TALK   03:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Quite. Actually it strikes me that, since <blockquote> style is, presumably, set in the css of each skin that they could have made them a bit more exciting globally. The problem with putting your own styles in is that you're then in the position (if you wish to be diligent) of checking it looks OK in all skins. Grey on white looks fine to the vast majority of us, but if (as someone has) you have set your wikipedia to display green text on a black background (an extreme example, I realise) then it looks less good.

Althouth the MoS turns out to be weak on quotation style, a wider policy is that mark-up that will baffle the causal editor is kept to a minimum. At Wp:tables#When_tables_are_appropriate it says::

Many times, a list is best left as a list. Some articles include very long lists which might be difficult to edit if they were in table form. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.

Tables shouldn't be used simply for layout, either. If the information you're editing isn't tabular in nature, it probably doesn't belong in a table. Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians, and isn't really what tables were designed to do.

When tables are inappropriate

Very long lists, or very simple lists

If a list is quite long, or is relatively simple, use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats. Long lists can be hard to maintain if they are inside a table, and simple lists do not need the row-and-column format that a table provides.

I wasn't getting at you Alkivar. I placed grey boxes on Rachel Whiteread and am trying to get feedback on the best way to achieve the effect I'm going for in a way that doesn't have the problems I'm talking about. Also, if you go up for peer review, it's best not to shout at the people giving you feedback as it may deter others from constructive criticism. And, again, I sympathise because I find the layout of most articles boring after a long day of editing and it's nice to say different layouts. But ease of editing comes first it seems. --bodnotbod 05:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took that as angry shouting... I was more shocked that we didnt have any policy regarding it. I am quite happy to take the criticism, otherwise I would never have put this on peer review :) And as far as the tables go, its either 2 REAAAAAAAAALY long lists (which people always complain about on FAC), or 2 tablified lists with several columns to condense (Which FAC people seem to prefer); since the content in the tables wont be changing... I dont see a real problem with it.  ALKIVAR™ 10:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, Alk. You need to mention and discuss Mary Douglas' Purity and Danger, it's the single most famous and influential study of the subject. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Hey Bish, thanks for mentioning her, I was completely unaware of her study. She is now added to the article.  ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Have you noticed the overlap between this article and Taboo food and drink? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  Yes I have, and I think they both stand seperately. Taboo food and drink concentrates much more on cultural taboos as opposed to "religiously denied" animals. For example Cows are culturally taboo in India, but they are not an "unclean animal" according to Hinduism. While similar the concept is different.  ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should mention the four land animals Leviticus names unclean because they have one and only of the the required traits. It is very interesting that science has yet to discover or create an exception... HereToHelp (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

They already are included, re-read the first table.  ALKIVAR™ 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• The lead section needs to be much longer, a couple of paragraphs or so.
• I like it when people shrink the size of footnotes, but these are a bit too small. Could you increase them to 85%?
• I think all the sections could be expanded, but I'd especially like to see more on Macht's study - I'm sure that could be expanded to at least a couple of paragraphs. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My responses:

• The lead section will be rewritten as soon as I can come up with something catchy :)
• The footnote size of 75% seems to be the common defacto standard see things like W. Mark Felt
• I agree with the expansion, this PR request was so as to gain more insight on what could be expanded as I had run out of ideas.
• Macht's study seems to be a point of contention among a few users, most of whom refer to it as psuedoscience. As such I was afraid to add too much more regarding it for fear of making it seem wikipedia endorses psuedoscience. On the talk page is still the original multiple paragraph addition regarding Macht's study (which is quite poorly written and confusing). I guess I could try to rescue a bit more out of that and then do some more research on it.  ALKIVAR™ 20:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Legal status of Taiwan

I have nominated this article because I have often been curious as to the legal status of this island, and I never really got a straight answer before. After reading through this article I at least learned what the different sides of the issue are, even if there seems to be no simple explanations. I think that this article would make a good Featured article candidate, and so I have asked for a peer review so that this article can proceed on that path. I have made no edits to this article thus far, but I am interested in making it better. -- Malo 20:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• The article is in dire need of inline referencing. That's probably just a starting point. Also, I don't like the setting out of a "pros and cons" argument section - it tends to be POV. Harro5 07:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Providence, Rhode Island

I have decided to clean up and expand this article so that it will one day reach featured status. Nevertheless, I am open to critiques of this article, and would appreciate help with it (notably from those familiar with the city). Pentawing 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Not criticism in any way, but simply ideas for possible topics:
  • Banks: Fleet gets two mentions but not for banking. A word about its history and merger might be in order. It's easy to speculate that people outside the area associate it more with Boston (for the former Fleet Center) rather than its Providence home. Other banks, S&Ls etc., would be valuable additions to the Economy section.
  • Providence within Rhode Island: It's the capital and principal city in the state, and (I expect) the economic and cultural center. Probably people commute into the city in large numbers. The relationship between the city and the state is worth elucidating a bit more.
  • "Maritime endeavors" gets passing mention only as something the city turned away from, but could be very interesting. Industry could use additional information. Who were the major players?
  • Neighborhoods: Downcity, Federal Hill and the East Side get mention in three different sections of the article. Information is spread out and could be collected and augmented. Do residents organize themselves into neighborhoods on the basis of wealth, ethnic identity, or other criteria?
  • The Italian poplation only gets mention in the context of Federal Hill. Could be included in history section.
  • Boston has a fair amount on crime. Providence might benefit from a discussion.
• Probably, the article can reach featured status without action on any of these suggestions. Just some ideas for fleshing the article out. Fg2 06:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The West Wing (television)

As the show winds into what may be its final season, there is definitely enough material to create a featured article. I believe that what this page represents is a good start toward that. I am hoping that a peer review will broaden the perspective on the article to include those who don't watch or maybe have never seen the show. I know that may be difficult given that most of the article carries a spoiler warning, but I think it's very doable. Thanks for all comments!! -Scm83x 06:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• I put a good deal of work into this page in times of yore. I think that the article's current version has a wealth of information; but perhaps too much information, maybe too much detail. Also, no offence to any contributors, but I think a lot of the prose as it is is poorly-written. All the shuffling around has left a few holes... for example, a sentence in the third paragraph ends, "...sidelining Lowe's Seaborn", before any priot mention of Seaborn and the fact that she show was originally built around that character. There are "no no" words like "recent" in references to episodes. Could use a good deal of work (but that's what peer review is all about). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I agree! I think there's too much information for someone who has never seen the show. It should be easy to cut a lot of it, because much of it is trivia. This page has spawned a lot of daughter pages about the characters, and a lot of the same information is there. We can definitely make more general references and then link to the individual characters or episode list. I'll take a look at the continuity issues and try to improve the prose. Thanks! -Scm83x 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• I've done a quick run-through of the article up to the 2006 election, mostly for grammar and style. When discussing the 2002 election, it's mentioned that Bartlet's reason for keeping Hoynes on the ticket is because he "could die." Nowhere in the article, however, does it mention his MS. I know it mentions this on his character page, but I think a blip toward the beginning would do much to justify the later claim. Otherwise, this article has a lot of promise. Sahasrahla 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking that much more could be made of how the series deals with contemporary issues. There is a section in the middle about this and the fact that Bartlet's MS is not mentioned brings this to the fore. Bartlet's MS did a lot to educate the general viewing public about its symptoms (as noted on the multiple sclerosis page) and that it is not fatal, a common misconception. This could expand into a section about the greater impact of the series as a different venue for exploring important political/social issues. I have a several tests this week, but I will try to take a look at these sections over the next few days. Overall, as was mentioned on the talk page, I think this article should look like less of a fansite and more like an encyclopedia. This is gonna require cutting a lot of things that we may not want to, but we have to make it all relevant to everyone. -Scm83x 04:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Added the social impact section. Trying to find citations. -Scm83x 04:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Needs a discussion of how many American Democrats like the show, while many American Republicans strongly dislike the show. Of course, such a discussion should be written with citations. —Lowellian (reply) 15:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• The article's External links section should follow the guidelines defined in Wikipedia:External links. This is simple to fix but the fix hasn't stuck yet due to disagreements in interpretation. I share the concern of User:Blankfaze that the article has too much information. I'd suggest, for example, shortening the discussion of the West Wing universe and moving details about that universe (e.g. Cabinet and Presidential Order of Succession) to a separate article on the Universe. Other, smaller issues: the topmost image (except for the infobox) was from an SNL skit instead of from the show itself, and there's no section about the departure of Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme from the show; that departure is the most-cited reason that the show may have jumped the shark. 66.167.139.129 14:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Wow! Thanks for these suggestions! I think the external links issue has been resolved, or is in the process of being resolved, as we are going to move the external links into the article and reference them as footnotes where applicable. I will start parsing through the excess information (mostly on the presidential campaign section) and move the Cabinet posts to an acceptable auxiliary page. Also, I will research the departure of Sorkin and Schlamme more thorouhgly in order to fill in this section of the article. Finally, I will get an appropriate screenshot from the actual show and move the SNL skit screenshot down the page. Thank you again, very much! -Scm83x 21:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Added discussion of Democrat v. Republican viewership per Lowellian, surprisingly opposite of common sense. Pared down external links, forked cabinet/presidential succession list, took a new screenshot for top of page, and working on Sorkin/Schlamme departure section per anonymous. Also forked the timeline skew discussion and deleted campaign information already on the auxiliary campaign pages. How is the peer review for this article going so far? Any further comments would be appreciated. -Scm83x 16:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • As of the time of this comment, the External links section has 20 external links, including three links to fansites. That violates the explicit guidelines on links to fansites and the spirit of the guidelines defined in Wikipedia:External links. Featured articles should be exemplars of best practices in all respects. To be fair, I should note that within a week the article has nearly tripled its list of cited sources, illustrating a commitment to another guideline, Wikipedia:Cite sources... 69.3.70.119 21:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC).
        • Thanks for your comments! I appreciate that someone noticed the article's massive overhaul and appreciates the source citation we have worked on. The external links section is the subject of an on-going debate. Personally, when I get a chance, I would like to turn as many of the externals to cited sources. This is very possible, I think. If you would like to comment about this matter further, feel free to comment on Talk:The West Wing (television). -Scm83x 21:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've roughly skimmed through it, and I think it's very well done. I am a little concerned that some of the analogies are not accurate, such as comparing Clinton's impeachment to Bartlett's MS scandal, which is also an example of original research although I understand that this is an entertainment-related article. I don't know if it has been used already, but the long out-of-print George magazine once ran a cover on the show, and it is reproduced (at least in part) here. It may be of help. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your comments. I'm sure you're also referring to the Plame/military shuttle comparison also when you refer to the possibly inaccurate or original research analogies. I had heard/seen these comparisons elsewhere on the web, and I will go hunt down my sources for these comparisons. Thank you so much for the George article; I will read it and add the applicable information. -Scm83x 04:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think there should be a discussion of show's evolution in the ratings. How it used to be very popular, but has gone way down since (but is still nr 1 with high income viewers). One could mention ways NBC has tried (or not tried to) raise ratings. The airtime move, but the (by many) perceived lack of promotion (looks like many people didn't know it was on Sundays). The "Live Debate" as a "stunt" (especially right now there are lot of articles on that) to raise ratings, which have been even worse this season in spite of the fact that many critics are actually liking it again. There was also a quote from NBC saying they expected the ratings to go down with the move. I also think the year of Santos/McGarry election should be changed to 2005. The proof for this being the year lies in NBC's campaign blogs: If you look at the "campaign blog" for Santos, the first entry is Wednesday, August 3. August 3rd was only a Wednesday in 2005, not in 2006. Since we know it's only a couple of weeks/days till Election Day, it looks like the Election is in 2005. In the same way, Vinick's blog is dated Thursday, August 4. Of course this leads to a year being missing, but this is the way the election is officially being portrayed by John Wells and NBC. I think it should be up to the reader to decide how they wish to interpret it. We can continue offering the various theories/comments on Timeline on the link separate page. --newsjunkie 17:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the 2005/2006 issue is a problem for the Timeline page, and I'm upset that the AfD on that page is distracting from the peer review of this page. I hope to comb through the many suggestions on this page over the weekend and try to do everything that's been stated here. -Scm83x 06:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• The article has significantly improved during the process of this review. Here are a few issues:
  • Before any analysis, insider insights, fancruft, or discussion of controversies, the first section after the introduction should be a simple summary. This section would succinctly cover the entire series focusing just on the uncontroversial basics. Such a summary could include an overview of the plot and character elements that are common to all of the seasons. This could be followed by a short discussion of a few of the show's most important and multi-season story arcs. Next, would be a few paragraphs on the cast changes (e.g. the part about Lowe's departure) and the Emmy Awards the show or cast received. The summary could end with an overview of when and where the show could be seen (what networks, when did reruns start to be syndicated, shown on cable channels, shown overseas, what time slot(s) it has had). An overview of how it has done in the ratings is also needed.
  • Ending with a ratings overview is a good opportunity to segue into the The West Wing (television)#Show's evolution section. The reasons for the show's changing fates ratings-wise should be discussed, and behind-the-scenes insights can be introduced. Reputable sources should be cited. From my googling the biggest behind-the-scenes event to hit the show was the departure of Aaron Sorkin. The article mentions how he wrote nearly every episode, but instead of explaining what he brought to the show over those years, it alludes to his drug use and leaves it at that. I thought, for example, that he was the one who introduced what I think of as a West Wing trademark, the hallway tracking scenes of characters talking rapidly to each other as they go from place to place. Regardless, the show got a lot of accolades during his tenure there, and a well-sourced analysis of the reasons why should be included.
  • The article makes several unsubstantiated or unexplained claims, such as
    • Even many who do not share its unambiguously expressed views admit to the educational value of the series.
    • Most viewers continue to enjoy the show, stating that despite Sorkin's departure it is still far superior to other shows, and, in its theme, unique among drama series.
    • The West Wing, often derided as The Left Wing (I have no trouble believing the show is derided by some for its liberal political perspective, but did a particular critic introduce this so called often-used label/)
    • By exploring many of the same issues facing the Bush administration ..., the show continued to appeal to a broad audience, both Democrats who agreed with the fictional administration's methods and Republicans who did not.
    • The Bartlet administration experienced a scandal that has been compared to the Monica Lewinsky scandal (both are certainly scandals--is it fair to compare the two?)
  • The topic of timeline skew is overemphasized. It gets its own section, then applies again in other sections. This is the kind of attention to detail that should be reserved for a fan forum. I think it's fine to cover it a bit, but it is overrepresented in the current article.
  • The Notes section includes references of no obvious reputation. Should I can what TheConservativeGuy.com says about the show? What the heck is FootnoteTV? On the plus side, the article makes these source explicit in the annotations accompanying the reference, but I'd recommend sticking to references of known reputation as much as possible. If nothing else, add details to the annotation about who the source is.
  • There are too many Wikipedia:External links. The official links are fine, except the "official campaign" site, which can be deleted since it is a click away on the NBC website. Since IMDb is a movie site, it's not clear why its a useful link for an article that already has lots of detail about the cast. The infobox for TV shows no longer has IMDb links as a standard element for a reason. The List of The West Wing episodes has a link to external episode guides already, so there's no reason for one in this article. The "songs and music" link seems irrelevant...if that topic was so critical to the show's success, there would be a section about the show's music already. Active editors of the article need to come to terms about which fansite should be included...the guidelines permit one such reference, so pick one. Finally, I think the NewsHour and MS Society links are both relevant and reputable, so they should stay, though perhaps they could be used as references. — 66.167.253.57 09:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC) (I previously posted as User:66.167.139.129 and User:69.3.70.119)

I agree that the music link can be deleted, with some of its info being added to this article or the episodes article. I also agree that the episode guide can be deleted. I believe the campaign sites should stay, because although they are linked from NBC, it's not easy to see, the link is very low-down and in small print, and it's sort of a different category with extensive info on Santos, Vinick and their programs. The IMDB still has an extensive over of guest stars and crew, which would be hard to include in this article. TWOP could be added as a source, but personally I think it's relevant because I think there is an unofficial consensus that it is the most well-known, most active forum on the topic and the best place to ask obscure questions. Finally, at least in my browser, all the links fit in one window, so it doesn't seem to me like the links are that much of a problem, or at least much less than they were before. Also, I don't think it says anywhere that the guidelines have to be followed exactly and to the letter, they are "suggested" and "not set in stone", which I take to mean that they should be kept in mind and applied as much as possible, but that you need to examine each page and each link as it comes. Right now, there are two fansites which are "notable in the field" (with many articles like Harry Potter), including more. Since there is no official amount limits for other links and none of them are inherently inapproppriate (as in commercial or similar), I believe we are really on the right trrack.

--newsjunkie 11:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The campaign is a minor event in the course of the overall series, when you think about it. The external links need to typify the series as a whole. The campaign links will need to be removed in 5 months when the sites are no longer active. I think placing them creates a problem of the recent happenings in the series versus the overall scope of the series. The links are relevant on the page for the election, but not on the main page. Again, as before, if you want to keep the campaign links in some form, just add them back but comment them out. I will incorporate them into the text later tomorrow. -Scm83x 11:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• The initial request for review talked about the spoiler content. I have a suggestion and a comment about that. The suggestion is to use {{endspoiler}} to make it clear where the spoilers end. My comment is that you should re-examine the article in its current form and decide what really is a spoiler. The reference to The American President doesn't seem to qualify. Lowe's departure might have been a spoiler at the time, but in retrospect it doesn't seem to qualify either. The fact that the MS Society now has a page about Barlett's MS, and the significant story arc built around his illness, makes it harder to call that a spoiler. Just food for thought. 66.167.141.71 19:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC).
• Whether this makes featured article status or not, I think Scm83x and newsjunkie should be commended for bringing their expertise to bear on this article, as well as their willingness to be dispassionate. Some pop culture articles in Wikipedia forget that Wikipedia aspires to be reference material for the general reader, a role quite different from what fansites and forums play. Dispassionate expertise and an evident willingness to consider the opinions of others are real assets to Wikipedia editors. 66.167.141.71 19:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

Thanks so much for your praise. I will be working on the external links issues, spoiler tags, and expansion of the social section over the American Thanksgiving break. This article hasn't been edited in a while, and I just wanted to make sure that we keep the peer review alive. Thank you everyone! -Scm83x 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus rex

non-self nomination This article is brilliantly written and has had a peer review before. Tons of information at a very high standard. I believe the article is now ready to be FA! Comments? Banana04131 01:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• I would remove the many red links that are in the article. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Done! I guess this no longer makes it a complete non-self nomination. Anyway, any more comments? Suggestions? Banana04131 01:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• A lot of the text looks too teleological, and some may be original research, but I don't think this really mars the article.
• Some statements may be outdated (I'm not too sure). For example, is it the most recent evidence that suggests that T.Rex wasn't a fast runner? I though that was older opinion, while modern opinion states that it may indeed have been faster than previously thought.
• What does "although probably not as warm blooded as modern mammals" mean? Are there different degrees of warm-bloodedness? Similarly, what does "the creature's homeothermic strategy might have changed at times in its life cycle" mean?
• Comments like "temporarily supporting the front body like the struts of a detatched truck trailer" might be a bit en-encyclopedic, it just comes out at you from nowhere.
• The second half of the article seems much better written scientifically, while the first half has a more 'general public' feel.
• I've done a few minor changes here and there but welcome any comments or complaints. I think it's great and almost there, just needs a bit more tweaking.

Ramallite ^(talk) 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Let's get too it! Banana04131 03:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, is their any thing that struck you as sounding like original reasearch? Banana04131 04:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind these are just my thoughts, and you don't necessarily have to agree with them. Examples of original research may include:

• "T. rex will very likely remain a subject of ongoing scientific research and popular culture."
• "It should be remembered that most modern day carnivores are not exclusively scavengers or active predators. This was probably true of T. rex as well." (This one may or may not be OR)
• "Powerful forelimbs are not necessary for all living predators, crocodiles and birds of prey like the Secretary Bird being prime examples. "

There are many other examples where it's difficult to say whether these statements are sourced information or are coming from an editor who him/herself has a good knowledge of the material (which would be considered original research). Like I said before, these are not things that mar the article and should probably stay as they make it more interesting, but it would be something to keep in mind in case anybody else objects here on this page. I'll continue tweaking it as time permits.Ramallite ^(talk) 22:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments! I traced the warm-or-cold blooded paragraph back to the editor who wrote it over a year ago. I have left a note on their talk page but if they don't get back to me in a bit, I'll ask the Reference Desk. Banana04131 00:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to move this FAC. Banana04131 17:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Neuropsychopharmacology

I hope to put this article up for candidacy as featured article at some point. I have tried to impart a sense of the revolutionary strides that have been made in this field within the last 15 or so years, and have tried to provide a prudent, complete set of links out to appropriate articles so that a reader with minimal background can follow through (at this time I have not edited many links coming to this page yet). I am not professionally trained in this or related fields, so there's a chance that some of the detail may be open to debate. Otherwise there could be just about anything that someone may find could be improved. Thanks in advance for any help. --RichG 13:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Having very little knowledge of pharmacology and neuroscience, I find it a bit hard to follow. I don't expect to grasp all the technical details, but the writing could be improved (it's not bad, but could be better). A good idea is to open each section with a brief, very general explanation of how the concept to be described relates to the topic at large. The section on "Neurotransmission" comes to mind as violating this principle, starting out listing facts without relating them to neuropsychopharmacology. (The reader shouldn't be assumed to have memorized the information in the lead section.) The writing style I'm suggesting might introduce a tiny bit of redundancy, but it makes it much easier to get an overview for a non-expert. The images are also a bit hard to understand, and would benefit from more detailed captions. Looks great otherwise. Fredrik | talk 20:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback and correction of my confounded error of writing "ACPN" ! I spent some time trying to add some "down to earth" content to clarify things and improve the flow, and I wound up elaborating some things I felt were terse. I also expanded the diagram captions.--RichG 11:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting topic, but could use several types of improvements.

• It needs a concise, defining lead sentence.
• The intro is too long and contains some vague blather, like the phenomenology reference: the link is irrelevant and doesnt explain the usage, which is nearly unintelligible. Some of this material belongs in a history section and some could be dropped.
• All through the article there are nearly contentless remarks such as "xxx is a rapidly changing field" or "xxx shows promise of importance". Don't make the vague value judgements, either cut them or provide enough facts for the reader to draw such conclusions.
• The article doesn't give me the sense that the topic has been adequately "mapped" here in its broad categories. Instead there are bits and pieces of trivia with some generalizing statements. The outline of the article should resemble the topic list of an intro course on this subject.
• There should be a listing with a subsection for each of the major categories of pharmacologically relevant neurotransmitters (dopamine, serotonin, etc), and a similar overview with a subsection for each major family of psychotropic drugs (phenothiazines, SSRIs, etc). At least that is the core content the reader would expect to find in this article.
• What is the difference between psychopharmacology and neuropsychopharmacology? Is the latter a subset or a superset of the former? If the latter covers neurology drugs as well as psych drugs, then there needs to be coverage of the major neuro drugs which are anticonvulsants. If its the other way around, and only some part of psychopharmacology is included in neuropsychopharmacology, then that needs to be spelled out. If the answer is that the terms are in practice interchangeable, then use the simpler term and make a redirect from the one with the extra syllables.
• There is way too much detail about the journals. Links to the major two would suffice. The Hungarian journal of whatever has an impact factor of what?

Sorry if the comments sound harsh, but the topic and much of the content is a good enough start to be worth improving. alteripse 10:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I greatly appreciate the time you took to review this article. I think you are quite right about some things, but with other things I feel you are highly misplaced - not to say that I think I have 100% effectively conveyed my intentions within the article.

1. First of all, there is no "intro" course to my knowledge. The scope of the field is huge. Brain processes are incredibly complex. You could consider the "5th generation of progress" work to be an "introduction" text to the field, and it is thousands of pages long with something like 20,000 references. Have you taken a look at it? This is not a simple topic that can be summarized as "this, this, and that".
2. Because this topic is of such wide scope, my goal was to try to provide a flavor for the topic, with summaries of central aspects, samples of detailed schemas, and some indication of the direction. As I mentioned, there is no way to really represent this field in a few pages. Since it is really an amalgam of many things, I tried to establish appropriate article linking.
3. As far as a lead sentence, I agree, and actually worked on this before I saw your post.
4. I agree that a part of the intro might be better suited to a history section. But the phenomenology reference is accurate. It is there to convey that modern psychiatry is gaining some real basis. That you think it is "blather" makes me think you might not really know what it means. However, the statement in the article may be somewhat obtuse, and I will see if I can clarify it further.
5. I believe your claim concerning statements like "xxx is rapidly changing"... is probably quite on target. I will definitely focus some effort there.
6. As I mentioned, one cannot map the entire field in a reasonable-size article. However, if this is the case it should somehow be mentioned. I had actually thought about some type of statement but never included it.
7. There should not be categories with neurotransmitters. The neuropsychopharmacology article should discuss the relevance of neurotransmitters, not duplicate the article "neurotransmitter", which actually links to separate articles on each of them. What's the point of interlinking if you have to totally duplicate information? Again, I'm not claiming to have 100% achieved the goal of describing neurotransmitter relevance.
8. It was mentioned in the article that it includes psychoactive as well as neurologic agents. It is agreed that specific mention of anti-epileptic or anti-convulsant drugs could be made. If you want to contrast with psychopharmacology, you can look at that article. (I think that article needs some expansion to include more information about non-hallucinogens)
9. Sure, my mention of the impact factors and what-not are somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps that stuff could use some explanation. But I don't know how you can say I place too much emphasis on the journals. This is where the knowledge is. Much of this field is so new that some stuff virtually just doesn't exist elsewhere. Perhaps that could be clarified in the article.

In summary, my defense here represents some of the notions I had hoped to address in the article. If these goals can be achieved, I think the article will be closer to what it should be.--RichG 13:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can have an intro biology course you can have an intro pharmacology course or an intro neuropsychopharmacology course. Any field can be "mapped", just like you can make a map of anything from a meadow to a hemisphere. It is a matter of judging what should be included at what scale.

I think you achieved your intention but you haven't convinced me that "flavor" is a better approach for an encyclopedia article than a balanced overview. I did admire the quality of your linking.

I think I know what you intended to say, but your link is to an entirely different meaning for phenomenology and it leaves the reader guessing. Say it more clearly. If I don't know, I promise the majority of your readers without a medical degree will be even more in the dark.

As above, you can map any field if you have the scale of the article right. By your argument we cannot have an article on astronomy, or physics, or medicine, or molecular biology that attempt to tell the reader what topics are contained within the field. Any field is big from a close perspective. That is what you need to reconsider.

OK, you have persuaded me you are right on this point.

It might be worth while giving an explicit answer to my question for those of us who aren't sure. Is this a subfield of psychopharmacology, or a supercategory encompassing both psychoactive and neuroactive drugs?

As above, most of the current knowledge of any field resides in its journals, but that is a cop-out in an intro article. See what proportion of the pharmacology article (I havent checked) is devoted to discussing journals.

Perhaps we disagree on what should be the priority goal of an encyclopedia article on a field like this. If you were writing an encyclopedia article on Canada it would be different from a tourism brochure of the same length. It would mention each province and some salient information. A tourist brochure might give lots of detail about a nightclub in Quebec and a ski resort in British Columbia and not even mention Alberta. Flavor is nice but for Wikipedia an encyclopedic overview might be even nicer. alteripse 01:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• To conserve space on the Peer review page I have continued this discussion on Talk:Neuropsychopharmacology, with a digression on the philosophy and mapping of the article.--RichG 12:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the motivation to reassess article structure. I moved historical things to "history", clarified several aloof statements, added some stuff I hope will further improve the article. --RichG 13:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia

Just created article, so the references are a jumble until I can fix them up and add some print sources. Any suggestions? I really want to get something about the Malaysian affirmative action featured — if not this, then something like Bumiputra, Malaysian New Economic Policy or perhaps the currently uncreated Ketuanan Melayu. Johnleemk | Talk 13:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Very nice! You've created a very impressive article already. Here's what I would suggest to improve it.
  • I wouldn't include the full text of the article (the constitutional article that is). Perhaps this should be moved to WikiSource?
  • One you get the references in place you really should consider inline citations.
  • A good copyedit is needed by someone not invloved in the writing of this article. I've noticed a few minor things and I will endeavor to clean those up.
  • The article needs some images. Certainly images of the people involved, the Democratic Action Party logo, pics of the race riots perhaps. Anything to break up the copy.

Overall, a very impressive article! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 17:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I got the text from Wikisource, actually. I decided to do so because I noticed the articles we have on the various articles of the American constitution have the full text. Then again, their articles are short and to the point, and not verbose like the Malaysian constitution. I am not very satisfied by the existing footnoting systems available, but I might consider Harvard style referencing or inotes. Copyleft images or images usable as fair use are hard to find, as Malaysia does not have many copyleft photographers, and the May 13 Incident is a very hushed up issue - everyone knows about it, but nobody discusses it. I have never seen a single photograph of the riots. I will do my best to procure suitable images of the people involved; some of them, such as Lim Kit Siang, can be contacted through email, so I may begin there. Johnleemk | Talk 17:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

History of Ireland

Another great article about Ireland from the guys at Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board, and one very close to FAC quality. Needs some proofing and 'outsiders' opinions. Thanks Seabhcán 14:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Any way of losing the huge whitespace before Direct Rule (1971-1998)? Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Done Seabhcán 20:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• What would be nice: reduce the lead to 3 paras; add a pic to the lead; the pics at the bottom of 'Norman invasion and the Kingdom of Ireland' section are too cluttered - move/resize/remove; replace main article/see also templates with the correct one ({{details}}) and delete the ones refering to a yet-non-existing article. More notes would be nice as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read the whole article thoroughly but here are a few thoughts:

• The language in the opening sentence-and-a-bit should be more formal: it sounds like the start of a novel at the moment.
• Early Christian Ireland: I'm not keen on the sentence "Perhaps it was some of the latter..." - words like 'perhaps' and 'probably' strike me as unencyclopaedic. Similarly, "Patrick is credited, possibly too much so, " sounds like one person giving their opinion rather than something authoritative. If some sources suggest that Patrick got too much credit, it would be good to briefly state why they think this is so.
• It could do with a copyedit. Sentences such as "If Rome, or an ally, did invade, they didn't leave very much behind." are awkward and I think the article uses parentheses too much. I like it overall though, the content is good, it's an interesting read and it's good to see such a well-illustrated article. Definitely ready for WP:GA if you want to add it there. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• I also haven't had the time to read the article. Couldn't some information be put into the many daughter articles? The article is very huge. It is quite hard to review it without pre-requisite in Irish culture. I think one could reduce this to something like 35-40 KB. In particular the lead is quite long. Isn't there a way to digest this a bit more? Vb 13:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Imperialism in Asia

This article is an important one that unfortunately has never attracted too many editors over the years. In the past couple of days I expanded almost all of the incomplete sections; but there has been no no reaction on the talk page, or no one else editing the article. I'm hoping that a peer review will finally manage to attract some feedback to this article, and eventually bring it up to the quality to whcih an article on a subject of its importance should conform. 172 | Talk 01:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Took a quick look and seems very good (I'll read it more closely later). It raises the question as to whether there was imperialism in Asia before Europeans (Ghengus Khan?, Ancient China?, etc) or should the article be renamed European Imperialism in Asia? Seabhcán 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article suffers from systemic bias. The Chinese empire began forming around 400 B.C. if I remember correctly. Japanese imperialism needs to be discussed. Mongol imperialism. Also, what about the Indian empires? Mughal, Gupta, etc--those are part of Asia. And the Central Asian empires (e.g. Qajar), and the Islamic empires that penetrated into Central Asia. Also, the Russian empire in Siberia. This article should be moved to European imperialism in East Asia. —thames 15:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback... I meant to insert a placeholder for "Asian empires before European contact" as the first section. I'd forgotten, so I just inserted it. (I feel slightly embarrassed now that I forgot to reassure everyone that I had not completely forgotten the Indian and Chinese dynasties, the Mongols, the Islamic empires, etc. at first.) At any rate, this means the first section and the last two are left to be finished. I can finish the last two sections on Japan and the postwar era. But I'm hoping that I can find someone else to write the section on Asian imperialism in the ancient and medieval periods, as that it outside my scope of competence.

I favor the current structure presupposed by the existing content and the placeholder headings (but I am very open to feedback) because European imperialism in Asia does not set reasonable boundaries for a topic, as it would exclude from discussions of "the New Imperialism" the important factors of the rise of Japanese and American imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. In other words, if this article is going to be broken up (and it may not have to be if a strong section on "Asian empires before European contact" is written for the beginning), it's better to divide up the topic by time as opposed to place. 172 | Talk 20:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Niiiice, I can see this FACed soon. Some notes: lead is too long, needs trimming (and that's comming from me, long lead fan :). I wish I was more familiar with this subject, alas, I know very little about this time and place. I think Japan imperialism pre and during IIWW deserves a significant expantion, as it is a very interesting proof that non-Western societies can be as imperial and the Westerners. Something on modern (communist) China (absobtion of Tibet, evolution into modern regional and global power and neighbour fears) would also be nice. I am looking forward to reading this during FAC process! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Japan and modern Communist China are the two main areas left unfinshed. I was making good progress earlier, but got distracted in work on other pages. 172 | Talk 05:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Should this article be called European imperialism in Asia to differentiate it from Arab imperialism? What about the Greek and Roman Empires? A lot of statements (for instance about the development or destruction of social systems, or the mentalities of the people) could use more references. Smmurphy 15:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

About the article: Very comprehensive, but the section structure is heavily granulated. Consider merging or summarizing a lot of them. Getting an overview is a chore, never mind actually reading the whole thing. Try not to focus so narrowly on the actions of individual nations. Make broader strokes, if anything. That can make it to smooth out any POVs. And the lead is absolutely gigantic; two paragraphs at most will suffice. We have a lot of really long history FAs, and I really don't see a good reason for it. Please keep the focus on achieving a summary style.

Please try not to link more than half the dates, decades and centuries in the article. They're just not that relevant.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Economics of the Iroquois

(Self-nomination) This article covers much of the information available on the subject, while not incredibly long. The article also covers an important area (Native Americans) that Wikipedia often neglects, so getting a FA article in the area would be useful. All facts are referenced and several relevant images are included in the article.--Bkwillwm 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Very nice article! We definitely need more article on Native American subject. I'm just about to go to bed, but I wanted to make a few suggestions. I'll read the article thoroughly tomorrow and make some more comments. I think you can certainly enlarge the pictures. They all seem too small especially Champlain's view of the deer hunt and the engraving of the fishing scene. Both are almost too small to make out without viewing a larger version. I would also suggest using a citation system similar to the one I used in my FA on the Mandan people of North Dakota. It simply makes for easier viewing and it's not difficult to implement. The introduction does not give anything in terms of actual dates that this article covers; I find the issue of the time period that this article covers to be a bit vague. The title of books in Reference should be italicized. Overall this is a very nice looking article and it certainly covers an important subject! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have looked at the article more closely. It's very well written and readable. I think you should include some of the history of the Iroquois Confederacy. Just enough so that the reader can understand this subject in a historical context without having to follow links. It seems that there is very little on the modern economy that should definitely be included. Keep up the good work! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia doesn't "neglect" anything, because Wikipedia is not a being. It is the product of choices made by individuals who volunteer to write and edit articles. Feel free to produce more articles on Native Americans and encourage others to do the same.Logophile 14:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Convert notes to Wikipedia:Footnotes. Add some more ilinks (European contact, linguistic group, cultural customs... - all of those should have their own articles). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Berry

Previously submitted to peer review before (see archive), the article has been reformatted to be clearer and more concise. Two album covers have been added and more of his works have been added to the table at the bottom. I'm hoping to get some feedback regarding the content (what needs to be improved upon, what should be expanded, what is unclear etc.); layout; and any other general comments.

As there is nothing (that I know of) about Dennis Berry in print, it's difficult to cite references. The only things I have are the actual records he made (and I assume there are some documents concerning those and their production), Performing Rights Society (PRS) royalties breakdowns which document where his work is currently being used, and what I have learnt through discussions with my grandmother and my mother. I have been able to find a few websites which mention him, which have also been added to the article. Howie ☎ 02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is just generally lacking context. The 'Early life' and 'Marriage and family' sections are just too short, maybe they could be merged together and retitled. The lead is very short, the lead of an article should summarize all the details into one or two concise paragraphs (see WP:Lead). There are lots of red links in the Career section which you may want to fix. There is also a lack of external links, I was expecting quite a few more other websites than just IMDB. Good work so far, keep it up. — Wackymacs 16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'll get on and sort out the early life/marrige parts - I'm sure I can find out more about that from my grandmother, As for the external links... well there's not much else I can provide other than the IDMb listing, and the references. He seems to be continuously left out of most sites regarding light music, or he barely gets a mention; and there is certainly no official site or anything like that. Not sure what else I can really add to that. Howie ☎ 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Solid State Lighting

This is my first article on Wikipedia, and would appreciate any constructive criticism on my style or techniques I can use. I realize that the topic can seem a bit esoteric to some, but the technology behind it is quite fascinating.

Any constructive or technical feedback is appreciated.

Ihoudini 10:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• I like it! Very well put together. One thing - "solid-state" refers to the notion that the semiconductor properties fall within the subject of "solid-state physics" which is largely quantum-mechanical in it's approach. Another thing comes to mind, there are in fact people attempting to light their homes using this technology despite the initial cost. I think there is a noted person in England, - sorry if this is no help. You also might mention the flashlights that have been marketed, having on the order of ~13 times (guess) the battery life and many years of continuous-use total life.--RichG 12:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for the feedback. The writing style "solid-state" and "solid state" was used interchangibly throughout the web when I did my research. If I am referring to something incorrect by using the "-", please let me know. The coined phrase "solid state lighting" is from elsewhere, however. I added a few lines on its applications today, though I focused primarily on its future potential, as there is still extensive R&D to be done. SSL generally refers to replacement lighting for homes, though I am open to your suggestion for its inclusion in other areas (ie, flashlights). Perhaps you can guide me? It'd be much appreciated. --Ihoudini 01:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello again. I was specifically refering to the very beginning of your article. Trust me, solid state refers to the fact that an LED is based on Solid-state physics, not solid versus gas, although popular usage may have gained this meaning because of fluorescents. I can't really help you with sources, but if you google "LED flashlight" you'll get lots of stuff. By the way, there was a breakthrough in efficiency announced a few months ago by Universal Display Corporation. You should check them out if you haven't.--RichG 12:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Some ideas to get you started with improving the article:

• A picture of SSL is needed to illustrate the lighting style.
• The second sentence seems to imply incandescent lighting is emitted from a vacuum or gas tube rather than a solid filament but this is incorrect.
• History needs to be expanded - you might like to include a few more details on the history of the LED.
• Formatting needs to be reconsider - for example, it would be best to remove the double line-breaks.

You might also like to mention that although SSL is rarely used as a complete lighting solution it is currently being used for decorative lighting, flashlights and traffic lights. [11]

Good luck with your work. Cedars 02:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting system

I've been working on this article for a while, and I'd like to eventually get it to featured article status. Since the article has been worked on mostly by voting enthusiasts, I'd like to know how understandable and informative it is to other people.

The area of voting theory is interesting for Wikipedia to take on, because almost all of the published literature and web sites are biased in favor of one voting method or another. People don't tend to write about voting theory unless they have a POV to push. So I'd like to make sure that this article is a shining bastion of NPOV in a subject area that sorely needs one.

rspeer 22:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed two things while doing a quick read of the article. First the article seems to only consider systems were each voter has an equal say. Some mention should be made of elections, such as corporate shareholder elections, where individuals may have different numbers of votes available to them. The second issue is that the article has multiple sections consisting of only one or two short paragraphs. These should either be expanded or consolidated so that each subsection has at least two good sized paragraphs. --Allen3 ^talk 00:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I assume one of the problems was the section on proportional representation, which was a one-paragraph lead followed by two small sections. I consolidated that into one section. I also need to deal with "The single-winner revival", but I'm not sure yet whether I can flesh it out or whether I should merge it with another section. rspeer 03:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, right. I'm thinking about how to work in different amounts of voting power, too. rspeer 05:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You could expand on the discussion of cumulative voting, which is the most common (and probably intuitive) method of assigning unequal power to voters. Rather than "one man one vote" it's "one share one vote" Scott Ritchie 08:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

TGV

Maybe too technical? Not enough book references?

Looks good—not too technical at all; I'd be surprised if references can't be solely Internet ones. Good pics. I'll run through it some time soon. Tony 13:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• An excellent article that is quite approachable and is not too technical at all. You'll probably get dinged for lack of references and the bulleted lists. Reviewers usually prefer that you replace the later with normal prose, which usually isn't too difficult. I did get to ride on the TGV a couple of times; very nice, amazingly quiet, and quite smooth. There is (or, at least, was at the time) a track guage difference between France and Spain, so at the border crossing they had a stop where they adjusted the wheel spacing on the cars. — RJH 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The gauge difference exists for "normal" speed trains. The high speed trains in Spain use the same gauge as in France. David.Monniaux 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. Well it's been a while so my memory was a little fuzzy. ;-) — RJH
• Bullet points scrapped. A couple of references added - TGVweb is quite extensive. Willkm 23:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• I like it. Nice job. Fsiler 10:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• It's good, but there's still work to be done before I would support it as an FAC:
  • I've gone through a couple sections with a copyedit, adding unit conversions and &nbsp; characters between the measurements and their units. There is probably more that could be done in this regard, and I'll work on this part more as I have time.
  • The History section is too short compared to the infrastructure detail. Compare the history section here with the design and construction section of Pioneer Zephyr for an idea of what I'm thinking about.
    • Added some content to the History section. Willkm 23:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There are far too few references for an article of this length. With a train type as famous as this, I would think that print references would be a requirement. I'll see what I've got in my own library this week.
  • The lead section does not adequately summarize the entire article. With an article this long, I would expect the lead to be three paragraphs, with more detail on the background, history, construction and infrastructure all in the lead.
    • Added some content to the lead section Willkm 23:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'll probably find a few more things that I can help out with as I go through it more. slambo 15:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've gone through it with a copyedit, moved the pictures so they more closely relate to the text that borders them and added the comparison table. I've also started the Criticisms section with information about the protest in Milan earlier this week. There have got to be more criticisms than that over the system's 40 year history, and it needs to be expanded before we try for featured status. Also, with the Track and Rolling stock sections as big as they are, I wonder if we should split them out into a subarticle (such as TGV infrastructure, and keep summary information from it here) and place more emphasis here on the history and politics of the service. slambo 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please see the discussion regarding moving the article to one of it's full name and using the acronym as a disambiguation page...thanks bcatt 12:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • TGV is its full name, with its origins in an acronym. Please see the comments I've added to the discussion page Willkm 23:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Dennis Enviro 500

This article was created by myself. However, I think that this article is not good enough to be an FA. How can I improve it? 202.40.210.178 08:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have cleaned it up generally by removing some smaller sections and merging them into the larger sections. It needs to cite some specific references, and I suggest an expansion of the lead paragraph. A couple more photos would be good as well. Not too bad so far. Have you considered registering an account here at Wikipedia? — Wackymacs 19:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My name is cheung1303. I tried to put some articles to Peer Review to ask for suggestions of improvements.
• The intoduction is expanded, and the references section is added. 202.40.210.244 05:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • • You should always post messages and edit on Wikipedia using your user name, you'll be trusted more. The lead is still a bit too short considering the length of the article. Before posting things for peer review, you might want to check Wikipedia:What is a featured article first. Thanks. — Wackymacs 07:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• The introduction is now expanded. It now looks like:

Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 is one of the bus models made by Transbus International (now renamed Alexander Dennis) of United Kingdom. It is designed and built according to current European standards and the operating environment of Hong Kong. As of September 2005, there are 235 buses in service, of which 3 belong to Long Win Bus. This bus model now serves on various routes all over Hong Kong, and good reputation was made by the passengers.

219.77.61.114 11:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ceteris paribus

This is a nice article. Is there more work that should be done?

• It is well written. Right off the bat it needs sources and external links.Logophile 14:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's a good article. The one sentence that threw me a little was the last in the "Ceteris paribus in economics" where an equals to (=) was used. It looks a little informal and should use equivalent english instead. Is there anything available on the historical origins of this phrase? Any books/literature for further reading? Thanks. — RJH 16:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Bayreuth Festival

Several editors, notably User:Dtaw2001, have been working to upgrade the standards of this article, which is now quite comprehensive. I feel it is a strong featured article candidate. As such, any additional information, feedback or comments would be very much appreciated. Dottore So 17:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• If the article fits the featured article criteria , there's no need to go through peer review. It's not mandatory. Feel free to go ahead with the FA nomination if this is the case. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Adams

A number of editors have worked on this article since it was first posted in November 2001. I've been working heavily on revisions to the article since May of this year. I think it has come quite a long way. One snag that his published biographies point out is how difficult it is to keep Adams's life in any sort of chronology, since he was working on several different projects at once, especially during the late 1970s and early 1980s. A few suggestions have been made on the talk page, and many of these have been carried out. I'd like to open discussion up to a wider audience, however, and get some further feedback. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The way the information about his various works has been provided seems okay, sounding very much like other biographies of the author I have come across. I do feel that the article could use a few more pictures, maybe the covers of books or stills from the movie? Saksham 11:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The real trick, of course, is to strike a balance between too few pictures, and too many. Only recently did the screenshot of Adams from 1985 get pasted over from the Hitchhiker's article. I'll see what else I can come up with. If anyone has a copy of the first printing UK paperback cover of Hitchhiker's (the multi-coloured one), could you scan and add it under {{bookcover}}? --JohnDBuell | Talk 16:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any danger of this article having too many images in the foreseeable future; it has very few for its size currently. In my view, an article like History of Poland (1945–1989) gives a good idea of the maximum number of images a article can have before it becomes oversaturated, in terms of text-to-image ratio. An article like Douglas Adams could probably take a maximum of about 10 more images, assuming they were spaced evenly all the way down the page and were suitably topical. I'd advise getting at least half that many to help break up long stretches of text, if possible. As a long-term goal, at least.

I'd love to use original covers of the UK editions of The Hitchhiker's Guide and Dirk Gently but I don't own UK editions myself.

The article looks pretty good overall. Consider merging "environmentalism" and "religion" into a general "beliefs" section, so it can be expanded more and not have such small sections.

Done.

Change "premature death" to "death" (it's an unnecessary POV, and implies that other deaths not so labelled aren't premature), and consider reworking the The Salmon of Doubt section—having it as a subsection of "Premature death" is extremely strange, and having an entire section that's basically a long, multi-paragraph quote is discouraged; you may want to consider moving that to the The Salmon of Doubt article.

Done. Very good idea,a ctually.

Also, I don't think italicizing section names is standard, even when they're book or TV series titles.

We did this on the Hitchhiker's page without any objections :)

"alt.fan.douglas-adams" is very strangely placed, appearing, as it does, after his death and biographies; consider moving it and possibly expanding it into a subsection of a general "community" section. It might also make a good article on its own; since the Douglas Adams article is fairly long, consider areas where information can be shortened or moved to other articles, wherever compactness improves (rather than worsens) the flow of the text and the information given.

I had suggested, and have yet to carry out, a change of this section, as Adams replied to fans on BBSs, then usenet/e-mail, and eventually had his own forums (so that people would keep questioning if it was "THE" Douglas Adams or not) before his death in 2001. I further suggested that this could become part of a section touching on Adams's love of technology.

I'd also consider revising or expanding his intro paragraph, since it seems to spend far too much time on trivial information—e.g. an entire line is spent on his birth/death paranthetical statement because it goes to the trouble of including where he was born and died, which should probably be just left out of the opening since it's stated within the article text anyway, and is much less important than his nationality, etc.; another whole line is spent on cute, silly nicknames of his. This wouldn't be such a problem if a little more basic info was given on his overall career, accomplishments, and claims to fame in the opening paragraph, beyond just H2G2. -Silence 20:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not very good at re-writes like this. Anyone want to try to tackle a new introductory paragraph or two or three? --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone still wants to attempt to re-write the article's lead paragraphs, please do! I'm still waiting on materials to become available to me in order to add cover images of the UK editions of The Hitchhiker's Guide AND Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. Otherwise, as I said on the article's talk page, I really FINALLY consider this article to be complete. --JohnDBuell 21:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ubykh language

I read this article and I thought it was really well-written, and I would like to know what others think. --Hottentot 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It does say alot about the language, but why does it have the cite sources tag when it has about eight references at the bottom? Astrokey44 14:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would try to make this article more accessible to a general audience. Most people are not familiar with linguistic terms and should not have to learn all of them before reading an overview of a language. I think you might be able to make the article easier to read without dumbing it down by briefly explaining what the terms mean and by giving examples and comparing them to English. -- Mwalcoff 05:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The article needs more, properly written prose. Way too many bullet lists. There's no proper lead, just a lenghtly etymology, which isn't terribly relevant. Sections like "Curiosities" need to go, too. And what's with all the bolding?

I think the sources sign is up because the article doesn't cite them properly. Stating the sources at the top of each section isn't the way to do it.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Albanian language

This article has undergone vast improvement over the last few days and I would like some feedback on what other editors feel should be improved, what is lacking in clarity, is the article sufficiently NPOV etc. The current layout of the article is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Language Template, but this article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Pages using the template needing attention and has been there, well... since forever. Any sugestions that could help it be removed from the *yuk* list are welcome. Rex^(talk) 21:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It still needs:

• more on contacts with other languages, maybe some statistics about how many words are "native" and how many borrowed and from where.
• the history is still sketchy.
• the comparison table is not very concludent: a better table should include Latin, Sanskrit, Proto-Slavic/Old Slavonic, Gothic/Old Germanic and Old Norse, Ancient Greek, some old Iranian language, Armenian and Lithuanian. A table with these languages would be very useful for showing its affiliation (Satem, etc) A reconstruction of the words in Albanian as they looked 2000 years ago would be great, but probably harder to find! The non-Indo-European languages certainly don't belong in there.
• more details on grammar -- there's almost nothing on the verb system.
• phonetical changes, from Indo-European until the Roman times, from the Roman times to Common Albanian and the ones made by each dialect -- this would require reading some more scientific studies :-)
• writing system -- maybe some pictures with documents in Greek and Arabic scripts. bogdan | ^Talk 22:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

OK they'll all be seen to (easier said than done). Bear in mind however that Latin, Armenian, Lithuanian and Sanskrit are on the table. Rex^(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with bogdan about the history, but that's about it. Other than that, I'd say it needs fewer tables and lists and less detail and more general information. Here are my recommendations:

• Ditch the lexicon tables. It doesn't belong under "Classification" to begin with and that many examples is just overly detailed. A handful (as in no more than 3-4) of in-prose examples is more than enough. That goes for the comparison table of Tosk and Gheg, too. Again, general information is needed.
• Remove the orthographically oriented letter-to-sound table in the phonology section. One for consonants and one for vowels is enough. Please keep the tables limited to phonemes. Describe allophones in prose.
• The grammar section is mostly just a description of how nouns and verbs are declined. This is not particularly useful in an encyclopedia. Please describe what makes Albanian grammar distinctive. Describe both similarities and differences compared to (all) other languages, related and unrelated.
• Remove the "Examples" altogether. Neither "hello", "good bye" nor "where's the bathroom?" is enlightening to explain the language. Sounds samples are good, but do try to record either a poem or excerpt from well-known (and preferably well-loved) Albanian prose or of minimal pairs. Tourist phrases belong in guide books.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

2005 Philippine electoral crisis

Moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/Hello Garci scandal/archive1

Carl Johan Trygg

Would like to have page reviewed for content, style, informative content, etc. Kaiserb 17:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• The biography is pretty sparse. Are there any more information sources where you could fill in more of the life history? For example, when and why did he return to Sweden? — RJH 16:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There really is not that much information available regarding the Trygg Family. Much of the information available is limited too a reference paragraph or two in carving books. Google and other sites have produced more opinions of collectors than actual facts. This lack of information probably stems from the fact that the majority of their carvings were sold as tourist gifts and they [the Trygg family] were not recognized as craftspeople or artists. Kaiserb 16:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Irna Phillips

I have been trying to beef up this article and added it to nomination for the biographical collaboration. I would like to know what others think of the way it is strutured, check the prose and grammar, and fact check by individuals who are more knowedable about her than I am ( I have mostly utilized the books "Worlds Without End", "Prime Time, Prime Movers", & "All Her Children". I do not have access to a copy of Harding LeMay's autobiograph 8 Years in Another World so if anyone has a copy of that and can find some good information to add it would be great. I am also hoping someone can add more information from interviews with William J. Bell who looks to have had much more prolonged contact with her than Agnes Nixon who in 1976 shortly after Phillips' death actually comes off a little bitter (albeit stil very greatful) of the treatment she received from her mentor when she moved to New York (okay I know Nixon lives in Pencilvania but still her shows are made there and just like Phillips she frequenly made the train trip). Thanks for any assistance. Dowew 02:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I Heard It Through the Grapevine

An inherently complex article, becasue it must cover several different versions of one song before it mentions the familiar one by Marvin Gaye (especially since a previous version was almost as big a hit as his). Suggestions on formatting, layout, prose, sectioning, etc. are greatly appreciated. --FuriousFreddy 02:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is a great article. You could add a short description of the lyrics as well as how they are feminized in the Gladys Knight version. -- Mwalcoff 04:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Good stuff; it needs references, though. Mark¹ 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• How long were they # 1 or 2 hits? When? Were there any other significant awards? I don't want to make comparisons for the sake of comparisons, but the article on Layla is really superb.Trevdna 04:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The article mentions how long each was a number-one hit on the respective charts in the prose. All significant awards that I have information on (Grammy Hall fo Fame and Rolling Stone List) are alread ymentioned. The "Layla" article is good, but there's a lot of lists where there should be prose. I'm not nominating "Grapevine" for FAC, by the way; I just want to make it a better article. --FuriousFreddy 01:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland naming dispute

This article hasn't had any recent edits which indicates it is in a rather stable state, yet it isn't very long. What do people suggest is added to the article to make it more comprehensive? Talrias (t | e | c) 21:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I performed a rather strict Google test. I searched the World Wide Web for the exact phrase "Northern Ireland naming dispute", excluded the word Wikipedia and there was only one result: www.copywriteireland.co.uk/agency-airline-recruitment.aspx, which I suspect is a mirror site.

In light of this I would like to ask the editors a few questions.

• Are you sure that a Northern Ireland Naming dispute exists?
• If yes, can you prove it?
• As the phrase "Northern Ireland naming dispute" is literally not used outside Wikipedia, can you think of a name that more accurately reflects the situation (assuming that one exists)?

Personally, I think that the content of the article is great. I don't know much about Northern Ireland, but I have heard everything mentioned in the article before. It seems to be NPOV as it doesn't take sides by supporting only one POV. The only recommendation I can make is that you consider changing its title to something else. I don't think that what the article is describing is a dispute. It seems to be merely variations in naming. Perhaps it could be moved to Naming variations of Northern Ireland or something like that, not that Google would find many results for that. Is there an official name or another widely used name for this naming anomaly? Izehar 23:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You can see that the naming dispute exists by looking at the websites of the various political parties which organise in Northern Ireland. For example, the DUP call it "Northern Ireland" and occasionally "Ulster" on their website, while Sinn Fein call it the "Six Counties" on their website.

I don't believe there is a official governmental name for the dispute as by law the area is named Northern Ireland, and I'm not familiar with any discussion on what to call the name in the UK Parliament, the Irish Oireachtas or a governmental body. It's pretty much accepted that N.I. is the official name, but other names are used colloquially. I would argue that it is a dispute (taking dispute to mean that there are different 'factions' which disagree about something). It's probably not the best name, so any suggestions on alternate names are welcome!

Thanks for your comments, Talrias (t | e | c) 08:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Another solution to the problem would be to add the entire article contents onto a section in Northern Ireland. --bodnotbod 15:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought of that at first, but this article is too large to merge it into the Northern Ireland article. Izehar 15:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Izehar - this article could theoretically be slimmed down and merged into Northern Ireland, however I think slimming it down would mean omitting some interesting information. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

An interesting topic. Here are some things that might be added: what naming conventions are used by different publications, for example, local newspapers of varying political stripes? Have there been any atlas rows, as with the Persian Gulf naming dispute? Schoolbooks are another potential source of controversy. I imagine there have probably been some polls published of locals as to their preferred name. And let's not just look regionally; these issues might well also come up in the Irish diaspora in the U.S., Canada or Australia. I could also see some non-Irish politically sympathetic to Irish nationalism, like some Basque nationalists, expressing an opinion on the issue. Also, what specific efforts have been made to promote alternate names- how are groups organized to specifically foster an identity other than "Northern Ireland"? And, what exactly is the origin of "Northern Ireland" as an official name?--Pharos 23:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As an idle thought, related to the last comment, it might be worth referencing the unofficial(?) "renaming" of Scotland to North Britain in the 1700s as a comparison. I have no idea how well they compare, but it does strike me as a potentially interesting paragraph or two. Shimgray | talk | 23:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

This is part two of an ongoing effort to get the USA PATRIOT Act up to speed. As this is a work in progress, I'm really asking for a status check to see how things are going. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My comments:

1. Lots of sections are too short, maybe there are too many sections?
2. The lead is very short considering the length of the article.
3. The last few sections are empty.
4. There are a few red links, both in the context and the box at the top.

It looks pretty good so far, keep it up! I can't see much else, though someone might want pictures added, and external links about this title of the Act might be preferable as well. — Wackymacs 07:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A short explanation for the short sections: if you actually look at each of the sections, they correspond with each of the sections of the Act. I was going to fixup the lead section, and then add a summary of the main features of the Act. Then I was going to add commentary from outside parties. The redlinks in the box is because I haven't been able to get started on the other Titles yet :-) Ta bu shi da yu 14:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tecmo Cup Football Game

This article was written according to the Computer and video games Wikiproject style. Please keep in mind that this game is extremely rare, and only about three websites even mention it. This accounts for the short number of references and external links. I'm especially looking for tips on improving the lead section and the Characters section. LordViD 16:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union

The article is comprehensive and stable. I can't think of anything that would need adding, should anything be removed? - FrancisTyers 18:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You can start by 1) adding references, preferably with the use of Wikipedia:Footnotes. 2) History section seem POVed: The article states: [after 1945] The Soviet Union aided postwar reconstruction in Eastern Europe. I'd very much like to learn how? SU forbade them to join the Marshall Plan, took (part of?) their part of repatriations from Germany and gave what in return? The communist economy? The history section also makes no reference to the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, and I see no mention of how it gained control of Eastern Europe, killed of or forced into exile any opposition, and ruled over its satellite states for the next four and a half decades (if you haven't read it, I recommend History of Poland (1945-1989), a Featured Article). Besides the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, such events as the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Prague Spring, Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sino-Soviet split should be mentioned as well. Then there is not a single word of those satellites slipping the SU grip (Solidarność) and how that contributed to the eventual fall of the SU. 3) sections like 'Geography' are a stub-sections (expand), 'Culture' is a list (write!). 4) Remove see also sections from mainbody, and transform them, as well as some of the main articles, into the proper {{details}}. 5) economics section: 'Soviet citizens of the 1980s had economic parity to the West.' - what?? source please. I wouldn't call the shortage economy parity. And one of the few bright sides of the Soviet economy, its independence of the business cycles and thus depressions (including the Great one and the Oil Depression of the 70's) are glaring omission from this section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Forbiding" entrance to Marshall in no way opposes the fact that USSR contributed postwar reconstruction in Eastern Europe. Stating that western capitalist economies are efficient or do aid a country is as well a POV. Also, I'm very new to wikipedia but I read somewhere that no wikipedia article can serve as reference for other wikipedia article, mainly I say it because you cite "History of Poland (1945-1989)" as reference for USSR's control over Eastern Europe's "satellites". As well it is completely incorrect to claim that USSR's economy was communist and furthermore even more inccorect to state it is an unneffective economical system since it has never been tried to be implemented seriously inspite of claims that it has been tried to be stablished 201.129.240.39 16:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Malta

I believe this article is potentially an article which should fall under the category of featured articles. Maltesedog 20:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Take a look at some already featured counrties like Bhutan and Australia, this article should attempt to conform to a similar structure including the topics covered in the various sections and refernces so that the reader can verify infromation if they want to.--nixie 05:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • What do you think now Maltesedog 19:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Seems a little sparse on photos. Karmafist 01:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here a several key things that need to be worked on:

1. Economic history should be summaried and merged into Economics Done
2. Tourism can probably also be merged into economics done ~~

1. Education should be merged into demographics, demographics should also mention religious participation and languages spoken Done ~~

1. Culture should be expanded into several paragraphs- Maltese art and literature, music, festivals, sports, cuisine, tranditional dress (if there is one) and media should all be described in some detail Help requested

1. The external links section needs to be cleaned up to include link only direct relevant to the topic. Done ~~
2. The lead section is also a bit short.

--nixie 01:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I am doing the above slowly.. wonder if others could help me out as well. I'm marking what's done on the list.

Maltesedog 08:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some idea to improve the article:
  • use the main template.
  • expand the lead to make the article more appealing to read. Why not speaking about the Knights of Malta? Or summarize its rich history? Mv the discussion about the most southern point of Europe to geography.
  • When did that happen: "short period of Byzantine rule, and a probable sack by the Vandals"?
  • Mv "Their influence can be seen most prominently in the modern Maltese language, which is closely related to Arabic, though it has also been heavily influenced by Romance tongues. The Maltese alphabet is based on the Latin alphabet, but uses a number of diacritically altered letters not found in other Latin-based alphabets, such as ċ, ġ, and ħ. " to culture
  • Shouldn't the "Maltese nobility" have its own section?
  • Info "As a ruse, Napoleon asked for safe harbor to resupply his ships, and then turned against his hosts once safely inside Valetta. The occupying French forces were unpopular, however, due particularly to their negative attitude towards religion. The Maltese rebelled against them, and the French were forced behind the fortifications." is too detailed here. As well as "under General Claude-Henri Belgrand de Vaubois"
  • The section "Politics" could be expanded with a description of the judicial and legal system (What is the power of the president and prime minister?) as well as a summary of the recent political issues (e.g. referendum over entry in the EU).
  • The list of islands is too long and should be transferred to an article of its own.
  • rm "which even many locals have no idea how to locate"; sounds like trivia
  • Could you add mean winter and summer temperature?
  • Historical paragraphs of economy could be merged into a single one.
  • Tourism section should split into culture and politics
  • Demography section could be expanded with literacy, religion, language, urbanisation
  • Education should be merged into demography and re-structured in one paragraph only
  • Culture is just a stub. Discuss the influences let by the different conquerors. What are the major artists in literature, music, cinema, painting? What about cuisine and sport?
  • Restructure the external link and throw out what is not really relevant or commercial

Cheers Vb 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Moreover: please add some pictures. One pic for each section is a good idea. E.g. landascape, history, economics, politics, culture. Vb 14:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• In reply to your ideas I would be grateful if you can help in the following:

(a) Which template are you referring to do. The current template is more comprehensive, and think sould stay.

I mean the {{main|history of Malta}} template.

(b) I did not understand the part which you instructed me to move the content of the Maltese language.

I don't know exactly where you should move it. But it should not be in history. It is too detailed for that section. I think it could belong to the sections Demographics or Culture depending how you decide to re-structure those both sections which need strong re-edit and expansion.

(c) Maltese Nobility is a hot issue on wikipedia. several deletions etc. It was decided that it should have an article on its own.

I understand but a summary of this article must be here with {{main|Maltese nobility}} below the header.

(d) Will check re byzantine rule

(e) The Napolean info was added recently. will su mmarise it.

I think it was better before the addition. Too detailed information should disappear from history because if you detail one particular event you'll have to detail all other events to a same level if you want the article to stay NPOV.

(f) There is in fact an article on the list of islands. the list in the main page is the list of cities i presume.

You presume well. You should summarize this to the biggest cities and change this list into prose. Then it could be moved into geography or demographics (if you add the population numbers).

(g) I have recently cleaned up some external links.

I have the feeling there are still too many but I think it is a detail which can be polished when demographics, culture, etc... sections will be re-edited and expanded. Vb 10:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

212.56.128.186 06:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

So far....

- The following changes have been implemented. Your views so far:

These include

• Inclusion of dates of Byzantine rule

Change the exact dates into centuries. Add a date or century to the sack by the vandals. It appears as if the Byzantines were new conquerors. Of course they were not. It was simply an administrative transition.

• • I believe the date is not known. Some expert would have to reply to this.

Am I right?

• Various photos

The photos are not brilliant. The historical map sis not very instructive. A painting of a battle, of a conqueror, of an archelogical site, a castle or city wall would be better. "His Excellency Dr. Edward Fenech Adami, President of Malta" couldn't be change into "Edward Adami, President since XXXX". Isn't it possible to find a better pic of Adami? Make the CIA map smaller. All the pics afterwards could have been done in any developed country.

Couldn't you find something more typical of Malta? I am still missing a landscape or a view of La Valette. A "typical village feast" shows only balloons. I would prefer a pic of traditional dress, a typical local tradition, a food speciality.

• • The problem with photos is COPYRIGHT. Those are the photos supplied by the European Union on Malta, and are "official Photos of Malta". I believe they are important aspects of Malta. The fish market of Marsaxlokk is part of our daily lifes. You would note the baloons in the village feast pic, but there are street decorations, such as the statues etc. However, if in the future better pictures are found these have to be replaced. I am changing the history photo, caption of President amended.

• Role of the President of Malta

Yes that's good. I am still missing information about supreme court, civil or common law system. Participation to the elections, etc...

• • Will be done shortly

• Removal of local councils list (major cities to be included under demographics)

The subtitle should also disappear. Translation in Maltese language are not useful. DONE

I am working on a template for the LC list. please see Mtarfa for an example of it. should this go on the main Malta page?Srl 21:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC).

• • SRL: Your work is great. I have contributed to most of the articles on the various villages in Malta. I would personally include the template, and then remove, if requested so. Roderick Mallia had initiated a project of infoboxes in the Maltese wikipedia. I don't know the progress, I believe a similar idea should be implemented in the English wiki as well. Maltesedog 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Education is merged with demographics

This paragraph should be turned into prose. What is the level of litteracy? Enrollement in post secondary school? DONE

• More links were deleted

Still many to delete. E.g. Malta military belongs to the Military of Malta article, Mystery surounding archeological sites on Malta belongs (maybe) to History of Malta

• Transfer of information from introduction into Geography section
• Requested an expert in Maltese nobility to write a small article for the main page.
• Placed the comment on language under demographics
• Removed tourism section - merged with intro & economy

The tourism comments of the intro makes the article sound like a travel guide. You should put this elsewhere. Museums belong to culture. Beaches and tourist shops should move to economy. Vb 16:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Maltesedog 14:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Butter

I hope to get this to FA soon. I haven't converted refs to footnotes yet, and obviously the "Health and nutrition" section needs some more meat. Any input or help at all is much appreciated! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Nice, well-rounded article. 1) However it has a slight US/Western tilt. Butter in the United States must consist of at least 80% butterfat by weight; in France, 82%... ; in the United States, this is usually to ... etc. 2) (though the buttermilk most common today is instead a directly fermented skim milk) -- remove the parentheses. 3) Great Britain --> United Kingdom 4.) (McGee 35) etc should be converted to {{tl:inote}} =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been struggling with the American/Eurocentrism, and you're right of course. It's especially inane because India seems to be the butter (or ghee anyway) capital of the world. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I would rephrase it more on the lines of "In most countries, butter must consist of between 80-82% of butterfat by weight...". Something on those lines would be more neutral. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Your easy issues (United Kingdom, parens, footnotes) are done now. I've been slowly trying to give it a less US/Europe focus as well. Thanks again. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Buffalo-milkers must have difficult jobs. My wish list for this article: (a) a more detailed description of chemical properties of butter - it is a fatty acid (a long hydrocarbon chain with a carboxyl (acid) group), the molecules easily slide past one another making butter slippery, has a hydrophilic carboxyl group on one end and a hydrophobic methyl group on the other which makes the molecules lump together to protect the hydrophobic end, differentiate cis and trans formations, also S and C formations, why is the melting point so low (lack of double bond allows an otherwise large, pack densely together forming a solid but a little bit of heat easily forms double bonds and undueing the packaged structure and forming a liquid, etc. (b)less nationality orientation, is it possible to switch to types of butters, like instead of in the United States, this is usually to a temperature of 85 °C (185 °F) to maybe for commercial butter x, this is usually to a temperature of 85 °C (185 °F) (c) pictures in the "Types of butter" section (d) history beyond 1910, such as the origin and fate of the mass production of butter. By the way, ever hear about Quebec's odd butter-margarine laws? I'll make a run through it and add what I can. --maclean25 19:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

(a) Such a thorough discussion of the chemical properties might be more appropriate in butterfat; butter, with its 15% water, 5% protiens-and-other, and three states of butterfat, has a lot of variability beyond what such a chemistry treatment might suggest. (b) My primary source for that info - McGee - is quite US-centric; I'll see what I can do. (d) Good idea. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

For a non-western source here is a link to an FAO report on milk and butter stuff. Also, that 80% milk fat requirement was agreed to in the Uruguay Round at the WTO. --maclean25 07:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice! Especially the WTO thing. I'll definitely work that in there. Haven't had the time to look at the FAO ones yet. Update after a quick look at one: Interesting, developing nations traditionally make butter mostly from soured milk, not cream, it seems. And they can have some really high water contents (up to 30%). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Something which may or may not be relevant are flavoured butters like garlic, herb, lemon and brandy butter, they are mentioned in passing- but there is probably room for some more detail. And utensils for using butter, like the butter knife and varous butter curling devices [12]. I agree that a breakdown of the types of fatty acid in butter would be a good addition- especially with regard to nutrition--nixie 02:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, nixie. I'll definitely have to get some more chemistry in there, with two concurring opinions. Just curious, have you actually ever come across a butter curler or similar? I'm a kitchen catalog freak, and I don't remember noticing one. Maybe it's a cultural thing? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My Dutch gradmother used to have one - but I don't recall seeing them in kitcheware stores any time recently in Australia. I think they're probably a utensil of a bygone era- when people used to have tea and so on.--nixie 03:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So far (okay, it's been maybe 10 minutes) my quest to find a good source for information on butter knives has proved fruitless. I did like the uncyclopedia page, though... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I basically got a mention of brandy butter in there, or more generically, hard sauce. I think I'm going to move on to FAC. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A good article, well researched and well presented; a credit to all the contributors. I did agree with the suggestion that the description of the biochemistry of butter was a bit weak. However a quick search did not come up with a any good description of fat molecules on Wikipedia being either too simplistic, ie fat or too technical ie lipids. I will think about having a go but it would be better if you could find someone who is not 30 years out of date. I would also suggest moving the chemistry away from the initial paragraphs, making it a later subsection. But despite all that it is a good article. ping 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Waterboys

I am nominating this article to peer review after spending a couple of weeks working on it. I am especially interested in comments from people who are not familiar with the group. Is the article interesting? Does it do its job of comprehensively explaining The Waterboys without getting into trivia? I am hoping to take the article to WP:FA after receiving your feedback. Jkelly 07:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Update -- User:Hoary, User:FuriousFreddy and User:Mel Etitis have all made some improvements. I'm still hoping for more feedback. Jkelly 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• I never heard of The Waterboys, nor am I a fan of music. Here are my one-liners...The opening doesn't mention where they are from, but it says "Celtic folk music" so that means Ireland right? The third reference doesn't mention the World Party, and the fourth doesn't mention Steven Harwell. Might be best to mention in the citation of reference 5 that it is referring to page three. I don't think the info targeted for reference 5 or the first two reference 6s need be referenced, but I guess it can't hurt. Is "Top Forty" really capitalized, or is that a proper name for some radio program...not a music fan, remember. The first sentence in "Late 80s" section is confusing. I think you mean to say "where he", not "and". Perhaps move reference 8 upto the first claim of people calling them "Raggle Taggle". Nice use of google books. In "The end and return of the Waterboys", probably shouldn't start a sentence with a number. What, no references for the "Music" section opener? "fantasist" is a word? Probably shouldn't place it next to the word "Christian" as it looks too similar to 'fanatic', that is just asking for trouble on an anyone-can-edit page. The first music bit didn't work for me, but I got the second. In "Discography" what does "are known for both their concerts and their studio recordings" supposed to mean? Don't all bands do that? Just a prefence thing, but I wouldn't mention other bands in the "Discography", it may confuse the reader. --maclean25 02:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I did a preliminary run-through to address some of the comments. The "no mention of where they are from in the lead" is exactly the kind of thing that I or another fan would miss, and many of your other comments were very helpful. I think "Top Forty" is typically capitalized as a proper noun. "Fantasist" is a word, and I think the danger of it being misread (or edited into) "fanatic" is worth it, because its the best word for Lewis' writing. I'll go looking for the missing references you spotted. Thanks so much! Jkelly 03:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Forgot to mention this, the captions on the images can be more descriptive. For example, the first one shows the band, but I would like to know which person is Mike Scott, and who are the rest of the people, on drums, on guitar? Same with the cover of the "The Big Music" single. --maclean25 06:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I got rid of the unreferenced items you spotted, and removed the "known for both..." line. Other stylistic concerns have also been addressed. I've also expanded the captions. Thanks very much for all of the helpful comments. Jkelly 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent article! I think it's ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 06:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Portugal from the Restoration to the 1755 Earthquake

I believe it's a pretty good article. Just needs a copy-edit (can someone help?). However I want to know if there's something that can be improved. Gameiro 17:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice

References are all there. It's complete in every way I can see. Maybe a bit of style work is needed. I'm submitting this one more time to Peer Review one more time to check for any little changes that need to be made for FA status. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 17:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)